The Context Of Scripture

[jo1952]

No, I was saying that they didn't even translate the portions which aren't in Hebrew, let alone translated Hebrew from Hebrew to Hebrew to Hebrew.

Umm, no. You can reach that interpretation from what I said, but it does required a concentrated effort at completely disregarding my words and meaning. The MT is not a translation.

You're back tracking. So be it. Sooooo which version of the Jewish scrolls did the Masorites translate into the Masoretic text? No, this is not a trick question.

Regards,

jo

Edited September 7, 2011 by jo1952

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

Fundamentalism: "In the world, someone who believes that the words of dead prophets, as recorded in the Bible, are all the word of God that mankind will ever need. Some Mormons occasionally get confused and think we have something in common with Christian Fundamentalists."

- Orson Scott Card, Saintspeak: The Mormon Dictionary

It has been continually asserted that the "basic message" of the Bible gets through despite the errors of transmission and lack of historical context.

This is directly contradicted by the evidence, and I think it's a deeply damaging way to go about things. Certainly as an investigator, it was Fundamentalist assumptions such as those which caused me to remain even more skeptical of Mormonism than I already was, and I know that the same can be said for many other investigators who only ever encounter that type of interpretation.

The Bible is simply not univocal, and to think that every word has been correlated with every other word into a grand synthesis is to rather blithely ignore the hundreds of contradictions contained within. As Christensen and Hamblin and volgadon have said, context is everything. "If we don't have some idea of the context of the writers, we inevitably overlay our own cultural context, our own preconceptions. We don't even know what we cannot see."

If we're determined only to learn things that will affirm what we already believe, it's simply not going to work. The thing is, this method is not even vaguely necessary to maintain a faithful perspective. It's perfectly possible for us to trust parts of the scriptures while accepting that other parts are flawed or obscured. It's not cherry-picking or a dangerous slippery slope which can be used to justify chucking the entire standard works; it's merely taking in the widest amount of data we can collect and judging each individual case on its merits.

If anything, I think it's very clear from some responses here that Fundamentalist Protestant interpretations of the Bible, prophecy, history, and science, have been not-so-subtly assimilated and conflated with the "message" which the scriptures bear. In effect, advocates of this view are doing exactly what they claim not to be doing: taking man's opinion as gospel.

I've quoted it before and I'll quote it again: Joseph Smith said that "many important points, touching the salvation of man, had been taken from the Bible, or lost before it was compiled," because "ignorant translators, careless transcribers, or designing and corrupt priests have committed many errors," and "many things in the Bible ... do not, as they now stand, accord with the revelation of the Holy Ghost to me."

If there are "important points touching the salvation of man" which are simply absent from the Good Book, if even our first Prophet found many things that were contained in it to be discordant with his revelations, then how can it alone possibly be sufficient to get across God's message? We desperately need as much historical context as we can get, and ever-more information, so that the Spirit has something to work with. We're not given truth just because we think to ask for it; we have to study it out in our minds, and we cannot study information we have yet to expose ourselves to. Personally, I find this view infinitely more comforting than to think that all the information that our Savior wants us to know is bound in a few pages of a badly-transmitted ancient record. (And to be clear, I'm a history major - I love badly-transmitted ancient records!)

With our founding Prophet's explicit acknowledgement of the fallibility of the scriptures, with the complete irrelevance of an inerrantist view in regards to our salvation, and with all the empirical data against it, there is simply no reason not to think there have been countless errors of transmission which obscured meaning.

In fact, we've been commanded explicitly to "study and learn, and become acquainted with all good books, and with languages, tongues, and people," (D&C 90:15) to "seek ... diligently and teach one another words of wisdom; yea, seek ye out of the best books words of wisdom; seek learning, even by study and also by faith," (D&C 88:118) and to "obtain a knowledge of history, and of countries, and of kingdoms, of laws of God and man." (D&C 93:53) And we are to learn about the cultural context through these means specifically for the building up of the Kingdom.

We are explicitly told, point blank, directly, inescapably, that it would be as a result of our studying the historical contextual content that these meanings would be made clear.

Joseph Smith said that "one of the grand fundamental principles of Mormonism is to recieve truth, let it come from where it may." "Mormonism,” said Brigham Young, "embraces all truth that is revealed and that is unrevealed, whether religious, political, scientific, or philosophical." I'd append "historical" to that, since it's clear he was going for as all-encompassing a view as he could. If God "remembereth the heathen," and if "all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile," (2 Nephi 26:33) and if all humans have Godlike potential, then we can learn from anyone, and we should.

If, instead, we merely dismiss anything outside of our personal understanding of scripture with an unverifiable appeal to questionable authority, then in no sense can we be said to actually be learning. The testimony of two nations will only serve to convince others if they are allowed to run together.

Edited September 7, 2011 by JeremyOrbe-Smith

[Calm]

It has been continually asserted that the "basic message" of the Bible gets through despite the errors of transmission and lack of historical context.

This is directly contradicted by the evidence, and I think it's a deeply damaging way to go about things. Certainly as an investigator, it was Fundamentalist assumptions such as those which caused me to remain even more skeptical of Mormonism than I already was, and I know that the same can be said for many other investigators who only ever encounter that type of interpretation.

The Bible is simply not univocal, and to think that every word has been correlated with every other word into a grand synthesis is to rather blithely ignore the hundreds of contradictions contained within......

One only needs to look at the results to demonstrate that relying solely on the Spirit and "face value" of the words to convey the allegedly essential, unchanging message of the scriptures is not going to lead to some general consensus of meaning. I think it is also unrealistic to dismiss the extensive variety of interpretations on the belief that somehow all these people were either not sincere seekers or not considered worthy enough to have the Spirit speak clearly and unequivocally to them while we ourselves are so blessed that when we feel the Spirit, we can rest assured that we've registered that 'essential, unchanging' meaning even if the majority of others on earth have not.

I also find problematic those who assume that by promoting learning the historical environment of the scriptures one is 'demoting' the Spirit. It does not have to be an exclusive endeavour. I've seen some of the most spiritual insights come when individuals have relied on both, preparing the ground for the Spirit to work by immersing themselves in others' experiences of scripture....which is what learning the original environment means to me. If one stays open to the Spirit, there is no reason that any academic examination should end in 'locking out' new spiritual insights. Academic influences are no more prone to interfering with the Spirit than any other influences in our lives and it is more likely, in my opinion, that every day 'stuff'---the choices we make in how we treat each other, for example---will have a much greater impact on spiritual reception than knowing how Israelites viewed the family or government several hundred years ago or what cultural concepts a parable might be drawn. All the latter will do is create additional options on how to understand scripture which is not a bad thing since it gives the Spirit more to work with for us. I think how we live our lives is much more important in the end for listening to the Spirit than how we view the scriptures though viewing them as a presentation of a particular culture's understanding of God's interaction with man rather than the ultimate expression of God's interaction with man creates a fertile soil for spiritual possibilities that are less likely to be available to someone who sees the scriptures as a not only finished, but 'polished' spiritual/theology textbook. As anyone who has taught students over the years has experienced, if one has to start from scratch each time to teach a new concept, not only does it take much longer to teach but the more likely misunderstandings will occur. However if a person has multiple experiences and resources to draw from, many times certain aspects of teaching can be lightly passed over by drawing on what is known in favour of dealing in depth with what is unknown. We were sent to mortality to expand our experience---including spiritual---not limit it. It is also important for a person to know enough that he knows what he doesn't know so he doesn't jump to conclusions before going through the necessary steps of learning...whether by mundane methods or by the Spirit.

This is not to say that those who study the scriptures by simply examining the text without examining anything else are involved in a worthless pursuit (though reading in such a vacuum is a situation that never does actually occur as we all have experiences and beliefs that create filters which we experience the world though, including any text we encounter). When one reads the scriptures solely from the point of view of 'what it means to me', the Spirit can speak to us just as he can when we read it from the point of view of 'what it meant to others', but I believe that doing such limits the usefulness of that insight for others and can lead to confusion and false doctrine if we point to or assume the scriptures as the base of our knowledge rather than our own personal spiritual experience. It is appropriate to use such spiritual insights to teach others, in my opinion, by introducing the concept saying something along the lines of "reading the scriptures triggered this idea" as opposed to claiming "I found this idea in the scriptures I was reading".

One need only to look at the example of Joseph Smith to demonstrate that there is great value in study of context and background. If anyone had justification for claiming that all one needs to come to the scriptures is an openness to the Spirit, it was him, but he never used his extraordinary spiritual experience of the First Vision to justify such behaviour and instead as soon as he was able sought out ways to educate himself in the academic side of the scriptures as well.

It does seem that some people in an attempt to support LDS beliefs when challenged by those with Fundamentalist worldviews end up accepting many of the assumptions that are embedded in those challenges rather than recognizing that for LDS, revelation and scriptures operate in fundamentally different ways....and that is nothing we need to be concerned about as it does not mean or imply that we are somehow 'throwing the scriptures under the bus' or 'don't trust the Spirit', quite the contrary as it instead can turn the scriptures into a living, 'breathing', dynamic force in our lives.

Edited September 7, 2011 by calmoriah

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

Amen, calmoriah. Excellent, excellent analysis.

[Calm]

Amen, calmoriah. Excellent, excellent analysis.

Thank you. I was sorry I had used up my quote of rep points prior to reading your post (as I often am...you need to post earlier in the day).

Another thought occurred to me about how scripture reading is promoted by our church leaders. It is not enough to read through scripture once, we are encouraged to read them not only daily, but over and over again.....not because the more we read the more we will approach the 'true' meaning, but rather that we can learn new truths with each new scriptural encounter (assuming we are encountering the Spirit as well). The very insistence that we need to read the scriptures for ourselves with the Spirit rather than solely rely on an other's understanding, even if that person is the Prophet surely should lead us to the understanding that the scriptures are not to be taken as "written in stone" even if that was the original medium in which they were given.

Edited September 7, 2011 by calmoriah

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

"You need to post earlier in the day."

Bah. It's 4:45 AM here in Oregon!

... I do so loathe insomnia. >_> Still, gives me awake-time to natter on whilst haunting the boards. *grin*

[Calm]

Bah. It's 4:45 AM here in Oregon!

... I do so loathe insomnia. >_> Still, gives me awake-time to natter on whilst haunting the boards. *grin*

Why do you think I have such a high post count?

On a personal note...is it chronic insomnia or just temporary? Having inherited a nasty sleep disorder from my dad and a mind that won't turn off from my mom, I have become used to all nighters for about 20 years or so and honestly it's nice to have a playmate posting at this time so I am not driven to playing sudoku for hours on end, but I'm not so selfish I want you to make a lifelong habit of it like mine.

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

Haha, I seriously know how that is. Stupid brain just won't shut up. It's tragically chronic. *weep*

[volgadon]

You're back tracking. So be it.

No, I'm not. You misread me.

Sooooo which version of the Jewish scrolls did the Masorites translate into the Masoretic text? No, this is not a trick question.

None. The Hebrew wasn't rendered into the Hebrew of the 9th century CE and the Aramaic wasn't translated into Hebrew. If you are going to assert otherwise then you will need to provide concrete evidence, such as a comparison of Geonic Hebrew with a biblical verse and its Qumranic form too.

Edited September 7, 2011 by volgadon

[volgadon]

Even Daniel did not understand what he was told to write. Therefore seeking historical textual context study is not going to help us understand what he wrote - since he didn't understand it either.

Forgive me, but this is a rather shallow reading. Daniel didn't understand what he saw, so he asked for clarification and was given it. It is right there in the text.

[volgadon]

OK dude, now you're on MY turf!

I know, merely dipping my toes in the water, whereas you have an aqualung.

[volgadon]

I have read this analysis before. It gets funnier each time I read it.

Is that really all that you can offer by way of a response?

[Franktalk]

I just woke up and see that there is some agreement on the need to know scripture in context by historical knowledge. I will state again that I feel all of that is nice but not needed. I will now extend my remarks to show where my true faith rest.

We are a spirit which is placed in a body for the purpose of finding God and learning the interaction between the body and the spirit. It is like riding a bike, the more you do it the better you get. We are also to live our life with some rules that are universal in nature and come from God. The rest of what we learn as our life experience is wonderful but it is a side dish.

As our mind develops we do get to a point where we become an adult and become responsible for our own actions. A level of understanding of this world is required but the main factor is maturity. At this point our spirit will seek the meaning of life. This occurs in each of us differently because each spirit is different. To help us move towards a path that God has for us God has given us a moral compass and we also receive spiritual communication with the Holy Ghost. Our spirit knows there is something more. And our senses tell us the same message if we listen and see.

Rom 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

To know God can come directly from our observation of the world. No one needs to tell us about God and any history at all. One can know God and not even know the Gospel. We just allow our spirit to see the power behind the creation and the universal truth that comes from within, manifest by our spirit. Knowing there is a God starts the communication between God and our spirit. As the spirit develops we can understand our true nature and see the world separate from us.

If we listen to our moral compass we will know right from wrong and if we choose good over evil then we will follow the law that God has laid our for us.

Rom 2:14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:

Rom 2:15 Which show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;)

It is the guidance from God that is written in our hearts and it is our moral compass which manifest as a conscience. When we then view the world by these gifts from God we do well. When we add beyond these we run the risk of leaving our path. So when I read scripture I already know the basic message. I am just adding some detail. But if I seek the truth from the words through worldly interpretation I allow myself an opening for the world to rule over me.

This is my context. All other context is nice but not required.

[jo1952]

It has been continually asserted that the "basic message" of the Bible gets through despite the errors of transmission and lack of historical context.

This is directly contradicted by the evidence, and I think it's a deeply damaging way to go about things. Certainly as an investigator, it was Fundamentalist assumptions such as those which caused me to remain even more skeptical of Mormonism than I already was, and I know that the same can be said for many other investigators who only ever encounter that type of interpretation.

The Bible is simply not univocal, and to think that every word has been correlated with every other word into a grand synthesis is to rather blithely ignore the hundreds of contradictions contained within. As Christensen and Hamblin and volgadon have said, context is everything. "If we don't have some idea of the context of the writers, we inevitably overlay our own cultural context, our own preconceptions. We don't even know what we cannot see."

If we're determined only to learn things that will affirm what we already believe, it's simply not going to work. The thing is, this method is not even vaguely necessary to maintain a faithful perspective. It's perfectly possible for us to trust parts of the scriptures while accepting that other parts are flawed or obscured. It's not cherry-picking or a dangerous slippery slope which can be used to justify chucking the entire standard works; it's merely taking in the widest amount of data we can collect and judging each individual case on its merits.

If anything, I think it's very clear from some responses here that Fundamentalist Protestant interpretations of the Bible, prophecy, history, and science, have been not-so-subtly assimilated and conflated with the "message" which the scriptures bear. In effect, advocates of this view are doing exactly what they claim not to be doing: taking man's opinion as gospel.

I've quoted it before and I'll quote it again: Joseph Smith said that "many important points, touching the salvation of man, had been taken from the Bible, or lost before it was compiled," because "ignorant translators, careless transcribers, or designing and corrupt priests have committed many errors," and "many things in the Bible ... do not, as they now stand, accord with the revelation of the Holy Ghost to me."

If there are "important points touching the salvation of man" which are simply absent from the Good Book, if even our first Prophet found many things that were contained in it to be discordant with his revelations, then how can it alone possibly be sufficient to get across God's message? We desperately need as much historical context as we can get, and ever-more information, so that the Spirit has something to work with. We're not given truth just because we think to ask for it; we have to study it out in our minds, and we cannot study information we have yet to expose ourselves to. Personally, I find this view infinitely more comforting than to think that all the information that our Savior wants us to know is bound in a few pages of a badly-transmitted ancient record. (And to be clear, I'm a history major - I love badly-transmitted ancient records!)

With our founding Prophet's explicit acknowledgement of the fallibility of the scriptures, with the complete irrelevance of an inerrantist view in regards to our salvation, and with all the empirical data against it, there is simply no reason not to think there have been countless errors of transmission which obscured meaning.

In fact, we've been commanded explicitly to "study and learn, and become acquainted with all good books, and with languages, tongues, and people," (D&C 90:15) to "seek ... diligently and teach one another words of wisdom; yea, seek ye out of the best books words of wisdom; seek learning, even by study and also by faith," (D&C 88:118) and to "obtain a knowledge of history, and of countries, and of kingdoms, of laws of God and man." (D&C 93:53) And we are to learn about the cultural context through these means specifically for the building up of the Kingdom.

We are explicitly told, point blank, directly, inescapably, that it would be as a result of our studying the historical contextual content that these meanings would be made clear.

Joseph Smith said that "one of the grand fundamental principles of Mormonism is to recieve truth, let it come from where it may." "Mormonism,” said Brigham Young, "embraces all truth that is revealed and that is unrevealed, whether religious, political, scientific, or philosophical." I'd append "historical" to that, since it's clear he was going for as all-encompassing a view as he could. If God "remembereth the heathen," and if "all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile," (2 Nephi 26:33) and if all humans have Godlike potential, then we can learn from anyone, and we should.

If, instead, we merely dismiss anything outside of our personal understanding of scripture with an unverifiable appeal to questionable authority, then in no sense can we be said to actually be learning. The testimony of two nations will only serve to convince others if they are allowed to run together.

Perhaps we are talking past each other. Here is what I said earlier:

Now, I don't put down scholarly efforts in general. However, when they think that through their own private research that they can uncover the spiritual mysteries and messages of God and the Kingdom of Heaven which can ONLY be revealed by the Holy Ghost, then I must stop and question their personal interpretations. I actually think it's a great idea to study not only Hebrew but Hebrew culture as well. They add flavor and a sense of being able to identify with the people when we understand their culture; thus we can understand better the significance of what their traditions meant...giving greater life and insight to scripture. I love to review the history of the peoples of both the OT as well as the NT. I think, though, that the messages taught in the Bible are timeless. The message we are to receive is the message which will be revealed to us WHEN Father determines that we are ready to receive it. Then that revelation is given to us by the Holy Ghost. If we are only receiving "revelation" from man, then the Holy Ghost will trump man every time. The guidance and witness of the Holy Ghost is greater than man.

Let me give you a for instance. I was involved on another website in a discussion as to whether or not God is the one who hardened Pharoah's heart concerning the Children of Israel. Now, in accordance with my understanding of free agency, I argued by going through the entire story presented in the Bible which, at first blush, appeared to cause conflict from one passage to another on whether it was Pharoah who hardened his own heart, or whether it was God who hardened it for him. On that website I was confined to using only the Bible to support my interpretation. Being heavily engaged in apologetics on that website, I had stopped using other sources to defend my position simply because they would not accept anything other than the Bible. As a result of sticking to my guns that I did not believe that God had been the one who hardened Pharoah's heart, I was called ignorant, stupid, stubborn, uneducated, flawed in my thinking, etc., and those were the nice things. Of course being unorthodox gave the posters even more fodder to throw at me.

Now, I had forgotten this incident until recently when I was studying the JST of the Bible which I finally added to my ever growing library of resource material. So, what do you suppose I found? Joseph Smith had made changes to this story in his translation which clearly indicated that it was NOT God who had hardened Pharoah's heart. IOW, the JST supported my argument. I had never read the JST version of the entire Bible before. How do you suppose an ignorant, stupid, uneducated, stubborn individual had been able to come to the very same conclusion which Joseph Smith did as he translated the Bible? I would offer that it was the Holy Ghost who led me to the understanding I received; and I had received it from reading and studying the account written in the KJV of the Bible over and over and over again; pondering and comparing with other things I already knew were true as taught to me by the Holy Ghost. This was a classic example of the "message" getting through by the power of the Holy Ghost regardless of what the actual written words were, which could otherwise cause confusion and conflict due to man's preconceptions as taught to them by other men.

It was with this revelation given to me by the Holy Ghost that I had been able to read the KJV of this account and "see" NO conflict. In fact, I was able to support my interpretation by using the actual text as it is presented in the KJV to show that in order for there to be no conflict, a person needed to adjust how they interpreted the ENTIRE story, rather than just cherry picking those verses which said God hardened Pharoah's heart, and ignoring the other verses which said the opposite. However, the "orthodox" teaching of this story is that GOD is the one who hardened Pharoah's heart - so those who held to orthodox teaching could not see any other interpretation which forced them to ignore the verses which did not hold to, or which cast doubt upon their view.

I would prefer to see the knowledge which man has acquired through his studies to be presented as information only - thus allowing each individual to do what he will with that knowledge. I do not think this knowledge has any place in being presented as truth of the message which God was trying to teach us. I thirst after knowledge - but only in as much as it helps to affirm what the Holy Ghost has already taught me. If it clashes, then I do not automatically turn to man's interpretation. I re-evalute every aspect of my study, including an abundance of prayer and humility and sincerity in seeking the truth.

IOW, man's study and increase of scholarly knowledge (including mine - because I DO study outside of scripture), DOES affirm what the Holy Ghost has already revealed to me, then happy day! I have found affirmation!!! However, if man's study and increase of scholarly knowledge (including mine - because I DO study outside of scripture), CONFLICTS with something revealed to me by the Holy Ghost, THAT is when I go into double time (so to speak) to try to discover who, what, when, where, and why there is a conflict. Now, where I have not yet received understanding about something the Bible is teaching, I have no problem with temporarily accepting something man has to say. But I treat it is a temporary understanding and NOT a revealed truth. It is not revealed truth to ME until the Holy Ghost confirms it as such.

If man determines through their own personal study of outside sources that they have obtained what they consider to be information which then CAUSES conflict with what the Bible is teaching, and this happens to be something which does NOT agree with something the Holy Ghost has revealed to me, then the Holy Ghost's revelation trumps what man is revealing. This is WHY I think man should merely OFFER his discoveries as INFORMATION to be pondered and considered. Man should NOT be offering his discoveries as TRUTH.

In this respect, then, historical context runs second in importance, as I believe the Holy Ghost can preserve and reveal the message which God intended without needing a perfect education in the Hebrew language. The Holy Ghost will reveal to us personally in the language we are accustomed to whatever message Father tells Him to reveal to us, when we are ready to receive. Now, Biblical context is another matter. The entire Bible as a whole should not conflict itself. If it does, then I believe it is our personal interpretation which needs to be re-evaluated. There are also parts of the Bible I do not yet understand; but am confident that is because Father does not think I am yet ready for it. As more gets revealed to me, it has yet to then conflict with any of the other thousands of pieces of scripture which I already do understand. It is an awesome and wonderful journey; it is more evidence to me that God knew what He was doing. He even made accomodations for the precious things which have been lost; which, in due time, will be revealed to us in the latter-days.

Hopefully, my clarification helps you to understand where I am coming from. So, let me make it even more clear now that just because we recognize that the Bible is flawed and has all kinds of translation errors - some minor; and that prescious things have been lost (for now), God is still providing a way for mankind to receive the message He intended for them to receive. That is what the Holy Ghost is for. He not only reveals layer after layer after layer of understanding to the diligent seeker of truth from scripture as they now exist, He leads to truth that was never recorded in scripture. Yet all NEW revelation does not deny or contradict what IS in scripture; it ADDS to what is already there without causing conflict.

Best regards,

jo

[mfbukowski]

In this respect, then, historical context runs second in importance, as I believe the Holy Ghost can preserve and reveal the message which God intended without needing a perfect education in the Hebrew language. The Holy Ghost will reveal to us personally in the language we are accustomed to whatever message Father tells Him to reveal to us, when we are ready to receive. Now, Biblical context is another matter. The entire Bible as a whole should not conflict itself. If it does, then I believe it is our personal interpretation which needs to be re-evaluated. There are also parts of the Bible I do not yet understand; but am confident that is because Father does not think I am yet ready for it. As more gets revealed to me, it has yet to then conflict with any of the other thousands of pieces of scripture which I already do understand. It is an awesome and wonderful journey; it is more evidence to me that God knew what He was doing. He even made accomodations for the precious things which have been lost; which, in due time, will be revealed to us in the latter-days.

Why do people think that as soon as someone disagrees with them, the other person automatically thinks that the person who will not agree with them is ignorant and unlearned? I suppose this will always surprise me. However, it could not be farther from the truth.

Regards,

jo

The way I see it is that each of us needs to reconstruct all of this on their own terms- in other words, "get a testimony". Some of us weirdos need to see it in terms of elaborate understandings which bring in science and everything that "is" into one unified point of view, others need to study cultural contexts in detail- though their understandings will never perfectly mirror what those of those cultures "saw"

Others can simply take it all on faith and read their scriptures and leave it in the Lord's hands to reveal to them what is necessary for them to know.

Ultimately that is what we all do- but the process of reconstruction into a testimony is different for every person.

Most of the time the reason we end up arguing about this stuff is not because anyone is particularly right or wrong- we are just different people with different needs

[mfbukowski]

Amen, calmoriah. Excellent, excellent analysis.

Well, duh!

It was calmoriah after all, wasn't it?

[mfbukowski]

Thank you. I was sorry I had used up my quote of rep points prior to reading your post (as I often am...you need to post earlier in the day).

Another thought occurred to me about how scripture reading is promoted by our church leaders. It is not enough to read through scripture once, we are encouraged to read them not only daily, but over and over again.....not because the more we read the more we will approach the 'true' meaning, but rather that we can learn new truths with each new scriptural encounter (assuming we are encountering the Spirit as well). The very insistence that we need to read the scriptures for ourselves with the Spirit rather than solely rely on an other's understanding, even if that person is the Prophet surely should lead us to the understanding that the scriptures are not to be taken as "written in stone" even if that was the original medium in which they were given.

I once did the math.

If we can read 7 pages of scripture a day instead of playing on this forum (that was for me- not anyone else!) we could read all the standard works in 1 year.

SEVEN pages!

Can you imagine if you did this for the rest of your life and read the standard works every year for the rest of your life??

Do I do it?

Nah. "Too busy"!

[jo1952]

The way I see it is that each of us needs to reconstruct all of this on their own terms- in other words, "get a testimony". Some of us weirdos need to see it in terms of elaborate understandings which bring in science and everything that "is" into one unified point of view, others need to study cultural contexts in detail- though their understandings will never perfectly mirror what those of those cultures "saw"

Others can simply take it all on faith and read their scriptures and leave it in the Lord's hands to reveal to them what is necessary for them to know.

Ultimately that is what we all do- but the process of reconstruction into a testimony is different for every person.

Most of the time the reason we end up arguing about this stuff is not because anyone is particularly right or wrong- we are just different people with different needs

I have said so many times that each person is on their own private journey. God uses wherever a person is to help Him serve His purposes - which purposes are not only for the individual, but also for those whom the individual influences. Wisely, and not at all surprisingly, the Church allows tremendous leeway in the nuances of what members believe.

I do NOT appreciate it when others make determinations that their process of learning is the ONLY way to understand or obtain truth. Worse yet is when they further conclude that their interpretation is presented AS truth, rather than just offering their findings as further information to help others in their seeking of truth. That is because, regardless of the process or method used, it is NOT man who ultimately reveals truth; it is the Holy Ghost. If that is the method a man has chosen, the Holy Ghost will use it to help lead someone TO truth. The danger lies in someone confusing man's "method" with truth. It is still only a method. Thus the method is not the truth. It is the means to an end.

Once man starts clinging to his own abilities wherein he starts claiming that his method is the ONLY method to obtain truth, it is his habit to then determine WHAT truth is through the interpretation of what he has discovered. Then he starts to demand that everyone else must agree with him (man); and the Holy Ghost is left behind in the dust. This is the prescription for apostasy which man repeats and repeats througout history. Yes, there is much which can be learned through studying the historicity of language and culture, etc. As you pointed out, we will never perfectly mirror what those of those cultures "saw". When we become so focused on every jot and tittle that we begin to change the meaning of scripture - clinging more to man's interpretations, then I think we are in danger of missing the message we were intended to receive. There is a fine line that becomes too easy to cross if we are not careful. I believe that the safer use of learning history is to remember to see the forest and not get stuck on studying the trees. Otherwise, we place ourselves in the danger of repeating history. It seems to me that man hasn't done so well in the past when it keeps from straying from God.

It only took 325 years before the first Council of Nicea put stakes in the ground on what people were allowed to believe. They became the scribes and the Pharisees of the NT. They were not stupid, ignorant, or uneducated men. They did what they did for many different reasons; all of them with good intent. The Bible and Book of Mormon are filled with patterns that repeat. The ancient church, even when Jesus still walked the earth, and also as proclaimed by the ancient Apostles, already had false teachers and false prophets among the members. It is no different in the Church today. That message is just as timely for us today, as it was back then.

I offer this as something for all readers to ponder and consider and pray about. Do not take my word for it. I also offer that we not take anyone else's word for what truth is. It is ONLY the Holy Ghost who CAN reveal truth to us while we are in the flesh.

Regards,

jo

[Franktalk]

Is that really all that you can offer by way of a response?

Yes

[volgadon]

Yes

Wonderful. So no chance of a cogent, reasoned rebuttal.

As far as accusing me of not understanding prophecy goes, I find the plain meaning of Amos' vision- a prophet interceding with God to deliver his people from an imminent disaster brought about by their sins- to be far more meaningful than a prophecy about Gog in the last days.

[Franktalk]

Wonderful. So no chance of a cogent, reasoned rebuttal.

As far as accusing me of not understanding prophecy goes, I find the plain meaning of Amos' vision- a prophet interceding with God to deliver his people from an imminent disaster brought about by their sins- to be far more meaningful than a prophecy about Gog in the last days.

Gog is an evil spirit that survives the millennium. Satan is cast into the lake of fire at the end of the millennium where the anti-christ and false prophet have taken up residence since the start of the millennium. It is Gog who God directly entices to start the Magog war. The verses in Amos can indeed be about a crop and locus but the reference to Gog gives the locus and crops a deeper meaning tied to the future. In a similar way the Passover Lamb had a deeper futuristic meaning. Almost all of scripture has a spiritual and literal meaning. Both of these can have application on a national level and personal level. And each of these can indeed be current and future.

[volgadon]

Gog is an evil spirit that survives the millennium. Satan is cast into the lake of fire at the end of the millennium where the anti-christ and false prophet have taken up residence since the start of the millennium. It is Gog who God directly entices to start the Magog war. The verses in Amos can indeed be about a crop and locus but the reference to Gog gives the locus and crops a deeper meaning tied to the future. In a similar way the Passover Lamb had a deeper futuristic meaning. Almost all of scripture has a spiritual and literal meaning. Both of these can have application on a national level and personal level. And each of these can indeed be current and future.

How then do you exaplin why God revoked his decree?

[Franktalk]

How then do you exaplin why God revoked his decree?

When God does something sometimes He tells us why He did it. I would think that even if we do get a reason it may not be the complete reason, we are after all flesh and limited. The depth of God is such that I am sure even if He told us we would not be able to understand it all. I can parrot back what God said but I can not speak for God and say why He has done anything.

[volgadon]

When God does something sometimes He tells us why He did it. I would think that even if we do get a reason it may not be the complete reason, we are after all flesh and limited. The depth of God is such that I am sure even if He told us we would not be able to understand it all. I can parrot back what God said but I can not speak for God and say why He has done anything.

Now you are sidestepping the issue. If this is a prophecy of the destruction after the millenium then why does it explicitly state that God decided not to do it that way?

[jo1952]

Now you are sidestepping the issue. If this is a prophecy of the destruction after the millenium then why does it explicitly state that God decided not to do it that way?

Revelation 20:7-9

7 And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison,

8 And shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth, Gog, and Magog, to gather them together to battle: the number of whom is as the sand of the sea.

9 And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city: and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them.

***

Amos 7:1-3 (Septuagint)

1 Thus has the Lord God shewed me; and, behold, a swarm of locusts coming from the east; and, behold, one caterpillar, king Gog.

2 And it came to pass when he had finished devouring the grass of the land, that I said, Lord God, be merciful; who shall raise up Jacob? for he is small in number.

3 Repent, O Lord, for this. And this shall not be, saith the Lord.

***

Amos 7:1-3 (KJV)

1 Thus hath the Lord GOD shewed unto me; and, behold, he formed grasshoppers in the beginning of the shooting up of the latter growth; and, lo, it was the latter growth after the king's mowings.

2 And it came to pass, that when they had made an end of eating the grass of the land, then I said, O Lord GOD, forgive, I beseech thee: by whom shall Jacob arise? for he is small.

3 The LORD repented for this: It shall not be, saith the LORD.

According to Revelation 20:7-9, the Lord destroys Gog BEFORE Gog has a chance to destroy Israel (thus He repents of allowing Gog the ability to devour the land of Israel). Inasmuch as the Septuagint version of Amos 7:1-3 actually gives us the name of the would-be devourer of Israel (i.e., Gog), it IS more accurate than the KJV OT.

Regards,

jo

Edited September 8, 2011 by jo1952