The Expansion Theory Of Translation: Ostler Responds To Robinson

[wenglund]

Hi Rob,

You mentioned earlier about decoder rings. In a way, here are some free ones that may be of help to you: FREE.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[volgadon]

There are some ideas which I have already determined to be in error.

I've determined that of some too, yet I still am giving you a hearing.

A new argument for that bad idea will not change the idea it will just change the lipstick on that pig.

See above.

Although you ask for support I think we both know that the request is for argument sake not for any serious consideration for change.

Since you go on and on about how spiritual is superior to secular, then I sincerely hope that you would be able to back up your assertions solely from scripture.

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

http://www.heraldmag...re/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.

Issaschar's son has a different name. Yod-vav-beth as opposed to aleph-yod-vav-beth in the book of Job. Unless you can provide a solid argument for the names being one and the same then this is no support for your position. The rest of the evidence is just as weak.

[Franktalk]

Since you go on and on about how spiritual is superior to secular, then I sincerely hope that you would be able to back up your assertions solely from scripture.

Let us examine the spiritual for a moment.

Mat 16:17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

So Jesus announced that Peter was blessed because he received a direct communication from the Father about who Jesus was.

1Co 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

This is quite the statement. This and other scripture have led me to form a view of scripture and knowledge of God. I see scripture as a stepping stone to seeking God. Reading scripture can give us some questions to ask directly to God. It is this direct seeking that God desires. But let us take this bold statement apart and see what each part means.

The Natural Man

Joh 3:3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

Joh 3:4 Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?

Joh 3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

Joh 3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

We are born flesh and at some point we may seek God. Then by being reborn in Baptism (water) we can leave our old man behind us and become reborn. But what are we reborn into? We are reborn as a spiritual man. Only after we become a spiritual man can we leave this world behind. Because walking in the spirit changes us so we care not for the things of this world but instead seek the things of God and the existence in the next world. But the world and flesh is strong and many fall back to the natural man. If you never became the spiritual man or fell back then we lose our connection to God. Because the things of the Spirit of God are only spiritually discerned. You can read the Bible until you are blue in the face and it will not lead you to the things of God. Oh you may be attracted to the image you make of God but to receive the true image of God you can only receive it through spiritual means.

But 1 Co 2:14 declares that the natural man can not even know the things of God. It goes on to say that the things of God are foolishness to him. Could it be that all those who seek to embrace the expansion theory of scripture just don't see the worth of scripture because they are not seeing scripture through spiritual eyes? They think that scripture is foolishness so they seek to change it into something less foolish.

Spiritual discernment

Matthew

The Pharisees also with the Sadducees came, and tempting desired him that he would shew them a sign from heaven.

He answered and said unto them, When it is evening, ye say, It will be fair weather: for the sky is red.

And in the morning, It will be foul weather to day: for the sky is red and lowering. O ye hypocrites, ye can discern the face of the sky; but can ye not discern the signs of the times?

Jesus was talking to men who studied scripture and could quote line after line. But they knew not what it said. It was just words to them. It would take spiritual discernment to know the things of God. It is obvious that the Pharisees and the Sadducees were natural men.

Hebrews 5:14

14But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.

And what senses need to be exercised so we can eat meat and not drink milk? The key is discernment, those who can discern have exercised their senses. But who can discern? Only those who are in the spirit.

Ephesians 4:22-24

22That ye put off concerning the former conversation the old man, which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts;

23And be renewed in the spirit of your mind;

24And that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness.

When you develop the spirit the spirit will rule your behavior just like the natural man is ruled by nature or the flesh.

The Bible is filled with verses which speak of the spirit. One seeks God and if one loves God then that desire will manifest in accepting the Holy Spirit and will manifest in bringing your own spirit out. But if one loves the world or fears God more than loves Him then that person will not take the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Edited October 4, 2011 by Franktalk

[jo1952]

Since you go on and on about how spiritual is superior to secular, then I sincerely hope that you would be able to back up your assertions solely from scripture.

Volgadon:

1 John 5:9 (emphasis added)

If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son.

Also, it is ONLY by the Holy Ghost that we can even KNOW that Jesus is the Christ. This alone points me to seek spiritual truth over secular opinions or interpretations of what is being observed.

Regards,

jo

Edited October 4, 2011 by jo1952

[volgadon]

Volgadon:

1 John 5:9 (emphasis added)

If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son.

Also, it is ONLY by the Holy Ghost that we can even KNOW that Jesus is the Christ. This alone points me to seek spiritual truth over secular opinions or interpretations of what is being observed.

Regards,

jo

Then why don't you consistently practice what you preach?

[jo1952]

Then why don't you consistently practice what you preach?

Please explain what you mean.

Regards,

jo

[Robert F. Smith]

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.

Actually, the expansionary or midrashic/targumic text is part of the likening process (described in I Nephi 19:23, II Nephi 6:5, 11:2, 8 ), and is specifically the exegesis or interpretation of a holy text – along with application to the situation (Sitz im Leben) of those making that interpretation – and it can be found taking place already in Deuteronomy, Ezekiel, and Habakkuk, i.e., quite early.¹

In the Book of Mormon, such expansionary interpretations are made by prophets commenting on such texts as Isaiah 29:3-12 (at II Nephi 26 - 27), and on Isaiah 52:7 (by Abinadi at Mosiah 15:15-18). Preachers and prophets regularly use such an expansionary technique when giving sermons from the pulpit. Only in certain rare cases does the sermon become Scripture in its own right. The preaching of Jesus is a prime example, and (in his case) he frequently used expansionary targumic texts in his efforts to interpret Scripture.

----------------------------

¹ See Gary G. Porton, “Midrash,” in D. N. Freedman, ed., Anchor Bible Dictionary, IV:819; G. Porton, “Midrash: The Jews and the Hebrew Bible in the Greco-Roman Period,” Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt, 19/2 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1979), 103-138; James L. Kugel and Rowan A. Greer, Early Biblical Interpretation, Library of Early Christianity (Phila.: Westminster Press, 1986), 46-51, 79-81.

Edited October 4, 2011 by Robert F. Smith

[Franktalk]

Robert F. Smith,

Anyone who speaks or writes while guided by the Spirit of God is producing scripture. I have no problem with this at all. It is my belief that God is all around us and many speak the truth by the Holy Ghost. But the world is also filled with men of the world who are not guided by the Spirit of God. Some of these men of the world even preach. Now people who are of the spirit can sort these out. But people of the world do not have a clue. So a cleaver speaker can gather many. Even people who walk in the spirit can be partial to many things in the world. But most who do walk in the spirit cast off the world. There is a period of learning.

The OP of this topic refers to scholars as the people who should sort out scripture. On this I disagree. I much rather have an unlearned Prophet sort out scripture. The scholar has a foundation in the world but a Prophet has his foundation in the Spirit of God.

[shalamabobbi]

Even people who walk in the spirit can be partial to many things in the world.

Like breakfast at IHOP..

Spiritual discernment must of necessity contradict all other knowledge. Or is it the other way around?

[Franktalk]

It does seem to come down to how one views God. You can believe that He intervenes in the affairs of men all of the time or you can believe that He does not. You can believe that God made all things and still controls all things or you can believe that He does not. God has declared that we must come to Him by faith so He has set the world so that men can either embrace the world or embrace the spirit. It is a matter of choice. The men who decide that God is distant and nature is the true force in the universe can study nature and find ways to control it. Once controlled man can decide how he feels about his achievements. He can praise God for the gifts that he has received or he can raise his pride and declare that he is master over nature. When I read the Bible or any scripture I see an active God. One that I can interact with at any moment. I see a God that works behind the scenes in all aspects of my life and the life of others. I believe scripture supports this view of God. The view that God is distant in my opinion is not supported by scripture. I have to wonder if the attempts to change scripture is to support the worldly view of God?

[Calm]

It does seem to come down to how one views God. You can believe that He intervenes in the affairs of men all of the time or you can believe that He does not. You can believe that God made all things and still controls all things or you can believe that He does not.

Or you can believe something in the middle. One does not have to believe in one extreme (all the time) or the other (never). Nor does one have to view a less interfering God as a distant one (if a mortal parent can accomplish this, then it must be possible for God to do so) or that those who believe that it is worthwhile to study nature and learn to understand and work with it (as God does) must assume that God is not involved.

You seem to think that the scripture teaches that God controls all things and yet the scriptures and the prophets are very clear there is at least one thing that he does not control and that is man, who has been given the gift of agency.

If he has chosen to allow his creature and his child man agency, why would he not also allow other of his creations to have the same to the degree they are able allowing them to progress spiritually as man is allowed? Can something be celestialized that has not proven itself worthy, that has not fulfilled the measure of its creation?

“And again, verily I say unto you, the earth abideth the law of a celestial kingdom, for it filleth the measure of its creation, and transgresseth not the law—

“Wherefore, it shall be sanctified; yea, notwithstanding it shall die, it shall be quickened again, and shall abide the power by which it is quickened, and the righteous shall inherit it.” (D&C 88:25–26.)

How can something not transgress the law if it is controlled? Something that is controlled does not have the agency to transgress or refrain from transgression. Edited October 5, 2011 by calmoriah

[volgadon]

Please explain what you mean.

Regards,

jo

That you guys keep championing ideas which have very little support in scrtipture, but invariably come from outside of it.

[Franktalk]

Calmoriah,

I am not part of the creation. My spirit allows for me to have free will. But the environment I am in is not mine, it is the Father's. He has given some authority to Satan on this planet but one day that will end. You have to read what I write more carefully.

[jo1952]

Or you can believe something in the middle. One does not have to believe in one extreme (all the time) or the other (never). Nor does one have to view a less interfering God as a distant one (if a mortal parent can accomplish this, then it must be possible for God to do so) or that those who believe that it is worthwhile to study nature and learn to understand and work with it (as God does) must assume that God is not involved.

You seem to think that the scripture teaches that God controls all things and yet the scriptures and the prophets are very clear there is at least one thing that he does not control and that is man, who has been given the gift of agency.

If he has chosen to allow his creature and his child man agency, why would he not also allow other of his creations to have the same to the degree they are able allowing them to progress spiritually as man is allowed? Can something be celestialized that has not proven itself worthy, that has not fulfilled the measure of its creation?

How can something not transgress the law if it is controlled? Something that is controlled does not have the agency to transgress or refrain from transgression.

When faith moves mountains, or creates famines and pestilences, isn't the earth obeying unseen forces? Since Satan can do things like cause fire to rain down from heaven upon the earth, just like God can cause fire to rain down upon the earth, how does the earth KNOW whether the source was from good or from evil? At those times isn't agency of the earth being removed? I think the only agency the Creation HAS is to be obedient to unseen forces. It cannot choose between good and evil. This is totally different from man. Only our physical body is part of the creation; our spirits are not. I believe that the creation follows different laws than have been set up for the spirit. These laws would include being held together by those laws which the Creator created in the physical world. There is a life expectancy built into everything that is "created"; the creation (including our physical body) is currently mortal. As such, the creation and our physical bodies are subject to decay and death.

What would the purpose and/or point of "evolution" be wherein over billions of years (supposedly) it has, and then would seemingly need to continue, when ultimately, it will experience physical death? Inevitably, "evolution" CANNOT, therefore, reach perfection. This is a concept of man. Its logic eventually falls apart at every turn of interpretational application.

Isn't it interesting that Satan seems to have some control over those unseen forces? At any rate, I have a different interpretation than you do of what those laws are which govern the earth for it to fulfill the measure of its creation. BTW, in the days of Noah, the Lord taught that even the earth was corrupt. What "laws" do YOU think the earth had broken in order to become corrupted? Had it failed to maintain "natural" laws as identified and interpreted by some men of science?

Regards,

jo

[jo1952]

That you guys keep championing ideas which have very little support in scrtipture, but invariably come from outside of it.

Can you provide an example so that I can respond?

Thanks,

jo

[volgadon]

Can you provide an example so that I can respond?

Thanks,

jo

Job being written prior to the Torah.

[Robert F. Smith]

Robert F. Smith,

Anyone who speaks or writes while guided by the Spirit of God is producing scripture. I have no problem with this at all. It is my belief that God is all around us and many speak the truth by the Holy Ghost. But the world is also filled with men of the world who are not guided by the Spirit of God. Some of these men of the world even preach. Now people who are of the spirit can sort these out. But people of the world do not have a clue. So a cleaver speaker can gather many. Even people who walk in the spirit can be partial to many things in the world. But most who do walk in the spirit cast off the world. There is a period of learning.

The OP of this topic refers to scholars as the people who should sort out scripture. On this I disagree. I much rather have an unlearned Prophet sort out scripture. The scholar has a foundation in the world but a Prophet has his foundation in the Spirit of God.

I'd be far more comfortable with a suggestion that, whether country bumpkin or scholar, God can speak through either whenever he chooses. I think of my grandfather who gave his whole life to preaching the word of God and barely got by financially -- even though he was a very well educated man and an ordained Methodist minister. I think also of one his sisters (my great aunt) who spent her life as a Methodist missionary in China. They cared nothing for fame or fortune, but only of walking humbly in the footsteps of the Master.

[jo1952]

Job being written prior to the Torah.

We have provided a date line which indicates that Job was written before Moses wrote the Torah. What is the problem with that? To understand WHEN the events took place, you need to read the book of Job, as well as the first five books of the Bible (known as the Torah). It is the same for the NT - the books are not presented in the chronological order that they were written. If a person wants to find out which events took place first, they need to study history. For instance, many people are under the misconception that the Book of Revelation was the last book written. This is not so; however, it was those who were putting together canon who placed Revelation last. Even within some books in the Bible, the chapters are not presented in the order they were written. The Book of Daniel is good example of this. Fortunately, this particular secular knowledge does not effect scriptural interpretation.

Now, if you are confusing secular education with spiritual knowledge, I have already said on more than one occasion that I DO study and place high regard upon education. However, I do not just take one view point into consideration. I try to understand and learn about many view points and interpretations of whatever it is I am studying; thus educating myself with well-rounded information before I decide where I will place my trust. Whenever man's secular education causes him to interpret scripture differently from what the Holy Ghost has already confirmed Truth to me, then I will abandon man's "knowledge". The same thing goes with any additional knowledge revealed to me by the Holy Ghost. If the world's take on a particular view point contradicts what has been revealed personally to me, it is the Holy Ghost's Truth which I will hold to. Thus, I will then reject man's interpretation of what he is observing. The more that is revealed to me by the Holy Ghost, the easier it has become for me to see the physical world and the education it can provide through spiritual eyes. In this way, it is not necessary for me to step completely into the physical world and wind up abandoning God's camp. The more spiritual knowledge I have obtained, the more clearly I see what is going on in the physical world and how much influence Satan has had on what man will believe about the Creation.

Unfortunately, man would rather accuse me of being uneducated if I happen to not agree with their interpretation of secular education. This is very much a misconception on their part.

Regards,

jo

[volgadon]

We have provided a date line which indicates that Job was written before Moses wrote the Torah. What is the problem with that? To understand WHEN the events took place, you need to read the book of Job, as well as the first five books of the Bible (known as the Torah).

You haven't provided a date in the scriptures, nor have you shown from scripture that it was written before the Torah.

Edited October 7, 2011 by volgadon

[jo1952]

You haven't provided a date in the scriptures, nor have you shown from scripture that it was written before the Torah.

See post #10 to this thread where I gave two different links on studies done of date lines. YOUR question about providing a date in scripture showing that Job was written before Moses wrote the Torah cannot be provided. As you are most likely aware, there are no specific dates given in the Bible. However, as I have referenced in another recent thread, we can take Daniel's prophesy of the day Christ would ride into Jerusalem on a donkey (Palm Sunday) and work out the exact date wherein it matches the historically recorded date of that event. When that prophesy was fulfilled, Jesus wept because the Israelites missed it. He understood the consequences which would befall them because they had failed to recognize His entrance into the city of Jerusalem AS had been prophesied.

We have Job's genealogy which indicates he lived before Moses was born and seems to fit the following time line:

http://www.mediahist...icaldates.html.

Gen 46:13 And the sons of Issachar; Tola, and Phuvah, and Job, and Shimron.

They entered Egypt before the Israelites became slaves there. Other studies done about Job in other religions also fit the same time frame. Therefore, I believe that the Job referred to as the son of Issachar is most likely the same Job whom the Book of Job is written about.

Regards,

jo

[volgadon]

We have Job's genealogy which indicates he lived before Moses was born and seems to fit the following time line:

http://www.mediahist...icaldates.html.

Gen 46:13 And the sons of Issachar; Tola, and Phuvah, and Job, and Shimron.

Two different names, as I've already mentioned.

[jo1952]

Two different names, as I've already mentioned.

The information you gave about two different names is also not found in the Bible. Of course, you are free to believe whatever you want to believe. If you think Moses wrote the Torah before the Book of Job was written, so be it. Whenever the book of Job WAS written, it still contains information in it which was known before Moses was born; thus before Moses wrote the Torah. Here, again, is the link which supplies that reasoning:

http://www.heraldmag...re/verse_12.htm

The Book of Abraham was also written before Moses wrote the Torah. Why is it necessary for you to try to find a reason to argue with this type of information? None of the information changes scripture. It merely offers additional and interesting information about scripture, without changing its meaning.

Regards,

jo

[Calm]

The information you gave about two different names is also not found in the Bible.

My impression was that spelling and thus the names were different in the original even if it is the same in English. If so, then his information was indeed in the Bible. Edited October 7, 2011 by calmoriah

[jo1952]

My impression was that spelling and thus the names were different in the original even if it is the same in English. If so, then his information was indeed in the Bible.

I would have to disagree. A person reading the Bible today would not have that information available to him unless he was also educated in Hebrew. He would also have to be educated concerning the multitude of translations, know their history, etc. At best, even after a lot of effort spent on educating ourselves, his is just an educated guess. We do not possess the originals, and Volgadon was not an eye witness; he can only speculate.

Regards,

jo

[volgadon]

The information you gave about two different names is also not found in the Bible.

Yes it is.

Here is the Genesis verse.

וּבְנֵי, יִשָּׂשכָר--תּוֹלָע וּפֻוָה, וְיוֹב וְשִׁמְרֹן

Here is Job in the book of Job.

אִישׁ הָיָה בְאֶרֶץ עוּץ, אִיּוֹב שְׁמוֹ

I've bolded both names. If you want to claim that both n ames are the same then you would need to advance a convincing argument for it.

Whenever the book of Job WAS written, it still contains information in it which was known before Moses was born; thus before Moses wrote the Torah

Genesis, which you claim was written after the book of Job contains information which was known before Job, so?

None of the information changes scripture. It merely offers additional and interesting information about scripture, without changing its meaning.

It does change your interpretation though!