Re: [ZION] scriptures are not secular?
After much pondering, Gary Smith favored us with: EVERY ward or branch has a little old man or lady who speaks in tongues every fast and testimony meeting! Usually they spew forth sermons about fire and brimstone. Of course, everyone understands what they are saying even before they speak, since we all expect it Much of scripture is devoted to descriptions of this fire and brimstone. I wonder why so few pay attention? Maybe the Lord made a mistake to include such negative, pessimistic stuff in the scriptures, do you think? John W. Redelfs [EMAIL PROTECTED] === A liberal in the Church is merely one who does not have a testimony. --President Harold B. Lee === All my opinions are tentative pending further data. --JWR / /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^
[ZION] scriptures are not secular?
The saints tend to magnify the doctrines and truths that the living prophet does. Pres Hinckley speaks little about fire and brimstone (except for abusive husbands and fathers), and speaks much on hope and joy. He is giving us the direction we should generally go, while not forgetting what his predecessors have taught. K'aya K'ama, Gerald/gary Smithgszion1 @juno.comhttp://www .geocities.com/rameumptom/index.html No one is as hopelessly enslaved as the person who thinks he's free. - Johann Wolfgang von Goethe JWR: Much of scripture is devoted to descriptions of this fire and brimstone. I wonder why so few pay attention? Maybe the Lord made a mistake to include such negative, pessimistic stuff in the scriptures, do you think? Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today Only $9.95 per month! Visit www.juno.com // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^
[ZION] scriptures are not secular?
Marc, EVERY ward or branch has a little old man or lady who speaks in tongues every fast and testimony meeting! Usually they spew forth sermons about fire and brimstone. Of course, everyone understands what they are saying even before they speak, since we all expect it So, I don't see your point. K'aya K'ama, Gerald/gary Smithgszion1 @juno.comhttp://www .geocities.com/rameumptom/index.html No one is as hopelessly enslaved as the person who thinks he's free. - Johann Wolfgang von Goethe Marc: Paul points out that these types of miracles tend to accompany the very beginning of a new dispensation, but then are inappropriate (when you read all of I Corinthians 13 you'll see that he's saying that signs and miracles aren't as important at that point than Christlike love). I think we see that now, too. What would happen if an elderly lady stood up in your next fast testimony meeting and started talking in tongues? I dare say the bishop would call 911. Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today Only $9.95 per month! Visit www.juno.com / /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^
Re: [ZION] scriptures are not secular?
Although I'm not necessarily disagreeing with your conclusion, the logic begs the question, since it's scripture quoting scripture. If scripture is written in some kind of code, or compacted language, then a quote, reference to allusion to another scripture would follow the same format. Mark Gregson wrote: I'm not going to say Yes, of course the actual event happened as described, because it really doesn't matter. If it did, great; if not _so what_. I refuse to The Book of Mormon prophets believed that the water actually parted for the Israelites but then closed in upon the Egyptians. That's one reason why I think it matters. 1 Ne. 4: 2 Therefore let us go up; let us be strong like unto Moses; for he truly spake unto the waters of the Red Sea and they divided hither and thither, and our fathers came through, out of captivity, on dry ground, and the armies of Pharaoh did follow and were drowned in the waters of the Red Sea. 1 Ne. 17: 26 Now ye know that Moses was commanded of the Lord to do that great work; and ye know that by his word the waters of the Red Sea were divided hither and thither, and they passed through on dry ground. Hel. 8: 11 Therefore he was constrained to speak more unto them saying: Behold, my brethren, have ye not read that God gave power unto one man, even Moses, to smite upon the waters of the Red Sea, and they parted hither and thither, insomuch that the Israelites, who were our fathers, came through upon dry ground, and the waters closed upon the armies of the Egyptians and swallowed them up? = Mark Gregson [EMAIL PROTECTED] = -- ___ Get your free email from http://mymail.operamail.com Powered by Outblaze / /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / -- Marc A. Schindler Spruce Grove, Alberta, Canada -- Gateway to the Boreal Parkland Man will occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of the time he will pick himself up and continue on Winston Churchill Note: This communication represents the informal personal views of the author solely; its contents do not necessarily reflect those of the authors employer, nor those of any organization with which the author may be associated. / /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^^=== This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^^===
Re: [ZION] scriptures are not secular?
At 09:31 AM 11/8/2002, you wrote: I'm not going to say Yes, of course the actual event happened as described, because it really doesn't matter. If it did, great; if not _so what_. I refuse to The Book of Mormon prophets believed that the water actually parted for the Israelites but then closed in upon the Egyptians. That's one reason why I think it matters. 1 Ne. 4: 2 Therefore let us go up; let us be strong like unto Moses; for he truly spake unto the waters of the Red Sea and they divided hither and thither, and our fathers came through, out of captivity, on dry ground, and the armies of Pharaoh did follow and were drowned in the waters of the Red Sea. 1 Ne. 17: 26 Now ye know that Moses was commanded of the Lord to do that great work; and ye know that by his word the waters of the Red Sea were divided hither and thither, and they passed through on dry ground. Hel. 8: 11 Therefore he was constrained to speak more unto them saying: Behold, my brethren, have ye not read that God gave power unto one man, even Moses, to smite upon the waters of the Red Sea, and they parted hither and thither, insomuch that the Israelites, who were our fathers, came through upon dry ground, and the waters closed upon the armies of the Egyptians and swallowed them up? = Mark Gregson [EMAIL PROTECTED] = Or how about the words of the Lord Jesus Christ himself: (Doctrine and Covenants | Section 8:3) 3 Now, behold, this is the spirit of revelation; behold, this is the spirit by which Moses brought the children of Israel through the Red Sea on dry ground. -- Steven Montgomery [EMAIL PROTECTED] / /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^
Re: [ZION] scriptures are not secular?
In other words, we should be concentrating on the spirit of revelation, and not on events, which are simply that, events. Steven Montgomery wrote: At 09:31 AM 11/8/2002, you wrote: I'm not going to say Yes, of course the actual event happened as described, because it really doesn't matter. If it did, great; if not _so what_. I refuse to The Book of Mormon prophets believed that the water actually parted for the Israelites but then closed in upon the Egyptians. That's one reason why I think it matters. 1 Ne. 4: 2 Therefore let us go up; let us be strong like unto Moses; for he truly spake unto the waters of the Red Sea and they divided hither and thither, and our fathers came through, out of captivity, on dry ground, and the armies of Pharaoh did follow and were drowned in the waters of the Red Sea. 1 Ne. 17: 26 Now ye know that Moses was commanded of the Lord to do that great work; and ye know that by his word the waters of the Red Sea were divided hither and thither, and they passed through on dry ground. Hel. 8: 11 Therefore he was constrained to speak more unto them saying: Behold, my brethren, have ye not read that God gave power unto one man, even Moses, to smite upon the waters of the Red Sea, and they parted hither and thither, insomuch that the Israelites, who were our fathers, came through upon dry ground, and the waters closed upon the armies of the Egyptians and swallowed them up? = Mark Gregson [EMAIL PROTECTED] = Or how about the words of the Lord Jesus Christ himself: (Doctrine and Covenants | Section 8:3) 3 Now, behold, this is the spirit of revelation; behold, this is the spirit by which Moses brought the children of Israel through the Red Sea on dry ground. -- Steven Montgomery [EMAIL PROTECTED] / /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / -- Marc A. Schindler Spruce Grove, Alberta, Canada -- Gateway to the Boreal Parkland Man will occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of the time he will pick himself up and continue on Winston Churchill Note: This communication represents the informal personal views of the author solely; its contents do not necessarily reflect those of the authors employer, nor those of any organization with which the author may be associated. / /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^^=== This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^^===
Re: [ZION] scriptures are not secular?
Paul points out that these types of miracles tend to accompany the very beginning of a new dispensation, but then are inappropriate (when you read all of I Corinthians 13 you'll see that he's saying that signs and miracles aren't as important at that point than Christlike love). I think we see that now, too. What would happen if an elderly lady stood up in your next fast testimony meeting and started talking in tongues? I dare say the bishop would call 911. Dan R Allen wrote: After much pondering, Dan R Allen favored us with: I'm saying that it should not be absolutely _necessary_ for God to have parted the Red Sea, a'la Charlton Heston, to have a testimony that He guided the Israelites across it. The fact that He helped them cross the Red Sea is literal, but the exact means described may or may not be symbolic, and shouldn't be the basis for a testimony of His power. Could He have done it? Without a doubt. Was it absolutely necessary for Him to prove His power to the Israelites in that specific way? Perhaps for them, but not for me. John: How do you apply this reasoning to Jesus calling Lazarus forth from his tomb, or raising the daughter of Jairus? Maybe these two were not really dead, but by the power of God they recovered while if it hadn't been for the blessing they would have died? Is that what you believe? I personally believe that God performs miracles just like the parting of the Red Sea in our own day. I predict we will be able to see those miracles in profusion as this last dispensation draws to a close. If an all out germ war ever occurs, there will be people dying everywhere of diseases for which there is no cure and which are 100 percent fatal. In that day, the priesthood will have to perform healing blessing far more miraculous than are the norm in our own day. Why? Because in the economy of God's dealings with man, he is not accustomed to doing for man what man can do for himself with a little divine help. After all, it was the Lord who inspired the current medical technology. Why shouldn't he expect us to use it so far as we can? Dan: Would they have been any less dead at that time then if modern medicine might have shown some spark of life? Would what Jesus did be any less of a miracle? I don't think so. In any case, we are arguing two different things here. I believe that God performs miracles today to John, but where are the explicit examples of miracles like the Red Sea and Jericho today? The closest examples I know of are the exodus from Nauvoo and the crickets. In both cases the way He chose to act is much more subtle than that described in the Old Testament. Why? Are we somehow less deserving of such a miracle today than they were then? Again, I don't think so. You actually hint at a pretty good answer to your challenge with this statement: Because in the economy of God's dealings with man, he is not accustomed to doing for man what man can do for himself with a little divine help. Why did God cause a late freeze when a simple parting of the waters would have worked just as well? But getting back to what made me get into this discussion in the first place; Why should somebody's testimony, presumably given to them by the Holy Ghost, rest on the interpretation of an ancient event as symbolic or literal? Your argument that it must, or all is false, doesn't really hold water because it must be based on the totally accurate translation of an ancient manuscript at the hands of clearly fallible men. John: What about the inventions of nuclear fission bombs? Can anyone deny that it was a technological leap forward of such an order as to seem like pure science fiction to all those who lived and died in the pre-atomic era? How about the Internet? These miracles are just as astounding as anything described in the Old Testament. Dan: They were certainly technological leaps, but I wouldn't classify them as miracles. John: If deBakey had lived in Christ's time and performed a heart transplant on one side of the stage while Jesus commanded Lazarus to come forth on the other side, which of the two would be thought to have performed the more miraculous feat? Dan: I would have thought Jesus did - He didn't need to make such a bloody mess doing it. John: I feel bad for people who are so adult that they no longer have the wonder and belief that they had when they were children. I am a man who lives in a world of miracles past, present and future. I believe all these things because I choose to. It fills my heart with joy to believe them. Dan: I too live in a world of miracles. Feeling the touch of the Holy Ghost as I lay my hands on my child's head and bless them with the strength to overcome a virus, and sleep calmly through the night - now _that_ is a miracle. / /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// ///
RE: [ZION] scriptures are not secular?
Marc A. Schindler wrote: --- What would happen if an elderly lady stood up in your next fast testimony meeting and started talking in tongues? --- Unworthy soul that I am, nonetheless I believe I would weep for joy. This really is a hypothetical, sadly enough. We apparently are not currently faithful enough to commonly enjoy such precious manifestations of the Spirit in our testimony meetings. This is simply a generalization of the notion I posited earler in repsonse to this thread: As a people, we are not blessed to understand the scriptures because we fail to study them faithfully. --- Mij Ebaboc / /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^
RE: [ZION] scriptures are not secular?
After much pondering, Jim Cobabe favored us with: This really is a hypothetical, sadly enough. We apparently are not currently faithful enough to commonly enjoy such precious manifestations of the Spirit in our testimony meetings. This is simply a generalization of the notion I posited earler in repsonse to this thread: As a people, we are not blessed to understand the scriptures because we fail to study them faithfully. I agree with this. Next time you are in sacrament meeting, evaluate each speaker. Ask yourself how effectively he used the scriptures in his talk. Give him a score on a 1 to 5 spectrum: 1=poor, 2=fair, 3=average, 4=good, 5=outstanding. Do this for each speaker and find the average for the meeting. If your ward is anything like mine, the average is pathetic. I just assume that the reason they don't use the scriptures in their talks is because they don't study them daily at home. Even temple attending saints frequently get up in meeting and speak for 10 or 15 minutes without once making a reference to the scriptures. John W. Redelfs [EMAIL PROTECTED] === You know what would make a good story? Something about a clown who make people happy, but inside he's real sad. Also, he has severe diarrhea. --Jack Handy === All my opinions are tentative pending further data. --JWR / /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^
Re: [ZION] scriptures are not secular?
On Friday, November 8, 2002, at 06:18 PM, John W. Redelfs wrote: I agree with this. Next time you are in sacrament meeting, evaluate each speaker. Ask yourself how effectively he used the scriptures in his talk. Give him a score on a 1 to 5 spectrum: 1=poor, 2=fair, 3=average, 4=good, 5=outstanding. Do this for each speaker and find the average for the meeting. If your ward is anything like mine, the average is pathetic. I just assume that the reason they don't use the scriptures in their talks is because they don't study them daily at home. Even temple attending saints frequently get up in meeting and speak for 10 or 15 minutes without once making a reference to the scriptures. Sometimes you are given a topic that doesn't lend itself to lots of scriptural references. Recently I gave a talk on How parents can help their children live the standards in For The Strength Of Youth. This one's difficult, although I put a couple of references in. An important topic, nonetheless. If I'm teaching, however, I use the scriptures whenever and however I can. It is my opinion that the scriptures should always be used to make the points in the lesson, the opinion of the teacher is irrelevant. If you can't prove it from the scriptures, don't say it at all (unless you clearly say that it is your opinion only). Harold Stuart / /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^
RE: [ZION] scriptures are not secular?
At 07:18 PM 11/8/2002, you wrote: After much pondering, Jim Cobabe favored us with: This really is a hypothetical, sadly enough. We apparently are not currently faithful enough to commonly enjoy such precious manifestations of the Spirit in our testimony meetings. This is simply a generalization of the notion I posited earler in repsonse to this thread: As a people, we are not blessed to understand the scriptures because we fail to study them faithfully. I agree with this. Next time you are in sacrament meeting, evaluate each speaker. Ask yourself how effectively he used the scriptures in his talk. Give him a score on a 1 to 5 spectrum: 1=poor, 2=fair, 3=average, 4=good, 5=outstanding. Do this for each speaker and find the average for the meeting. If your ward is anything like mine, the average is pathetic. I just assume that the reason they don't use the scriptures in their talks is because they don't study them daily at home. Even temple attending saints frequently get up in meeting and speak for 10 or 15 minutes without once making a reference to the scriptures. John W. Redelfs [EMAIL PROTECTED] The youth speakers use the scriptures much more effectively than many temple attending Saints in our ward. -- Steven Montgomery [EMAIL PROTECTED] / /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^
Re: [ZION] scriptures are not secular?
I don't think our spirituality is the issue. I think if you study the history of dispensations you will see that things unfold in a certain way, for a certain reason, and when some gifts are no longer necessary they are no longer manifest. Or they are manifest in different ways. I was blessed with the gift of tongues when I was set apart for my mission by my stake president, later 1Q70 Ted E. Brewerton. He explained afterwards that he didn't mean it in the sense of glossolalia but that I would have an interest in, and a talent for learning foreign languages. That was news to me at the time, but turned out to be true. My son was given the same gift, and he now speaks three foreign languages fluently. Because that's what the Church needs now. Jim Cobabe wrote: Marc A. Schindler wrote: --- What would happen if an elderly lady stood up in your next fast testimony meeting and started talking in tongues? --- Unworthy soul that I am, nonetheless I believe I would weep for joy. This really is a hypothetical, sadly enough. We apparently are not currently faithful enough to commonly enjoy such precious manifestations of the Spirit in our testimony meetings. This is simply a generalization of the notion I posited earler in repsonse to this thread: As a people, we are not blessed to understand the scriptures because we fail to study them faithfully. --- Mij Ebaboc / /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / -- Marc A. Schindler Spruce Grove, Alberta, Canada -- Gateway to the Boreal Parkland Man will occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of the time he will pick himself up and continue on Winston Churchill Note: This communication represents the informal personal views of the author solely; its contents do not necessarily reflect those of the authors employer, nor those of any organization with which the author may be associated. / /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^^=== This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^^===
Re: [ZION] scriptures are not secular?
Another thing to contemplate if the higher critics haven't gotten around to this one, let me be the first higher critic of one of them to show how preposterous some of the tales can be and yet I ought to have my head examined for believing it because I have believed these individuals to be real individuals. Can you really imagine Jacob fooling his father like that and getting away with it for even five minutes? I must admit I have a hard time of it. Anybody must realize that the smell of animal hair is quite different than the actual man's odor. Makes me wonder if this isn't symbolic too? How about Leah being given instead of Rachel on Jacob's first wedding night? The same objection. How could he have been fooled so easily? Her voice, her mannerisms, etc. I am having a lot of trouble buying both of these stories completely. Stacy. At 01:13 AM 11/07/2002 -0700, you wrote: Then stay away from it. There are other ways to learn. Stacy Smith wrote: I've read some of the higher criticism and don't really appreciate or like it. Stacy. -- / /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^
Re: [ZION] scriptures are not secular?
Israelites? In what way can it be said how willing and capable God is in helping you succeed in following His commandments? Dan: They overcame the people of Jericho. I do not question that the city of Jericho, or the people of Jericho were destroyed by the Israelites. God promised that He would give that land to the Israelites if they would only follow His commandments. They moved in, conquered the people that were there, and God's promise was realized. _That's_ the principle, I'll answer Marc and Dan together here. Marc didn't address my questions but Dan does. So, Marc, what's your take on the Red Sea, the walls of Jericho, et al? Did they happen as described? Dan's answer has a hint of When the Israelites say they crossed over the Red Sea on dry ground while the Egyptians perished, what really happened is that the Israelites found a path around on the north but the Egyptians got bogged down in quicksand. Dan, if the Israelites conquered Jericho without the aid of a miracle as you hint, then in what way did God help them? Didn't they just accomplish it all on their own? I hope that isn't what you are trying to say, Dan and Marc. If you really do believe that the Red Sea parted by the power of God, then I don't understand your point. I already understand the symbolism and the principles taught by that actual events. So I haven't disagreed with you. I just haven't heard you say, Yes, of course the actual event happened as described. Instead, you seem to be waffling. As to Marc's use of Hebrews 11:1 - we only have faith in real things even though we cannot see them. So we really do need the events. Happening is believing even if seeing isn't. = Mark Gregson [EMAIL PROTECTED] = -- ___ Get your free email from http://mymail.operamail.com Powered by Outblaze / /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^
Re: [ZION] scriptures are not secular?
After much pondering, Marc A. Schindler favored us with: And if they are false in this instance, they may be false in many others, perhaps most others. And there goes my confidence in the scriptures. Even the Book of Mormon has a disclaimer indicating that some things in it might contain human error. It is a matter of credibility. Who are you going to believe? False dichotomy. So what is the true dichotomy in this instance? --JWR / /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^
Re: [ZION] scriptures are not secular?
Mark: I'll answer Marc and Dan together here. Marc didn't address my questions but Dan does. So, Marc, what's your take on the Red Sea, the walls of Jericho, et al? Did they happen as described? Dan's answer has a hint of When the Israelites say they crossed over the Red Sea on dry ground while the Egyptians perished, what really happened is that the Israelites found a path around on the north but the Egyptians got bogged down in quicksand. Dan: Close, but no. What I believe happened was that Israel was _guided_, by God, through that area, and the Egyptians either were not, or were guided to their destruction. Your comment seems to imply that God's involvement was not necessary; to the contrary I know that He was directly involved in their movement. Mark: Dan, if the Israelites conquered Jericho without the aid of a miracle as you hint, then in what way did God help them? Didn't they just accomplish it all on their own? Dan: In what way does God help you day-to-day without the aid of physical miracles? I don't believe that they accomplished it all on their own. I'm not disputing that God helped them - I know that He did, but I think that He most likely helped them the same way He helps us today - through the Holy Ghost. Mark: I hope that isn't what you are trying to say, Dan and Marc. If you really do believe that the Red Sea parted by the power of God, then I don't understand your point. I already understand the symbolism and the principles taught by that actual events. So I haven't disagreed with you. I just haven't heard you say, Yes, of course the actual event happened as described. Instead, you seem to be waffling. Dan: I'm saying that it should not be absolutely _necessary_ for God to have parted the Red Sea, a'la Charlton Heston, to have a testimony that He guided the Israelites across it. The fact that He helped them cross the Red Sea is literal, but the exact means described may or may not be symbolic, and shouldn't be the basis for a testimony of His power. Could He have done it? Without a doubt. Was it absolutely necessary for Him to prove His power to the Israelites in that specific way? Perhaps for them, but not for me. I also don't see this as waffling - just the opposite in fact. Whether He split the waters, or lifted the land, or caused the wind to blow the waters out of the way, or simply guided them through on a path that only He could see; the exact means He choose doesn't detract from my testimony that He _did_ move them from one side to the other. I'm not going to say Yes, of course the actual event happened as described, because it really doesn't matter. If it did, great; if not _so what_. I refuse to stake my testimony, and relationship with Him, on whether the biblical description of an ancient event is symbolic or not - I am concerned that people I care about might reject the Holy Ghost over it though. / /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^
Re: [ZION] scriptures are not secular?
Depends on what you mean by happened. I'm with John Widtsoe on this one. Here's how he answered the question regarding whether the Flood was universal: John A. Widtsoe, Evidences and Reconciliations, p.126-127 = The suggestion has been made that the flood filled every hollow and valley until the earth was a great sphere of water covering the highest mountain peaks twenty-six feet [12 metres] deep, Mount Ararat, seventeen thousand feet high, upon the mountains of which the ark rested, would according to this view have been completely under water. It is doubtful whether the water in the sky and all the oceans would suffice to cover the earth so completely. The fact remains that the exact nature of the flood is not known. We set up assumptions, based upon our best knowledge, but can go no further. We should remember that when inspired writers deal with historical incidents they relate that which they have seen or that which may have been told them, unless indeed the past is opened to them by revelation. The details in the story of the flood are undoubtedly drawn from the experiences of the writer. Under a downpour of rain, likened to the opening of the heavens, a destructive torrent twenty-six feet deep [12 metres] or deeper would easily be formed. The writer of Genesis made a faithful report of the facts known to him concerning the flood. In other localities the depth of the water might have been more or less. In fact, the details of the flood are not known to us. === Furthermore, I believe in the Articles of Faith, one of which reads, We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly and another one of which reads, We believe all that God has revealed, all that he does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God. Furthermore, I would not go as far as Brigham Young, who referred to some Bible stories as baby stories. Furthermore, I don't believe that just because the English language allows a given question to be asked necessarily implies that it can be answered within the terms of the question. That is part of the ambiguity of human language. In other words, I avoid trick questions, whether they're intended as such or not. And, in conclusion, my testimony is something that is a gift of the Holy Ghost, and is not dependent upon the interpretations by man of any record of the word of God. Mark Gregson wrote: Israelites? In what way can it be said how willing and capable God is in helping you succeed in following His commandments? Dan: They overcame the people of Jericho. I do not question that the city of Jericho, or the people of Jericho were destroyed by the Israelites. God promised that He would give that land to the Israelites if they would only follow His commandments. They moved in, conquered the people that were there, and God's promise was realized. _That's_ the principle, I'll answer Marc and Dan together here. Marc didn't address my questions but Dan does. So, Marc, what's your take on the Red Sea, the walls of Jericho, et al? Did they happen as described? Dan's answer has a hint of When the Israelites say they crossed over the Red Sea on dry ground while the Egyptians perished, what really happened is that the Israelites found a path around on the north but the Egyptians got bogged down in quicksand. Dan, if the Israelites conquered Jericho without the aid of a miracle as you hint, then in what way did God help them? Didn't they just accomplish it all on their own? I hope that isn't what you are trying to say, Dan and Marc. If you really do believe that the Red Sea parted by the power of God, then I don't understand your point. I already understand the symbolism and the principles taught by that actual events. So I haven't disagreed with you. I just haven't heard you say, Yes, of course the actual event happened as described. Instead, you seem to be waffling. As to Marc's use of Hebrews 11:1 - we only have faith in real things even though we cannot see them. So we really do need the events. Happening is believing even if seeing isn't. As I understand it, this is contrary to what we're taught in Alma 32, where knowledge only comes *after* faith (see esp. vss. 16-21). Also, in Hebrews 11:1 seeing covers all the senses -- drawing a distinction between the events and the perception of them begs the question. -- Marc A. Schindler Spruce Grove, Alberta, Canada -- Gateway to the Boreal Parkland Man will occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of the time he will pick himself up and continue on Winston Churchill Note: This communication represents the informal personal views of the author solely; its contents do not necessarily reflect those of the authors employer, nor those of any organization with which the author may be associated.
Re: [ZION] scriptures are not secular?
Sorry, I hit the send button too quickly. The false dichotomy is that it's your view or your understanding of another's view. I believe the witness of the Holy Ghost. Period. John W. Redelfs wrote: After much pondering, Marc A. Schindler favored us with: And if they are false in this instance, they may be false in many others, perhaps most others. And there goes my confidence in the scriptures. Even the Book of Mormon has a disclaimer indicating that some things in it might contain human error. It is a matter of credibility. Who are you going to believe? False dichotomy. So what is the true dichotomy in this instance? --JWR / /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / -- Marc A. Schindler Spruce Grove, Alberta, Canada -- Gateway to the Boreal Parkland Man will occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of the time he will pick himself up and continue on Winston Churchill Note: This communication represents the informal personal views of the author solely; its contents do not necessarily reflect those of the authors employer, nor those of any organization with which the author may be associated. / /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^^=== This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^^===
Re: [ZION] scriptures are not secular?
After much pondering, Dan R Allen favored us with: I'm saying that it should not be absolutely _necessary_ for God to have parted the Red Sea, a'la Charlton Heston, to have a testimony that He guided the Israelites across it. The fact that He helped them cross the Red Sea is literal, but the exact means described may or may not be symbolic, and shouldn't be the basis for a testimony of His power. Could He have done it? Without a doubt. Was it absolutely necessary for Him to prove His power to the Israelites in that specific way? Perhaps for them, but not for me. How do you apply this reasoning to Jesus calling Lazarus forth from his tomb, or raising the daughter of Jairus? Maybe these two were not really dead, but by the power of God they recovered while if it hadn't been for the blessing they would have died? Is that what you believe? I personally believe that God performs miracles just like the parting of the Red Sea in our own day. I predict we will be able to see those miracles in profusion as this last dispensation draws to a close. If an all out germ war ever occurs, there will be people dying everywhere of diseases for which there is no cure and which are 100 percent fatal. In that day, the priesthood will have to perform healing blessing far more miraculous than are the norm in our own day. Why? Because in the economy of God's dealings with man, he is not accustomed to doing for man what man can do for himself with a little divine help. After all, it was the Lord who inspired the current medical technology. Why shouldn't he expect us to use it so far as we can? What about the inventions of nuclear fission bombs? Can anyone deny that it was a technological leap forward of such an order as to seem like pure science fiction to all those who lived and died in the pre-atomic era? How about the Internet? These miracles are just as astounding as anything described in the Old Testament. If deBakey had lived in Christ's time and performed a heart transplant on one side of the stage while Jesus commanded Lazarus to come forth on the other side, which of the two would be thought to have performed the more miraculous feat? I feel bad for people who are so adult that they no longer have the wonder and belief that they had when they were children. I am a man who lives in a world of miracles past, present and future. I believe all these things because I choose to. It fills my heart with joy to believe them. John W. Redelfs [EMAIL PROTECTED] === Atheistic humanism is the opiate of the self-described intellectuals --Uncle Bob === All my opinions are tentative pending further data. --JWR / /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^
Re: [ZION] scriptures are not secular?
At 06:33 PM 11/7/2002, JWR wrote: How do you apply this reasoning to Jesus calling Lazarus forth from his tomb, or raising the daughter of Jairus? Maybe these two were not really dead, but by the power of God they recovered while if it hadn't been for the blessing they would have died? Is that what you believe? I personally believe that God performs miracles just like the parting of the Red Sea in our own day. Or what about Elijah's contest with the priests of Baal? Perhaps fire was not really called down from heaven and consumed the sacrifice but it was all mere trickery by Elijah? -- Steven Montgomery, in sarcasm mode [EMAIL PROTECTED] / /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^
Re: [ZION] scriptures are not secular?
We all feel the same joy, John. It might be hard to believe, but the wonder of the resurrection and the atonement, and the word of God through his scriptures are just as meaningful to some of us whose views you might look askance at. Let's just say it takes more than one voice to make a choir, so long as there's the same underlying melody. John W. Redelfs wrote: After much pondering, Dan R Allen favored us with: I'm saying that it should not be absolutely _necessary_ for God to have parted the Red Sea, a'la Charlton Heston, to have a testimony that He guided the Israelites across it. The fact that He helped them cross the Red Sea is literal, but the exact means described may or may not be symbolic, and shouldn't be the basis for a testimony of His power. Could He have done it? Without a doubt. Was it absolutely necessary for Him to prove His power to the Israelites in that specific way? Perhaps for them, but not for me. How do you apply this reasoning to Jesus calling Lazarus forth from his tomb, or raising the daughter of Jairus? Maybe these two were not really dead, but by the power of God they recovered while if it hadn't been for the blessing they would have died? Is that what you believe? I personally believe that God performs miracles just like the parting of the Red Sea in our own day. I predict we will be able to see those miracles in profusion as this last dispensation draws to a close. If an all out germ war ever occurs, there will be people dying everywhere of diseases for which there is no cure and which are 100 percent fatal. In that day, the priesthood will have to perform healing blessing far more miraculous than are the norm in our own day. Why? Because in the economy of God's dealings with man, he is not accustomed to doing for man what man can do for himself with a little divine help. After all, it was the Lord who inspired the current medical technology. Why shouldn't he expect us to use it so far as we can? What about the inventions of nuclear fission bombs? Can anyone deny that it was a technological leap forward of such an order as to seem like pure science fiction to all those who lived and died in the pre-atomic era? How about the Internet? These miracles are just as astounding as anything described in the Old Testament. If deBakey had lived in Christ's time and performed a heart transplant on one side of the stage while Jesus commanded Lazarus to come forth on the other side, which of the two would be thought to have performed the more miraculous feat? I feel bad for people who are so adult that they no longer have the wonder and belief that they had when they were children. I am a man who lives in a world of miracles past, present and future. I believe all these things because I choose to. It fills my heart with joy to believe them. John W. Redelfs [EMAIL PROTECTED] === Atheistic humanism is the opiate of the self-described intellectuals --Uncle Bob === All my opinions are tentative pending further data. --JWR / /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / -- Marc A. Schindler Spruce Grove, Alberta, Canada -- Gateway to the Boreal Parkland Man will occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of the time he will pick himself up and continue on Winston Churchill Note: This communication represents the informal personal views of the author solely; its contents do not necessarily reflect those of the authors employer, nor those of any organization with which the author may be associated. / /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^^=== This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^^===
Re: [ZION] scriptures are not secular?
Good on ya, mate. Have a root beer for me! Paul Osborne wrote: You know what? We could list all the fantastic stories and miracles in the scriptures and especially from the dreaded Bible and explain them all away. Then, we could all just quit the church and go have a beer together and laugh about how stupid we were to ever have believed in such things. Put I'll pass on that drink and keep the faith. ;-) Paul O [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today Only $9.95 per month! Visit www.juno.com / /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / -- Marc A. Schindler Spruce Grove, Alberta, Canada -- Gateway to the Boreal Parkland Man will occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of the time he will pick himself up and continue on Winston Churchill Note: This communication represents the informal personal views of the author solely; its contents do not necessarily reflect those of the authors employer, nor those of any organization with which the author may be associated. / /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^^=== This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^^===
Re: [ZION] scriptures are not secular?
Or maybe, like a good joke, you just had to be there to get it. Steven Montgomery wrote: At 06:33 PM 11/7/2002, JWR wrote: How do you apply this reasoning to Jesus calling Lazarus forth from his tomb, or raising the daughter of Jairus? Maybe these two were not really dead, but by the power of God they recovered while if it hadn't been for the blessing they would have died? Is that what you believe? I personally believe that God performs miracles just like the parting of the Red Sea in our own day. Or what about Elijah's contest with the priests of Baal? Perhaps fire was not really called down from heaven and consumed the sacrifice but it was all mere trickery by Elijah? -- Steven Montgomery, in sarcasm mode [EMAIL PROTECTED] / /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / -- Marc A. Schindler Spruce Grove, Alberta, Canada -- Gateway to the Boreal Parkland Man will occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of the time he will pick himself up and continue on Winston Churchill Note: This communication represents the informal personal views of the author solely; its contents do not necessarily reflect those of the authors employer, nor those of any organization with which the author may be associated. / /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^^=== This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^^===
Re: [ZION] scriptures are not secular?
- Is it more important that the walls of Jericho fell as described, or that the people of the covenant were successful as long as they followed Him? If the walls of Jericho did not fall as described in the Bible, then in what way were the covenant people successful? If the Red Sea did not part then in what way can we say that God's power is great and that He led the Israelites? In what way can it be said how willing and capable God is in helping you succeed in following His commandments? The events prove the principle. If the events did not happen we are left without any proof at all. How much faith would you have in a God who said Trust me but who never did anything that showed He was trustworthy? So far as I can recall off the top of my head, very, very few of the events described in the scriptures were just symbolic. They all happened. God really did create the world, create the Garden of Eden, place a truly and actually naked Adam and Eve there who did eat a fruit that physically changed them, etc. The rib and the serpent may be symbolic, but I cannot think of much else that was. The flood, the tower of Babel with its confounding of languages, the Jaredite barges - all real events. It's just as John said: real events can be symbols themselves. But they would have no power as symbols if they were not real. = Mark Gregson [EMAIL PROTECTED] = -- ___ Get your free email from http://mymail.operamail.com Powered by Outblaze / /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^
RE: [ZION] scriptures are not secular?
Providing authoratative interpretation of the scriptures is one of the explict roles of prophets, seers, and revelators who lead the Lord's people. Followers of academics, apologists, revisionists, agnostics, and assorted fruits and nuts, will be sadly misled. --- Mij Ebaboc / /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^
RE: [ZION] scriptures are not secular?
What Brigham Young had to say about the symbolic story of Jericho: If we are the people of God, we are to be the richest people on the earth, and these riches are to be held in God, not in the devil. God tells us how we may accomplish this, as plainly and as surely as he told Joshua and the people of Israel how to cause the downfall of the walls of Jericho. They were to march around the walls once a day for seven days, then seven times in one day, and the last time they went round the walls they blew their horns with all their might, and down fell the walls of Jericho. We do not understand all about this, if we did, we should understand that it was as simple as any of the acts of the Lord: as simple as being baptized for the remission of sins. (Journal of Discourses, 26 vols. [London: Latter-day Saints' Book Depot, 1854-1886], 17: 45 - 46.) --- Mij Ebaboc / /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^
Re: [ZION] scriptures are not secular?
Gary Smith wrote: And I think that Marc and I would agree. The point we are making, is we need to be careful not to go too far in the other direction, either. We are not like the evangelist Christian movements out there who are literal Biblicists. We realize that the Bible is not perfect (see the AoF that says we believe it as far as it is translated correctly). Figuring out which points are literally true and which are just symbolic is not an easy task. One thing I use is if I find it in the other scriptures (like the Red Sea dividing), then I'm fairly certain it is historical. However, I also realize that the early Jewish scribes had hidden agendas. We know this, because our prophets have told us that they cut things out of the scriptures, changed things, etc. It is also very possible that they may have tried to enhance the story of Israel's origin somewhat, we just don't know. Things changed in the Israelite religion over the centuries. At first, worshipping in high places was a good thing (the Tabernacle was at the high place in Gibeon, for example), but later Jewish kings and priests sought to consolidate power by destroying the high places of Jehovah and insisting people could only sacrifice and worship at the Jerusalem temple. This was a partial attempt to get people living in the Northern Kingdom to defect and move to Judah. This obviously was somewhat successful, as we have people like Lehi (from the tribe of Joseph) living near Jerusalem. This is in fact exactly the political side of the so-called Josian Reform -- Josiah wanted to consolidate power in Jerusalem, and although *all* the high places including the site of the temple of Solomon were by that time desecrated, he declared that from that point on the only true temple would be in Jerusalem, that Bethel, Dan and so on, were to be considered pagan (and in fact they eventually became what we later know of as Samaritan sites -- one sees echoes of that ancient emnity in the NT). For us LDS this is a step backwards and in a way represents an excising of a plain and precious truth. After all, as we'll all soon be learning about in GD, when Jeremiah's advice wasn't heeded and the Assyrians swept down over Jerusalem, he was taken, against his will, to Egypt. But not to the traditional Jewish refuge there, Alexandria, but to Upper Egypt, to what we now call Elephantine, an island, near which the Nag Hammadi scrolls were, coincidentally, found not long after the DSS scrolls were found. It so happens that the outlines of an ancient Jewish temple have been found on Elephantine, so clearly Josiah's reform was wrong in at least some of its details. That it rewrote the Torah with the issuing of a document scholars think is the precursor to the modern Deuteronomy (which was later finished by Ezra after the Exile), is also part of this strange and complex historical soup. It's why I keep harping on the difference between secular and scriptural history. I know it's difficult for many people -- and if this represents some kind of a threat to you, than just ignore it. Don't worry about and consign it to the egghead corner of the foyer. But for those who are interested, realizing that not all questions are meaningful is a step towards a deeper understanding of the scriptures. I don't mean to keep banging my own drum here, but my example from our own GD class last Sunday about Isaiah's winepresses is an example. It's not that the history isn't important, but to get the real message you have to transcend the history. History as we understand it today is a secular discipline, and to pull scripture down to that level is to commit the same error the so-called New Mormon historians do -- those who believe the BoM is not historical in the sense that they believe Joseph Smith made it all up. We have no idea how much comes filtered through Joseph Smith's mind. Clearly the Jacobean language was not in the original as that is an artefact of English, for instance. Some seize upon that as a sign that Joseph Smith aped the KJV. I say it's a sign we should transcend the historicity and read the book for its message. To me the issue of historicity is whether there was genuinely an ancient record (which I believe there was), not how Joseph Smith translated it. For us to get bogged down in modern historical approaches is to play the same game as the anti's who make such ridiculous accusations as the BoM can't be authentic because the ancient Lehites didn't speak French (the word adieu is found in the modern English text). Gimme a break! A study of how he translated the Book of Abraham is instructive in this regard, but that's a subject for another day. We constantly see the kings of Israel rejecting the prophets. Yet much of the Old Testament was written by the scribes of the kings. Clearly, there was opportunity for tampering. We just don't know how much was done, and so must accept the history by faith, until our modern prophetic leaders
Re: [ZION] scriptures are not secular?
He had even stronger language about Bible stories in some discourses. Note though
that the lesson Pres. Young gets out of this isn't that a physical act led to
faith, but that the telling of the story, and the reading of the story, is the
act of faith -- this is what I get out of his likening it to being baptized for
the remission of sins.
Jim Cobabe wrote:
What Brigham Young had to say about the symbolic story of Jericho:
If we are the people of God, we are to be the richest people on the
earth, and these riches are to be held in God, not in the devil. God
tells us how we may accomplish this, as plainly and as surely as he told
Joshua and the people of Israel how to cause the downfall of the walls
of Jericho. They were to march around the walls once a day for seven
days, then seven times in one day, and the last time they went round the
walls they blew their horns with all their might, and down fell the
walls of Jericho. We do not understand all about this, if we did, we
should understand that it was as simple as any of the acts of the Lord:
as simple as being baptized for the remission of sins. (Journal of
Discourses, 26 vols. [London: Latter-day Saints' Book Depot, 1854-1886],
17: 45 - 46.)
---
Mij Ebaboc
--
Marc A. Schindler
Spruce Grove, Alberta, Canada -- Gateway to the Boreal Parkland
The first duty of a university is to teach wisdom, not a trade; character, not
technicalities. We want a lot of engineers in the modern world, but we dont want
a world of engineers. Sir Winston Churchill (1950)
Note: This communication represents the informal personal views of the author
solely; its contents do not necessarily reflect those of the authors employer,
nor those of any organization with which the author may be associated.
/
/// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at ///
/// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html ///
/
${list_promo}
Re: [ZION] scriptures are not secular?
I think your list contains false choices. For an explanation of the difference
between secular and sacred histories, I suggest:
http://www.members.shaw.ca/kschindler/frye_1.htm
Your questions seem to me to proceed from the false assumption that narrative
accounts are to be read in the same manner as modern historical narrative is to be
read. But that mode of thinking was unknown to Semitic peoples. It was invented by
Herodotus, a Greek, in 500 BC.
Stacy Smith wrote:
Then we must ask ourselves if the Biblical accounts are a. Only
allegories. B. Lies. C. Half and half. D. Half truth, half error. If
they are erroneous our faith is in vain. For if God did not intervene in
the affairs of man, our faith is vain. If Christ be not raised, etc.
Stacy.
At 11:33 AM 11/05/2002 -0900, you wrote:
After much pondering, Marc A. Schindler favored us with:
People think Churchill's remark that sometimes a truth is so precious
that it has
to be protected by numerous lies is a cynical reading of history, but
there's a
lot of wisdom to that. It doesn't matter when Jericho's walls came
tumbling down.
It's pretty certain that they didn't tumble when Joshua's account said
they did,
but so what? That's not the point.
I think it makes a lot of difference whether or not Moses was a liar. It
also makes a lot of difference whether or not we may rely upon the Bible
for anything. I understand the qualifier in the Article of Faith. But if
the story of the wall tumbling is not to be taken literally, perhaps we
shouldn't take the story of the Israelites in Egypt seriously
either. Maybe the resurrection of Christ was just a figure of speech.
I think we are in danger of throwing the baby out with the bath water when
we start labeling as figurative those things that might be literally
true. And we need to remember that just because something is symbolism,
doesn't mean that is not also literally true. Literal facts can serve as
symbols.
I would like to see a thread on how we separate the figurative from the
literal in scripture. Do we just automatically assume a thing is only a
figure of speech if it doesn't fit in with our naturalistic interpretation
of the human past?
John W. Redelfs [EMAIL PROTECTED]
===
Atheistic humanism is the opiate of the self-described
intellectuals --Uncle Bob
===
All my opinions are tentative pending further data. --JWR
/
/// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at ///
/// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html ///
/
---
Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.399 / Virus Database: 226 - Release Date: 10/09/2002
/
/// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at ///
/// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html ///
/
--
Marc A. Schindler
Spruce Grove, Alberta, Canada -- Gateway to the Boreal Parkland
The first duty of a university is to teach wisdom, not a trade; character, not
technicalities. We want a lot of engineers in the modern world, but we dont want
a world of engineers. Sir Winston Churchill (1950)
Note: This communication represents the informal personal views of the author
solely; its contents do not necessarily reflect those of the authors employer,
nor those of any organization with which the author may be associated.
/
/// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at ///
/// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html ///
/
${list_promo}
Re: [ZION] scriptures are not secular?
Sorry to reply to my own post, but I should add, too, that Hebrews 11 goes on to show
that it is through faith that the actions of the ancients are well-attested. We
accept the stories on faith, not on historicity, because they tell us something
essential, and that something transcends actual history, the details of which would
get in the way of
the spiritual message, something several BoM authors also complained of. But we do
have to accept that something happened -- it's that the how and when needn't concern
us -- and this is why reading the scriptures by the spirit, rather than by modern
interpretation as the Biblicists, our modern-day Pharisees, do, is not akin to the
modern new
history movement which denies historicity altogether, contrary to what John alleges.
Marc A. Schindler wrote:
Hebrews 11:1 -- that's where we get our faith from.
Mark Gregson wrote:
- Is it more important that the walls of Jericho fell as described, or
that the people of the covenant were successful as long as they followed
Him?
If the walls of Jericho did not fall as described in the Bible, then in what way
were the covenant people successful? If the Red Sea did not part then in what way
can we say that God's power is great and that He led the Israelites? In what way can
it be said how willing and capable God is in helping you succeed in following His
commandments?
The events prove the principle. If the events did not happen we are left without
any proof at all. How much faith would you have in a God who said Trust me but who
never did anything that showed He was trustworthy?
So far as I can recall off the top of my head, very, very few of the events
described in the scriptures were just symbolic. They all happened. God really did
create the world, create the Garden of Eden, place a truly and actually naked Adam
and Eve there who did eat a fruit that physically changed them, etc.
The rib and the serpent may be symbolic, but I cannot think of much else that was.
The flood, the tower of Babel with its confounding of languages, the Jaredite barges
- all real events.
It's just as John said: real events can be symbols themselves. But they would
have no power as symbols if they were not real.
= Mark Gregson [EMAIL PROTECTED] =
--
___
Get your free email from http://mymail.operamail.com
Powered by Outblaze
/
/// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at ///
/// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html ///
/
--
Marc A. Schindler
Spruce Grove, Alberta, Canada -- Gateway to the Boreal Parkland
The first duty of a university is to teach wisdom, not a trade; character, not
technicalities. We want a lot of engineers in the modern world, but we dont want a
world of engineers. Sir Winston Churchill (1950)
Note: This communication represents the informal personal views of the author
solely; its contents do not necessarily reflect those of the authors employer, nor
those of any organization with which the author may be associated.
/
/// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at ///
/// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html ///
/
${list_promo}
--
Marc A. Schindler
Spruce Grove, Alberta, Canada -- Gateway to the Boreal Parkland
The first duty of a university is to teach wisdom, not a trade; character, not
technicalities. We want a lot of engineers in the modern world, but we dont want a
world of engineers. Sir Winston Churchill (1950)
Note: This communication represents the informal personal views of the author solely;
its contents do not necessarily reflect those of the authors employer, nor those of
any organization with which the author may be associated.
/
/// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at ///
/// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html ///
/
${list_promo}
Re: [ZION] scriptures are not secular?
After much pondering, Marc A. Schindler favored us with: That it rewrote the Torah with the issuing of a document scholars think is the precursor to the modern Deuteronomy (which was later finished by Ezra after the Exile), is also part of this strange and complex historical soup. Deuteronomy was written by Moses, just as the rest of the Pentateuch was. It was not part of a strange and complex historical soup. --JWR / /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^
Re: [ZION] scriptures are not secular?
Mark: If the walls of Jericho did not fall as described in the Bible, then in what way were the covenant people successful? If the Red Sea did not part then in what way can we say that God's power is great and that He led the Israelites? In what way can it be said how willing and capable God is in helping you succeed in following His commandments? Dan: They overcame the people of Jericho. I do not question that the city of Jericho, or the people of Jericho were destroyed by the Israelites. God promised that He would give that land to the Israelites if they would only follow His commandments. They moved in, conquered the people that were there, and God's promise was realized. _That's_ the principle, and the fact that they lived in the area afterwards is the event that proves the principle. Mark: The events prove the principle. If the events did not happen we are left without any proof at all. How much faith would you have in a God who said Trust me but who never did anything that showed He was trustworthy? Dan: But isn't faith supposed to be the belief in something _without_ physical evidence that it exists? To insist that the walls of Jericho _had_ to fall a specific way or else all faith is void, sounds very similar to the demands of the Pharisees that a sign was necessary before they could believe that Jesus was the Christ. I'm sure that's not how you meant it, but it could be understood that way. How much faith should I place in a God? If I want to accept Him as _my_ God, that faith should be total - whether He does anything in this mortal realm for me or not. Mark: So far as I can recall off the top of my head, very, very few of the events described in the scriptures were just symbolic. They all happened. God really did create the world, create the Garden of Eden, place a truly and actually naked Adam and Eve there who did eat a fruit that physically changed them, etc. The rib and the serpent may be symbolic, but I cannot think of much else that was. The flood, the tower of Babel with its confounding of languages, the Jaredite barges - all real events. Dan: And if that fruit actually turned out to be a hostess twinkie, would your faith be destroyed? Should it be? I don't question the existence of this world, or the garden, or the lives of Adam and Eve, or that the Israelites made a covenant with God that He did keep. I'm saying that if the description of some ancient event turns out to have been symbolic in nature, it would not affect my testimony of the principles involved. Mark: It's just as John said: real events can be symbols themselves. But they would have no power as symbols if they were not real. Dan: The flow of current in a metallic conductor is an actual, measurable event. It's also understood that this current is the result of electrons passing from one molecule to another. 'I' is the conventional symbol for this current flow, which is understood to flow from positive to negative. But electrons _actually_ flow from negative to positive potentials in a metallic conductor. So the conventional symbols are wrong for the case of metallic conductors; yet we continue to use them. Why? because the conventional models hold true for _all_ conductors regardless of whether the current flow comes from negative or positive charges. The symbols of the conventional current model hold a lot of power for those who use them - even when they don't really match what's physically happening circuit-wise. The tumbling of the walls of Jericho can be seen the same way; it doesn't particularly matter whether they fell as described, or the Israelites pushed them down after conquering the city. The fact is that Jericho was conquered by the Israelites as God promised them they could. / /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^
Re: [ZION] scriptures are not secular?
After much pondering, Marc A. Schindler favored us with: ...one sees echoes of that ancient emnity in the NT). For us LDS this is a step backwards and in a way represents an excising of a plain and precious truth. After all, as we'll all soon be learning about in GD The 13th chapter of 1 Nephi makes it clear that the plain and precious parts that were removed from the scriptures were removed after the record of the Jews went to the Gentiles thought the hands of the great and abominable church of the devil. This would not include the various corruptions that had already occurred in the Old Testament record. After all, Moses wrote the whole Pentateuch himself. Not much room for corruption in that part of the record any way. John W. Redelfs [EMAIL PROTECTED] === Dad always thought laughter was the best medicine, which I guess is why several of us died of tuberculosis. --Jack Handy === All my opinions are tentative pending further data. --JWR / /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^
Re: [ZION] scriptures are not secular?
After much pondering, Dan R Allen favored us with: The tumbling of the walls of Jericho can be seen the same way; it doesn't particularly matter whether they fell as described, or the Israelites pushed them down after conquering the city. The fact is that Jericho was conquered by the Israelites as God promised them they could. We will just have to agree to disagree. If the walls did not tumble, the scriptures have made a false report. And if they are false in this instance, they may be false in many others, perhaps most others. And there goes my confidence in the scriptures. Even the Book of Mormon has a disclaimer indicating that some things in it might contain human error. It is a matter of credibility. Who are you going to believe? John W. Redelfs [EMAIL PROTECTED] === Atheistic humanism is the opiate of the self-described intellectuals --Uncle Bob === All my opinions are tentative pending further data. --JWR / /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^
Re: [ZION] scriptures are not secular?
I Nephi 13 says that the brass plates were *not* the same as what we would call the OT, actually. Furthermore, it says that the GBC in the days following Christ removed plain and precious parts from the *Gospel*, not the Pentateuch. By the time we get to verse 29 it does also include the OT, but it merely says that the GBC would take away plain and precious parts, it doesn't say that what they had up to that point was pristine, or the brass plates would not have been a superset of the OT (see verse 23). I Nephi 14 further explains that Nephi was forbidden to write certain things -- including, e.g., the Apocalypse of John (Revelation). I would point to things like the Johannine Comma as an example of verse 28. That doesn't preclude earlier changes. Did Moses also write the part about his own burial? Did he also contradict himself on the number of animals taken aboard the ark? I realize that some brethren have assumed that Moses was the literal author of the Pentateuch, but that is not necessarily doctrine. For instance, in this last January's Ensign, in an article called Enjoying the Old Testament, we read, 1. The books of Genesis through Deuteronomy are historical books, sometimes called the law. They are also called the five books of Moses because Moses wrote or spoke much of what is in them. These books tell us of the history of the earth as the Lord revealed it to Moses. Genesis begins with the Creation of the world and Adam and Eve. Deuteronomy finishes at the end of Moses life. Note that it leaves the door open by saying Moses wrote OR spoke MUCH OF WHAT IS IN THEM. Also, the Josian Reform occurred 20 years *before* Lehi left Jerusalem. Here, for those who have interest in exploring the topic further, is what the EoM says under Biblical Scholarship: Bible Scholarship Latter-day Saints recognize Bible scholarship and intellectual study of the biblical text. Joseph Smith and his associates studied Greek and Hebrew and taught that religious knowledge is to be obtained by study as well as by faith (DC 88:118). However, Latter-day Saints prefer to use Bible scholarship rather than be driven or controlled by it. The Prophet Joseph Smith suggested certain broad parameters for any LDS critical study of the Bible: We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God (A of F 8). Because Latter-day Saints prefer prophets to scholars as spiritual guides, and the inspiration of scripture and the Holy Ghost to the reasoning of secondary texts, Bible scholarship plays a smaller role in LDS spirituality than it does in some denominations. A fundamental operating principle of revealed religions is that all truth cannot be completely discovered through human reason alone. Without God's aid, no one can obtain the vital data, proper perspectives, and interpretive keys for knowing him (see --Reason and Revelation). Because Latter-day Saints believe that their religion is revealed through living prophets of God, they subordinate human reason to revealed truth.In this latter connection, Latter-day Saints show some affinities with contemporary conservative Roman Catholic and evangelical Bible scholarship. They accept and use most objective results of Bible scholarship, such as linguistics, history, and archaeology, while rejecting many of the discipline's naturalistic assumptions and its more subjective methods and theories. In those instances where Bible scholarship and revealed religion conflict, Latter-day Saints hold to interpretations of the Bible that appear in the other LDS scriptures and in the teachings of latter-day prophets. These observations suggest three basic operating principles for Bible scholarship among Latter-day Saints: 1. Approaches to the Bible must accept divine inspiration and revelation in the original biblical text: it presents the word of God and is not a merely human production. Therefore, any critical methodology that implicitly or explicitly ignores or denies the significant involvement of God in the biblical text is rejected. With minor exceptions, such as the Song of Solomon, which Joseph Smith judged not to be inspired (cf. IE 18 [Mar. 1915]:389), the text is not to be treated in an ultimately naturalistic manner. God's participation is seen to be significant both in the events themselves and in the process of their being recorded. His activity is thus one of the effects to be reckoned with in interpreting the events and in understanding the texts that record them. 2. Despite divine inspiration, the biblical text is not uninfluenced by human language and not immune to negative influences from its human environment, and there is no guarantee that the revelations given to ancient prophets have been perfectly preserved (cf. 1 Ne. 13:20-27). Thus, critical study of the Bible is warranted to help allow for, and suggest corrections of, human errors of formulation, transmission, translation, and
Re: [ZION] scriptures are not secular?
John W. Redelfs wrote: After much pondering, Dan R Allen favored us with: The tumbling of the walls of Jericho can be seen the same way; it doesn't particularly matter whether they fell as described, or the Israelites pushed them down after conquering the city. The fact is that Jericho was conquered by the Israelites as God promised them they could. We will just have to agree to disagree. If the walls did not tumble, the scriptures have made a false report. Or a false and/or limited understanding has occurred. And if they are false in this instance, they may be false in many others, perhaps most others. And there goes my confidence in the scriptures. Even the Book of Mormon has a disclaimer indicating that some things in it might contain human error. It is a matter of credibility. Who are you going to believe? False dichotomy. John W. Redelfs [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Marc A. Schindler Spruce Grove, Alberta, Canada -- Gateway to the Boreal Parkland The first duty of a university is to teach wisdom, not a trade; character, not technicalities. We want a lot of engineers in the modern world, but we dont want a world of engineers. Sir Winston Churchill (1950) Note: This communication represents the informal personal views of the author solely; its contents do not necessarily reflect those of the authors employer, nor those of any organization with which the author may be associated. / /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^^=== This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^^===
Re: [ZION] scriptures are not secular?
Cute, but it doesn't say anything. We've been explicitly told that there are all kinds of things we don't know, that haven't been revealed to us yet. John W. Redelfs wrote: After much pondering, Marc A. Schindler favored us with: It's not that the history isn't important, but to get the real message you have to transcend the history. In order to transcend something, you have to have it to transcend. --JWR -- Marc A. Schindler Spruce Grove, Alberta, Canada -- Gateway to the Boreal Parkland The first duty of a university is to teach wisdom, not a trade; character, not technicalities. We want a lot of engineers in the modern world, but we dont want a world of engineers. Sir Winston Churchill (1950) Note: This communication represents the informal personal views of the author solely; its contents do not necessarily reflect those of the authors employer, nor those of any organization with which the author may be associated. / /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^^=== This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^^===
[ZION] scriptures are not secular?
Originally it was written by Moses. However, we do not know how many iterations it has gone through since then. How often was it translated and retranslated by Jewish scribes. Which version was found by Josiah's people in the temple? There were different versions of ancient writings, depending on whether a person was from Judah or Israel, for example. We have what are now considered the written traditions of J and E (Jehovah and Elohim). Some LDS scholars suggest that the Brass Plates of Laban may have been the E source, as it would have come from the land of Israel and speaks of prophets that were concentrated there. Instead of pushing the law of Moses and the Yahwist/Jehovah-ist belief system, it tends toward the Elohim belief system: high places and altars for worship, personal revelations to individuals rather than a societal religion that imposes revelation on the individuals, etc. Both Hezekiah and Josiah tried changing the Yahwist religion into one of centralized temple worship, removing all other places of worship. Meanwhile, the nation of Israel/Ephraim stayed loyal to the ancient tradition of high places and altars (like Abraham, Isaac and Jacob used), and building two specific altars with gold calves. I have surmised through my studies that these calves may have been representative of Elohim, who like Baal, was represented by a bull anciently (power, reproductive ability, etc). While much of ancient Israel believed Jehovah and Elohim had a consort (female wife), later Yahwists rejected this idea. So there were many ideas floating around. All of these beliefs found their way into the Bible, with only the Yahwist belief, modified by a later Priestly form, strongly surviving into the post-Babylonian exile period. After 500 BC, the prophets were based on a temple-centric religion and taught from that form. Christ and his apostles actually broke somewhat from the Yahwist format, returning to the ancient form (Christ praying in the wilderness, infrequent visits to the temple except for Passover, Mount of Transfiguration, etc). So, it is as complicated as Marc puts it. Interestingly, the BoM supports the idea of it being complicated. The Brass Plates show another version of the scriptures, with additional prophets (Zenos, Zenoc, etc) and a different viewpoint (Joseph vs Judah). Lehi and Jeremiah also preach against the Yahwist religion of the day. Jeremiah praises the Rekhabites, a tribe of Israelites that lived in the wilderness and worshiped as the ancients did, and condemns the way temple worship turned out. We see this same thing occur with the Dead Sea Scrolls, as their Teacher of Righteousness condemns the False/Wicked Priest for usurping the priesthood and temple authority. They go to the wilderness to worship in purity. I see a trendthat continues today. K'aya K'ama, Gerald/gary Smithgszion1 @juno.comhttp://www .geocities.com/rameumptom/index.html No one is as hopelessly enslaved as the person who thinks he's free. - Johann Wolfgang von Goethe JWR: Deuteronomy was written by Moses, just as the rest of the Pentateuch was. It was not part of a strange and complex historical soup. --JWR Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today Only $9.95 per month! Visit www.juno.com / /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^
[ZION] scriptures are not secular?
Matter is not empty. Recently it was discovered that Einstein was right concerning the cosmological constant that maintains the universe spreading out at an ever increasing speed. This means there is an invisible force that acts on all matter. I think LDS would call this the Light of Christ, which fills all space (DC 93). K'aya K'ama, Gerald/gary Smithgszion1 @juno.comhttp://www .geocities.com/rameumptom/index.html No one is as hopelessly enslaved as the person who thinks he's free. - Johann Wolfgang von Goethe JWR: Now if matter is so... empty, if we are really just a mass of whirling atomic and subatomic particles, then anyone with the requisite faith can literally move mountains just by wishing them elsewhere. Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today Only $9.95 per month! Visit www.juno.com / /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^
Re: [ZION] scriptures are not secular?
If a testimony is only based on how often the Lord can get me to follow Him, then I could be in trouble not because of God but because of my stubborn will. How do I know I'm not at fault? My testimony never alone rests on my puny experience. Stacy. At 05:50 PM 11/05/2002 -0600, you wrote: A testimony should never rest on whether or not the sea actually parted a'la Charlton Heston, but on how willing and capable He is in helping you succeed in following His commandments. Hmmm. How about the Jaredites and their incredible floating barges? Could they be nothing but a faith promoting story along with other stories from the mistranslated bible? Frankly, there are stories in the Book of Mormon that I find hard to believe. I accept them all on faith just as I do the stories from the mistranslated Bible. Paul O [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today Only $9.95 per month! Visit www.juno.com / /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.399 / Virus Database: 226 - Release Date: 10/09/2002 / /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^
Re: [ZION] scriptures are not secular?
There was, in the most recent conference, a reference to the Pentateuch (although not by that name) as being by Moses, or written according to what had been passed down to him, so we already know that the Bible wasn't inerrant and hasn't come to us as originally revealed by God -- that's pretty clear doctrine. I think where people get in a tizzy is over some of the modern critical tools some Biblical scholars use, roughly although inaccurately known as higher criticism. To the extent that HC seeks to de-spiritualize the Bible it is clearly wrong, but several GAs such as John Widstoe and B. H. Roberts pointed out that we can make a lot of use of the technique. I like the way Kevin L. Barney, a well-known LDS apologist, put it in his article. I'm going to give a link to a draft of this (I need to clean it up cosmetically, as it's up there basically how my scanner scanned it), and say that I like his approach. But one needs to read the *whole* article -- if you only read parts you're in danger of coming away with an incorrect impression. http://www.members.shaw.ca/mschindler/B/doc_hyp.htm And that's all I'll say on the matter. As the history of BYU has shown, as soon as these tools are introduced to those students who are not yet equipped to handle them properly, some of them lose their faith. And I'd hate to be the means of that happening here to anyone. Also, here's one of Widstoe's tract used in the European Mission in the 1920s, 30s and 40s. He had 20 tracts, written by various GAs, but the authors' names are not on the tracts, so we don't know who actually wrote this. They were used to standardize discussions with non-members and are the precursors of today's formal discussions. But this particular explains that technique and results are two different things: The Bible Centennial Series-Nineteen Origin The results of all sound scholarship are welcomed by Latter-day Saints. Higher criticism is not excluded. To us, however, the most certain fact, the best authenticated and the most demonstrable, is the existence of God. This knowledge can not be laid aside in any human research, especially in Biblical investigation. From the beginning of the human race the Lord has spoken to and inspired his children on earth. Truth has been among men from the first day. He thus speaks and inspires men today. At various times men have been moved upon to commit to writing the eternal truths revealed to them pertaining to man's existence. Thus have come the holy scriptures. The Text The scriptures have been given by God and under his direction; but in the language of man. It has always been so. In this day, the Lord speaking to Joseph Smith said, These commandments are of me, and were given unto my servants in their weakness, after the manner of their language, that they might come to understanding. That is, the Lord does his work in our behalf through earthly instruments. Naturally, therefore in outside form there may be many errors, but in inner substance the eternal truth is preserved for those who can read the language understandingly. This doctrine has been stated in unusual beauty by Moroni, one of the prophets of the Book of Mormon. Thou hast also made our words powerful and great even that we cannot write them; wherefore, when we write we behold our weakness, and stumble because of the placing of our words; and I fear lest the Gentiles shall mock at our words. In such manner has come the text of the scriptures. As these early manuscripts, before the days of printing, were copied by hand, often by unbelievers who did not respect the text, errors and changes crept in. When we say we believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it has been translated correctly, we refer to all changes, in all transcriptions and translations, back to the very original manuscripts. The Church, therefore, is in full harmony with the avowed purpose of the higher critics. Preservation The scriptures contain the most precious truths of humanity. They give the most complete exposition of God's law for human conduct and destiny. Without them, the earth would be poor indeed.It was part of the purpose under which man dwells on earth that the plan of salvation, with its included principles, should be revealed to men from the beginning. The scriptures are as a gift from God. They not only contain the story of man's own devices; but of the dealings of the Lord with his earthly children. Thus our Father in heaven is better understood. Accepting the existence of God, and the doctrine that the gospel truths were deliberately taught to men, it can not be believed that the Lord would allow these precious gifts to be wholly lost, and thus leave the children of men at any time without a witness for him. Throughout the ages, therefore, amidst all the vicissitudes of time, the holy scriptures have been preserved, and though mutilated by careless men, they yet bear amid their human imperfections and errors, the message of God's nature and
Re: [ZION] scriptures are not secular?
On Tue, 05 Nov 2002 00:59:01 -0900 John W. Redelfs [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: After much pondering, Gary Smith favored us with: Archaeology also shows that Jericho didn't have the walls tumbling down when Joshua fought it. I don't believe archaeology knows what it is talking about. The scriptures say that the walls came tumbling down, so they did. And that's that. So how do we reconcile the fact that the archaeological remains down show a tumbled down wall. I think it can be reconciled in a couple of ways. 1) Archaeologists may have the wrong ruins, that is, they are excavating a town that is not Jericho. 2) The have the right town, but all of the tumbled wall was used as building materials for constructing another wall and building homes. 3) After the walls tumbled, and the town was destroyed, it was rebuilt in another location keeping the same name. Whatever the case, there has to be a reconciliation. Or are we to suppose that the bible could be wrong about so simple a thing? If we can't trust the bible on so simple a thing as the destruction of Jericho, why should we believe the story of the parting of the Red Sea, or the story of Joshua stopping the sun in the sky, or the parting of the waters of Jordan, or manna falling from heaven? I consider it far more likely that archaeologist are wrong than it is that the scriptures are wrong. I agree with you on this issue, John. They are digging in the wrong place and have the levels all out of whack. The chronology as understood by modern man is in grave error. Egyptologist David Rhol has made excellent points (with real facts) on how they are digging in the wrong level--in the wrong time. It all goes back to the misdating by modern science. The book Pharaohs and Kings by David Rhol offers compelling reasons to rethink how things have been dated. He has also done a documentary that was on TV. It might be in your library. I doubt you have time or interest but his website is (in case any one is interested and has heard of his work): http://www.nunki.net/ But, to save you time, I wrote a small scholarly paper reflecting (exact points) David Rhol's book regarding some key points of interest on how Egyptologists have assigned too many years to some of the dynasties of late. I highly recommend you read it because it will introduce you to his work which has become a significant force in the world of psedo Egyptology. David Rhol is not religious at all but has interest in showing how the Bible has gotten a bum rap by modern science. His work is extremely compelling! http://www.myegyptology.net/file/id51.htm Paul O [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today Only $9.95 per month! Visit www.juno.com / /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^
Re: [ZION] scriptures are not secular?
At 15:23 11/3/2002 -0600, St Paul (not Minnesota) wrote: Also, maybe our whole religious experience is self induced with naturally occurring chemicals in our brains that make us wishy washy? Maybe the whole thing is a joke? Well, I see it like this. If my religious experiences are all in mind, and the real world plays by different rules, I stick with my own little invented world. The world invented in my mind by thes chemicals include a caring God who loves me and has provided a way to inherit all that He has. He has provided me with a personal Saviour who has attoned for all my sins if I will just follow a few simple rules. He promises me Love and gives my life a meaning. If it is all a figment of my chemically altered imagination, I hope I never stop imagining because a world without these things is a real horror story in action and I don't want to be part of it! Scott -- Buttered bread always lands butter side * Would YOU mistake these as down (Unless it sticks to the ceiling!) * anyone`s opinions but my own? Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Scott McGee) Web: http://scott.themcgees.org/ -- http://fastmail.fm - Does exactly what it says on the tin / /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^
Re: [ZION] scriptures are not secular?
If it is all in your mind, then how about the thousands of others who have not only experienced God but also written prophecies, etc.? Stacy. At 07:36 PM 11/05/2002 +, you wrote: At 15:23 11/3/2002 -0600, St Paul (not Minnesota) wrote: Also, maybe our whole religious experience is self induced with naturally occurring chemicals in our brains that make us wishy washy? Maybe the whole thing is a joke? Well, I see it like this. If my religious experiences are all in mind, and the real world plays by different rules, I stick with my own little invented world. The world invented in my mind by thes chemicals include a caring God who loves me and has provided a way to inherit all that He has. He has provided me with a personal Saviour who has attoned for all my sins if I will just follow a few simple rules. He promises me Love and gives my life a meaning. If it is all a figment of my chemically altered imagination, I hope I never stop imagining because a world without these things is a real horror story in action and I don't want to be part of it! Scott -- Buttered bread always lands butter side * Would YOU mistake these as down (Unless it sticks to the ceiling!) * anyone`s opinions but my own? Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Scott McGee) Web: http://scott.themcgees.org/ -- http://fastmail.fm - Does exactly what it says on the tin / /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.399 / Virus Database: 226 - Release Date: 10/09/2002 / /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^
Re: [ZION] scriptures are not secular?
After much pondering, Marc A. Schindler favored us with: People think Churchill's remark that sometimes a truth is so precious that it has to be protected by numerous lies is a cynical reading of history, but there's a lot of wisdom to that. It doesn't matter when Jericho's walls came tumbling down. It's pretty certain that they didn't tumble when Joshua's account said they did, but so what? That's not the point. I think it makes a lot of difference whether or not Moses was a liar. It also makes a lot of difference whether or not we may rely upon the Bible for anything. I understand the qualifier in the Article of Faith. But if the story of the wall tumbling is not to be taken literally, perhaps we shouldn't take the story of the Israelites in Egypt seriously either. Maybe the resurrection of Christ was just a figure of speech. I think we are in danger of throwing the baby out with the bath water when we start labeling as figurative those things that might be literally true. And we need to remember that just because something is symbolism, doesn't mean that is not also literally true. Literal facts can serve as symbols. I would like to see a thread on how we separate the figurative from the literal in scripture. Do we just automatically assume a thing is only a figure of speech if it doesn't fit in with our naturalistic interpretation of the human past? John W. Redelfs [EMAIL PROTECTED] === Atheistic humanism is the opiate of the self-described intellectuals --Uncle Bob === All my opinions are tentative pending further data. --JWR / /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^
Re: [ZION] scriptures are not secular?
After much pondering, Stacy Smith favored us with: If it is all in your mind, then how about the thousands of others who have not only experienced God but also written prophecies, etc.? Maybe they are all part of my vivid dream? --JWR / /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^
Re: [ZION] scriptures are not secular?
The resurrection of Christ is not a figure of speech -- there is no slippery
slope here. One just has to realize what the difference between sacred and
secular history is.
John W. Redelfs wrote:
After much pondering, Marc A. Schindler favored us with:
People think Churchill's remark that sometimes a truth is so precious that
it has
to be protected by numerous lies is a cynical reading of history, but
there's a
lot of wisdom to that. It doesn't matter when Jericho's walls came
tumbling down.
It's pretty certain that they didn't tumble when Joshua's account said
they did,
but so what? That's not the point.
I think it makes a lot of difference whether or not Moses was a liar. It
also makes a lot of difference whether or not we may rely upon the Bible
for anything. I understand the qualifier in the Article of Faith. But if
the story of the wall tumbling is not to be taken literally, perhaps we
shouldn't take the story of the Israelites in Egypt seriously
either. Maybe the resurrection of Christ was just a figure of speech.
I think we are in danger of throwing the baby out with the bath water when
we start labeling as figurative those things that might be literally
true. And we need to remember that just because something is symbolism,
doesn't mean that is not also literally true. Literal facts can serve as
symbols.
I would like to see a thread on how we separate the figurative from the
literal in scripture. Do we just automatically assume a thing is only a
figure of speech if it doesn't fit in with our naturalistic interpretation
of the human past?
John W. Redelfs [EMAIL PROTECTED]
===
Atheistic humanism is the opiate of the self-described
intellectuals --Uncle Bob
===
All my opinions are tentative pending further data. --JWR
/
/// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at ///
/// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html ///
/
--
Marc A. Schindler
Spruce Grove, Alberta, Canada -- Gateway to the Boreal Parkland
The first duty of a university is to teach wisdom, not a trade; character, not
technicalities. We want a lot of engineers in the modern world, but we dont want
a world of engineers. Sir Winston Churchill (1950)
Note: This communication represents the informal personal views of the author
solely; its contents do not necessarily reflect those of the authors employer,
nor those of any organization with which the author may be associated.
/
/// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at ///
/// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html ///
/
${list_promo}
Re: [ZION] scriptures are not secular?
After much pondering, Stacy Smith favored us with: And the prophecies coming to pass? Somewhere we must come down to objective measurements. Stacy. At 11:37 AM 11/05/2002 -0900, you wrote: After much pondering, Stacy Smith favored us with: If it is all in your mind, then how about the thousands of others who have not only experienced God but also written prophecies, etc.? Maybe they are all part of my vivid dream? --JWR Of course I agree with you. I'm just having fun pointing out how little we can actually be sure of. The whole universe, it seems, is made of molecules, that are made of atoms, that are made of electrons, protons, and neutrons. And the space between the orbit of an electron is immense when scale is taken into consideration. What this means is that most things are more not than are. There isn't that much difference between matter and energy. And all creation has to be held in place by the priesthood and faith of God. Now if matter is so... empty, if we are really just a mass of whirling atomic and subatomic particles, then anyone with the requisite faith can literally move mountains just by wishing them elsewhere. I don't believe that we are just a vivid dream. Life is real. But I consider those foolish who insist that such and so has to be the case because of a, b, and c. The fact is, all Heavenly Father would have to do to totally change the world, the solar system, the galaxy, indeed the whole universe is imagine them differently, or to will them to change. Should anyone marvel that a human being like Jehovah could part the Red Sea, when it was He who put this planet into its present orbit around the sun? In a way, all of reality is merely a vivid dream that God is having, the difference being, of course, that he has control of his dreams while we do not. John W. Redelfs [EMAIL PROTECTED] === Atheistic humanism is the opiate of the self-described intellectuals --Uncle Bob === All my opinions are tentative pending further data. --JWR / /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^
Re: [ZION] scriptures are not secular?
Gary Smith wrote: Elder McConkie wrote that Eve really wasn't created from the rib of Adam, that it was symbolic of their equality. I guess that means it isn't a secular history, eh? SWK also said this. BY was much, much harsher on the 'secular history' of the Bible. I assume most here on this list are familiar enough with his writings that I don't have to use his very strong language on the subject? There is history in the Bible and BoM. However, they weren't written to be secular histories. They were written primarily to be books of holy writings, with history intermingled. A secular history concentrates on the historical side. Had the Bible and BoM been secular histories, we would have very little on the religious information except as it fit into the regular history. Instead, Nephi tells us that his book of secular history was contained on the large plates (history of kings, wars, etc), and the small plates (BoM) were to concentrate primarily on spiritual issues. Is Isaiah a secular history? No. Are there historical issues in it? Yes. But it concentrates on spiritual themes, not on secular history. Same with most of the writings in the Bible, with few exceptions (like Esther or Chronicles). Isaiah isn't even a *sacred* history. It is a book of prophecy, and has to be read in an entirely different way. It is not easy to learn, but let's not dismiss people's attempts to do so (I'm not speaking to you, Gary, on this). For those interested in a discussion of the difference, let me recommend Northrop Frye's explanation. He wasn't LDS, but what he wrote on this topic makes a lot of sense to me: http://www.members.shaw.ca/kschindler/frye_1.htm So, Marc is right. There is history, and these are historical people. But since the Bible wasn't written as a secular history, we don't know how much is actual history and how much is propaganda to make Israel look bigger and more important than it originally was among the other nations. The Bible itself is contradictory. There are two stories of the Creation interwoven, two traditions of God's dealings with Israel, one using El or Elohim and the other using Yahweh -- plus a priestly account, and all this was redacted, or reconstructed during Josiah's time. This was known as the Josian reform and is explicitly mentioned in the Bible -- it is the incident where Huldah finds the new law (a prototype of Deuteronomy, most likely) in the desecrated temple. We know this because others have also produced new laws -- the Temple Scroll, one of the DSS, contains an alternate Deuteronomy, for instance. And Deuteronomy tends to tell the laws differently, or repeat them -- besides the well-known account of the 10 commandments in Exodus, they are repeated in Deuteronomy. Why? One account shows David to be a scoundrel of the worst order, the other praises him as the mightiest king that ever lived (yet we have no archaeological record of him, with the exception of an arguable piece of inscription from Tell Dan). One account says Noah took 2 of every kind on board the ark, the other says he took 7 of each kind, but only of the kosher kinds. Well, which is it? This alone shouldn't lead us to discount the Bible, but it should re-direct our approach to it from the way we read modern history (a concept that wasn't even invented until Herodotus, a Greek who lived around 500 BC), to how to read scripture. And they are not the same approaches. That is a circumlocutory way of re-expressing what Pres. Young said on the matter. The BoM also isn't a secular history, as I said above. There are hundreds of years covered in just a few pages (Omni, Jarom), which isn't usually done in a secular history. A secular history also wouldn't cover so much preaching. Also, it would concentrate on the kings' activities, rather than the chief priests. It is a spiritual history with historical events included. BTW, had it been a secular history, it would probably be easier to find where the Nephites and Lamanites really were on the American continent, because it would have described their cities, rivers, and events better. Note, too, that the redaction process is explicit in the BoM: we have the Large Plates of Nephi, the Small Plates of Nephi, the record of the Jaredites, the Mulekites, and we have a whole line of keepers of the records, some of whom only added a token item such as Behold, I Garyihah, have received these plates and have verily not the foggiest notion what do with them, so I bequeath them unto my bright nephew, Johnihah and hope he hath better luck [tongue-in-cheek, naturally] to the great redactors of Nephi, Mormon and Moroni, some of whom claimed that they could only record a hundredth part of what they wanted to. Some History 101. Fortunately, I'm not called upon to have a testimony of History 101. I do have a testimony that the Bible, the Book of Mormon and the other scriptures we accept as canonical, are the Word of God. But mastery of
Re: [ZION] scriptures are not secular?
At 15:23 11/3/2002 -0600, St Paul (not Minnesota) wrote: Also, maybe our whole religious experience is self induced with naturally occurring chemicals in our brains that make us wishy washy? Maybe the whole thing is a joke? Maybe we don't even really exist. Would someone pinch me please? Maybe our whole universe is just an atom in God's big toe? Careful not to stub your toe, God** Till ** Loosely quoted from Odd Bodkins / /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^
Re:Re: [ZION] scriptures are not secular?
-- Elmer L. Fairbank [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: At 15:23 11/3/2002 -0600, St Paul (not Minnesota) wrote: Also, maybe our whole religious experience is self induced with naturally occurring chemicals in our brains that make us wishy washy? Maybe the whole thing is a joke? Maybe we don't even really exist. Would someone pinch me please? Maybe our whole universe is just an atom in God's big toe? Careful not to stub your toe, God** Till Kinda like Horton--who hears a Who. We are just a speck?? on a Speck?? Sometimes that is how I feel looking up at the vast universe. It is almost incomprehensible that we will understand it all someday. val Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today Only $9.95 per month! Visit www.juno.com / /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^
[ZION] scriptures are not secular?
Elder McConkie wrote that Eve really wasn't created from the rib of Adam, that it was symbolic of their equality. I guess that means it isn't a secular history, eh? There is history in the Bible and BoM. However, they weren't written to be secular histories. They were written primarily to be books of holy writings, with history intermingled. A secular history concentrates on the historical side. Had the Bible and BoM been secular histories, we would have very little on the religious information except as it fit into the regular history. Instead, Nephi tells us that his book of secular history was contained on the large plates (history of kings, wars, etc), and the small plates (BoM) were to concentrate primarily on spiritual issues. Is Isaiah a secular history? No. Are there historical issues in it? Yes. But it concentrates on spiritual themes, not on secular history. Same with most of the writings in the Bible, with few exceptions (like Esther or Chronicles). Adam, Abraham, Moses, Noah, Jesus are all historical people. However, how to know if every story in the Bible is historical concerning them is another thing. Just looking at the many extra-Biblical writings there are telling stories on Abraham, Seth, Noah, Melchizedek, and others, show us that these ancient stories may or may not be true. Many ancient stories about Jesus' childhood are obviously faith-promoting, but false stories. Yet thousands of early Christians believed these stories. Does that make them historical? No. And in this same vein, we are not sure just which specific stories are totally accurate in the Bible. We already know that the Songs of Solomon is uninspired, according to Joseph Smith. But how do we know other issues? King David was historical, however archaeology suggests that his kingdom wasn't as great as it is described in the Bible. Did David's scribes enhance his victories to establish him as a great regional king? Archaeology also shows that Jericho didn't have the walls tumbling down when Joshua fought it. Joshua is historical, but the Bible isn't a secular history. It was written for two things: to make Jehovah as great (or greater) than the other regional gods, and to show the Israelites conquering everyone. But today's evidence shows there was little conquest, and mostly just integration with other Semites/Canaanites in the area. In fact, the Bible also suggests this as we see many nations dwelt in their midst. Dan seems to disappear from the Bible, probably being absorbed among the Sea Peoples (according to Trude Dothan, Philistine and Sea People expert). So, Marc is right. There is history, and these are historical people. But since the Bible wasn't written as a secular history, we don't know how much is actual history and how much is propaganda to make Israel look bigger and more important than it originally was among the other nations. The BoM also isn't a secular history, as I said above. There are hundreds of years covered in just a few pages (Omni, Jarom), which isn't usually done in a secular history. A secular history also wouldn't cover so much preaching. Also, it would concentrate on the kings' activities, rather than the chief priests. It is a spiritual history with historical events included. BTW, had it been a secular history, it would probably be easier to find where the Nephites and Lamanites really were on the American continent, because it would have described their cities, rivers, and events better. K'aya K'ama, Gerald/gary Smithgszion1 @juno.comhttp://www .geocities.com/rameumptom/index.html No one is as hopelessly enslaved as the person who thinks he's free. - Johann Wolfgang von Goethe Paul: If this was so, the apostles and prophets from Joseph Smith on would have told us so. everything I have ever heard from modern prophets teaches that the old history of the world is true and historical unless you choose to believe that our religion is based upon lies, fairy tales, and faith promoting nonsense. I suppose you might also think Moses was a myth because there is not one scrap of credible evidence of Moses or the Israelites in Egypt and I hope you don't choose to argue this point with me because you will loose big time. So beware! Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today Only $9.95 per month! Visit www.juno.com / /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register
Re: [ZION] scriptures are not secular?
That's exactly what I wrote: I *don't* believe the scriptures are secular histories. If this was so, the apostles and prophets from Joseph Smith on would have told us so. everything I have ever heard from modern prophets teaches that the old history of the world is true and historical unless you choose to believe that our religion is based upon lies, fairy tales, and faith promoting nonsense. I suppose you might also think Moses was a myth because there is not one scrap of credible evidence of Moses or the Israelites in Egypt and I hope you don't choose to argue this point with me because you will loose big time. So beware! That's your assumption, but it doesn't say anything about them in the Bible. That's the problem with trying to deal with the Bible as a secular history -- it doesn't fit. Since when does the Bible tell all? I suppose you also think the Book for Mormon is not a secular history too? You are marching on really shaky ground the kind of which I dare not go and the kind which if you werer to teach from the pulpit you would find yourself being yanked to the floor by the bishop. Also, maybe our whole religious experience is self induced with naturally occurring chemicals in our brains that make us wishy washy? Maybe the whole thing is a joke? Maybe we don't even really exist. Would someone pinch me please? Paul O [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today Only $9.95 per month! Visit www.juno.com / /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^
Re: [ZION] scriptures are not secular?
Paul Osborne wrote: --- Maybe we don't even really exist. Would someone pinch me please? --- Sure, happy to-- PINCH! OUCH!! You didn't have to do it so hard, you meanie. ;-) Paul O [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today Only $9.95 per month! Visit www.juno.com / /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^
Re: [ZION] scriptures are not secular?
Also, maybe our whole religious experience is self induced with naturally occurring chemicals in our brains that make us wishy washy? Maybe the whole thing is a joke? Maybe we don't even really exist. Would someone pinch me please? I know I exist, but maybe you're a figment of my imagination . . . ;-) That's kind of what I'm talking about. Maybe we are not even real and that all this has not come to pass. Perhaps our 60x Great Grand Father God is sitting on a cloud in yonder heaven and contemplating the future of one of his grandchildren (Eloheim) and the planet earth. How do we know we are real? This whole thing could be the day dreaming of a God who is looking at the future. The scriptures prove in the revelation saying He lives but how do we know that we really live? Ok, I'm going to go light a candle and some incense and say a little chant now. Ha ha ha heheh eahah ah a. Paul O [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today Only $9.95 per month! Visit www.juno.com / /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^
