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.
Sunday, May 22, 2011
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)