The Expansion Theory Of Translation: Ostler Responds To Robinson

[Olavarria]

ENJOY

[Robert F. Smith]

Thanks, Pedro.

I take it that this Ostler response is from 1987. I had not seen it, nor the Robinson critique which engendered it. Too bad that Robinson's ill health precludes him from discussing this.

Anyhow, I like Blake Ostler's piece for several reasons:

1. Blake strongly asserts the basis in natural law of all things Mormon, rejecting as "heresy" the concept of supernaturalism.

2. Blake, thus, implicitly employs a Bayesian epistemology to deal with various Book of Mormon and LDS truth claims which are amenable to naturalistic or empirical verification or falsification.

3. He repeatedly and correctly asserts that translation is interpretation, although reasonable people might disagree as to the degree of midrashic expansion the Book of Mormon text might contain.

4. Having done a good deal of it myself, I agree with Blake that form criticism of the Mormon Canon can be very productive.

[mfbukowski]

Thanks, Pedro.

I take it that this Ostler response is from 1987. I had not seen it, nor the Robinson critique which engendered it. Too bad that Robinson's ill health precludes him from discussing this.

Anyhow, I like Blake Ostler's piece for several reasons:

1. Blake strongly asserts the basis in natural law of all things Mormon, rejecting as "heresy" the concept of supernaturalism.

2. Blake, thus, implicitly employs a Bayesian epistemology to deal with various Book of Mormon and LDS truth claims which are amenable to naturalistic or empirical verification or falsification.

3. He repeatedly and correctly asserts that translation is interpretation, although reasonable people might disagree as to the degree of midrashic expansion the Book of Mormon text might contain.

4. Having done a good deal of it myself, I agree with Blake that form criticism of the Mormon Canon can be very productive.

I think that many who are more of the "fundamentalistic" point of view than I am do not realize that many who might be characterized as more "liberal" do not discount the possibility of a more fundamental interpretation, but just see that other interpretations can also be viable. So it is not that we affirm science, for example, as "above" the scriptures, but just another way of seeing the panorama of human experience which is compatible with a scriptural understanding, each in its own context.

For example, I have no problem with evolution. On the other hand, do I believe that God could have created the earth in 6 days? Of course! His purposes and ways are not man's purposes and ways. We have interpreted things our way, but his ways are not ours. Still, we do the best we can with what limited information we have.

There are many ways to see all these things, and I am not willing to totally discount any of them.

[Franktalk]

I take the Bible and other scripture at face value and quite literal. But I also take all scripture together as a set that will not conflict with itself. This makes some areas of scripture unknown to me because there is not enough written or my apparent face value interpretation causes a conflict with other scripture. In these areas I have a wait and see attitude. Better to say I don't know rather than to try to fit a round peg into a square hole.

I did not read all of the article but plan on doing so. I got to around page 8. I do have a couple of things to say about some of the comments I read. The Messiah or Redeemer was mentioned in Genesis as the seed of the woman and then clearly written about in Job. Job was written before Moses wrote the Torah. Some may disagree, that is fine. Job also clearly describes the resurrection. Job was also a major type for Christ is the sense that he suffered even though he did not deserve it.

I also think that many have the relationship between the creation and scripture backwards. Everything in the creation was done in preparation for the plan of salvation and for scripture / the coming of Christ. So the seasons, rain, wind, mountains, and the like were all made as a foreshadow of things to come. So the inclusion of these in scripture is not an afterthought or local or current theme used to explain scripture.

Col 2:16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of a holy day, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:

Col 2:17 Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.

In the book of Daniel Daniel admits that some of what he wrote he did not understand. But he was a servant of God so he did as he was directed. Peter writes that the writings of Paul are hard to understand. This is planed for us. Scripture is not easy and leads to many interpretations. That is why we need a Prophet and most of all we need the Holy Ghost.

So all of the thoughtful analysis means nothing when we are to guided by the Holy Spirit. So I think we should take many views of scripture and let the Spirit guide us. I think that some scripture is very clear and some requires a lot of study and prayer. Some is still hidden from us and any attempt to unlock it before its time is doomed for failure.

[volgadon]

. Job was written before Moses wrote the Torah. Some may disagree, that is fine.

Scriptural source, please.

[Franktalk]

There is a false belief that people who take the Bible quite literal only take the Bible literal. I don’t think that is true in general. I know that most scripture does have a surface meaning and probably has a spiritual meaning as well. Then the same verse can be a shadow of something else or of a distant event that only makes sense after the future event takes place. In Genesis we see many sections dealing with Abraham or Joseph that are types for Christ. In Daniel we see some details about the events around 160 BC with Antiochus Epiphanes. But the verses seem to go beyond the players to the evil power behind them. Then it seems to project into the end times where there is a similar event mid week in the tribulation. These verses must have been very confusing to anyone reading them prior to John writing Revelation. This indicates that all of scripture is an unfolding Word and future scripture is required to unlock difficult passages. Or to unlock any multiple meanings.

The whole of creation was made for a purpose and everything in the creation was made with that purpose in mind. Either it is a type or shadow of events that would unfold in scripture or it becomes a stumbling block for many. When we view the creation from spiritual eyes then Rom 1:20 makes perfect sense. But when viewed by man and his earthly wisdom then things go wrong. One can either stand on scripture and view the creation or one can stand on the interpreted creation and view scripture. I think 2 Peter 3 clearly describes the modern use of man’s knowledge as a stumbling block. So I don’t think one can discuss the interpretation of scripture without first discussing what one brings with them to scripture.

Job 8:9 (For we are but of yesterday, and know nothing, because our days upon earth are a shadow:)

Ecc 6:12 For who knoweth what is good for man in this life, all the days of his vain life which he spendeth as a shadow? for who can tell a man what shall be after him under the sun?

Ecc 8:13 But it shall not be well with the wicked, neither shall he prolong his days, which are as a shadow; because he feareth not before God.

Mar 13:19 For in those days shall be affliction, such as was not from the beginning of the creation which God created unto this time, neither shall be.

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:

Scripture is pretty clear that this whole existence is but a stage with serious consequences. The greater reality is the spirit world and not the world of flesh. If this is the case why would anyone use this world to try and interpret scripture? It seems to me that a persuit of the spiritual walk is the first thing one should do. Then looking back at scripture it would be framed in the proper bounds. Placing the boundaries of the physical existence on scripture is completely upside down.

Of course I will be called stupid and ignorant because of this comment. But the world hated many before me and some were even Special.

Joh 15:18 If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you.

Edited October 2, 2011 by Franktalk

[Sargon]

Franktalk,

Many scholars, including Latter-day Saints, are suggesting that many of the biblical narratives were never intended by their author to be interpreted at "face value" or in an overly literal fashion. For example, the Book of Job is recognized as a tragic drama arranged poetically, and would have been understood by its ancient audience as such. In other words, while some of the morals and lessons taught are accurate, the actual narrative itself was never meant to be taken literally. It would be the equivalent of a future audience, 2500 years in the future, interpreting episodes of Full House as being grounded in actual events.

In this case, if we insist that Job was an actual person who actually experienced everything written in the Book of Job, we are totally missing the original intent of the text and are doing harm to the text.

Similar things can be said about certain episodes in Genesis, and the Pearl of Great Price, and elsewhere.

[Franktalk]

Sargon,

I reject at face value your opinion.

[Franktalk]

If man could get it right he would have over the 1800 years between Christ and JS. Yet none were able in the old world. So now all of a sudden man can get it right and we should follow them. I think not. I will follow the spirit no matter where it may lead me. I will also read scripture as an integrated message from God as written by people He chose. We can easily get way to full of our self and use our own earthly wisdom to force scripture into our world view. I will say that scripture is very clear that we are to have a direct relationship with God. I don't see where a scholar fits in. If God wishes me to know something then I will know something. Who can oppose the Will of God? I continually ask that His Will be done. It is a matter of faith. On the other hand if someone else rest their faith with scholars then they will not know God and God will not know them. To seek the earthly knowledge of God is not to seek God. Why would I choose to follow a third persons opinion when the source is so near? I think that many get tangled in the trap of man's opinions. It can be sweet to the ears and it opens one up to pride. Pride that we can know God without His help. Many people have gone down this road to self destruction. In fact every church in the old world took this path. Only by direct means can we stay the course and remain true to His Will.

I argue for a relationship with God directly. A show of hands from men who have studied and studied are worthless unless I know their heart. But I can not know their heart so I must find another way. That way is narrow and may not bring all of scripture into my view. But I am sure that God will give me what I need for my path. If in His eyes I don't need to know something then by faith I accept His Will and am confident that His hand will be there at each turn.

So when I read scripture I have faith that God will allow me to know His message. To me the obvious message is the one He wishes us to know. That is the literal view. But of course each passage must be taken in context so the writing styles and structures can be sorted from the message. God is very complex and so is His scripture. It is a pleasure to read His Word and to study His timeless message.

I have read many commentaries from scholars. But I read them as theories and let the Holy Ghost tell me if I should take what I read seriously. Just because an idea is presented well does not mean it is true. Satan himself is the best liar there is. So if I don't have God as my guide I will be directed down wrong paths.

[jo1952]

Scriptural source, please.

Although if one studies Job, they will be able to recognize some of the events written elsewhere (such as in the Torah), you need to study history to get a clearer picture of when the various books of the Bible were actually written. They have not been placed in the Bible in the chronicial order of when they were written. Here are a couple of websites which offer their opinions:

http://www.mediahist...licaldates.html

http://brightchristi...le-written.html

Regards,

jo

[volgadon]

Although if one studies Job, they will be able to recognize some of the events written elsewhere (such as in the Torah), you need to study history to get a clearer picture of when the various books of the Bible were actually written. They have not been placed in the Bible in the chronicial order of when they were written. Here are a couple of websites which offer their opinions:

http://www.mediahist...licaldates.html

http://brightchristi...le-written.html

Regards,

jo

Scriptural source, please.

[volgadon]

Sargon,

I reject at face value your opinion.

At least I've asked you to support your opinion before rejecting it.

Edited October 2, 2011 by volgadon

[cinepro]

Many scholars, including Latter-day Saints, are suggesting that many of the biblical narratives were never intended by their author to be interpreted at "face value" or in an overly literal fashion. For example, the Book of Job is recognized as a tragic drama arranged poetically, and would have been understood by its ancient audience as such. In other words, while some of the morals and lessons taught are accurate, the actual narrative itself was never meant to be taken literally. It would be the equivalent of a future audience, 2500 years in the future, interpreting episodes of Full House as being grounded in actual events.

[Franktalk]

At least I've asked you to support your opinion before rejecting it.

There are some ideas which I have already determined to be in error. A new argument for that bad idea will not change the idea it will just change the lipstick on that pig. Although you ask for support I think we both know that the request is for argument sake not for any serious consideration for change.

As for Job there is a scriptural argument for the time of Job. You can find it here:

http://www.heraldmag.org/literature/verse_12.htm

This places it around 1900 BC or so. The actual date of writing no one knows. It matters not, Job is referenced by others that I trust.

[Franktalk]

The expansion theory of scripture is just the latest method to cast doubt on the accuracy of scripture. By forming an argument that some of scripture is the product of man then doubt can be made manifest as to what part comes from God and what part comes from man. If indeed man is the source of scripture in any form then a great argument and a great story can also be canon. This path is not a path that I wish to be on. It is a slippery slope and it sounds so familiar.

Gen 3:1 Now the serpent was more subtle than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?

I am not saying that expansion theory came from the Devil. What I am saying is there is a question that is placed on scripture to exactly who said what. Is this not the same argument that Satan used? Once doubt enters then faith will suffer. If however those who believe in expansion theory feel that faith will be enhanced then by all means tell me how that happens.

Scripture is not God. It is a message from God that our spirit can discern as truth. If indeed expansion theory is correct then how much of scripture is fabricated? And how exactly does the Holy Spirit witness to truth on a fabricated story? What it sounds like to me is that some people wish to elevate them self to the position of telling others what comes from God and what comes from man. And because the mix is so confusing we need these scholars to figure it all out. This was all done before. The Pharisees added to scripture and set the stage for Israel to miss the Messiah. Are we now witnessing Pharisee 2.0? Are we setting our self up to miss the second coming of Christ? This is not a leap here. I stand on history when I say this.

Let the stoning begin.

[Calm]

Let the stoning begin.

Melodrama has never appealed that much to me.

[mfbukowski]

Let the stoning begin.

Too much work. And for what?, Gotta pick 'em up, throw 'em, and then notice that they have no effect anyway.

Much easier just to ignore the whole thing.

[Franktalk]

Oh come now stoning can be so much fun, well at least it can be made fun.

[volgadon]

Melodrama has never appealed that much to me.

[Franktalk]

There is a belief that all of scripture is fabricated but the stories do have a good moral message for us. There are some who do not believe in God but of man. They wish to rewrite the Bible to keep the moral stories but strip out all of the stuff that never happened.

http://www.letusreason.org/Biblexp115.htm

"A recent poll taken found that 67 percent of Americans believe there is no such thing as absolute truth. Many of these would consider themselves Christian. This should take into account that although the majority of Americans believe in God (98%) but they live more like spiritual agnostics. They consider God to exist but He has no influence on them or the world directly or indirectly. Everything becomes relative by the measure of their feelings, likes and dislikes. God then becomes made in mans image. ...."

So is expansion theory targeting this 67%?

[mfbukowski]

There is a belief that all of scripture is fabricated but the stories do have a good moral message for us. There are some who do not believe in God but of man. They wish to rewrite the Bible to keep the moral stories but strip out all of the stuff that never happened.

http://www.letusreason.org/Biblexp115.htm

"A recent poll taken found that 67 percent of Americans believe there is no such thing as absolute truth. Many of these would consider themselves Christian. This should take into account that although the majority of Americans believe in God (98%) but they live more like spiritual agnostics. They consider God to exist but He has no influence on them or the world directly or indirectly. Everything becomes relative by the measure of their feelings, likes and dislikes. God then becomes made in mans image. ...."

So is expansion theory targeting this 67%?

Clearly it is much better to just not believe in the Book of Mormon and become an atheist than believe in the dastardly expansion theory.

Those who don't believe in absolute truth must burn in hell eternally! God hates them and the very thought of their existence! These liberal Mormons are bringing down the entire church and must be exterminated mercilessly!

[Franktalk]

Clearly it is much better to just not believe in the Book of Mormon and become an atheist than believe in the dastardly expansion theory.

Those who don't believe in absolute truth must burn in hell eternally! God hates them and the very thought of their existence! These liberal Mormons are bringing down the entire church and must be exterminated mercilessly!

I am sorry to read these comments. I happen to love my fellow man and when I say that I refer to the spirit inside of man. The behavior of the flesh can and is sometimes difficult but the spirit child inside is rarely at fault. To unlock the truth for the spirit to see is very important. Because only with truth can the spiritual communication start. To wrap the truth of the message from God with ideas of man masks the truth and prevents the spirit from seeing raw truth.

Scripture is confusing and complex, much of it is not fully understood. But that is on purpose. It is a measure of faith. The Holy Ghost witnesses to the truth of scripture yet we still don't fully receive it. For those who force an interpretation where there is none are letting the world dictate their path. God did not say that the path to the gate was easy. Many will lose their way. And which way did those people go who got lost? They went the way of the world.

[mfbukowski]

I am sorry to read these comments. I happen to love my fellow man and when I say that I refer to the spirit inside of man. The behavior of the flesh can and is sometimes difficult but the spirit child inside is rarely at fault. To unlock the truth for the spirit to see is very important. Because only with truth can the spiritual communication start. To wrap the truth of the message from God with ideas of man masks the truth and prevents the spirit from seeing raw truth.

Scripture is confusing and complex, much of it is not fully understood. But that is on purpose. It is a measure of faith. The Holy Ghost witnesses to the truth of scripture yet we still don't fully receive it. For those who force an interpretation where there is none are letting the world dictate their path. God did not say that the path to the gate was easy. Many will lose their way. And which way did those people go who got lost? They went the way of the world.

I was being sarcastic. My point was that it seemed that this is the sort of comment you were making about those of us who believe as I do- and of course I was exaggerating as well.

The point is, would you rather have people be "liberal Mormons" or not Mormon at all?

As I see it, even your view is "from man", you just take things literally, as a man. I think what bothers me is the implicit assumption that you have a monopoly on the spirit. It strikes me as arrogant.

No sarcasm this time, just direct language.

Edited October 3, 2011 by mfbukowski

[Franktalk]

I was being sarcastic. My point was that it seemed that this is the sort of comment you were making about those of us who believe as I do- and of course I was exaggerating as well.

The point is, would you rather have people be "liberal Mormons" or not Mormon at all?

As I see it, even your view is "from man", you just take things literally, as a man. I think what bothers me is the implicit assumption that you have a monopoly on the spirit. It strikes me as arrogant.

No sarcasm this time, just direct language.

I wrote my post in light of your comments. I know they were sarcasm. But my point in doing so was to point out how easy it is for a message to be taken the wrong way. If we let people view scripture and let the Holy Ghost guide them they will get what they need if indeed they come to seek knowledge. But if we place a third party between scripture and the person it prevents the Holy Ghost from witnessing scripture. He would instead be witnessing to the third person. And unless that person is a Prophet of God the HS will not witness them or what they say. Now we do have translations and it appears that the ones I use are witnessed to. So some form of third party does seem to acceptable. Exactly where that falls apart I do not know. But why would I test the boundary with somebody's soul? I would not do so.

People are either saved or not saved. One can not be half saved. Now exactly where that line is I sure don't know. I tried to open a thread to address that very issue but I was accused of preaching. I guess that moderator hasn't heard me preach because it would be very clear my post was very tame.

[volgadon]

People are either saved or not saved. One can not be half saved.

There are varying degrees.