Re: [ZION] scriptures are not secular?

2002-11-11 Thread John W. Redelfs
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
==^



Re: [ZION] scriptures are not secular?

2002-11-08 Thread Marc A. Schindler
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 author’s 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?

2002-11-08 Thread Steven Montgomery
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?

2002-11-08 Thread Marc A. Schindler
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 author’s 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?

2002-11-08 Thread Dan R Allen



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  ///
///  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?

2002-11-08 Thread Marc A. Schindler
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?

2002-11-08 Thread Jim Cobabe

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?

2002-11-08 Thread John W. Redelfs
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?

2002-11-08 Thread Harold Stuart

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?

2002-11-08 Thread Steven Montgomery
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?

2002-11-08 Thread Marc A. Schindler
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 author’s 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?

2002-11-07 Thread Marc A. Schindler
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.


--
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 don’t 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 author’s 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?

2002-11-07 Thread Stacy Smith
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?

2002-11-07 Thread Mark Gregson

 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?

2002-11-07 Thread John W. Redelfs
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?

2002-11-07 Thread Dan R Allen



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?

2002-11-07 Thread Marc A. Schindler
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 author’s employer, nor those of 
any organization with which the author may be associated.


Re: [ZION] scriptures are not secular?

2002-11-07 Thread Marc A. Schindler
That your view is the only credible one.

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 author’s 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?

2002-11-07 Thread Marc A. Schindler
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 author’s 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?

2002-11-07 Thread John W. Redelfs
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?

2002-11-07 Thread Steven Montgomery
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?

2002-11-07 Thread Marc A. Schindler
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 author’s 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?

2002-11-07 Thread Marc A. Schindler
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 author’s 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?

2002-11-07 Thread Marc A. Schindler
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 author’s 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?

2002-11-06 Thread Mark Gregson

  - 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?

2002-11-06 Thread Jim Cobabe

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?

2002-11-06 Thread Jim Cobabe

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?

2002-11-06 Thread Marc A. Schindler


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?

2002-11-06 Thread Marc A. Schindler
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 don’t 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 author’s 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?

2002-11-06 Thread Marc A. Schindler
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 don’t 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 author’s 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?

2002-11-06 Thread Marc A. Schindler
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 don’t 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 author’s 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 don’t 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 author’s 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?

2002-11-06 Thread John W. Redelfs
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?

2002-11-06 Thread Dan R Allen



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?

2002-11-06 Thread John W. Redelfs
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?

2002-11-06 Thread John W. Redelfs
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?

2002-11-06 Thread Marc A. Schindler
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?

2002-11-06 Thread Marc A. Schindler


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 don’t 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 author’s 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?

2002-11-06 Thread Marc A. Schindler
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 don’t 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 author’s 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?

2002-11-06 Thread Stacy Smith
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?

2002-11-06 Thread Marc A. Schindler
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?

2002-11-06 Thread Stacy Smith
I've read some of the higher criticism and don't really appreciate or like it.

Stacy.

At 10:51 PM 11/06/2002 -0700, you wrote:


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

Re: [ZION] scriptures are not secular?

2002-11-06 Thread Stacy Smith
On a lighter side of discussion, just for fun and humor I took my little 
electronic device to the bishop one day and told him I had the gold plates 
for the triple combination and promptly showed him my electronic computer 
wherein was displayed one line of my triple combination.  It was meant to 
be funny but who knows if the plates really looked something like that.

Stacy.

At 09:25 PM 11/06/2002 -0700, you wrote:

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 

Re: [ZION] scriptures are not secular?

2002-11-05 Thread Paul Osborne

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?

2002-11-05 Thread Marc A. Schindler
Let me answer using a totally different example, to see if this helps. We have a
tendency to find it difficult to separate the ambiguities inherent in human
language and assume concreteness when it's not necessarily there. I think of
questions of literalness when reading the scriptures, for instance. On Sunday I
kind of lost my patience a bit. My wife is our GD teacher, and she was having the
class read from some scriptures in Isaiah. I can't remember which chapters we
were covering, except that it's in what's sometimes called deutero-Isaiah, the
more poetic writings than the historical ones, and there were all these
references to I have trodden the winepress alone and I
have bled for Israel and that kind of thing, and no one seemed to be able to
synthesize anything concrete out of it other than a bunch of whingeing on
Isaiah's part. So, against my promise to keep my mouth shut and let my wife teach
the class, I finally said, Look, everyone, forget the actual words and images of
winepresses and stuff. There's two things going on here, and Isaiah didn't write
the same way the CBC does [referring to newscasts]. First, the metonymy*, or
physical token here, is actually a colour -- purple -- but they weren't as
specific about hue as we are today. I pointed out various examples in the room of
what purple were, from red to blue**, and said they all referred to the same
thing: sacrifice of the son of a king -- a royal prince/heavenly prince --  for
Zion, a type which would have resonated well with Semitic people but is almost
unknown to us except backwards: by means of learning about the atonement. Second,
to apply this
scripture to us, we have to read it in the 'prophetic future past perfect tense'
that Isaiah often uses in this section: we have to pretend that
Isaiah lived after Christ. Why? Because prophets have told us to read it that
way, that that's the only way the messianic typology comes through.

*In retrospect I think the term I should have used is synecdoche
(sin-EK-doh-kay), but whatever...
*My wife was actually wearing a burgundy dress, the picture of the Saviour behind
her had him in a reddish-purple, almost scarlet, robe, and the chairs in the RS
room where the class is taught are a bluish purple, almost violet.

My wife, bless her heart, wasn't upset, but thanked me.

So. A literal reading was wrong, imo. It often is -- do what I mean, not what I
say.

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.



John W. Redelfs wrote:

 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.

 John W. Redelfs   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 ===
 When you go in for a job interview, I think a good thing to
 ask is if they ever press charges. --Jack Handy
 ===
 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 don’t want
a world of engineers.” – Sir Winston Churchill (1950)

Note: This 

Re: [ZION] scriptures are not secular?

2002-11-05 Thread Scott McGee
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?

2002-11-05 Thread Stacy Smith
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?

2002-11-05 Thread John W. Redelfs
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?

2002-11-05 Thread John W. Redelfs
After much pondering, Scott McGee favored us with:

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!


I agree enthusiastically.  The only logical action for an atheist to take 
is suicide.  Of course atheists are not logical.


John W. Redelfs[EMAIL PROTECTED]
=
To me, clowns aren't funny.  In fact, they're kind of scary.
I've wondered where this started and I think it goes back to
the time I went to the circus, and a clown killed my dad.
--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?

2002-11-05 Thread John W. Redelfs
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?

2002-11-05 Thread Marc A. Schindler
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 don’t 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 author’s 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?

2002-11-05 Thread Stacy Smith
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  ///
/

==^
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?

2002-11-05 Thread Paul Osborne

That's exactly how I see it Scott! Cool.

Paul O


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!


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?

2002-11-05 Thread Dan R Allen



John:
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.

Dan:
There is equal danger in labeling figurative items as literal.

John:
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?

Dan:
The problem, as I see it, of the literal versus symbolic truths in the
bible lies in the history of how we got it. We've been told that it is the
Word of God - as far as it is translated correctly. Translated by who? How
many times? How many languages? How many years was it passed from
generation to generation orally before someone wrote it all down, in some
new written language - subject to interpretation, before they got too old
to pass it on.

The historical literalness of the bible is not as important as the
spiritual understanding behind the events told about.
 - Whether or not Cain and Able were farmers and herders of sheep, and the
direct literal sons of Adam is not as critical as the recognition that
anger and envy are tools that Satan can use to direct our actions.
 - 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?

Personally, my testimony does not rest on whether or not the bible can be
proven historical or not. There are too many years, translations, and
interpretations, between then and now, and too many things that we will
never be able to physically prove - most evidence has been physically
destroyed by time. Sure, it's nice when evidence does surface that supports
some biblical event, but it's not critical to my understanding of His plans
for me.

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.

/
///  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?

2002-11-05 Thread Paul Osborne
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  ///
/

==^
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?

2002-11-05 Thread John W. Redelfs
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?

2002-11-05 Thread Marc A. Schindler


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?

2002-11-04 Thread Elmer L. Fairbank
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: [ZION] scriptures are not secular?

2002-11-03 Thread Paul Osborne
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?

2002-11-03 Thread Jim Cobabe

Paul Osborne wrote:
---
Maybe we don't even really exist. Would someone
pinch me please?
---

Sure, happy to--

 PINCH!

---
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?

2002-11-03 Thread Paul Osborne
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?

2002-11-03 Thread Paul Osborne
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
==^