The Sons Of God In Genesis 6

[Jeanne]

Agreed that Nibley's Ensign article does not in any way constitute an official church position. 

 

I've read the same on the etymology of Nephilim.

Excuse me.,.I just started reading this thread,  But if the above is true, then do we take conference talks as positions of the church?  I always thought that the Ensign was like a monthly Bible in a sense; at least when I was working with the RS and Gospel Doctrine classes.

 

Back to reading and learning!

Edited November 25, 2015 by Jeanne

[volgadon]

? I actually understand volgadon's main premise and thought processes just fine. And if Robert is allowed to assert that I'm silly and confused in this thread, I suppose you also have every right to imply that he's right. However I respect all three of you, and wish you all well. So I decline venturing into such territory.

 

I would prefer, however, that my 2-hamsterpower brain be granted the benefit of the doubt here....I actually can follow someone's line of thought.  Disagreeing with someone's premise does *not* in the least mean that one is too much of a dim bulb to comprehend what they're saying. Can we all at least agree on that?

 

Hopefully we can get back to the substance of the thread once again....

 

 

Nevermind, not worth getting into.

Edited November 26, 2015 by volgadon

[volgadon]

I linked to this passage earlier in this thread, but didn't quote it. However, it deserves a separate post, since it explains my core thought on the role of latter-day scripture in the context of the OP:

 

"Wherefore, the fruit of thy loins shall write; and the fruit of the loins of Judah shall write; and that which shall be written by the fruit of thy loins, and also that which shall be written by the fruit of the loins of Judah, shall grow together, unto the confounding of false doctrines and laying down of contentions, and establishing peace among the fruit of thy loins, and bringing them to the knowledge of their fathers in the latter days, and also to the knowledge of my covenants, saith the Lord."

 

Consider also passages such as Ezekiel 37, John 10, and 1 Nephi 13. 

 

That's basically my perspective on aligning recently-revealed scripture with ancient scripture. I don't think either is meant to be understood in a vacuum.

 

Best wishes.

 

(This may also be one of my last few posts in this forum for awhile, as I have a few things demanding more focus.)

 

 

This scripture doesn't actually support your baseline idea. It doesn't say that the writings of the fruit of Judah's loins must be subordinate to the writings of the fruit of Joseph's loins, the interpretation of the former always judged by the latter.  The concern of this scripture is much different than a protestant-inspired lens would read it. You are right that this is similar to Ezekiel 37, both envisioning a time when Judah and Joseph have ceased being enemies, and are united, and each group's writings will enjoy equal status in governing the people and teaching them of each groups sacred history. 

[volgadon]

? I really don't understand the ongoing need for jabs in this thread.

 

Considering Que's post might be a helpful starting point to seeing eye to eye.

 

Volgadon, I enjoy history, and am well aware that Joseph and others in the School of the Prophets studied Hebrew. I'm also aware that D&C 9 provided insight into translating by the power of God, and specifically said that studying things out was an important prerequisite for such an accomplishment. So rather than Joseph being unsatisfied "with translating by the gift and power of God", I am of the opinion that Joseph instead saw studying Hebrew as a helpful element in doing just that.

 

I'm also well aware that the D&C elsewhere encourages the study of languages. So if you think I'm belittling linguistics, you fully and completely misunderstand me, and are taking umbrage for no good reason. To provide a better glimpse, I've studied French, German, and Danish, plus some Hebrew, Swedish, Norwegian, and a bit of Old Norse, Old English, Greek, and Frisian. Decades ago, I even served in two linguistics units of the National Guard, with the intent of serving as a linguist. Finally, I started studying Latin in earnest a few months ago, and am knee-deep into a book on historical linguistics. So if you think I would belittle the study of language, you completely don't get me or my meaning. 

 

That said, my core suggestion that Joseph deserves precedence doesn't slight you, your expertise, or linguistics in the least...even if you have previously thought that it does. So neighbor, please, seriously, I have neither kicked your cat nor spat in your soup. Please lower your sword.

Again, consider Que's post. I believe he/she hit the bullseye.

 

I'm probably done in this thread. Contention doesn't interest me.

 

You're all entitled to your own opinions. I wish you all well. 

 

The problem with Que's post is that it is entirely speculative, smacks of an all-too-convenient Deus ex Machina, and for the sake of consistency, you ought to reject Que's notion of a pre-flood document kept on the ark as the Book of Moses explicitly traces Moses' knowledge of those events to a vision. As it stands, the Bible is the earliest document that we are examining. The JST was specifically intended to address the KJV version of the Bible, and the Book of Moses is a vision refracted through Joseph Smith, and you mentioned D&C 9 as an important prerequisite to translation work, so I can assume that we both agree on Joseph not being a divine Xerox machine.

 

Why did Joseph see studying Hebrew as a helpful element if it could easily be trumped by a revealed text? If the revealed text always takes precedence, how is studying Hebrew helpful rather than an impediment? You see Joseph as deserving precedence, but that is at odds with how he saw things.

[Que]

Yes, the offhand comment of a previous document was speculative. However, the primary question was whether the surviving Hebrew texts are original or themselves translations. Did Moses write his material in his native Egyptian? Could there be the same or similar translation issues between a source document of Moses' and the current Hebrew texts?

I have no opinion on the thread's subject, only a question on whether we have Moses' writings in the original language...

[Robert F. Smith]

Yes, the offhand comment of a previous document was speculative. However, the primary question was whether the surviving Hebrew texts are original or themselves translations. Did Moses write his material in his native Egyptian? Could there be the same or similar translation issues between a source document of Moses' and the current Hebrew texts?

I have no opinion on the thread's subject, only a question on whether we have Moses' writings in the original language...

Since Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, and Moses did not speak or read Hebrew (it did not exist in their times), everything we now have in the biblical Hebrew canon is an updated and transmitted version of the earlier oral stories and documents -- with some biblical poetry (the Song of Moses, for example) likliest to be close to the original Canaanite or Amorite -- although the Bronze Plates of Laban were in Egyptian and must have contained a version of Scripture parallel to biblical Hebrew and its precursors.

[Robert F. Smith]

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

Why did Joseph see studying Hebrew as a helpful element if it could easily be trumped by a revealed text? .........................................

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

Why did Joseph study biblical Hebrew?  Why would he bother if he saw it as a waste of time?  That is, if it could be trumped by a revealed text?  Should all CES personnel be required to follow in Joseph's footsteps?  Should we require that they master at least two years of biblical Hebrew before being sent out to teach Mormon youth in Seminaries and Institutes, or at BYU?

[halconero]

Why did Joseph study biblical Hebrew? Why would he bother if he saw it as a waste of time? That is, if it could be trumped by a revealed text? Should all CES personnel be required to follow in Joseph's footsteps? Should we require that they master at least two years of biblical Hebrew before being sent out to teach Mormon youth in Seminaries and Institutes, or at BYU?

Aww man, that would be awesome.

[halconero]

Yes, the offhand comment of a previous document was speculative. However, the primary question was whether the surviving Hebrew texts are original or themselves translations. Did Moses write his material in his native Egyptian? Could there be the same or similar translation issues between a source document of Moses' and the current Hebrew texts?

I have no opinion on the thread's subject, only a question on whether we have Moses' writings in the original language...

We call them the Books of Moses, but the linguistic and textual evidence in the works points to them being compilation of various sources. Among them are the Yahwist source (those writings which focus on pushing Yahweh as the head of the Israelite pantheon, sometimes in competition with either El, or Baal. Sometimes being conflated with both), the Priestly source (sources focusing on temple priesthood), the Deuteronomists (those focusing on the law), and one more I can't remember off the top of my head.

It's while you'll see inconsistencies among stories such as Joseph the son of Jacob, or more particularly in the Creation account through till about Noah. You'll see the creation overseen by Elohim, with the ultimate creation in 6 days being the simultaneous creation of humanity vs the creation by Yahweh performed in one day with a male human being the first thing created.

Interestingly, the Book of Moses in scripture reconciles these by elaborating on the difference between spiritual and temporal creation. It certainly lines up with the Hellenistic-Jewish interpretation of creation, wherein the Logos (the perfect Image and Son of God) created (or even was) the Heavenly Adam before later forming an Earthly Adam.

[Calm]

We call them the Books of Moses, but the linguistic and textual evidence in the works points to them being compilation of various sources...sometimes in competition with either El, or Baal....one more I can't remember off the top of my head.

Elohist according to wiki

[halconero]

There you go. I was too lazy to look it up when I posted last night. Now, I have no problem the notion of a Moses-figure acting in the capacity of a Compiler/Redactor rather than sole author, similar to Mormon. It actually fits somewhat with the exodus/law giving/prophet-to-a-failing people motif the Book of Mormon has going.