Abraham And New D&c Seminary Student Manual

[Robert F. Smith]

If the views if archaeologists like Israel Finkelstein and William Denver are valid then there was no Moses, no Exodus and no conquest. If the children of Israel were supposed to have lived in one spot for 30 so years why then is there no evidence ? (pottery, burial sites, etc) Of all the cities Joshua is supposed to have conquered except for 2 cities no evidence of conquest. Young students have access to youtube and will eventually come across this stuff. Should seminary and institute teachers acknowledge these issue?

Most teachers of religion at that level are providing very elementary and basic familiarization to ordinary students who may never use it as part of an intellectual tool.  An advanced Sunday School, if you will, Helen.

 

However, those who are actually conversant with what Finkelstein, Dever, and other minimalist scholars are saying might correct your spelling of Dever's name, and go on to correct the false notion that there is no evidence of the Exodus or Conquest.  As I point out in my brief paper on the subject, there is plenty of evidence for a large Exodus, and the area in which the Israelites likely spent the next 40 years or so (Midian) is well watered and fertile.  There is also plenty of evidence for the Conquest, even if the details don't match the Bible in every particular -- nor should a serious historian expect such systematic correspondence.  See my “Moses Our Teacher (Moshe Rabbenu),” 2010, version 3, online at http://www.scribd.com/lighthorseharry/d/51104640-Moses-Our-Teacher-Moshe-Rabbenu .

 

 Youtube is hardly a reliable source of info on such matters.

Edited March 16, 2014 by Robert F. Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

However, it is very commendable to see him soften his approach a little in his book.

What book?  I knew he had something in preparation on the Documentary Hypothesis, but what is this one?

[Robert F. Smith]

..............................................................................   

Finding the original papyrus ended up being one of the worse things rather than the best things to help my faith.  I have heard the various "explanations", but they all ring as false and counter to what I was taught when the papyrus were "lost".

 

It is a hard thing to get past.  I certainly look at the church differently.  Now I view the church not as what it claimed to be, but solely on the goodness and comfort so many people have found living it's principles.  One has to discard some of the claims of Joseph Smith, but be able to embrace so many of the wonderful concepts he taught and introduced that are unique to Mormonism.  You can't throw out everything that is good because of some issues.  You have to embrace the part that works for you.  It is a different paradigm.

Of course, the problem with that is that we don't have the original papyrus of the Book of Abraham, although we do have an illustration that goes with it.

[volgadon]

What book?  I knew he had something in preparation on the Documentary Hypothesis, but what is this one?

 

That same one, Authoring the Old Testament. He discusses implications for Mormon texts, including the BoA.

[Helen47]

Youtube provide plenty of lectures by Finkelstein and others. The conquest did not happen

[Helen47]

Dever

What have archeologists learned from these settlements about the early Israelites? Are there signs that the Israelites came in conquest, taking over the land from Canaanites?

The settlements were founded not on the ruins of destroyed Canaanite towns but rather on bedrock or on virgin soil. There was no evidence of armed conflict in most of these sites. Archeologists also have discovered that most of the large Canaanite towns that were supposedly destroyed by invading Israelites were either not destroyed at all or destroyed by "Sea People"—Philistines, or others.

So gradually the old conquest model [based on the accounts of Joshua's conquests in the Bible] began to lose favor amongst scholars. Many scholars now think that most of the early Israelites were originally Canaanites, displaced Canaanites, displaced from the lowlands, from the river valleys, displaced geographically and then displaced ideologically.

So what we are dealing with is a movement of peoples but not an invasion of an armed corps from the outside. A social and economic revolution, if you will, rather than a military revolution. And it begins a slow process in which the Israelites distinguish themselves from their Canaanite ancestors, particularly in religion—with a new deity, new religious laws and customs, new ethnic markers, as we would call them today.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/ancient/archeology-hebrew-bible.html

[Helen47]

THE BOOK OF JOSHUA: ITS EVALUATION BY NONEVIDENCE

 

Specifically, excavated sites such as Jericho (Tell es Sultan), Ai 

(et-Tell), and Gibeon (el-Jib) have provided no substantiating evidence for 

the accounts of the book of Joshua. An obvious question arises from this 

situation: "What sort of conclusion is to be reached, when carefully 

excavated archaeological evidence does not seem to meet the minimum 

requirements of the historical implications of the biblical texts?"' The 

result has been a growing consensus that the biblical text of Joshua is 

historically unreliable. Such a conclusion calls for a reassessment of the 

relationship between Joshua and archaeology, especially since some 

significant considerations have been omitted in previous discussions.

 

http://www.auss.info/auss_publication_file.php?pub_id=1004&journal=1&type=pdf

[readstoomuch]

I am assuming that the Mormon reliance on the Bible effects some of our beliefs. Since we are a sort of liberal literalists about the Bible, what implications do you see with the Book of Abraham and the Book of Moses. It wasn't directly forthcoming to me from reading this thread.

[David T]

I HIGHLY suggest David Bokovoy's book, Authoring the Old Testament: Genesis - Deuteronomy. It's a faithful LDS introduction to Higher Criticism and the Documentary Hypothesis, and has chapters of implications of accepting this on The Book of Moses, The Book of Abraham, and the Book of Mormon. I've found it a deeply satisfying, intellectually stimulating, and , believe it or not, a very, VERY faith promoting book. Really top notch stuff.

 

I just have two more chapters to go, and I already think it's one of the most important books on Mormon scripture to be published recently. And there's been a LOT of groundbreaking works on LDS scripture coming out of late. It's really that good.

[readstoomuch]

Thanks David T, benchmark sent me a link about it.

[Tacenda]

Thanks David T, benchmark sent me a link about it.

http://mormonmatters.org/2014/02/21/213-214-the-book-of-abraham-as-scripture/

 

http://mormonmatters.org/2014/01/28/211-genesis-part-4-abraham/

 

Here are a couple of podcasts that feature David Bokovoy on the panel.  Thought you might want to listen to them.