I really enjoying reading through the Old Testament with the Bible Knowledge Commentary. I actually enjoyed reading the giving of the law in the Exodus and the explanation of the Tabernacle. When they explained the size of a cubit being around 18 inches supposedly. No one really knows what the size is but that's the accepted estimate. I also understood just what they were talking about with the clothing or the high priest. The reason that I understood this this time is that it's explicitly explained in the book. As I was reading about the clothing for I realized that I bought an illustrated book about the Old Testament that probably had pictures that would show the cloths and the tabernacle.
I went and got it it's called "Jehovah and the World of the Old Testament: An Illustrated Reference for Latter-Day Saints." I decided that I'd read the book as well and it's been pretty interesting as well.
Since the surgery I haven't been able to start doing the body weights exercises so I've been riding the exercise cycle every morning and I've really been enjoying the reading that I do.
Friday, October 28, 2011
Friday, August 26, 2011
The History of Hell from Christian History
The Christian History Magazine sent this nifty little book that has snippets of writings of theologians writings about hell throughout history. It was pretty iteresting and it got me thinking about how LDS doctrine provides the "Whys" of theoloty.
Why is there Hell? That is a good question, and I like the answer that John Stuart Mill gives. "I will call no being good, who is not what I mean when I apply that epithet to my fellow creatures: and if such a being can sentence me to Hell for not so calling him, to Hell will I go."
So if we can't say a person is good who would send a person off to eternal punishment for seemingly insignificant reasons we shouldn't then call that person God, and say He is unfathomable.
Here is the problem as I see it. In Classical Christianity God is outside of time and creation and then decides that he will create creatures and a place for them to live. Why? That is un-answerable. But some of the possibilities are that God wanted creatures to worship him. Or that God wanted creatures to love him. Or God wanted creatures to share his existence. Or that God wanted creatures that he could love. However, the point is that God created this existence and the way that it is. So he created hell and creatures to go to hell. He also created heaven and creatures to go to heaven, but again the question is why, but as John Stuart Mill points out the fact that Being that will create creatures to suffer means that he cannot be called good no matter what extenuating circumstances there are.
The LDS view is not perfect but at least it avoids a Being who creates creatures who's sole purpose is to suffer. As I understand LDS doctrine there are eternal intelligence's and matter. These two things are joined and can progress. God is the greatest of these beings and he makes it possible for others to follow him if they choose too. That's the difference in LDS doctrine and other Christian theologies. We believe that for some reason Christ had to offer himself as a sacrifice and He willingly did so because all beings have the ability to make choices. Those beings who choose not to follow God go somewhere where God is not and since God is light and love, if you go where God is not you go to a place where there is no light or love, a place of darkness.
Classic Christianity says that God the Father came up with a plan that required his son to suffer infinite punishment for the beings he made. However the LDS and Christians agree that it is only because of Grace of Christ that we are able to enjoy the blessings of God and not anything we do ourselves.
BYU Studies 5
I read the fifth volume of BYU Studies, but I don't remember anthing special about it except that it had articles with long quotes in German and French. I skipped those.
Sunday, August 21, 2011
BYU Studies Vol 4
I'm slowly reading through the BYU Studies Journals. They're included in the LDS Library 2009 CD which is an awesome deal. It's so awesome that you can't get it anymore. On this blog I'm going to start with Vol 4 because I've read the others already and I'm not going to go back to them.
Vol 4 was for the year 1961-62 and I really enjoyed BYU Studies. It was written in 1961 the year I was born so that's very cool.
It's cool seeing how different the Journal used to be when it was starting out. It seemed to be more oriented to literature and didn't have as many gospel oriented articles as it does now. That's just my impression. Some of the articles I just set aside because I wasn't interested in them, or didn't have any idea what they were talking about. When I read the current Journals I almost always read them all the way through, unless it's really boring or I just can't get interested in what the article is about. I'm not sure what my criteria is for reading or not reading an article is. I guess it just depends on if I like it or not. Some of the articles in the volume were fascinating.
The first two articles "Poetry in the Free World" by Carlton Culmsee and "Response" by Veneta Nielsen were talks that were given to some type of gathering of poets and were talking about the calling of poets and how they are to touch and change the world. They had some pretty good ideas.
"Plato's Trinity And Problem and Promise in University Life" didn't finish reading.
"The War-Making Power: Congress Vs. the President" by Van L. Perkins. This was a fascinating article. It was talking about the Korean War, and the "Formosa" and some islands incident. I was reading this and wondering just where is Formosa, and wondered if it's Thailand and that was correct, Thailand used to be called Formosa which means "Beautiful Island" in Dutch or Portuguese I think.
The fascinating thing about this is that the Vietnam War, or involvement with Vietnam or whatever you want to call it was just getting started when this article was being written. I guess that the author probably knew about Vietnam but I wonder if he knew just how much the article's title was.
The author seems to think that Truman and Eisenhower took to much power unto themselves by their actions in Korea and Formosa. Truman committed American forces before getting the UN OK for it, but doing it seems to have been a good thing. I don't know exactly what was happening with Eisenhower but there was some problem over Formosa, and Eisenhower took a third, and new way than other presidents have done. The article makes clear that the president as commander in chief can use the armed forces in ways that will get the USA into a "de facto" war. I think the author says that this is what Truman did in Korea. Eisenhower however saw that a situation in Formosa was arising that could very well lead to conflict. He did something that no other president has ever done and got a pre-war declaration. In other words he got Congress to pass a bill basically giving the president the OK to go to was with the Chinese over Formosa. Some Senator's said when they voted for this that they weren't really doing anything that the president couldn't already do. In my opinion, and the author says this as well, this would have been a very powerful political statement to the Chinese.
I'd never known this had happened and it really adds new understanding to what happened in Vietnam, and what is happening now, that our Nobel Peace Prize Winning President has used the presidential powers to get the USA into another war.
"Ibsen on Art" This is a translation of a letter and an article by Henrik Ibsen. The person who included it said that the things that Henrik said were meaningful to LDS artists of the time. I didn't know who Ibsen was very well except that I'd recently heard a lecture about him from one of the Teaching Company Sets about Great Authors of the Western Tradition. I also looked him up on Wikipedia.
At the time that he wrote this letter he was the director of the national theater of Norway and he was trying to get more money for the theater. Of course this is always something that a director wants. But the points that he makes are very interesting and applicable. He says that the theater is the combination of all arts. Painting, sculpture or the plastic arts as Henrik says, and literature. OK I can see that this could be true, and I wonder just how much more it applies to movies which is an even tighter combination of all the arts. Although I think the written word gets the short shrift in movies.
Which brings me to the second article "The Theater". This was an article that was written by Henrik early in his career. It talks about the fact that people go to the Opera to listen to the music but not to pay attention to the libretto. The amazing thing is that I know what the libretto is. Henrik says the opera is only great when t
"William James: Philosopher-Educator" by Truman G. Madsen. Ok I like William James and Truman Madsen so I read this article and it was interesting. William James sounds like he was a great teacher and influential man.
"Leonardo Da Vinci–Pioneer Geologist" by Daniel J. Jones This was an interesting article and it sounds like Leo was very interested in geology and made some perceptive observations. However, is he a pioneer if no one builds on his discoveries? We already know he was a great man, now we know he was even greater.
"What is the Proper Role of the Latter-Day Saint With Respect to the Constitution?" This was a series of articles that talked about the constitution that seriously got me to think about what the constitution is and what my relationship to it is. I was seriously startled when I actually considered that the government might have responsibility to take care of people with social services, but it did.
Great series of articles I thought.
"A New Emphasis for the American Dream" by Weldon J. Taylor. This article was very interesting. It was written in the midst of the Cold War and basically it says that America has reached the point where they're able to fulfill the physical needs of most Americans, and in order to keep developing we're going to have to change the work environment of most Americans so that they can keep achieving higher levels of production. The interesting about this article is it is saying things that the article presents as new ideas that might be controversial, but today are pretty much standard. Basically it says that management is going to have to find ways so that workers fill more fulfilled at their jobs.
Tuesday, August 9, 2011
Reading Update
It's been a while since I've done some reading updates. I've just been busy it's not that I haven't been reading.
The BKC, I've been reading it still. Right now I read what it says about a chapter in the OT about every other day, the days that I ride my exercise cycle. The problem is that it's not really saying anything that's caught my interest except recently. I did discover that it looks like the authors is changed on every chapter. The chapter on Exodus is written by John D. Hannah, and I seem to like the author of the first chapter on Genesis. Allen P. Ross wrote the first chapter. I guess if I'm really interested I could look up the authors information at the beginning of the book.
I guess that the reason that I haven't really noticed anything of interest is because of the truly story nature of the last couple of chapters. But it may just be that I haven't been that impressed with the writer. For example, when he was talking about the plague of the frogs he says that perhaps the frogs came out of the river because of the fact that all the fish were dead from the blood of the first plague. That my be true, but it doesn't make much sense. 1. If the frogs came out because of all the dead fish why did they wait until Aaron used his staff? Why didn't the frogs come out of the bloody nile? Do frogs like to swim in blood? If the writer is going to use reason to explain the plagues he should at least make it reasonable.
Also, in the introduction he goes into a lot of the different ideas about dating the Exodus and problems with the different times. That was very interesting, but not new, then he just picks the date that he wants to use and starts using that date. This means that the writer says things like this would have been the Pharaoh at this time. Then he says that one problem we have with the dating is that there is a mistake in the translation of Reed Sea, as Red Sea. He does say that the Hebrews were miraculously delivered, my question is how? If the Hebrews came to the Reed Sea, why were they worried about getting across a swamp? I mean it might be hard to do, but it's not like going across the Red Sea is it. Then what happened to the Egyptians, they all rode into the swamp until they were dead? I guess I'll have to wait till I get to that part to find out what happens. I guess I don't like the mixing of reality based with faith based writing.
However, now to the interesting part. When Moses tells the Pharaoh that he will lift the plague of frogs that the Pharaoh should pick the time so that the Pharaoh would know that it was the Lord that stopped the plague. Another thing that I'd never noticed was that the Lord says that he will treat the Land of Goshen differently than the rest of Egypt. Never noticed that before, but it makes a lot of sense.
I've caught up on reading the Ensign and New Eras. I'd gotten behind this year for some reason and made a point of catching up on all the back issues for this year. I'd thought that I'd caught up with July when on the day I finished with July the August Ensign and New Era showed up so I started reading them again and now I'm done with them. Yeah.
Here's my current reading schedule. On days that I do t turbulence training I listen to the scriptures, one chapter in the Book of Mormon, and the New Testament for the rest of the time (currently). Then when I do the interval training I read a thought from "Come Listen to a Prophets Voice", which is a book by Lloyd D. Newell of "daily counsel and inspiration." Then I either read the Ensign or New Era or the Church book that I'm reading currently. Right now for my morning reading I'm reading "Making Sense of the Doctrine and Covenants: A Guided Tour through Modern Revelations" by Steven C. Harper. Provides background information of each section of the D&C.
On days that I do the exercise cycle in the AM I read a chapter of the Book of Mormon. Right now I'm reading "The Book of Mormon: The Earliest Text" that was edited by Royal Skousen. It's cool, it's his attempt to recreate the Book of Mormon as Joseph Smith dictated it. It has all the grammar mistakes that Joseph Smith made. Dr. Skousen used the original manuscript where it exists, and the printer manuscript to recreate original text. He also uses what he calls "Sense-lines." There is evidence that Joseph Smith would read out a line of text and then make sure that the scribe had the line right before he moved on. In the original manuscript there is no punctuation of any kind. In the first printing of the Book of Mormon the printer edited the manuscript because he couldn't print a book sized paragraph. So Dr. Skousen has re-punctuated the text and gives what he calls sense-lines which is what he things are the sections that Joseph read out to the scribe. There is a fairly large introduction where Dr. Skousen give examples of things that are clearer in the original text. For example there are a lot more "hebraisms" in the original text. Also, Joseph's use of grammar was less than stellar which is what is expected from someone who was probably functionally illiterate. Emma Smith in a quote later in life says that the production of the Book of Mormon was beyond Joseph Smith, and all you have to do is read some of his letters that he wrote himself from this time period, and this original text, and you begin to realize that Joseph had problems with the English language. His writing got better as he worked on educating himself throughout his life. Anyway, I really like reading this version of the Book of Mormon on my cycle riding days.
After I read a chapter from the Book of Mormon I then read the uplifting thought from "Come Listen to a Prophets Voice" then I read a chapter form the BKC and the corresponding chapter from the OT. Then I read from the Ensign, New Era or the Church book that I'm reading in the morning as described above.
Besides all those books I'm also currently reading "Hearken, O Ye People: The Historical Setting of Joseph Smith's Ohio Revelations" by Mark Lyman Staker. The title is pretty self explanatory, are when I'm not reading that I'm reading Vol 4 of BYU Studies on my iPhone.
So that's what I'm reading right now. I just love reading. I also just finished BYU Studies, Vol 50, Number 2 2011. However, it was not very good. Sometimes I love that journal and sometimes it just falls flat. The only really interesting article in the edition was called "Last Rites and Dynamics of Mormon Liturgy" by Jonathon A. Stapely. One of the books that was reviewed was the "Book of Mormon: The Earliest Text." They reviewer seemed to like it as well. Apparently there are some sections at the end of the book as well that sound as interesting as the introductory sections at the beginning were. I'm looking froward to reading them.
So that's the round up on what's been happening in my reading life.
Wednesday, July 27, 2011
"Believing Christ" and "Following Christ" by Stephen E. Robinson
While reading those other books about grace and works I decided that I would reread my personal favorites "Believing Christ" and "Following Christ" by Stephen Robinson. I love these books. While reading them this last time I thought that perhaps I should start giving them out as gifts to young men leaving on missions. I talked to Karen about it and she had the same thought that I did about it. Some mission presidents probably wouldn't mind their missionaries reading them and some might (although I would have a hard time understanding why someone would.) I don't know what I'll do about it for sure.
These books are just too awesome to try and review so I'll just share some stories about them. First it took me a long time to read "Following Christ." I thought that "Believing Christ" was so excellent that "Following Christ" could possible be worth buying, what else could be said? In fact I don't think that I ever read it until I was able to get the PDF version off of the LDS Library and read it on my iPod. How's that for a stupid person? Guilty.
The full title of "Following Christ" is "Following Christ: The Parable of the Divers and More Good News." The full title of "Believing Christ" is "Believing Christ: The Parable of the Bicycle and Other Good News." When I read "Believing Christ" the first time I quickly picked up the 'Parable of the Bicycle.' It's the story where Bro. Robinson tells his daughter in a offhand way that if she saves up all of her money she will one day be able to buy a bicycle. His daughter takes him at his word and starts saving every penny she earns. A short while later Bro. Robinson notices her saving some money from a chore and asks her what she's doing and she reminds him that she's saving everything she earns so she can get a bicycle. Bro. Robinson remembers the promise he made her so he takes her to find a bike and when they find it she realizes it will take her forever to buy the bike. Or as Bro. Robinson puts it, buy the time she's saved enough for a bicycle she'll probably want a car. So he tells her that if she'll give him everything she has and a hug and a kiss it will be enough for a bicycle. That's like the covenant we make with the Savior, except our efforts are even less in comparison to His.
However I read through "Following Christ" and when I got to the end I wondered how I'd missed the 'Parable of the Divers?' This time I was going to pay attention to make sure that I got it, and I was surprised and a little disappointed when I read through it. The parable this time is about a diving competition where Bro. Robinson and his friends are all in a diving contest. They've all had years of practice on the diving boards in their backyards and what not. There is a young man that come from a less well to do part of town and while he hasn't had years of practice in backyards he's got something that they don't have – he's fearless. While they're doing pretty swan dives and what not, he's doing back flips and one-and-a-halfs and gainers and what not, and while they're form is perfect on the easier dives his is not so good on his dives. The scores on the dives make Bro. Robinson and his friends think that they're winning, but when the final score is given the fearless young man has won. Bro. Robinson goes to protest and finds out about degree of difficulty. While the fearless young man might not have scored as high on his dives the multiplier for the difficulty of the dives made him the ultimate winner. Bro Robinson says that we will all be judged on how we handled the life that we were given to live.
I don't know why I missed this. I guess that I thought that anyone that was participating in a diving contest should know about degree of difficulty, so maybe the story just didn't ring true with me, and I didn't relate to it as well as the first parable. Anyway I was pretty surprised when I read it through the second time. I mean I agree with the story and everything it just didn't hit me as hard as the first one on reading through it.
Something else that he said the "Following Christ" really struck me this time. He said that LDS use 'sealing' in the same way that many Evangelical Christians say 'saved.' We're not really 'sealed' yet, but the promise and intent is their and we function as though it is already a fact, and it mostly is a fact. I thought that's a great way to think of it.
One other thing he said that I missed is that when he said some Christians believe in "cheap grace" i.e. that once you've accepted Christ you're not expected to do anything else, but it's not as many as LDS believe it is. I think that I'm finding that to be true.
I give these books 5 stars and would recommend that anyone should read them.
These books are just too awesome to try and review so I'll just share some stories about them. First it took me a long time to read "Following Christ." I thought that "Believing Christ" was so excellent that "Following Christ" could possible be worth buying, what else could be said? In fact I don't think that I ever read it until I was able to get the PDF version off of the LDS Library and read it on my iPod. How's that for a stupid person? Guilty.
The full title of "Following Christ" is "Following Christ: The Parable of the Divers and More Good News." The full title of "Believing Christ" is "Believing Christ: The Parable of the Bicycle and Other Good News." When I read "Believing Christ" the first time I quickly picked up the 'Parable of the Bicycle.' It's the story where Bro. Robinson tells his daughter in a offhand way that if she saves up all of her money she will one day be able to buy a bicycle. His daughter takes him at his word and starts saving every penny she earns. A short while later Bro. Robinson notices her saving some money from a chore and asks her what she's doing and she reminds him that she's saving everything she earns so she can get a bicycle. Bro. Robinson remembers the promise he made her so he takes her to find a bike and when they find it she realizes it will take her forever to buy the bike. Or as Bro. Robinson puts it, buy the time she's saved enough for a bicycle she'll probably want a car. So he tells her that if she'll give him everything she has and a hug and a kiss it will be enough for a bicycle. That's like the covenant we make with the Savior, except our efforts are even less in comparison to His.
However I read through "Following Christ" and when I got to the end I wondered how I'd missed the 'Parable of the Divers?' This time I was going to pay attention to make sure that I got it, and I was surprised and a little disappointed when I read through it. The parable this time is about a diving competition where Bro. Robinson and his friends are all in a diving contest. They've all had years of practice on the diving boards in their backyards and what not. There is a young man that come from a less well to do part of town and while he hasn't had years of practice in backyards he's got something that they don't have – he's fearless. While they're doing pretty swan dives and what not, he's doing back flips and one-and-a-halfs and gainers and what not, and while they're form is perfect on the easier dives his is not so good on his dives. The scores on the dives make Bro. Robinson and his friends think that they're winning, but when the final score is given the fearless young man has won. Bro. Robinson goes to protest and finds out about degree of difficulty. While the fearless young man might not have scored as high on his dives the multiplier for the difficulty of the dives made him the ultimate winner. Bro Robinson says that we will all be judged on how we handled the life that we were given to live.
I don't know why I missed this. I guess that I thought that anyone that was participating in a diving contest should know about degree of difficulty, so maybe the story just didn't ring true with me, and I didn't relate to it as well as the first parable. Anyway I was pretty surprised when I read it through the second time. I mean I agree with the story and everything it just didn't hit me as hard as the first one on reading through it.
Something else that he said the "Following Christ" really struck me this time. He said that LDS use 'sealing' in the same way that many Evangelical Christians say 'saved.' We're not really 'sealed' yet, but the promise and intent is their and we function as though it is already a fact, and it mostly is a fact. I thought that's a great way to think of it.
One other thing he said that I missed is that when he said some Christians believe in "cheap grace" i.e. that once you've accepted Christ you're not expected to do anything else, but it's not as many as LDS believe it is. I think that I'm finding that to be true.
I give these books 5 stars and would recommend that anyone should read them.
Tuesday, July 26, 2011
"Classic Christianity" by Bob George
“Classic Christianity” by Bob George
This is the book that Bob Millet used an example from in his book "Grace Works." I liked the example so much that I looked into the book to see what it was like. I liked the description enough that I felt compelled to buy it. This book is so popular that it has it's own website classicchristianity.org. The book has sold over 600,000 copies and has been translated into a number of different languages. On the web site it gives background about how the book came to be written and there are a number of testimonials about how the book has affected people throughout the world. One of the comments about the book that I really liked (but I can't find where I saw it so this is a paraphrase) was "You should buy this book weather you're an Arianist or a Calvinst. It has a great message."
The example of Christianity that Dr. Millet used was this. There is a house full of people, some of who are deaf and some of who can hear. There is a hearing person in a room that is listening to music on earphones. He has his eyes closed with a smile on his face swaying to the music while tapping his toe and snapping this finger. A deaf person comes in and sees the hearing person and decides that he is enjoying himself so he sits down next to him and starts imitating him, tapping his toe, snapping his fingers and swaying to the music. After a minute he decides that doing all this is allright but maybe all he needs to do is to keep doing it to really get the hang of it, so he smiles slightly and closes his eyes to exactly imitate the hearing person. Another person comes into the room and sees two people performing the exact same actions, but are they doing the same thing? No they're not at all, and that's the difference between someone who is a true Christian and someone who is only going through the motions. I liked that description and still do.
Another great example he had was this. Suppose you own and world famous buffet style resturaunt and you go out back and see a begger who is fighting with the cats and dogs over food in the alley. This man is emaciated and looks like he hasn't had a decent meal in years. His cloths are ragged, he smells bad, and has sores. You call the man over and bring him into your resturaunt and tell him that you don't want him to eat garbage in the alley any more. You say that God has been good to you and you have this successful resturaunt and you want him to eat here whenever he's hungry. The mans eyes open unbelievingly and he asks; I can eat however much I want? That's right you answer. I can eat whenever I want? That right you answer again. I can have what ever I want, desert as much as I want? That's right. Steak? Yes. Lobster? Yes. Suddenly the man gets a sly grin on his face and he asks, Can I eat garbage?
This was a shocking example to me and very apropos. Pastor George says that you'd think the man was crazy why would he want to eat garbage when he could have as much nourishing great tasting food as he wanted? He says that this is the same with the Gospel. If you show people how great following the Savior, or living the Gospel people want to live that way, they’d be just as crazy as the man in the example. The problem with this analogy however, is we know that people do do things like that. They may go back to eating garbage, or using drugs, or cheating on their wives or any of a number of things even though they know they shouldn’t. Sometimes people just need to be given rules to live by to help them reach a point where they don’t go back to eating garbage. Anyway this was a great example, and touched me powerfully.
The whole book talks about an experience that started when Pastor George was on his way to work in tears and was praying to the Lord that he could return to the joyful time in his life when he was a new Christian and the gospel was a joy. At the time we was in full time Christian ministry and the gospel had become a grind in his life. After this prayer the Lord started leading him to a more joyful realization of how to live the gospel.
One thing he points out is that many many scriptures point out that when we’re baptized we put to death the old sinful self so that we can have a new life. Living with the Savior is the point of the gospel. Many scriptures point this out.
Another thing he pointed out was that he often counsels people in his ministry and many people see themselves in a negative life. For example people will say “Hi I’m Bob and I’m an alcoholic.” Or “I’m Sue and I have a big but.” The point is that were all in mortality and we’re all sinners but we should see ourselves as sinners because that’s not the way the Savior sees us, we should see ourselves as beloved children of the Savior who want the very best for us. Many people after they see themselves in this light begin to make great progress.
Pastor George many many times makes the point that we don’t have to do any of the things that he talks about in this book but that we will do them because we love the Savior. His story about the man who likes to eat garbage was one example of this book.
I really liked this book. I’d give it a 4.5 out of 5 stars and would recommend it to many people. The only caveot I would have is that LDS people need to realize that not everything in it is right but there are a lot of great things in this book.
This is the book that Bob Millet used an example from in his book "Grace Works." I liked the example so much that I looked into the book to see what it was like. I liked the description enough that I felt compelled to buy it. This book is so popular that it has it's own website classicchristianity.org. The book has sold over 600,000 copies and has been translated into a number of different languages. On the web site it gives background about how the book came to be written and there are a number of testimonials about how the book has affected people throughout the world. One of the comments about the book that I really liked (but I can't find where I saw it so this is a paraphrase) was "You should buy this book weather you're an Arianist or a Calvinst. It has a great message."
The example of Christianity that Dr. Millet used was this. There is a house full of people, some of who are deaf and some of who can hear. There is a hearing person in a room that is listening to music on earphones. He has his eyes closed with a smile on his face swaying to the music while tapping his toe and snapping this finger. A deaf person comes in and sees the hearing person and decides that he is enjoying himself so he sits down next to him and starts imitating him, tapping his toe, snapping his fingers and swaying to the music. After a minute he decides that doing all this is allright but maybe all he needs to do is to keep doing it to really get the hang of it, so he smiles slightly and closes his eyes to exactly imitate the hearing person. Another person comes into the room and sees two people performing the exact same actions, but are they doing the same thing? No they're not at all, and that's the difference between someone who is a true Christian and someone who is only going through the motions. I liked that description and still do.
Another great example he had was this. Suppose you own and world famous buffet style resturaunt and you go out back and see a begger who is fighting with the cats and dogs over food in the alley. This man is emaciated and looks like he hasn't had a decent meal in years. His cloths are ragged, he smells bad, and has sores. You call the man over and bring him into your resturaunt and tell him that you don't want him to eat garbage in the alley any more. You say that God has been good to you and you have this successful resturaunt and you want him to eat here whenever he's hungry. The mans eyes open unbelievingly and he asks; I can eat however much I want? That's right you answer. I can eat whenever I want? That right you answer again. I can have what ever I want, desert as much as I want? That's right. Steak? Yes. Lobster? Yes. Suddenly the man gets a sly grin on his face and he asks, Can I eat garbage?
This was a shocking example to me and very apropos. Pastor George says that you'd think the man was crazy why would he want to eat garbage when he could have as much nourishing great tasting food as he wanted? He says that this is the same with the Gospel. If you show people how great following the Savior, or living the Gospel people want to live that way, they’d be just as crazy as the man in the example. The problem with this analogy however, is we know that people do do things like that. They may go back to eating garbage, or using drugs, or cheating on their wives or any of a number of things even though they know they shouldn’t. Sometimes people just need to be given rules to live by to help them reach a point where they don’t go back to eating garbage. Anyway this was a great example, and touched me powerfully.
The whole book talks about an experience that started when Pastor George was on his way to work in tears and was praying to the Lord that he could return to the joyful time in his life when he was a new Christian and the gospel was a joy. At the time we was in full time Christian ministry and the gospel had become a grind in his life. After this prayer the Lord started leading him to a more joyful realization of how to live the gospel.
One thing he points out is that many many scriptures point out that when we’re baptized we put to death the old sinful self so that we can have a new life. Living with the Savior is the point of the gospel. Many scriptures point this out.
Another thing he pointed out was that he often counsels people in his ministry and many people see themselves in a negative life. For example people will say “Hi I’m Bob and I’m an alcoholic.” Or “I’m Sue and I have a big but.” The point is that were all in mortality and we’re all sinners but we should see ourselves as sinners because that’s not the way the Savior sees us, we should see ourselves as beloved children of the Savior who want the very best for us. Many people after they see themselves in this light begin to make great progress.
Pastor George many many times makes the point that we don’t have to do any of the things that he talks about in this book but that we will do them because we love the Savior. His story about the man who likes to eat garbage was one example of this book.
I really liked this book. I’d give it a 4.5 out of 5 stars and would recommend it to many people. The only caveot I would have is that LDS people need to realize that not everything in it is right but there are a lot of great things in this book.
"The Discipline of Grace" and "The Pursuit of Holiness" by Jerry Bridges
While I was looking for a book that talked about how evangelicals deal with works I came across the book "The Discipline of Grace" and felt drawn to buy it. I eventually did after reading all the reviews about it on Amazon. Most of the reviews were highly complimentary except that one that said that he thought that it stuck him as being "legalistic."
That's one thing that I've learned in my readings; it seems that no evangelical wants to be "legalistic." In the second book "The Pursuit of Holiness" Pastor Jerry uses the LDS as an example of a "legalistic" cult. Strangely enough he was using us as a positive example of living the Word of Wisdom. He said that if we could live exemplary lives and we were members of a cult then surely real Christians could as well.
I bought "The Discipline of Grace" and I really liked it. Nothing in the book was talked about that couldn't have been talked about in Sunday School, of course we'd use scriptures from the modern revelations as well but that would be about the only difference. This book really struck me and opened my eyes. For some reason I'd thought that all evangelicals believe in "cheap grace," totally forgetting about the Arianism debates in Calvinism.
In reading about the author at the end of the book it turns out "The Pursuit of Holiness" is probably his most popular book. The review said that the book had sold over a million copies and is something of a classic. I decided that I would buy it as well.
I liked this book as well especially the part I talked about above. I like him pointing out Exo 11:44 "...ye shall sanctify yourselves, and ye shall be holy; for I am holy:" Great scripture. Pastor Jerry points out in this and other scriptures the command is “...sanctify yourself...” as in we need to take part in the process.
I don't remember him ever talking about the scriptures talking about us being judged by our works. But I do know that he quoted the Savior as saying a number of times "Believe on me." I've actually thought about this, that the Savior said this, but in the cases that I can think of he says something like "Whosoever believeth in me and is baptized" so it seems to me that it is usually combined with an action. That seems to me how it works.
Anyway I liked both of these books and would rate them both a 4 out of 5 stars.
That's one thing that I've learned in my readings; it seems that no evangelical wants to be "legalistic." In the second book "The Pursuit of Holiness" Pastor Jerry uses the LDS as an example of a "legalistic" cult. Strangely enough he was using us as a positive example of living the Word of Wisdom. He said that if we could live exemplary lives and we were members of a cult then surely real Christians could as well.
I bought "The Discipline of Grace" and I really liked it. Nothing in the book was talked about that couldn't have been talked about in Sunday School, of course we'd use scriptures from the modern revelations as well but that would be about the only difference. This book really struck me and opened my eyes. For some reason I'd thought that all evangelicals believe in "cheap grace," totally forgetting about the Arianism debates in Calvinism.
In reading about the author at the end of the book it turns out "The Pursuit of Holiness" is probably his most popular book. The review said that the book had sold over a million copies and is something of a classic. I decided that I would buy it as well.
I liked this book as well especially the part I talked about above. I like him pointing out Exo 11:44 "...ye shall sanctify yourselves, and ye shall be holy; for I am holy:" Great scripture. Pastor Jerry points out in this and other scriptures the command is “...sanctify yourself...” as in we need to take part in the process.
I don't remember him ever talking about the scriptures talking about us being judged by our works. But I do know that he quoted the Savior as saying a number of times "Believe on me." I've actually thought about this, that the Savior said this, but in the cases that I can think of he says something like "Whosoever believeth in me and is baptized" so it seems to me that it is usually combined with an action. That seems to me how it works.
Anyway I liked both of these books and would rate them both a 4 out of 5 stars.
Sunday, July 24, 2011
"Grace Works" by Robert Millet
While I was doing all this reading about grace and what not I came across this book "Grace Works" by Robert Millet. Now I don't usually like reading Dr. Millet's books, and I've never been able to figure out why I don't, but I don't. I decided that I would go ahead and buy this book and reconsider. It was an alright book, but still I just don't like the way that Dr. Millet writes.
I did like something that Dr. Millet said. He said what if we had the Church with all the temples, and ordinances and the organizations and everything, but there was no atonement? Would the Church save us. No of course not only the atonement saves us. Great point.
It's not a bad book and it talked about this one example that he got from a book call "Classic Christianity" that I really liked.
I'd give this a 3 out of 5 stars.
I did like something that Dr. Millet said. He said what if we had the Church with all the temples, and ordinances and the organizations and everything, but there was no atonement? Would the Church save us. No of course not only the atonement saves us. Great point.
It's not a bad book and it talked about this one example that he got from a book call "Classic Christianity" that I really liked.
I'd give this a 3 out of 5 stars.
Friday, July 22, 2011
"Simply Christian" by N. T. Wright
Bishop Wright is an interesting writer. I first heard about him when I started getting interested in the New Paul Perspective (NPP). He was influential in that field. The interesting thing that I found out about Bishop Wright was that he was also active in the "Third Wave" of the historical Jesus movement. If I remember right the "First Wave" was the traditional wave where the Jesus of the New Testament was accepted. The "Second Wave" was when scholars started subjecting Jesus and the New Testament to historical research. Unfortunately this sort of scrutiny mostly does away with the miraculous and Jesus become an itinerant Jewish Rabi and not the Son of God, Creator and Savior of the World. The "Third Wave" is a response where Jesus is placed in historical context but still considered divine.
Bishop Wright had an interesting book about the historical Jesus, but I can't remember it title now, however his main thesis was that Jesus positioned himself as taking the place of the Temple in Jewish thinking. It's a little more in depth than that but that's what I remember. I do remember that I liked the book. (I tired to find the title of the book on Amazon. Man Bishop Wright has written a lot of books and nothing jumped out at me.) I can remember reading something that said that Bishop Wright was very popular with many evangelicals because of his writings on the historical Jesus, but then he upset many of those people when he started writing about the NPP. I also read a NPP book by him but only remember that it was interesting and can't remember anything that jumped out at me. I do remember that after I read the book I started thinking that Paul probably thought of himself as an observant Jew to the day he died, he just considered himself to be a correctly observant Jew, like the LDS consider ourselves to be the correct Christians.
Anyway when I bought those books there was another book called "Simply Christian" on Amazon that looked interesting so I bought 3 N. T. Wright books. I remember someone on the Amazon page comparing "Simply Christian" to C.S. Lewis' "Mere Christianity." Well I remember reading the first chapter and thinking that it was going to be a rewrite of C.S. Lewis and stopped reading it. What a dope I can be at times.
Basically Bishop Wright says that there are four longings in humans that are fulfilled in Jesus. These are a longing for Justice, for Spirituality, for Beauty and for Companionship. The first four chapters lay out how those longings manifest themselves and the rest of the book shows how Jesus fulfills them.
The idea that there is some human concept of Justice is manifest when you go to a playground and watch kids play and one child will wail "It's not fair!" Generally if an adult is around he'll tell the child that he's right it's not fair, and that we live in a fallen world that's unfair. We don't generally say it that way, but that's the point that we're making. However N.T. Wright says that they fact that the child knows instinctively that that things should be fair shows that their is a standard of fairness that everyone understands because the child is not taught that, we adults do our best to disabuse the kids of the their instinctual quest for fairness. Unfortunately C.S. Lewis used this same example and so I just thought that Bishop Wright was ripping him off.
He wasn't really, it's just that that's a true observation and both men see it. Bishop Wright then goes on to say similar things about the quest for beauty, companionship and spirituality. I'd never really considered the quest for companionship as being an indication of divinity within us. Bishop Wright talks about how we show this desire for companionship. One of his interesting examples is that people continue to get married even though they know that there's a good chance they're going to be divorced, something still drives them to want that close companionship with others. I thought that was a profound thought, especially because Bishop Wright has to go on and say that we want that companionship even though we can't have eternal companionship with anyone except the Savior. Now that's profoundly said that Bishop Wright notices that we're driven by something to seek out close companionship with others, and he doesn't know anything about the sealing power of God, and just how truly indicative that desire if of a loving Eternal Heavenly Father, and His Son. We can in fact have eternal companionship with others, and with the Savior and the Father as well.
It was an interesting book, but I think that I'd only give it about 3 stars out of 5.
Bishop Wright had an interesting book about the historical Jesus, but I can't remember it title now, however his main thesis was that Jesus positioned himself as taking the place of the Temple in Jewish thinking. It's a little more in depth than that but that's what I remember. I do remember that I liked the book. (I tired to find the title of the book on Amazon. Man Bishop Wright has written a lot of books and nothing jumped out at me.) I can remember reading something that said that Bishop Wright was very popular with many evangelicals because of his writings on the historical Jesus, but then he upset many of those people when he started writing about the NPP. I also read a NPP book by him but only remember that it was interesting and can't remember anything that jumped out at me. I do remember that after I read the book I started thinking that Paul probably thought of himself as an observant Jew to the day he died, he just considered himself to be a correctly observant Jew, like the LDS consider ourselves to be the correct Christians.
Anyway when I bought those books there was another book called "Simply Christian" on Amazon that looked interesting so I bought 3 N. T. Wright books. I remember someone on the Amazon page comparing "Simply Christian" to C.S. Lewis' "Mere Christianity." Well I remember reading the first chapter and thinking that it was going to be a rewrite of C.S. Lewis and stopped reading it. What a dope I can be at times.
Basically Bishop Wright says that there are four longings in humans that are fulfilled in Jesus. These are a longing for Justice, for Spirituality, for Beauty and for Companionship. The first four chapters lay out how those longings manifest themselves and the rest of the book shows how Jesus fulfills them.
The idea that there is some human concept of Justice is manifest when you go to a playground and watch kids play and one child will wail "It's not fair!" Generally if an adult is around he'll tell the child that he's right it's not fair, and that we live in a fallen world that's unfair. We don't generally say it that way, but that's the point that we're making. However N.T. Wright says that they fact that the child knows instinctively that that things should be fair shows that their is a standard of fairness that everyone understands because the child is not taught that, we adults do our best to disabuse the kids of the their instinctual quest for fairness. Unfortunately C.S. Lewis used this same example and so I just thought that Bishop Wright was ripping him off.
He wasn't really, it's just that that's a true observation and both men see it. Bishop Wright then goes on to say similar things about the quest for beauty, companionship and spirituality. I'd never really considered the quest for companionship as being an indication of divinity within us. Bishop Wright talks about how we show this desire for companionship. One of his interesting examples is that people continue to get married even though they know that there's a good chance they're going to be divorced, something still drives them to want that close companionship with others. I thought that was a profound thought, especially because Bishop Wright has to go on and say that we want that companionship even though we can't have eternal companionship with anyone except the Savior. Now that's profoundly said that Bishop Wright notices that we're driven by something to seek out close companionship with others, and he doesn't know anything about the sealing power of God, and just how truly indicative that desire if of a loving Eternal Heavenly Father, and His Son. We can in fact have eternal companionship with others, and with the Savior and the Father as well.
It was an interesting book, but I think that I'd only give it about 3 stars out of 5.
Wednesday, July 20, 2011
"Cost of Discipleship" by Dietrich Bonhoeffer
I've been having this compulsion to read about how grace and works go together. Actually what has compelled me is to find out how those who say that "We're saved by grace." Well actually LDS say that as well, but some people seem to say that after you accept the Savior there's nothing else that you need to do. What I'd really like to find is a book that explains how they explain the scriptures where it clearly states that we will be judged by our works.
For some reason I remembered this book "Cost of Discipleship" by Dietrich Bonhoeffer. Dietrich Bonhoeffer was a German theologian that was one of the founders of the Confessing Church in Germany. The Nazi's co-opted the Lutheran State Church during the 30's and started Nazifying it. Dietrich and others then started the Confessing Church as a protest against what was going on. He wrote this book in 1937 I believe (I've returned it to the library so I'm working from memory here) and he was already being scrutinized heavily by the Nazi's. He protested the Nazis and worked against them as much as he could. Friends got him out of Germany in 1939 because they feared for him. However, he felt that if he was going to help rebuild the German Church after the war he had to be with his brothers and sisters during their darkest hours so he went back to Germany. He was arrested in 1943. He so impressed his guards that they smuggled papers and writing instruments into him and smuggled what he wrote out. That is how we have his "Letter and Papers from Prison" which is a famous book. I'm considering reading it. He was linked, somehow, to the conspirators who tried to kill Hitler. He was executed on orders Himmler about two week before the concentration camp he was in was liberated by the American infantry. He's a true martyr, so reading a book like the "Cost of Discipleship" when you know that the writer was willing to pay the ultimate cost for discipleship puts a whole new spin on reading the book.
When Dietrich was young he spent some time in America in Harlem where is met a black pastor that introduced him to Abyssinian Baptist Church where he taught a sunday school class. He is said to have had a profound religious experience while he was in America. It was a pastor in that church that introduced him to the term 'cheap grace.'
In his book at one place he has a quote (paraphrasing) "Grace isn't cheap it cost the most precious blood in existence." I don't think that it's putting it too strongly to say that Dietrich felt that cheap grace was a heresy and was destroying the Christian Church.
Some of the things he said touched me very deeply. For example said that the essence of Christ's message was "Come follow me" and that when he said that to Peter and John they immediately left all and followed Christ which is something that we in the modern world find incomprehensible. That pierced my heart because I've always thought that there had to be more to the story than Jesus saying "Come follow me." and them following him. It was incomprehensible to me. What idiot just follows another person when he says "Come follow me?" Well in our materialistic oriented world it makes no sense at all but that is what we're supposed to do. When Peter saw the Savior walking on the water and he wanted to go to him he said "Lord bid me to come to you" and the Savior said "Come" and Peter did. What faith.
I assume that Dietrich was Lutheran, being a Protestant German. He points out that Luther followed the Savior's admonition to "Follow me" twice in his life. First when he went into the Augustine Monastery and second when he felt that the Lord was calling him to "be in the world but not of it." I've never really considered how much faith it would take to go from being a cloistered monk to being a Pastor of a church but it would take an immense amount of faith, especially when your fighting established society every step of the way.
Dietrich points out that in the Medieval Church there were two levels of Christianity. Everyday Christianity and the "professional" Christians, those who became full time Christians such as priests, monks and nuns. However, Luther thought that the Lord was calling everyone equally and that a brick maker could be called to follow the Savior while making bricks; that there shouldn't be this tiered Christianity. Luther was truly a great man, I keep thinking that I should maybe read some of the stuff that he wrote, but I'm not sure that I'm ready for such thick theological writings. I also think I should read Calvin's writings as well but the same apprehensions apply.
The central portion of the book goes through the Sermon on the Mount very in depth. He said that when Jesus says that he did not come to destroy the law but to fulfill, far from saying that the moral portion of the Jewish law were no longer in force Jesus was strengthening it. He certainly went beyond what was expected in the law during the Sermon.
He also talked about something I've never thought about. First the Savior says that we must be a light to the world. This isn't something we can choose or not choose to do, it is our responsibility. Be a light, be the salt of the Earth. Then in the very next portion of the Sermon he says that we should do all that we do in secret. Our left hand shouldn't know what our right hand is doing. So how are we to be a light and at the same time do everything in secret?
One thing that I found interesting is that this book was written to other pastors, more so than most books that I've read. Towards the end of the book he talked about the need of being able to have and enforce discipline in a Church. He ultimately said something that sounds very much like what is said about an excommunication in the LDS Church. Ultimately taking away someone's membership is a way to get their attention and allow them to repent.
I'm really considering reading his book "Letters and Papers from Prison" but will probably wait to see if I can find it at the library.
I liked this book and would recommend it to anyone. I would rank it a 4 out of 5 stars
For some reason I remembered this book "Cost of Discipleship" by Dietrich Bonhoeffer. Dietrich Bonhoeffer was a German theologian that was one of the founders of the Confessing Church in Germany. The Nazi's co-opted the Lutheran State Church during the 30's and started Nazifying it. Dietrich and others then started the Confessing Church as a protest against what was going on. He wrote this book in 1937 I believe (I've returned it to the library so I'm working from memory here) and he was already being scrutinized heavily by the Nazi's. He protested the Nazis and worked against them as much as he could. Friends got him out of Germany in 1939 because they feared for him. However, he felt that if he was going to help rebuild the German Church after the war he had to be with his brothers and sisters during their darkest hours so he went back to Germany. He was arrested in 1943. He so impressed his guards that they smuggled papers and writing instruments into him and smuggled what he wrote out. That is how we have his "Letter and Papers from Prison" which is a famous book. I'm considering reading it. He was linked, somehow, to the conspirators who tried to kill Hitler. He was executed on orders Himmler about two week before the concentration camp he was in was liberated by the American infantry. He's a true martyr, so reading a book like the "Cost of Discipleship" when you know that the writer was willing to pay the ultimate cost for discipleship puts a whole new spin on reading the book.
When Dietrich was young he spent some time in America in Harlem where is met a black pastor that introduced him to Abyssinian Baptist Church where he taught a sunday school class. He is said to have had a profound religious experience while he was in America. It was a pastor in that church that introduced him to the term 'cheap grace.'
In his book at one place he has a quote (paraphrasing) "Grace isn't cheap it cost the most precious blood in existence." I don't think that it's putting it too strongly to say that Dietrich felt that cheap grace was a heresy and was destroying the Christian Church.
Some of the things he said touched me very deeply. For example said that the essence of Christ's message was "Come follow me" and that when he said that to Peter and John they immediately left all and followed Christ which is something that we in the modern world find incomprehensible. That pierced my heart because I've always thought that there had to be more to the story than Jesus saying "Come follow me." and them following him. It was incomprehensible to me. What idiot just follows another person when he says "Come follow me?" Well in our materialistic oriented world it makes no sense at all but that is what we're supposed to do. When Peter saw the Savior walking on the water and he wanted to go to him he said "Lord bid me to come to you" and the Savior said "Come" and Peter did. What faith.
I assume that Dietrich was Lutheran, being a Protestant German. He points out that Luther followed the Savior's admonition to "Follow me" twice in his life. First when he went into the Augustine Monastery and second when he felt that the Lord was calling him to "be in the world but not of it." I've never really considered how much faith it would take to go from being a cloistered monk to being a Pastor of a church but it would take an immense amount of faith, especially when your fighting established society every step of the way.
Dietrich points out that in the Medieval Church there were two levels of Christianity. Everyday Christianity and the "professional" Christians, those who became full time Christians such as priests, monks and nuns. However, Luther thought that the Lord was calling everyone equally and that a brick maker could be called to follow the Savior while making bricks; that there shouldn't be this tiered Christianity. Luther was truly a great man, I keep thinking that I should maybe read some of the stuff that he wrote, but I'm not sure that I'm ready for such thick theological writings. I also think I should read Calvin's writings as well but the same apprehensions apply.
The central portion of the book goes through the Sermon on the Mount very in depth. He said that when Jesus says that he did not come to destroy the law but to fulfill, far from saying that the moral portion of the Jewish law were no longer in force Jesus was strengthening it. He certainly went beyond what was expected in the law during the Sermon.
He also talked about something I've never thought about. First the Savior says that we must be a light to the world. This isn't something we can choose or not choose to do, it is our responsibility. Be a light, be the salt of the Earth. Then in the very next portion of the Sermon he says that we should do all that we do in secret. Our left hand shouldn't know what our right hand is doing. So how are we to be a light and at the same time do everything in secret?
One thing that I found interesting is that this book was written to other pastors, more so than most books that I've read. Towards the end of the book he talked about the need of being able to have and enforce discipline in a Church. He ultimately said something that sounds very much like what is said about an excommunication in the LDS Church. Ultimately taking away someone's membership is a way to get their attention and allow them to repent.
I'm really considering reading his book "Letters and Papers from Prison" but will probably wait to see if I can find it at the library.
I liked this book and would recommend it to anyone. I would rank it a 4 out of 5 stars
Monday, July 18, 2011
I've Been Pondering My Reaction to the BKC
I've been pondering my reactions to the Bible Knowledge Commentary (BKC). Overall I think that it's a great book and I've been getting a lot of insights out of it, but I've been considering some of the things that it seems to be making a point of.
First I guess that I read it with a chip on my shoulder. When it says things about how the patriarchs take multiple wives, but only because it's the tradition of the people that they're around. To me that seems to be reading things into the Bible that aren't there, but then I guess that perhaps I might be accused of that as well.
Another thing that really bothers me is they way that the BKC seems to keep harping on the weaknesses of the patriarchs. However, they are are humans and have human weaknesses, perhaps I should be more willing to see that they are humans and as such are people in need of the Savior, and this shows that the Lord is willing to work with people who might have problems.
Another thing hit me while I was pondering about this. While I was reading a Rodney Stark book he pointed out that it seems to be a Semitic trait to just point out everything about their heros. So the Muslims have no problem pointing out that Mohammad was a bandit, and that he massacred Jews, that's just who he was. The Jews also have no problem pointing out that Rueben and his brothers massacred a city of people for raping their sister, or that Judah needed to be tricked into keeping that family line alive, or on and on. Especially saying that they're entire nation was a nation of slaves at one point.
Another thing that has really been brought home to me recently is how far the Greek/Christian metaphysical view of God is different from the Jewish view of God. The Jews tell a story about the Creator that is active and involved in their lives. The Mormons do as well, and say that it really is true what the Bible says about us being children of a Heavenly Father, created in his image. That is a wonderful teaching to myself, and it upsets me that others don't understand it, or worse consider it blasphemy. I guess that I just need to find a way to better explain it to people when it comes up.
I'm excited to be getting to other parts of the Bible with this book. It's going to be a long project, and I'm sure that I'm going to find many many new ideas.
First I guess that I read it with a chip on my shoulder. When it says things about how the patriarchs take multiple wives, but only because it's the tradition of the people that they're around. To me that seems to be reading things into the Bible that aren't there, but then I guess that perhaps I might be accused of that as well.
Another thing that really bothers me is they way that the BKC seems to keep harping on the weaknesses of the patriarchs. However, they are are humans and have human weaknesses, perhaps I should be more willing to see that they are humans and as such are people in need of the Savior, and this shows that the Lord is willing to work with people who might have problems.
Another thing hit me while I was pondering about this. While I was reading a Rodney Stark book he pointed out that it seems to be a Semitic trait to just point out everything about their heros. So the Muslims have no problem pointing out that Mohammad was a bandit, and that he massacred Jews, that's just who he was. The Jews also have no problem pointing out that Rueben and his brothers massacred a city of people for raping their sister, or that Judah needed to be tricked into keeping that family line alive, or on and on. Especially saying that they're entire nation was a nation of slaves at one point.
Another thing that has really been brought home to me recently is how far the Greek/Christian metaphysical view of God is different from the Jewish view of God. The Jews tell a story about the Creator that is active and involved in their lives. The Mormons do as well, and say that it really is true what the Bible says about us being children of a Heavenly Father, created in his image. That is a wonderful teaching to myself, and it upsets me that others don't understand it, or worse consider it blasphemy. I guess that I just need to find a way to better explain it to people when it comes up.
I'm excited to be getting to other parts of the Bible with this book. It's going to be a long project, and I'm sure that I'm going to find many many new ideas.
Monday, June 27, 2011
A Touch of Abraham
OK it may be more than a touch of Abraham, more like a bucket load.
I've read a lot of Hugh Nibley lately. His "An Approach to the Book of Abraham" (ABA) the title is a rip off of his classic "An Approach to the Book of Mormon" but it was an excellent book. And then I perused his "Message of the Joseph Smith Papyrus Ver 2" or something like that. The "Papyrus" book is a reference book that talks about Egyptian documents and the application to Mormonism is supposed to be obvious. I've read parts of it but much of it goes right over my head.And then his "One Eternal Round" which is supposed to be his opus magnus. How's that for a "touch" of Abraham.
Of course I'm not going to try and review all of these books here, or any where, I'm just going to give the high lights.
The Introduction to ABA was probably the most interesting of all. In it Hugh Nibley describes how he was reading Icelandic one day because he wanted to stay close to his roots, and decided that it was boring and that he should start learning Egyptian. So he started taking classes in it. This was a couple of years before the Joseph Smith Papyrus (JSP) was found in the Chicago Museum, or where ever it was found, so that when it came out Dr. Nibley was ready to start making some comments on it. And he did make some comments on it. The first time that I became aware of Dr. Nibley was on my mission. I was looking through the library of the Chapel in Adelaide WA and I found the series of articles that he wrote in the old Ensigns. I took all the copies of those Ensigns back to our apartment and read them, then returned them. They were great then and they were great this time as well.
That is an amazing story about how Dr. Nibley was prepared to be ready for the finding of the JSP, and reading the whole book was worth reading just that story. I always wondered why Dr. Nibley spent most of the later years of his life studying the Book of Abraham.
When I read "One Eternal Round" the thing that I really got out of it is just how far the Lord revelation goes. It says in the Book of Mormon that they Lord gives to every nation just as much of his word as they are ready for and Dr. Nibley really makes a case for this. There is some criticism of his methods, and I've thought that some times he seems to stretch to find his similarities, especially in the Book of Enoch, but the point is that he's amazingly well read and maybe he does just see things that none of the rest of us see.
However I had a cool experience shortly after reading "One Eternal Round", and I think it is "One Eternal Round" where it is talked about. Dr. Nibley goes to great length to show that there is a hugh amount of literature that is apocalyptic in nature. One thing that is common in apocalyptic literature is that the prophet is about to die, or feels he's about to die and calls to be saved and then an angel comes and saves him. In the JS-H Joseph says that he was "ready to sink into despair and abandon myself to destruction" when he called on the Lord to save him and not an angel but the Father and the Son come to him. Very similar and I was surprised that Dr. Nibley never mentioned it, but maybe he did somewhere and I missed it, or maybe this was just a chance for me to find an exciting nugget of wonder.
I've read a lot of Hugh Nibley lately. His "An Approach to the Book of Abraham" (ABA) the title is a rip off of his classic "An Approach to the Book of Mormon" but it was an excellent book. And then I perused his "Message of the Joseph Smith Papyrus Ver 2" or something like that. The "Papyrus" book is a reference book that talks about Egyptian documents and the application to Mormonism is supposed to be obvious. I've read parts of it but much of it goes right over my head.And then his "One Eternal Round" which is supposed to be his opus magnus. How's that for a "touch" of Abraham.
Of course I'm not going to try and review all of these books here, or any where, I'm just going to give the high lights.
The Introduction to ABA was probably the most interesting of all. In it Hugh Nibley describes how he was reading Icelandic one day because he wanted to stay close to his roots, and decided that it was boring and that he should start learning Egyptian. So he started taking classes in it. This was a couple of years before the Joseph Smith Papyrus (JSP) was found in the Chicago Museum, or where ever it was found, so that when it came out Dr. Nibley was ready to start making some comments on it. And he did make some comments on it. The first time that I became aware of Dr. Nibley was on my mission. I was looking through the library of the Chapel in Adelaide WA and I found the series of articles that he wrote in the old Ensigns. I took all the copies of those Ensigns back to our apartment and read them, then returned them. They were great then and they were great this time as well.
That is an amazing story about how Dr. Nibley was prepared to be ready for the finding of the JSP, and reading the whole book was worth reading just that story. I always wondered why Dr. Nibley spent most of the later years of his life studying the Book of Abraham.
When I read "One Eternal Round" the thing that I really got out of it is just how far the Lord revelation goes. It says in the Book of Mormon that they Lord gives to every nation just as much of his word as they are ready for and Dr. Nibley really makes a case for this. There is some criticism of his methods, and I've thought that some times he seems to stretch to find his similarities, especially in the Book of Enoch, but the point is that he's amazingly well read and maybe he does just see things that none of the rest of us see.
However I had a cool experience shortly after reading "One Eternal Round", and I think it is "One Eternal Round" where it is talked about. Dr. Nibley goes to great length to show that there is a hugh amount of literature that is apocalyptic in nature. One thing that is common in apocalyptic literature is that the prophet is about to die, or feels he's about to die and calls to be saved and then an angel comes and saves him. In the JS-H Joseph says that he was "ready to sink into despair and abandon myself to destruction" when he called on the Lord to save him and not an angel but the Father and the Son come to him. Very similar and I was surprised that Dr. Nibley never mentioned it, but maybe he did somewhere and I missed it, or maybe this was just a chance for me to find an exciting nugget of wonder.
Sunday, June 19, 2011
Gen 26-38
It's been a while since I've had a chance to write, but I keep reading the BKC when I get a chance, which is more often now that I ride my exercise cycle everyday that I exercise instead of alternating with bodyweight exercises. However, I've started keeping notes on when things strike me which I hadn't been doing.
One thing that I'd never thought about before is that Jacob gets treated by his father-in-law in similar ways to the way that he'd treated his father. In other words Jacob deceived his father to get the blessing, and his father-in-law deceived him. Also, the younger daughter is supplanted by the older daughter, in opposition to the way the younger son supplanted the older son in Esau and Jacob's case. This is pretty funny because now it seems pretty obvious.
I love the story about the way that Jacob increases his flocks. He strips off bark from branches so that they're striped then he puts them in a trough and lets the animals mate in front of the trough. He does only let the strong animals breed but I'm pretty sure that the striped branches didn't have very much to do with the animals coming our speckled. The BKC didn't mention this at all which disappointed me a little.
I've decided that this time threw the Bible I'm going to keep track of the appearances of the Lord. I've decided that I will only keep track of accounts that specifically mention when the accounts state that the person sees the Lord. In the Old Testament there are accounts of the appearance of the "Angel of the Lord," and sometimes the angel is obviously the Lord. This is pointed out by the BKC in Gen 16 where is states that the Angel is associated with the Lord in Gen 16:13; 22:11-12; 31:11, 13; 48:16; Judges 6:11, 16, 22; 13:22-23; Zechariah 3:1-2. However there are other accounts where this is not true Gen 24:7; 2 Samuel 24:16; Zechariah 1:12. These are the ones that the BKC points out but interestingly it doesn't mention the account of Exodus 3:2 where "angel of the Lord" appears to Moses in the midst of a flame. This account is obviously associated with God as well. I say all that because when I was reading Gen 31 I didn't count the appearance of the "angel of the Lord" which makes the appearance in the first of the chapter when Jacob gives an account of the appearances of the "angel of the Lord", but I'd missed in verse 13 where it the angel says "I am the God of Bethel." I'd missed that until I reread what the BKC said about the appearances of the "angel of the Lord"
Gen 32 tells about Jacob entering the promised land. There is a story about Jacob meeting a man and wrestling with him all night, and in the morning the man touches his thigh and dislocates it. Jacob however refuses to let go and then asks for a blessing and the man renames him Israel. However, Jacob names the Peniel "...for I have seen God face to face," The name Peniel means "the faces of God." The etymology of the name Israel may mean "God fights" which is a nice conjunction with the idea the Jacob wrestled with God, but also means that God will fight for Israel, the nation, as well.
Jacob is worried about how Esau is going to receive him, which would only seem to be common sense because he had threatened to kill him when they had parted company earlier in life. The BKC makes a big deal about Jacob's fear of his brother. I guess that does show that Jacob is a little less than 100% confident in the Lord commands to return to Cannan, but it seems to me like he was just taking reasonable. Esau however is glad to see Jacob, and doesn't want the presents that Jacob offers him as a peace offering.
Gen 34 is the story about Dinah which is sad, but it seems like her bothers seemed to over react. In Gen 35 Jacob and Esau have become prosperous that they have to split their holdings. Gen 35 ends with a small account that always surprises me, the brother bury their father together. So this means that back when Jacob and Rebecca fool Isaac because his eyes were weak, and then he blesses Jacob, I always think that this means he's near death, I guess it was a close call because here they are burying Isaac 20+ years later, but he's never mention after that event.
In Gen 36 there are two tol'dots, or accounts. Gen 35 was the end of the tol'dot of Abraham. This chapter is the tol'dot of Esau and his descendants, but there are two of them, and both of them are about the descendants of Esau. The second one talks about Esau's descendants becoming "Chiefs (NIV)" or "dukes (KJV)". I wonder exactly what this means because these men are on a couple of generation removed from Esau. Did they conquer people to become Chiefs? The BKC points out that there were no Chiefs among the descendants of Israel, of course that would seem to exclude Joseph, but I guess the point is true. Somewhere, I seem to remember, the BKC says that Israel was moved to Egypt so that it could become a nation without being bothered by being riven by intertribal rivalries and rising up of Chiefs and dukes. That's a pretty good point.
Gen 37 is the tol'dot about Jacob, so of course the story is all about Joseph from here on out.
One thing that I'd never thought about before is that Jacob gets treated by his father-in-law in similar ways to the way that he'd treated his father. In other words Jacob deceived his father to get the blessing, and his father-in-law deceived him. Also, the younger daughter is supplanted by the older daughter, in opposition to the way the younger son supplanted the older son in Esau and Jacob's case. This is pretty funny because now it seems pretty obvious.
I love the story about the way that Jacob increases his flocks. He strips off bark from branches so that they're striped then he puts them in a trough and lets the animals mate in front of the trough. He does only let the strong animals breed but I'm pretty sure that the striped branches didn't have very much to do with the animals coming our speckled. The BKC didn't mention this at all which disappointed me a little.
I've decided that this time threw the Bible I'm going to keep track of the appearances of the Lord. I've decided that I will only keep track of accounts that specifically mention when the accounts state that the person sees the Lord. In the Old Testament there are accounts of the appearance of the "Angel of the Lord," and sometimes the angel is obviously the Lord. This is pointed out by the BKC in Gen 16 where is states that the Angel is associated with the Lord in Gen 16:13; 22:11-12; 31:11, 13; 48:16; Judges 6:11, 16, 22; 13:22-23; Zechariah 3:1-2. However there are other accounts where this is not true Gen 24:7; 2 Samuel 24:16; Zechariah 1:12. These are the ones that the BKC points out but interestingly it doesn't mention the account of Exodus 3:2 where "angel of the Lord" appears to Moses in the midst of a flame. This account is obviously associated with God as well. I say all that because when I was reading Gen 31 I didn't count the appearance of the "angel of the Lord" which makes the appearance in the first of the chapter when Jacob gives an account of the appearances of the "angel of the Lord", but I'd missed in verse 13 where it the angel says "I am the God of Bethel." I'd missed that until I reread what the BKC said about the appearances of the "angel of the Lord"
Gen 32 tells about Jacob entering the promised land. There is a story about Jacob meeting a man and wrestling with him all night, and in the morning the man touches his thigh and dislocates it. Jacob however refuses to let go and then asks for a blessing and the man renames him Israel. However, Jacob names the Peniel "...for I have seen God face to face," The name Peniel means "the faces of God." The etymology of the name Israel may mean "God fights" which is a nice conjunction with the idea the Jacob wrestled with God, but also means that God will fight for Israel, the nation, as well.
Jacob is worried about how Esau is going to receive him, which would only seem to be common sense because he had threatened to kill him when they had parted company earlier in life. The BKC makes a big deal about Jacob's fear of his brother. I guess that does show that Jacob is a little less than 100% confident in the Lord commands to return to Cannan, but it seems to me like he was just taking reasonable. Esau however is glad to see Jacob, and doesn't want the presents that Jacob offers him as a peace offering.
Gen 34 is the story about Dinah which is sad, but it seems like her bothers seemed to over react. In Gen 35 Jacob and Esau have become prosperous that they have to split their holdings. Gen 35 ends with a small account that always surprises me, the brother bury their father together. So this means that back when Jacob and Rebecca fool Isaac because his eyes were weak, and then he blesses Jacob, I always think that this means he's near death, I guess it was a close call because here they are burying Isaac 20+ years later, but he's never mention after that event.
In Gen 36 there are two tol'dots, or accounts. Gen 35 was the end of the tol'dot of Abraham. This chapter is the tol'dot of Esau and his descendants, but there are two of them, and both of them are about the descendants of Esau. The second one talks about Esau's descendants becoming "Chiefs (NIV)" or "dukes (KJV)". I wonder exactly what this means because these men are on a couple of generation removed from Esau. Did they conquer people to become Chiefs? The BKC points out that there were no Chiefs among the descendants of Israel, of course that would seem to exclude Joseph, but I guess the point is true. Somewhere, I seem to remember, the BKC says that Israel was moved to Egypt so that it could become a nation without being bothered by being riven by intertribal rivalries and rising up of Chiefs and dukes. That's a pretty good point.
Gen 37 is the tol'dot about Jacob, so of course the story is all about Joseph from here on out.
Sunday, May 22, 2011
Gen 19-25
I've fallen behind here. It's sometimes hard to stay up to date on the writing despite the best intentions. There is that little thing about the spirit being willing but the flesh being weak.
The main thing that I remember about this these sections of the BKC is just how hard it is on Abraham. I mean apparently Abraham did nothing right except offer Isaac as a sacrifice. I went to lunch with a Christian friend John MacDonald, and I asked him what he thought about Abraham. Then I read this section from the BKC to him. This is from Gen 23. It's the story about Sarah being taken by Abimelech and the Lord warns Abimilech not to touch Sarah. Abraham again says that he didn't really lie that Sarah is his half-sister. Anyway here is what the BKC says
"God's promised blessings demands separation from worldly corruption. Sinfulness and weakness of faith created a threat to the promised blessing. It is a sad commentary on one's lack of faith if God had to deliver him again and again."
This is a bout Abraham. You know the "Friend of God", the Abraham that the Hebrews were reffering to when the said "The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob", the man who walked, talked and had picnics with God. He may not of been perfect, after all who is except the Savior of the World, but come on. John thought it was a little harsh as well. It sounds like they're going to take the same track with Jacob as well.
I was talking with John and I explained that the LDS people have extra scripture that talk about Abraham so we consider him a real hero. In our scriptures the Lord commands Abraham to say that Sarah is his sister. Our question that we discuss then is, "Why did the Lord command Abraham to lie." but after reading and thinking about this I now wonder if it was a lie in reality. Maybe it was just a shift in emphasis. Also, I've been reading Nibley's book "Abraham in Egypt" and he says that there are new apocryphal stories, that of fairly recent discovery, that says that Sarah in the pharaoh's house was Sarah test to see if she would stay with the promises made to her.
Anyway the real problem I've had, if I have one, it why would Abimilech be interested in an 80 year old women for his wife, or harem, or whatever anyway? I can think of some answers but I've never heard a really great explanation for that anyway. I think my answers are way better than the Lord needed to save the sinful Abraham once again.
The main thing that I remember about this these sections of the BKC is just how hard it is on Abraham. I mean apparently Abraham did nothing right except offer Isaac as a sacrifice. I went to lunch with a Christian friend John MacDonald, and I asked him what he thought about Abraham. Then I read this section from the BKC to him. This is from Gen 23. It's the story about Sarah being taken by Abimelech and the Lord warns Abimilech not to touch Sarah. Abraham again says that he didn't really lie that Sarah is his half-sister. Anyway here is what the BKC says
"God's promised blessings demands separation from worldly corruption. Sinfulness and weakness of faith created a threat to the promised blessing. It is a sad commentary on one's lack of faith if God had to deliver him again and again."
This is a bout Abraham. You know the "Friend of God", the Abraham that the Hebrews were reffering to when the said "The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob", the man who walked, talked and had picnics with God. He may not of been perfect, after all who is except the Savior of the World, but come on. John thought it was a little harsh as well. It sounds like they're going to take the same track with Jacob as well.
I was talking with John and I explained that the LDS people have extra scripture that talk about Abraham so we consider him a real hero. In our scriptures the Lord commands Abraham to say that Sarah is his sister. Our question that we discuss then is, "Why did the Lord command Abraham to lie." but after reading and thinking about this I now wonder if it was a lie in reality. Maybe it was just a shift in emphasis. Also, I've been reading Nibley's book "Abraham in Egypt" and he says that there are new apocryphal stories, that of fairly recent discovery, that says that Sarah in the pharaoh's house was Sarah test to see if she would stay with the promises made to her.
Anyway the real problem I've had, if I have one, it why would Abimilech be interested in an 80 year old women for his wife, or harem, or whatever anyway? I can think of some answers but I've never heard a really great explanation for that anyway. I think my answers are way better than the Lord needed to save the sinful Abraham once again.
Saturday, May 7, 2011
Gen 15-18
Gen 15 is where the Lord makes the covenant with Abram. The BKC points out some interesting things that are going on here. When the Abram splits the animals and lays them out the birds come down and Abram chases them off, that is a bad sign. When Abram sleeps the the bad sign is confirmed by Abram having a dream and the Lord telling him that his descendants will be in Egypt for 400 years.
The BKC doesn’t really seem to think that highly of Abram. At least that is the feeling that I get. In Gen 16 when Saria gives Hagoth to Abram the BKC says that Abram was following custom and not the Lord by taking Hagoth. Here is what the BKC says “So Sarai’s suggestion was unobjectionable according to the customs of that time. But God often repudiates social customs.”
I don’t see that that is anywhere in the Bible. After Hagoth becomes pregnant and Sarai gets upset with the way she is acting Sarai tells Abram “May the Lord judge between you and me.” Hagoth was despising Sarai, and it seems to me that Abram must be doing something that helps with that. Why else would Sarai say this unless she thought she were in the right? Apparently Abram agrees and tells her she can do what she wants with Hagoth, so Hagoth runs away. While on the way home the Angel of the Lord finds her and asks her what she’s doing? She says that she’s running away, and the angel tells her to go back and tells her that she will have many descendants. Ishmael is going to be a wild man, but he will also be a father of nations. In what way is God repudiating this?
After the Lord finishes talking to her...
Apparently Hagoth was talking to the Lord face to face, and saw him.
For Gen 17 the BKC has some interesting points. This is the chapter where the Lord reiterates the promise that he made concerning his posterity, and changes his name to Abraham. The BKC points out that it was probably embarrasing to tell people to start calling him, Abraham or “Father of Nations” when he’d only had the one child, and none by his first wife, especially since he was so old.
The Lord tells Abraham that he’s going to have a son by Sarai and he falls on his face and starts to laugh. Now that’s a pretty good relationship to have with the Lord, when you think that what he’s saying could be a joke. This hit me for the first time. In the LDS KJV it says that Hebrew for the word could also be “rejoiced” but the name “Issac” means “One who laughs.” I didn’t know that until the BKC pointed it out. It also said the the name would be a constant reminder to Abraham that he laughed when the Lord gave him a promise.
When the Lord renews the promise, Abraham assumes that it will be though Ishmael. The Lord hears Abraham’s concern “And as for Ishmael, I have heard you (Gen 17:20) and blesses him to be the father of many nations as well. Again I’m not seeing the repudiation here.
In Gen 18 the Lord again appears to Abraham with two other angels and says that the birth is eminent, within the year, and this time Sarah thinks it’s funny and laughs, and when the Lord asks her about it she says she didn’t laugh. So the name Isaac is going to have some meaning to her as well. When the Lord and the other angels appear to Abraham, he hastens to cook them the best meal that he can, and eats with them. How’s that for anthropomorphism? After the meal is over the two angels leave and the Lord looks at Sodom, and says that he’s going to go down and see if it’s as evil as the rumors say it is. The BKC points out that since the Lord in omniscience he must know the answer to this question. I agree with that, and so I’ve come to think that whenever the Lord asks these questions, or makes these statements, like when He asked the Brother of Jaren what he’d seen, the Lord is using the Socratic method on the reciepient. In this case I think it’s to see how the Abraham will react to learning that the Cities on the Plain are about to be destroyed. I think Abraham does well in this test since he argues that the wicked should not be slain for the righteous sake. The Lord agrees that that’s true, but the problem here is there are very few righteous in the Cities of the Plain.
The BKC doesn’t really seem to think that highly of Abram. At least that is the feeling that I get. In Gen 16 when Saria gives Hagoth to Abram the BKC says that Abram was following custom and not the Lord by taking Hagoth. Here is what the BKC says “So Sarai’s suggestion was unobjectionable according to the customs of that time. But God often repudiates social customs.”
I don’t see that that is anywhere in the Bible. After Hagoth becomes pregnant and Sarai gets upset with the way she is acting Sarai tells Abram “May the Lord judge between you and me.” Hagoth was despising Sarai, and it seems to me that Abram must be doing something that helps with that. Why else would Sarai say this unless she thought she were in the right? Apparently Abram agrees and tells her she can do what she wants with Hagoth, so Hagoth runs away. While on the way home the Angel of the Lord finds her and asks her what she’s doing? She says that she’s running away, and the angel tells her to go back and tells her that she will have many descendants. Ishmael is going to be a wild man, but he will also be a father of nations. In what way is God repudiating this?
After the Lord finishes talking to her...
13 She gave this name to the LORD who spoke to her: “You are the God who sees me,” for she said, “I have now seen the One who sees me.” (Gen 17:13 NIV)
Apparently Hagoth was talking to the Lord face to face, and saw him.
For Gen 17 the BKC has some interesting points. This is the chapter where the Lord reiterates the promise that he made concerning his posterity, and changes his name to Abraham. The BKC points out that it was probably embarrasing to tell people to start calling him, Abraham or “Father of Nations” when he’d only had the one child, and none by his first wife, especially since he was so old.
The Lord tells Abraham that he’s going to have a son by Sarai and he falls on his face and starts to laugh. Now that’s a pretty good relationship to have with the Lord, when you think that what he’s saying could be a joke. This hit me for the first time. In the LDS KJV it says that Hebrew for the word could also be “rejoiced” but the name “Issac” means “One who laughs.” I didn’t know that until the BKC pointed it out. It also said the the name would be a constant reminder to Abraham that he laughed when the Lord gave him a promise.
When the Lord renews the promise, Abraham assumes that it will be though Ishmael. The Lord hears Abraham’s concern “And as for Ishmael, I have heard you (Gen 17:20) and blesses him to be the father of many nations as well. Again I’m not seeing the repudiation here.
In Gen 18 the Lord again appears to Abraham with two other angels and says that the birth is eminent, within the year, and this time Sarah thinks it’s funny and laughs, and when the Lord asks her about it she says she didn’t laugh. So the name Isaac is going to have some meaning to her as well. When the Lord and the other angels appear to Abraham, he hastens to cook them the best meal that he can, and eats with them. How’s that for anthropomorphism? After the meal is over the two angels leave and the Lord looks at Sodom, and says that he’s going to go down and see if it’s as evil as the rumors say it is. The BKC points out that since the Lord in omniscience he must know the answer to this question. I agree with that, and so I’ve come to think that whenever the Lord asks these questions, or makes these statements, like when He asked the Brother of Jaren what he’d seen, the Lord is using the Socratic method on the reciepient. In this case I think it’s to see how the Abraham will react to learning that the Cities on the Plain are about to be destroyed. I think Abraham does well in this test since he argues that the wicked should not be slain for the righteous sake. The Lord agrees that that’s true, but the problem here is there are very few righteous in the Cities of the Plain.
Sunday, May 1, 2011
A Cool Juxtaposition
When I was reading in Genesis 14 where the account is given of Abram meeting with Melchizedek. As I pointed out in a previous posting, this is one of those chapters in the OT where the light on new revelation has given us further insights.
The BKC is limited to just the Bible, so it is somewhat perplexing to try and explain how Jesus can be a “High Priest after the order of Melchisedec.” They attempt to do it by linking Jesus back to David who set up Jerusalem as his capitol which is where Melchizedek was also king. The also say that the the order of Melchizedek must be "superior" to the order of Levi because Abraham paid tithes to him. Lets just say that I’m glad for modern revelation in the case of Melchizededk.
I was reading a book about the Book of Revelation, called “The Opening of the Seven Seals.” It was a pretty good book. I’ve been thinking a lot about the signs of the times lately, and actually bought two other books about it, but I didn’t like them. Then I found this book which I knew I had, and had started reading, then stopped for whatever reason. I started reading it again. I got to the part that talks about the Seventh Angel rising, and the section in the D&C that talks about this angel being an Elias “if you will receive it” (D&C 77:9). I’ve never really understood this before. The book on Revelation quotes classic paragraph by Eld. Bruce R. McConkie (at least I've read it in a couple different places) talking about John the Baptist being an Elias, this angel being an Elias, Joseph Smith is an Elias, and Elias is supposed to return to the temple before the Second
Coming. What’s going on here?
After reading that and thinking about how the BKC handles Melchizedek in the Bible, I thought “Am I a Melchizedek?” Well yes in a way I am a Melchizedek. I hold an office in the Priesthood that is named after him. Why couldn’t it be the same with Elias. The office could be called the Elias office like a Bishop. Anyway it all came clear to me and I seemed to understand it a lot better.
The BKC is limited to just the Bible, so it is somewhat perplexing to try and explain how Jesus can be a “High Priest after the order of Melchisedec.” They attempt to do it by linking Jesus back to David who set up Jerusalem as his capitol which is where Melchizedek was also king. The also say that the the order of Melchizedek must be "superior" to the order of Levi because Abraham paid tithes to him. Lets just say that I’m glad for modern revelation in the case of Melchizededk.
I was reading a book about the Book of Revelation, called “The Opening of the Seven Seals.” It was a pretty good book. I’ve been thinking a lot about the signs of the times lately, and actually bought two other books about it, but I didn’t like them. Then I found this book which I knew I had, and had started reading, then stopped for whatever reason. I started reading it again. I got to the part that talks about the Seventh Angel rising, and the section in the D&C that talks about this angel being an Elias “if you will receive it” (D&C 77:9). I’ve never really understood this before. The book on Revelation quotes classic paragraph by Eld. Bruce R. McConkie (at least I've read it in a couple different places) talking about John the Baptist being an Elias, this angel being an Elias, Joseph Smith is an Elias, and Elias is supposed to return to the temple before the Second
Coming. What’s going on here?
After reading that and thinking about how the BKC handles Melchizedek in the Bible, I thought “Am I a Melchizedek?” Well yes in a way I am a Melchizedek. I hold an office in the Priesthood that is named after him. Why couldn’t it be the same with Elias. The office could be called the Elias office like a Bishop. Anyway it all came clear to me and I seemed to understand it a lot better.
Sunday, April 24, 2011
Gen 12-14
These chapters of the Old Testament are where the modern scriptures add to our understanding of the scriptures. One thing that is added is that Abram was nearly offered as a sacrifice himself, by his father. This adds a lot of poignancy to when Abraham is later commanded to offer Isaac.
The BKC points out something that I've never had pointed out before. Abram entering and leaving Egypt is similar to the Israelites experience. They both enter because of a famine, Egypt is plagued because they are there, and they leave the land rich. The BKC says that this probably gave the Israelites comfort while they were going through they're experience. I doubt it, but it is interesting the way that it is linked.
The modern scriptures clear up the fact that Abram told the Egyptians that Sarai was his sister, because he was commanded to do so by the Lord. Of course this doesn't really clear everything up because the question then becomes why the Lord told Abram to lie. Of course in the scriptures it explains that it isn't really a lie. I just recently read a book recently by Hugh Nibley called "Abraham in Egypt" and in that book there are some articles that talk about Jewish traditions that talk about how this event was actually a test for Sarai to see if she would remain true to the Lord as Abraham later remained true to the Lord in all situations. Since the BKC doesn't take advantage of modern scripture they just say that Abram lies on his own, if it is a lie. The Lord still protects Abram, but he's still a liar according to the BKC.
Gen 13 shows and the BKC really emphasizes it that Abram gave Lot the choice of land, and Lot took the worldly route. This shows that we should rely on the blessings of the Lord on not on the way the world chooses. I wonder how the story would have ended if the Lot and chosen not go to valley. Could Abram have withstood the draw of the world? I think that he could have, but the point is that Abram was willing to do whatever the Lord asked of him, or he was willing to serve the Lord no matter what the world gave him.
The BKC gives a lot of background for the war that happened in Gen 14. Because of that I was pretty much amazed that Abram had 318 "trained men". It's amazing how many of the great men of the scriptures seem to also to be military men, even though you have to read carefully sometimes to see it. Back then keeping a "trained man" was no mean feat. It's not like you could be farming one minute and then pick up a rifle and protect your homestead as modern militias do. That's pretty much how it's been since the Minute Men of the American Revolution. Back then war took a lot of training to be good at it and that's all you did was train for war, so keeping 318 trained men says a lot about Abram.
After Abram returns from the war with Lot and the spoils of war he meets two kings, Melchizedek and the King of Sodom. The BKC calls Melchizedek a fascinating figure. Because of modern scripture the LDS know a lot more about Melchizedek, especially why Jesus is called a High Priest after the order of Melchisedec. Of which I'll write more about later.
The BKC points out something that I've never had pointed out before. Abram entering and leaving Egypt is similar to the Israelites experience. They both enter because of a famine, Egypt is plagued because they are there, and they leave the land rich. The BKC says that this probably gave the Israelites comfort while they were going through they're experience. I doubt it, but it is interesting the way that it is linked.
The modern scriptures clear up the fact that Abram told the Egyptians that Sarai was his sister, because he was commanded to do so by the Lord. Of course this doesn't really clear everything up because the question then becomes why the Lord told Abram to lie. Of course in the scriptures it explains that it isn't really a lie. I just recently read a book recently by Hugh Nibley called "Abraham in Egypt" and in that book there are some articles that talk about Jewish traditions that talk about how this event was actually a test for Sarai to see if she would remain true to the Lord as Abraham later remained true to the Lord in all situations. Since the BKC doesn't take advantage of modern scripture they just say that Abram lies on his own, if it is a lie. The Lord still protects Abram, but he's still a liar according to the BKC.
Gen 13 shows and the BKC really emphasizes it that Abram gave Lot the choice of land, and Lot took the worldly route. This shows that we should rely on the blessings of the Lord on not on the way the world chooses. I wonder how the story would have ended if the Lot and chosen not go to valley. Could Abram have withstood the draw of the world? I think that he could have, but the point is that Abram was willing to do whatever the Lord asked of him, or he was willing to serve the Lord no matter what the world gave him.
The BKC gives a lot of background for the war that happened in Gen 14. Because of that I was pretty much amazed that Abram had 318 "trained men". It's amazing how many of the great men of the scriptures seem to also to be military men, even though you have to read carefully sometimes to see it. Back then keeping a "trained man" was no mean feat. It's not like you could be farming one minute and then pick up a rifle and protect your homestead as modern militias do. That's pretty much how it's been since the Minute Men of the American Revolution. Back then war took a lot of training to be good at it and that's all you did was train for war, so keeping 318 trained men says a lot about Abram.
After Abram returns from the war with Lot and the spoils of war he meets two kings, Melchizedek and the King of Sodom. The BKC calls Melchizedek a fascinating figure. Because of modern scripture the LDS know a lot more about Melchizedek, especially why Jesus is called a High Priest after the order of Melchisedec. Of which I'll write more about later.
Friday, April 22, 2011
Gen 7-11
Reading the BKC is certainly a good experience. It's helping me to read the Bible more carefully and it's showing me things that I hadn't thought of before.
For example the BKC talked about how when God saved the world with Noah the Bible ties the event back to Adam. First there is a garden in both accounts. That surprised me, and when I checked it said that Noah did plant a "vineyard" which is sort of a garden. The was nudity in both, but the nudity in the Garden is neutral while Noah's nudity is disgraceful. They are both commanded to "replenish" the Earth. Another tie back, although it’s not mentioned, is that the Lord again says that man is in the image of God(Gen 9:6).
The BKC is pointing out many things that I’ve missed. For example I’ve always thought that when Noah offered sacrifices he offered a sheep, a ram or a bull. However it says that he offered one of every clean animal. That was a massive offering. The BKC really stressed that only the animals on land died. That caught me by surprise because I’ve always thought that all animals died including the fish. I was thinking about why I thought that and I think the reason is because my Mom told me they died. However, the fact is that most of the water in the world is salt and if it was all mixed together then the fresh water were no more. I’m pretty sure that the salt water wouldn’t be so – whatever salt water is supposed to be – and those fish would have problems as well. However, I’m not really committed to either version. I mean I certainly wouldn’t say that fish would be able to survive a world wide inundation, but if they did OK as well.
I was hoping there would be some insight into why Noah curses Cannan but there isn’t any.
There is another tol’dot in Gen 10. It is the tol’dot of Japeth, Shem and Ham. The BKC points out that this is a horizontal genealogy meaning that it applies to the nations that arise from the sons of Noah. Of course ultimately all peoples arise from these sons so I guess that these are the main groups that will be interacting with the Isrealites. That is what the book sounds like, but I really don’t pay attention to parts like this usually. I usually just skimmed the parts talking about the nations. The BKC did point out that Nimrod was the first empire builder, so I paid attention to when he came up in the Bible and he did have an amazing number of cities or nations. When I looked in the KJV version it is not apparent that he was such a great empire builder.
To me, in the KJV, it’s not clear that Asshur isn’t a different person than Nimrod. So Nimrod is a much greater empire builder in the NIV than the KJV.
Another thing that surprised me is that the BKC said that when the “earth was divided” in the time of Peleg, it meant the division of mankind into different nations and tounges, and not that the Earth itself was divided. If you look at a map of the world, it’s pretty obvious that at one time all the continental land masses fit together into one super continent, and it’s called Peleg because of this scripture. I’ve just always accepted that this scripture was talking about the splitting of the Earth. Which reminds me of another thing. The BKC says that the splitting of the continents happened during the flood.
OK that’s reading a little more into the text than is there.
It doesn’t really matter when it happened. I would be good either way, but I think believers in the Bible get into trouble when they read more into the text than is there.
Finally there is another tol’dot starting Chapter 11, the tol’dot of Shem. The BKC points out that this is a vertical genealogy that show Abram’s descent from Shem. There is also another tol’dot near the end of Chapter 11, the tol’dot of Terah, who is the father of Abram, so it is basically the story of Abram.
For example the BKC talked about how when God saved the world with Noah the Bible ties the event back to Adam. First there is a garden in both accounts. That surprised me, and when I checked it said that Noah did plant a "vineyard" which is sort of a garden. The was nudity in both, but the nudity in the Garden is neutral while Noah's nudity is disgraceful. They are both commanded to "replenish" the Earth. Another tie back, although it’s not mentioned, is that the Lord again says that man is in the image of God(Gen 9:6).
The BKC is pointing out many things that I’ve missed. For example I’ve always thought that when Noah offered sacrifices he offered a sheep, a ram or a bull. However it says that he offered one of every clean animal. That was a massive offering. The BKC really stressed that only the animals on land died. That caught me by surprise because I’ve always thought that all animals died including the fish. I was thinking about why I thought that and I think the reason is because my Mom told me they died. However, the fact is that most of the water in the world is salt and if it was all mixed together then the fresh water were no more. I’m pretty sure that the salt water wouldn’t be so – whatever salt water is supposed to be – and those fish would have problems as well. However, I’m not really committed to either version. I mean I certainly wouldn’t say that fish would be able to survive a world wide inundation, but if they did OK as well.
I was hoping there would be some insight into why Noah curses Cannan but there isn’t any.
There is another tol’dot in Gen 10. It is the tol’dot of Japeth, Shem and Ham. The BKC points out that this is a horizontal genealogy meaning that it applies to the nations that arise from the sons of Noah. Of course ultimately all peoples arise from these sons so I guess that these are the main groups that will be interacting with the Isrealites. That is what the book sounds like, but I really don’t pay attention to parts like this usually. I usually just skimmed the parts talking about the nations. The BKC did point out that Nimrod was the first empire builder, so I paid attention to when he came up in the Bible and he did have an amazing number of cities or nations. When I looked in the KJV version it is not apparent that he was such a great empire builder.
Gen 10:8-11
8 Cush was the father of Nimrod, who became a mighty warrior on the earth. 9 He was a mighty hunter before the LORD; that is why it is said, “Like Nimrod, a mighty hunter before the LORD.” 10 The first centers of his kingdom were Babylon, Uruk, Akkad and Kalneh, in Shinar. 11 From that land he went to Assyria, where he built Nineveh, Rehoboth Ir, Calah 12 and Resen, which is between Nineveh and Calah—which is the great city. (NIV)
8 And Cush begat Nimrod: he began to be a mighty one in the earth.
9 He was a mighty hunter before the LORD: wherefore it is said, Even as Nimrod the mighty hunter before the LORD.
10 And the beginning of his kingdom was Babel, and Erech, and Accad, and Calneh, in the land of Shinar.
11 Out of that land went forth Asshur, and builded Nineveh, and the city Rehoboth, and Calah,
12 And Resen between Nineveh and Calah: the same is a great city. (KJV)
To me, in the KJV, it’s not clear that Asshur isn’t a different person than Nimrod. So Nimrod is a much greater empire builder in the NIV than the KJV.
Another thing that surprised me is that the BKC said that when the “earth was divided” in the time of Peleg, it meant the division of mankind into different nations and tounges, and not that the Earth itself was divided. If you look at a map of the world, it’s pretty obvious that at one time all the continental land masses fit together into one super continent, and it’s called Peleg because of this scripture. I’ve just always accepted that this scripture was talking about the splitting of the Earth. Which reminds me of another thing. The BKC says that the splitting of the continents happened during the flood.
“On the other hand there were corresponding gigantic upheaval and shiftings of the earth’s crust which caused the oceans’ floors to rise and break up their reservoirs of subterranean waters.”
OK that’s reading a little more into the text than is there.
11 In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, on the seventeenth day of the second month—on that day all the springs of the great deep burst forth, and the floodgates of the heavens were opened. (Gen 7:11, NIV)
It doesn’t really matter when it happened. I would be good either way, but I think believers in the Bible get into trouble when they read more into the text than is there.
Finally there is another tol’dot starting Chapter 11, the tol’dot of Shem. The BKC points out that this is a vertical genealogy that show Abram’s descent from Shem. There is also another tol’dot near the end of Chapter 11, the tol’dot of Terah, who is the father of Abram, so it is basically the story of Abram.
Friday, April 8, 2011
Augustine and the Platonists
As I said I've been listening to some sets of lectures by Dr. Phillip Cary. I'm listening to the set now called "Augustine: Philosopher and Saint." I'm liking it very much so far. Dr. Cary is a Protestant, he says so, but he's also an Augustinian scholar. That makes sense because Augustine had a lot of influence on the Protestants, especially Luther and Calvin. The tapes that I've been listening to really point that out, more than I realized before.
With reading the Old Testament closely with the BKC I've really started noticing just how different the Classical Christian Orthodoxy of God is different from the Jewish view. I've read about this before, but now it's really starting to become real in a way that it never has before.
That being said I still find a lot of beauty in the way Dr. Cary explains how Augustine saw God, which was that he saw him in a Neoplatonistic way. I've always been drawn to the Platonistic view of "ideas" and can see that that is very appealing. The idea that God is outside of time, and very different from the rest of creation must be an appealing idea because to my, admittedly limited knowledge, it seems to be the description of many religions idea of God, or the One, or the Infinate or etc... The real difference in Christianity seems to be that while there is the One, somehow it's three, and one of the three walked the Earth.
I should really probably give Augustine more credit and less approbation. A couple of people have really pointed out that Augustine is really the point where Western Christianity begins to take on it's unique characteristic. Dr. Cary seems to be saying it, Bishop Stendhal seemed to say it, and Bro. Nibley and many LDS scholars seem to imply it as well. Augustine did get some things wrong, but was his influence for good more than the bad? I think so. It seems like Augustine was the influential in putting the West solidly on the path of giving reason and logic preeminence in Western Christian thought.
Someday I'm probably going to have to read Augustine myself. Umm and Luther...and Calvin... Hmmm.
With reading the Old Testament closely with the BKC I've really started noticing just how different the Classical Christian Orthodoxy of God is different from the Jewish view. I've read about this before, but now it's really starting to become real in a way that it never has before.
That being said I still find a lot of beauty in the way Dr. Cary explains how Augustine saw God, which was that he saw him in a Neoplatonistic way. I've always been drawn to the Platonistic view of "ideas" and can see that that is very appealing. The idea that God is outside of time, and very different from the rest of creation must be an appealing idea because to my, admittedly limited knowledge, it seems to be the description of many religions idea of God, or the One, or the Infinate or etc... The real difference in Christianity seems to be that while there is the One, somehow it's three, and one of the three walked the Earth.
I should really probably give Augustine more credit and less approbation. A couple of people have really pointed out that Augustine is really the point where Western Christianity begins to take on it's unique characteristic. Dr. Cary seems to be saying it, Bishop Stendhal seemed to say it, and Bro. Nibley and many LDS scholars seem to imply it as well. Augustine did get some things wrong, but was his influence for good more than the bad? I think so. It seems like Augustine was the influential in putting the West solidly on the path of giving reason and logic preeminence in Western Christian thought.
Someday I'm probably going to have to read Augustine myself. Umm and Luther...and Calvin... Hmmm.
A little consideration please (from the author)
As I've been writing about my impressions while reading the Old Testament and the BKC I realized that I'm being just a tiny bit critical. As I'm starting this reading of the OT I've also started listening to the Teaching Company lectures on Augustine by Dr. Phillip Cary.
I don't think that I could have had any clearer juxtaposition in the difference in the way the Greeks thought and the way that the Jews thought. Dr. Cary states clearly that the Early Church Fathers, especially Augustine, were Christian Platonists. People need to realize that Jews and Greeks saw the world differently. Isaiah and Plato were roughly contemporaries. Isaiah had no conception of the "Unmovable Mover," he could see God in the heavenly temple and describe him, and that's it. Very anthropomorphic those Jews.
Last night I was writing about the BKC and the way that the authors were saying that the Lord did not repent even when the KJV says that he did repent. I realized that I was being flippant and perhaps I needed to consider their view point a little more. I started thinking about the word repent and how I've read recently that in the Greek the word meant "a turning away from" or something like that. So I did a little research to see if maybe I'm perhaps being too judgmental.
According to Strong's the Greek word translated repent is
metanoeo 1. to change one's mind i.e. to repent 2. to change one's mind for better, heartily to amend with abhorrence of one's past sins
The Hebrew word is
nacham a primitive root; properly, to sigh, i.e. breathe strongly; by implication, to be sorry, i.e. (in a favorable sense) to pity, console or (reflexively) rue; or (unfavorably) to avenge (oneself):–comfort (self), ease (one's self), repent (-er, -ing, self)
1. to be sorry, console oneself, repent, regret, comfort, be comforted
a. (Niphal)
1. to be sorry, be moved to pity, have compassion
2. to be sorry, rue, suffer grief, repent
3. to comfort oneself, be comforted
4. to comfort oneself, ease oneself
b. (Piel) to comfort, console
c. (Pual) to be comforted, be consoled
d. (Hithpael)
1. to be sorry, have compassion
2. to rue, repent of
3. to comfort oneself, be comforted
4. to ease oneself
A little more reading, and some of the other things that I've been reading lately seem to come to a head. In my research I found that many people think that the Christian concept of "sin" as being a moral failure is a post biblical concept. I think that this is what Bishop Stendhal was saying when he said that Augustine was the first modern introspective man, and that in the west we inherit that tendency to look inwardly and try to figure out what is going on in our souls. Dr. Cary in his tapes certain make it clear that Augustine was very introspective, in fact he had to make up a word for the inner dialogue that he was having, soliloquy.
The Jews were much more practical about sin, and their word for sin was "chet" which was more like "missing the mark" as in missing the target with an arrow. Well what happens when you miss the mark? You pull out another arrow and try again to improve your ability to hit the mark. Bishop Stendhal seemed to be implying something similar when he pointed out in his book "Paul Among the Jews and Gentiles" that Paul showed no "introspection" when he talked about sin. Of course to see that Bishop Stendhal says that you need to read Paul without the Augustinian/Lutheran lenses on.
If you look like it like that the saying that God "repented" of making mankind, it starts to make sense. It didn't think that He had made a terrible moral mistake that he needed to rectify. He just needed to start over because things had gone terribly wrong. At least that was probably the way that the Jew that wrote the Bible thought when he wrote that God repented.
I don't think that I could have had any clearer juxtaposition in the difference in the way the Greeks thought and the way that the Jews thought. Dr. Cary states clearly that the Early Church Fathers, especially Augustine, were Christian Platonists. People need to realize that Jews and Greeks saw the world differently. Isaiah and Plato were roughly contemporaries. Isaiah had no conception of the "Unmovable Mover," he could see God in the heavenly temple and describe him, and that's it. Very anthropomorphic those Jews.
Last night I was writing about the BKC and the way that the authors were saying that the Lord did not repent even when the KJV says that he did repent. I realized that I was being flippant and perhaps I needed to consider their view point a little more. I started thinking about the word repent and how I've read recently that in the Greek the word meant "a turning away from" or something like that. So I did a little research to see if maybe I'm perhaps being too judgmental.
According to Strong's the Greek word translated repent is
metanoeo 1. to change one's mind i.e. to repent 2. to change one's mind for better, heartily to amend with abhorrence of one's past sins
The Hebrew word is
nacham a primitive root; properly, to sigh, i.e. breathe strongly; by implication, to be sorry, i.e. (in a favorable sense) to pity, console or (reflexively) rue; or (unfavorably) to avenge (oneself):–comfort (self), ease (one's self), repent (-er, -ing, self)
1. to be sorry, console oneself, repent, regret, comfort, be comforted
a. (Niphal)
1. to be sorry, be moved to pity, have compassion
2. to be sorry, rue, suffer grief, repent
3. to comfort oneself, be comforted
4. to comfort oneself, ease oneself
b. (Piel) to comfort, console
c. (Pual) to be comforted, be consoled
d. (Hithpael)
1. to be sorry, have compassion
2. to rue, repent of
3. to comfort oneself, be comforted
4. to ease oneself
A little more reading, and some of the other things that I've been reading lately seem to come to a head. In my research I found that many people think that the Christian concept of "sin" as being a moral failure is a post biblical concept. I think that this is what Bishop Stendhal was saying when he said that Augustine was the first modern introspective man, and that in the west we inherit that tendency to look inwardly and try to figure out what is going on in our souls. Dr. Cary in his tapes certain make it clear that Augustine was very introspective, in fact he had to make up a word for the inner dialogue that he was having, soliloquy.
The Jews were much more practical about sin, and their word for sin was "chet" which was more like "missing the mark" as in missing the target with an arrow. Well what happens when you miss the mark? You pull out another arrow and try again to improve your ability to hit the mark. Bishop Stendhal seemed to be implying something similar when he pointed out in his book "Paul Among the Jews and Gentiles" that Paul showed no "introspection" when he talked about sin. Of course to see that Bishop Stendhal says that you need to read Paul without the Augustinian/Lutheran lenses on.
If you look like it like that the saying that God "repented" of making mankind, it starts to make sense. It didn't think that He had made a terrible moral mistake that he needed to rectify. He just needed to start over because things had gone terribly wrong. At least that was probably the way that the Jew that wrote the Bible thought when he wrote that God repented.
Gen 6
The BKC starts by saying, "This section's details have been the subject of endless debates..."
I can certainly agree with that. The commentary talks about the different theories about who the "sons of God" and the "daughters of men" are, or what they are. I personally am willing to admit that there are things that I don't know and that this might be one of them. However, if I were forced to choose the theory I liked the best I would go with the "sons of God" are the descendants of Seth and the "daughters of men" were the descendants of Cain.
Gen 6:6 in the NIV is
Gen 6:6 in the KJV is
The commentary feels strongly enough about this that it takes the time to point out that "repented" in the KJV does not mean that the LORD changed His mind, because he is unchanging according to Mal 3:6. Apparently the Jews didn't know that and they used the wrong word once again, or in a way that we need to be warned not to misconstrue it.
The commentary says that this section shows the irony of Lamech prophecy because because God, instead of comforting mankind, is going to kill them. I don't know why they think that this is ironic. I guess they don't think that the righteous Jews in the Old Testament go to heaven. If I go to heaven after i die I expect that I will be comforted.
Gen 6:9 is a new tol'dot of Noah. I think that it's interesting that the last part of Adam's tol'dot talks about the corruption of society and then the new tol'dot starts off saying the same things. I suppose this emphasizes how corrupt mankind had gotten. I'd never noticed that before, probably because I'd never known about the tol'dot sections.
I can certainly agree with that. The commentary talks about the different theories about who the "sons of God" and the "daughters of men" are, or what they are. I personally am willing to admit that there are things that I don't know and that this might be one of them. However, if I were forced to choose the theory I liked the best I would go with the "sons of God" are the descendants of Seth and the "daughters of men" were the descendants of Cain.
Gen 6:6 in the NIV is
6 The LORD was grieved that he had made man on the earth, and his heart was filled with pain.
Gen 6:6 in the KJV is
6 And it repented the LORD that he had mad man on the earth, and it grieved him in his heart.
The commentary feels strongly enough about this that it takes the time to point out that "repented" in the KJV does not mean that the LORD changed His mind, because he is unchanging according to Mal 3:6. Apparently the Jews didn't know that and they used the wrong word once again, or in a way that we need to be warned not to misconstrue it.
The commentary says that this section shows the irony of Lamech prophecy because because God, instead of comforting mankind, is going to kill them. I don't know why they think that this is ironic. I guess they don't think that the righteous Jews in the Old Testament go to heaven. If I go to heaven after i die I expect that I will be comforted.
Gen 6:9 is a new tol'dot of Noah. I think that it's interesting that the last part of Adam's tol'dot talks about the corruption of society and then the new tol'dot starts off saying the same things. I suppose this emphasizes how corrupt mankind had gotten. I'd never noticed that before, probably because I'd never known about the tol'dot sections.
Gen 5
Gen 5 is the start of a new tol'dot, this time the "generations of Adam". The BKC feels that this is important because is shows that the introduction of evil was planned by God and was part of the creation of the Earth, which is why it was in the section "generations of the heavens and the earth." I think that pretty significant as well.
Verses 1-3 start off by saying again that Adam is in the likeness of God, and that Adam and Eve had "...a son in his own likeness, after his image..." However, although this is the same language that is used in Gen 1:27 and Gen 5:1 when it talked about Adam being in the image of God. The Jews who wrote this didn't know what they were saying, you see God doesn't look anything like man and the Jews were wrong to use this language. Silly Jews.
The BKC points out that many of the verses in Gen 5 have "and then they died" at the end of them. I've never noticed this before and I find it significant as well. It's always been my belief that whenever something is repeated in scripture the Lord is stressing it and wants us to take notice of it. The Lord is stressing that we all die, even if people used to live a long time.
The BKC says that when Enoch "walked" with God it meant that he followed God as in a "Christian Walk". While I agree that this is a common reference among Christians, I would be surprised if the Jews used it this way. What does the Bible mean in Gen 3:8 when it says that Adam and Eve heard God walking in the garden in the cool of the day? Although this is the only mention of Enoch is barely mentioned in the Bible, there is a lot more information about Enoch out there if someone is willing to look. There was a Book of Enoch that existed in the early days of Christianity. It was thought of highly by certain Christians. It was so highly thought of that there is a quote out of it in Jude, so part of the Book of Enoch actually is part of the Bible. Today the Ethiopian Orthodox Church includes it in their scriptures, as does the Jewish sect of Beta Israel (a group of Africa Jews in Ethiopia). There are a lot of traditions about Enoch and the traditions recount that Enoch did in fact walk with God literally. (One of these external traditions to the Bible, of course, is the LDS Pearl of Great Price.)
I was quite surprised by the way that the BKC treated the statement that Lamech made when Noah was born. The NIV has it as
The BKC says that this "prophecy" was not fulfilled the way that Lamech expected it to be fulfilled! How in the world do they arrive at that conclusion? They don't explain so I don't know. My idea of prophecy is not that the prophet says something under the influence of the Spirit and doesn't have any idea how it will be fulfilled. I was just caught be surprise by the way the BKC talked about this.
Verses 1-3 start off by saying again that Adam is in the likeness of God, and that Adam and Eve had "...a son in his own likeness, after his image..." However, although this is the same language that is used in Gen 1:27 and Gen 5:1 when it talked about Adam being in the image of God. The Jews who wrote this didn't know what they were saying, you see God doesn't look anything like man and the Jews were wrong to use this language. Silly Jews.
The BKC points out that many of the verses in Gen 5 have "and then they died" at the end of them. I've never noticed this before and I find it significant as well. It's always been my belief that whenever something is repeated in scripture the Lord is stressing it and wants us to take notice of it. The Lord is stressing that we all die, even if people used to live a long time.
The BKC says that when Enoch "walked" with God it meant that he followed God as in a "Christian Walk". While I agree that this is a common reference among Christians, I would be surprised if the Jews used it this way. What does the Bible mean in Gen 3:8 when it says that Adam and Eve heard God walking in the garden in the cool of the day? Although this is the only mention of Enoch is barely mentioned in the Bible, there is a lot more information about Enoch out there if someone is willing to look. There was a Book of Enoch that existed in the early days of Christianity. It was thought of highly by certain Christians. It was so highly thought of that there is a quote out of it in Jude, so part of the Book of Enoch actually is part of the Bible. Today the Ethiopian Orthodox Church includes it in their scriptures, as does the Jewish sect of Beta Israel (a group of Africa Jews in Ethiopia). There are a lot of traditions about Enoch and the traditions recount that Enoch did in fact walk with God literally. (One of these external traditions to the Bible, of course, is the LDS Pearl of Great Price.)
I was quite surprised by the way that the BKC treated the statement that Lamech made when Noah was born. The NIV has it as
28 He named him Noah and said, "He will comfort us in the labor and painful toil of our hands caused by the ground the LORD has cursed."
The BKC says that this "prophecy" was not fulfilled the way that Lamech expected it to be fulfilled! How in the world do they arrive at that conclusion? They don't explain so I don't know. My idea of prophecy is not that the prophet says something under the influence of the Spirit and doesn't have any idea how it will be fulfilled. I was just caught be surprise by the way the BKC talked about this.
Thursday, April 7, 2011
Gen 3-4
My first major surprise in the NIV came in ver 3:3 and it was pointed out by the BKC. It says
The BKC said "Eve disparaged the privileges, added to the prohibition, and weakened the penalty – all seen by contrasting, her words (Gen. 3:3) with God's original commands. (2:16-17)."
Now I heard a preacher on the radio once talking about how Eve had added the prohibition "...you must not touch [the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil]...", and because of that she had opened the way for disobedience because when she touched the fruit and she didn't die, she then thought that maybe she could eat the fruit as well, so by misquoting the Lord she was opening the door to disobedience. Perhaps that is what they were talking about here.
The NIV doesn't mention the time from for the death from disobedience. That they will die in "day" they partake of it. I don't see what the BKC is talking about when the say Eve "weakened the penalty" both verses say the penalty is death. I wonder why the NIV leaves out that they will die in the "day" that they partake? I can remember someone pointing out no one has lived longer than one day to the Lord. Peter says that a day to the Lord is a thousand years to us (2 Pet 2:8).
BKC points out that after Satan has tempted Eve, and he then leaves her and she is left to herself and the fruit appeals to her natural side. The fruit is "good for food" appealing to appatite. It's all "pleasing to the eye" or beautiful. How often are humans lead astray by the beautifulness and desirability of something? And it was "desirable for gaining wisdom" or getting great knowledge. Now I don't really know that gaining knowledge is bad, but the BoM warns against becoming wise and thinking that you know more than the Lord (2 Nep 9:28).
The BKC makes a big point of describing Satan's tempting of Eve. It says that Satan first says that sin will not cause death, then he tries to say that Heavenly Father is jealous and doesn't want them to become like Him, and that he is holding them back. Then the BKC says "So Satan held out to the the promise of divinity – knowing good and evil." (emphasis in original). I don't know that Satan was offering to make them divine, it just says that it will make them like God. What would he offer to perfect immortal humans who were the associates of God that would make them more divine? I think the BKC oversteps in their emphasis.
Then after Adam and Eve partake and sin enters into the world, the only thing they actually got was "the knowledge of good and evil". In fact God confirms this when he says
So the lie Satan told was that they wouldn't die after they partook. This is the true insidiousness of Satan's lies, he mixes lies with truth to make it sound plausible, so that when you take the truth with the lie that's when you get in trouble. In this case it brings about death for everyone.
I like the insights that the BKC brings when they talk about the cursing that the Lord gives to Adam and Eve. First since is was Eve's "desire" for the fruit that got them in trouble in the first place, her "desire" is going to be to her husband, and this will result in her being ruled over by her husband. When I teach Genesis I like to point out to brethren that this is not a reward for Adam but punishment for Eve. So don't let this be something to swell a mans head.
It points our that the Serpent will spend its days eating dust. Man will die and return to the dust, and so, presumably, to being dominated by Satan once again at least symbolically.
They also describe how the Lord shows his concern for Adam and Eve by making the coats of skins. The BKC says that this is symbolic of the of the fact that later Israel will sacrifice animals that will remedy a curse for them as well.
Chapter 4 gives an account of how society becomes sinful starting with Cain. Pretty standard stuff here. The thing that was most interesting is that when the Lord tells Cain that "sin lies at the door" that the word that is translated as "lies" would imply an animal crouching, ready to pounce, and that Cain is able to resist the crouching sin, and that it is his duty to do so.
The BKC says that the mark that the Lord puts on Cain is a mark of grace and that it protects Cain from retribution from any who should find him after he was thrown out of God's presence. The rest of the chapter talks about the introduction of evil/worldly society. The book seems to take culture to task here a little to much for my taste, but perhaps they are talking about worldly culture.
The BKC points out that the only words that are spoken in this chapter other than Cain's are Lamech's. The book says that Lamech breaks away from God's plan when he takes two wives. I'm pretty sure that that's reading more into the Bible than is there. I guess I'll have to wait to see how it handles the wives of Abraham, and others. I have always wondered what Lamech was talking about when he said the if Cain was protected 7 times, he would be protected 70 X 7. The book says that this is an example of pride and he's bragging. That sounds as good as anything else I've ever heard.
3. but God did say, 'You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden and you must not touch it, or you will die.' (Gen 3, NIV)
The BKC said "Eve disparaged the privileges, added to the prohibition, and weakened the penalty – all seen by contrasting, her words (Gen. 3:3) with God's original commands. (2:16-17)."
Now I heard a preacher on the radio once talking about how Eve had added the prohibition "...you must not touch [the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil]...", and because of that she had opened the way for disobedience because when she touched the fruit and she didn't die, she then thought that maybe she could eat the fruit as well, so by misquoting the Lord she was opening the door to disobedience. Perhaps that is what they were talking about here.
17. but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die. (Gen 2, NIV)
The NIV doesn't mention the time from for the death from disobedience. That they will die in "day" they partake of it. I don't see what the BKC is talking about when the say Eve "weakened the penalty" both verses say the penalty is death. I wonder why the NIV leaves out that they will die in the "day" that they partake? I can remember someone pointing out no one has lived longer than one day to the Lord. Peter says that a day to the Lord is a thousand years to us (2 Pet 2:8).
BKC points out that after Satan has tempted Eve, and he then leaves her and she is left to herself and the fruit appeals to her natural side. The fruit is "good for food" appealing to appatite. It's all "pleasing to the eye" or beautiful. How often are humans lead astray by the beautifulness and desirability of something? And it was "desirable for gaining wisdom" or getting great knowledge. Now I don't really know that gaining knowledge is bad, but the BoM warns against becoming wise and thinking that you know more than the Lord (2 Nep 9:28).
The BKC makes a big point of describing Satan's tempting of Eve. It says that Satan first says that sin will not cause death, then he tries to say that Heavenly Father is jealous and doesn't want them to become like Him, and that he is holding them back. Then the BKC says "So Satan held out to the the promise of divinity – knowing good and evil." (emphasis in original). I don't know that Satan was offering to make them divine, it just says that it will make them like God. What would he offer to perfect immortal humans who were the associates of God that would make them more divine? I think the BKC oversteps in their emphasis.
Then after Adam and Eve partake and sin enters into the world, the only thing they actually got was "the knowledge of good and evil". In fact God confirms this when he says
22 "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat and live forever."
So the lie Satan told was that they wouldn't die after they partook. This is the true insidiousness of Satan's lies, he mixes lies with truth to make it sound plausible, so that when you take the truth with the lie that's when you get in trouble. In this case it brings about death for everyone.
I like the insights that the BKC brings when they talk about the cursing that the Lord gives to Adam and Eve. First since is was Eve's "desire" for the fruit that got them in trouble in the first place, her "desire" is going to be to her husband, and this will result in her being ruled over by her husband. When I teach Genesis I like to point out to brethren that this is not a reward for Adam but punishment for Eve. So don't let this be something to swell a mans head.
It points our that the Serpent will spend its days eating dust. Man will die and return to the dust, and so, presumably, to being dominated by Satan once again at least symbolically.
They also describe how the Lord shows his concern for Adam and Eve by making the coats of skins. The BKC says that this is symbolic of the of the fact that later Israel will sacrifice animals that will remedy a curse for them as well.
Chapter 4 gives an account of how society becomes sinful starting with Cain. Pretty standard stuff here. The thing that was most interesting is that when the Lord tells Cain that "sin lies at the door" that the word that is translated as "lies" would imply an animal crouching, ready to pounce, and that Cain is able to resist the crouching sin, and that it is his duty to do so.
The BKC says that the mark that the Lord puts on Cain is a mark of grace and that it protects Cain from retribution from any who should find him after he was thrown out of God's presence. The rest of the chapter talks about the introduction of evil/worldly society. The book seems to take culture to task here a little to much for my taste, but perhaps they are talking about worldly culture.
The BKC points out that the only words that are spoken in this chapter other than Cain's are Lamech's. The book says that Lamech breaks away from God's plan when he takes two wives. I'm pretty sure that that's reading more into the Bible than is there. I guess I'll have to wait to see how it handles the wives of Abraham, and others. I have always wondered what Lamech was talking about when he said the if Cain was protected 7 times, he would be protected 70 X 7. The book says that this is an example of pride and he's bragging. That sounds as good as anything else I've ever heard.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)