How much of the OT do you believe is true?

[mfbukowski]

Do any true believing members out there not believe in the story of Abraham/Isaac sacrifice as literal?

I think it is literal, but that fact is irrelevant to my faith. How would you ever find out if it actually happened? Interview Abraham? What if he lied to you?

The whole question is silly.

[Honorentheos]

I think it is literal, but that fact is irrelevant to my faith. How would you ever find out if it actually happened? Interview Abraham? What if he lied to you?

The whole question is silly.

To the contrary, MFB, I think it is a valid question if God would actually command a man to place his son on the alter in sacrifice, even if God had no intention of following through with the action. To think that God would wait until the knife was on the way down...that has implications for a person's relationship with deity.

Ask Truman Madson.

[danieljbelk]

This question was posed to me last night by a member of my Sunday school class.

Fortunately, it was not during class, so I felt more at liberty to share how I really felt.

I was wondering how others would respond to this question from a fellow member of the Church.

And would your answer change if you were a Gospel Doctrine teacher answering the question from a class member outside of class?

And would your answer change if you were a Gospel Doctrine teacher answering the question during class?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

P.S. I take the story about Lot's wife with a grain of salt.

I believe it all, except Adam and Eve (which is most likely a symbol, or a misunderstood story). But I don't believe the events happened exactly as recorded in the Bible - for example, the timeline does not fit. There is no archaelogical evidence for David that I am aware of. The best example is the Red Sea versus the Sea of Reeds - the time and place (and names) might be different, but the story happened.

[danieljbelk]

Here's perhaps a deeper question -

Do you believe there was a person who performed miracles like Elijah or Jesus, even if an Elijah and Jesus did not exist?

I might be weird in the respect that I can fully believe in the miracles without believing those people are historical.

[Lightbearer]

This question was posed to me last night by a member of my Sunday school class.

Fortunately, it was not during class, so I felt more at liberty to share how I really felt.

I was wondering how others would respond to this question from a fellow member of the Church.

And would your answer change if you were a Gospel Doctrine teacher answering the question from a class member outside of class?

And would your answer change if you were a Gospel Doctrine teacher answering the question during class?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

P.S. I take the story about Lot's wife with a grain of salt.

I would ask the same of the New Testament? Which is more incredible a worldwide flood or walking on water? Or Adam and Eve bringing death into the world or the resurrection? My point is it is a matter of faith, not logic or historical evidence.

P.S.

(Luke 14:34) "Salt is good: but if the salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it be seasoned?"

[Jason]

Do any true believing members out there not believe in the story of Abraham/Isaac sacrifice as literal?

Yes. It's the foundational event of three world religions, so I'm certainly not the only one either.

[volgadon]

There is no archaelogical evidence for David that I am aware of.

Sigh. There is no archaeological evidence for most individuals in history. There is however indirect evidence as regarding David.

Archaeology is not meant to establish if individuals really lived or not!

[mfbukowski]

.... - the time and place (and names) might be different, but the story happened.

At what point is it the "same story" which happened or a "different story" which happened?

Does Juan Ramirez crossing the LA river in 2010 count as the "same story"?

I personally don't care from a faith pov, just asking because I am not sure that logically it makes sense to call it the "same story".

[maklelan]

Sigh. There is no archaeological evidence for most individuals in history. There is however indirect evidence as regarding David.

Archaeology is not meant to establish if individuals really lived or not!

I would call the Tel Dan inscription direct evidence. Even Israel Finkelstein points to it as a clear indication there was a Davidic kingdom of some kind.

[volgadon]

I would call the Tel Dan inscription direct evidence. Even Israel Finkelstein points to it as a clear indication there was a Davidic kingdom of some kind.

Not of David himself. One could argue that he was a mythic ancestor.

[maklelan]

Not of David himself. One could argue that he was a mythic ancestor.

True, but one would have to argue that he's a mythic ancestral head of a kingdom only a century old. The majority of the scholars I've seen treat the issue today are unwilling to make that assertion. Guys like Ussishkin and Finkelstein generally just move David's reign down to the ninth century and assert it was subordinate to the northern kingdom.

[volgadon]

True, but one would have to argue that he's a mythic ancestral head of a kingdom only a century old. The majority of the scholars I've seen treat the issue today are unwilling to make that assertion. Guys like Ussishkin and Finkelstein generally just move David's reign down to the ninth century and assert it was subordinate to the northern kingdom.

Of course.

I happen to think the Dan inscription is very strong evidence, but still indirect. As you well know, in working with history one has to factor in a lot of different things, not just dry archaeology, a point I was trying to make to danieljbelk.

You have pointed out that conclusions need to be based on their strengths, and a lot of indirect evidence goes towards that.

[Maidservant]

I love the OT and it's inclusion in our canon is one of the main supports to my overall testimony of our Heavenly Father's plan.

One thing I realize is that the Genesis portions purport to be a recordation of Moses. That may or may not be able to be literally demonstrated as far as document transmission studies. But there is no earlier purportion in terms of the Bible's collection. That is, the Moses that led the children of Israel in their covenant was also the person who was accessing previous information? myth? covenant? (whatever you want, all or any, and others) in order to present [Genesis] to a particular audience, that is the apostate children of Israel. Or possibly for his own learning. Or whatever. But there is a Moses point of view in there.

So for myself I ask myself what Moses' understanding of the material was. And I don't think that Moses took it as straight up history. In fact, I think that Moses was recording the endowment, and yes, that includes things like city of Enoch and the story of Noah and so forth [until? which point in the narrative? not sure] which we don't use currently in our temple worship. All of those "stories" are meant to be spiritual and ritual initiations for the disciple in order to progress spiritually (etc). Don't forget that Moses and God intended to create a higher society with the children of Israel,and it wasn't until the Israelites rejected this opportunity that God made the lesser law of Moses.

I am not learned and studied like many who answer so well in here, but these are ideas floating in my head. My understanding of the Old Testament is always in transformation.

[danieljbelk]

At what point is it the "same story" which happened or a "different story" which happened?

Does Juan Ramirez crossing the LA river in 2010 count as the "same story"?

I personally don't care from a faith pov, just asking because I am not sure that logically it makes sense to call it the "same story".

I don't have a good answer for that.

If Elijah was really named Bob, and lived 8000 years ago, and yet he really did ascend to heaven and do all the miracles attributed to him, then the year and name don't matter compared to the miracles he did. But without the faith pov, it is meaningless. I believe in the miracles, not the history, which might be very different from other people's beliefs.

[USU78]

Not of David himself. One could argue that he was a mythic ancestor.

I thought the dating of the Tel Dan stela was to the time of a great- or great-great grandson of David.

Do I misremember?

If this is the case, why are we even talking about a "mythic" ancestor?

[semlogo]

Scientifically speaking, the Pentateuch's claims about the earth and the origins of humanity have been discredited - that is, if you take the books literally. There was no global flood, the earth is billions of years old and human have been around for 160,000 years or so and gradually evolved from other primates. There is no firmament (crystal dome covering the earth upon which the stars are fixed), and the earth is spherical, not flat.

However, it may have always been intended as a figurative morality tale. Even Brigham Young thought that the stories in Genesis were tales for babies.

[Nomad]

There was no global flood, the earth is billions of years old and human have been around for 160,000 years or so and gradually evolved from other primates.

Spoken boldly.

Surely your turning of things upside down shall be esteemed as the potter

[semlogo]

Spoken boldly.

Facts are facts. There is no need to apologize for them. Why did you omit the part about the crystal dome around the earth and the earth being flat? Those are in the Bible too.

[mfbukowski]

Scientifically speaking, the Pentateuch's claims about the earth and the origins of humanity have been discredited - that is, if you take the books literally. There was no global flood, the earth is billions of years old and human have been around for 160,000 years or so and gradually evolved from other primates. There is no firmament (crystal dome covering the earth upon which the stars are fixed), and the earth is spherical, not flat.

However, it may have always been intended as a figurative morality tale. Even Brigham Young thought that the stories in Genesis were tales for babies.

Such a statement is as dogmatic as the fundamentalists who take the other side.

The world is an uncertain place, since it's still in progress, and the sooner we all realize that the better.

[semlogo]

Such a statement is as dogmatic as the fundamentalists who take the other side.

The world is an uncertain place, since it's still in progress, and the sooner we all realize that the better.

Sorry, it's not that uncertain. The only questions left about evolution are the details. The evidence is undeniable, unless one chooses to live in denial.

Do you have any questions about whether or not the stars are fixed in a crystal dome covering the earth?

[mapman]

Even Brigham Young thought that the stories in Genesis were tales for babies.

CFR.

[Nomad]

semlogo-

Sorry, it's not that uncertain. The only questions left about evolution are the details. The evidence is undeniable, unless one chooses to live in denial.

Spoken boldly.

O the vainness, and the frailties, and the foolishness of men! When they are learned they think they are wise, and they hearken not unto the counsel of God, for they set it aside, supposing they know of themselves, wherefore, their wisdom is foolishness and it profiteth them not.

[The_Monk]

CFR.

http://books.google....20billy&f=false

Edit: I don't think Semlogo's easy dichotomy fairly captures what Genesis meant to Israelites. See, for example, this post and comments.

http://timesandseasons.org/index.php/2010/02/genesis-and-genre/

[kamenraider]

Brigham Young was just saying that we don't always give full explanations of things to people who we know can't understand them anyway. He wasn't talking about "the stories in Genesis" but rather specifically about the way the creation of Adam and Eve is described there. It's not incorrect to say that Adam was made of the dust of the earth, but it's just an incomplete answer in the sense that he wasn't literally sculpted and then brought to life "magically." We create our own children from the dust of the earth. I do believe that Adam was a real person and one of the most important people that lived here on earth.

I can't think of any stories in the OT that I don't believe. I seriously believe that the Red Sea parted, that Elisha made an axe head float, that the sun seemed to stand still, etc. Regarding Lot's wife, I seem to remember someone saying (maybe Avraham Gileadi?) that "pillar of salt" could be translated "outline of ash" or something like that. I don't envision her remains as being something a cow would want to lick.

edit: As far as evolution goes, I believe both in evolution and pre-Adamites but also that Adam was literally physically begotten on another world where he lived before coming here and thus was an offspring "of God" and the "first man upon the earth" (see Luke 3:38 JST).

[semlogo]

CFR.

http://www.keepapitchinin.org/2010/01/24/in-our-ward-lesson-4-because-of-my-transgression-my-eyes-are-opened/

In 1854 [8 October], Brigham Young addressed the Saints on the topic of our lesson today:

When the Lord had organized the world, and filled the earth with animal and vegetable life, then he created man.