Comments on: Why Reading the OT is Sometimes so Difficult

By: scentsy

scentsy — Sun, 27 Nov 2011 03:11:17 +0000

scentsy…

[...]Why Reading the OT is Sometimes so Difficult « Feast upon the Word Blog[...]…

By: Blogspotting LDS in the OT (post #2) « Heart Issues for LDS

Blogspotting LDS in the OT (post #2) « Heart Issues for LDS — Fri, 08 Jan 2010 19:27:38 +0000

[...] Why Reading the OT is so Difficult (already mentioned in earlier [...]

By: Blogspotting LDS in the OT (post #1) « Heart Issues for LDS

Blogspotting LDS in the OT (post #1) « Heart Issues for LDS — Fri, 08 Jan 2010 06:24:19 +0000

[...] Why Reading the OT is Sometimes so Difficult - Jim F. is an LDS scholarly guru. He hits on some interesting Hebrew world-view angles. I just hope that he would not like Blake O. seek “to save the heart of God’s revelations to the Hebrews from the Greek mind.” Two OT books are of utmost importance as we discover truths in God’s Word in 2010: Genesis and Isaiah. [...]

By: Aaron B

Aaron B — Wed, 06 Jan 2010 09:36:14 +0000

Jim:
“Latter-day Saints believe that, for the most part, the scriptures are literal histories of different groups of God’s people. The word “literal” means “by the letter.” So, when we say that the scriptures are literally true, we mean that they are true in the way described by the letters and words used to write them. In other words, a literally true text means what it says. However, the question remains what we mean by the word “true” when we say that something is literally true.”

Your first sentence purports to describe what LDS churchmembers believe, and I think it’s largely accurate. But in your last sentence, when you say that “the question remains …” it seems to me you should be saying “the question SHOULD remain.” For I don’t think there’s that much of a question — I suspect many (most?) LDS people think they have a pretty good handle on what it means for the scriptures to be literally “true,” and I suspect they don’t have anything like your definition in mind. That they SHOULD have your definition in mind is something I’m completely on board with, but that’s different.

Anyway, I too really appreciate your OT posts, and find them very helpful and clarifying.

By: Matthew Corrects Mark - Figs Anyone? - Page 4 - LDS Mormon Forums

Matthew Corrects Mark - Figs Anyone? - Page 4 - LDS Mormon Forums — Tue, 05 Jan 2010 16:09:29 +0000

[...] their view of Deity. They focused upon the action/verb. Jim Faulconer explains it nicely here: Why Reading the OT is Sometimes so Difficult Feast upon the Word Blog It is very likely that Mark and Matthew, each with a different audience and each with a different [...]

By: joespencer

joespencer — Mon, 04 Jan 2010 14:05:06 +0000

Gardner’s article is indeed good, and some of what he does is exactly the kind of work we need to be doing on the Book of Mormon, but I think his reading of the Book of Mormon remains too naive—and too archaeological. Let’s double Gardner’s historical-critical approach to these questions with rhetorical and hermeneutical approaches!

By: Jim F.

Jim F. — Mon, 04 Jan 2010 04:59:18 +0000

Thanks for this link, Robert.

By: Robert C.

Robert C. — Mon, 04 Jan 2010 04:14:47 +0000

By the way, Brant Gardner has an excellent article in the most recent FARMS Review that tries to think through Mormon's non-historical (by modern standards) editorial approach to editing the Book of Mormon: "Mormon's Editorial Method and Meta-Message"

By: Robert C.

Robert C. — Mon, 04 Jan 2010 03:14:18 +0000

Jenny, what if a teacher took up a scriptural phrase where "truth" occurs (e.g., Moses 5:7 for next week's lesson, I think) and asked what truth means (in this particular passage)? This could naturally lead to a discussion of what the term meant in Hebrew, which is based on a verbal understanding, "to be true to"---like one is true to a spouse. This is a very different understanding of truth than our modern understanding of truth and history, etc., etc. And then, it would be important to bring this point up several times in subsequent lessons in various ways to get the idea to stick. Truth and faith are etymologically intertwined in Hebrew, and I think this is an endlessly fascinating topic (and challenging for us modern folks to understand), that I think there are many occasions and reasons to keep reiterating this "being true to" way of thinking (again, this article by Terry Warner is very rich, IMHO...).

By: jennywebb

jennywebb — Mon, 04 Jan 2010 03:07:19 +0000

Jim, just wanted to echo my thanks and let you know I find these posts useful. I’d be interested in the community’s thoughts on how the points Jim makes in this post could be effectively introduced into a Sunday School class. I know the teacher could present the ideas, but this topic in particular seems appropriate for some kind of object lesson and/or class participation or practice to help cement the idea.

By: Chris Henrichsen

Chris Henrichsen — Sun, 03 Jan 2010 19:46:17 +0000

As someone who primarily deals with modern and contemporary thought, I am often at a lost as to how to make sense of the OT. This is particularly problematic now that I am teaching Sunday School to 16 and 17 year olds. Jim, these posts are really helping me. Thanks. Keep up the good work.

By: Why Reading the Old Testament is Sometimes so Difficult | Visions of the Kingdom

Sun, 03 Jan 2010 13:37:06 +0000

[...] Feast Upon the Word has presented an old Times and Seasons post that was so good and relevant to the topic of this site, that I thought I would point you towards it. It discusses the very different manner in which the Hebrews wrote and recorded history, and gives suggestions as to how we can learn from it. Read the post here: Why Reading the Old Testament is Sometimes so Difficult [...]

By: languages with the most words | LANGUAGES

languages with the most words | LANGUAGES — Sun, 03 Jan 2010 08:10:40 +0000

[...] Why Reading the OT is Sometimes so Difficult « Feast upon the Word … [...]

By: Jim F.

Jim F. — Sun, 03 Jan 2010 05:36:56 +0000

KirkC and Nitsav: thanks very much for your kind comments.

By: Nitsav

Nitsav — Sun, 03 Jan 2010 04:38:34 +0000

Excellent post! Captures many things I’ve been thinking about saying and haven’t had time to get to yet.

“For us, to exist is, basically, to be a material object. For them, to exist is, basically, to do something.” This is exactly the argument of John Walton’s new book on Genesis 1. He argues that Genesis 1 is not describing physical creation, but functional creation, and thus has no conflict with science. (That at, least, is how I understand it based on reviews and an hour-long lecture available on-line. I haven’t been able to get to the book yet.)

By: KirkC

KirkC — Sun, 03 Jan 2010 04:27:41 +0000

Jim, I don’t really have anything to add here, I wanted to say how much I love reading your thoughts. You have a great way of making the complex simple. Your posts really increase my understanding of scripture and the gospel.

By: Why It Is Sometimes So Hard to Understand the OT | Times & Seasons

Why It Is Sometimes So Hard to Understand the OT | Times & Seasons — Sun, 03 Jan 2010 04:13:18 +0000

[...] on this post should be made at Feast Upon the Word 0 people like this post. [...]