tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post112675042138164691..comments2023-11-02T07:25:45.884-05:00Comments on Mormanity - a blog for those interested in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints: Thought of the Day from Mike ParkerJeff Lindsayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08776493593387402607noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1126991773409645162005-09-17T16:16:00.000-05:002005-09-17T16:16:00.000-05:00Anonymous: In the case of the first few chapters o...<I><B>Anonymous:</B> In the case of the first few chapters of Genesis, I don't believe that it teaches, or that its writer(s) intended to teach, scientific principles. It is written in the language of mythology and poetry, and to me there's plenty of truth about the nature of God and the nature of humankind to accept it on that level.</I><BR/><BR/>I agree with what you've written. The thing to watch out for is not to go too far and start thinking the Bible or the Book of Mormon are ahistorical — <I>all</I> allegory and "inspired fiction."<BR/><BR/>We can (and should, IMO) accept the scriptures as histories written by real people who sometimes had lots of revelation and limited scientific, geographic, and historical detail at their command.Peterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04120374705032268459noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1126990403910148312005-09-17T15:53:00.000-05:002005-09-17T15:53:00.000-05:00Anonymous: joseph smith, on the other hand, was a ...<I><B>Anonymous:</B> joseph smith, on the other hand, was a dictation machine.</I><BR/><BR/>I'm not sure if this post was meant to be funny or serious, but I'll proceed on on the presumption that it's serious.<BR/><BR/>Joseph Smith did not write his revelations by dictation; he heard the voice of the Spirit and used the best words and phrases at his disposal. This is evident by the fact that he went back and edited his early revelations years afterward to include additional material as well as revise some things.Peterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04120374705032268459noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1126975712902492322005-09-17T11:48:00.000-05:002005-09-17T11:48:00.000-05:00Mike Parker — I pretty much agree with you (althou...Mike Parker — I pretty much agree with you (although I might word some things differently). I firmly believe that what Scripture teaches is true; the question is what is it that Scripture is teaching. In the case of the first few chapters of Genesis, I don't believe that it teaches, or that its writer(s) intended to teach, scientific principles. It is written in the language of mythology and poetry, and to me there's plenty of truth about the nature of God and the nature of humankind to accept it on that level. And what if we don't know what's literally true and what's symbolically true? Well, that's what we have the Holy Spirit, modern revelations and our brains for.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1126920478853300692005-09-16T20:27:00.000-05:002005-09-16T20:27:00.000-05:00joseph smith, on the other hand, was a dictation m...joseph smith, on the other hand, was a dictation machine.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1126913719158718512005-09-16T18:35:00.000-05:002005-09-16T18:35:00.000-05:00Steve,I reject your unsupported conclusion. That's...Steve,<BR/><BR/>I reject your unsupported conclusion. That's an overly fundamentalist viewpoint that is likely to cause you to lose your testimony one day when incontrovertible scientific evidence flies in the face of your interpretation of the scriptures.<BR/><BR/>Just because scriptures were written by men who were inspired by God doesn't mean that they weren't still <I>men</I>. The Holy Ghost whispered to them, and they wrote as best they could what they received.<BR/><BR/>The authors of the Book of Mormon themselves explained several times that their writing was imperfect, but that the teachings in the book were from God (1 Nephi 19:6; 2 Nephi 33:4; Mormon 8:17; 9:31-33; Ether 12:23-26). Moroni pleaded on the title page, "And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God...."<BR/><BR/>The ancient prophets believed things we <I>know</I> to be false, such as eating mandrakes assures conception, and having goats eat green poplar, hazel, and chestnut branches produces striped and spotted offspring (Genesis 30). These were scientific "facts" at the time, but we know them now to be nothing more than superstitions.<BR/><BR/>The scriptural authors were not dictation machines, nor did they receive a perfect knowledge of the things they were called to reveal. They often were required to fit God's revelations into their preexisting understanding of the world.<BR/><BR/>We can, therefore, accept the revelations while also accepting that the scientific and cosmological paradigm in which they operated was not correct.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1126827375123668472005-09-15T18:36:00.000-05:002005-09-15T18:36:00.000-05:00And I might add that the vast majority of the scie...And I might add that the vast majority of the scientific problems with Bible are in the first 10 chapters of Genesis. It seems clear to me that the authors of Genesis were attempting to lay out a creation/foundation story to set the stage for Abraham and the founding of the Israelite nation. This creation/foundation story included elements of revelation (there were people named Adam and Noah, etc.) with their attempt to explain what happened to these people, based on their limited cosmology.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1126827066718662282005-09-15T18:31:00.000-05:002005-09-15T18:31:00.000-05:00Steve,There is no need for sarcasm. You misunderst...Steve,<BR/><BR/>There is no need for sarcasm. You misunderstand what I wrote.<BR/><BR/>The resurrection is a matter outside of science, it is one of faith. The NT does not make any scientific statements about how Jesus came back from the dead, it only says he did. I accept that on faith.<BR/><BR/>Genesis 1 is another matter. It makes specific claims about how the earth was created and what its nature is. We clearly know those claims — when read literally — to be wrong (we regularly send satellites and astronauts into orbit, so I think it's safe to say that the sky isn't a solid dome). So there has to be a way to harmonize the two. I laid out what I thought were three possible options: (1) science is wrong and the Bible is right, therefore the space program is a giant hoax; (2) science is right and the Bible is right, we only have to interpret the Bible correctly; and (3) science is right and the Bible is wrong.<BR/><BR/>Personally, in the case of Genesis 1, I take option 3. But that option does not require complete rejection of the Bible or the gospel, it only requires that one accept that the Bible reflects what its authors believed. It is possible to accept the Bible as historical and true, while believing that it incorporates some elements of myth and attempted explanations of the miraculous.<BR/><BR/>Another example is Noah and the ark. The biblical text does not demand that Noah got every animal in the world onto the ark, nor does it demand that the entire earth — <I>as we moderns understand it</I> — was completely covered in water. It only requires that Noah put all the animals on that he was commanded to, and that — <I>from his perspective</I> — the entire earth, horizon to horizon, was covered with water. It's when we try to synchronize our modern scientific understanding of the earth (57,500,000 square miles) with our <I>preconceived interpretations</I> of the Flood story (the entire earth sphere was covered with water), that we run into problems.<BR/><BR/>I hope I've been more clear.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1126813544496260972005-09-15T14:45:00.000-05:002005-09-15T14:45:00.000-05:00Books of Mormon in Indy,The cosmology of the ancie...Books of Mormon in Indy,<BR/><BR/>The cosmology of the ancient Hebrews was not much different than those of the surrounding cultures.<BR/><BR/>They believed that the earth was flat, bordered on the edges where mountains connected with a solid dome that was the sky (translated "firmament" in the KJV).<BR/><BR/>There were bodies of water covering the face of the earth (oceans, lakes, etc.), below the earth, and above the firmament. The firmament had door-like openings which could be opened by God to let down rain or cast down other blessings (Genesis 7:11; Genesis 8:2; Malachi 3:10). Job 37:18 refers to the skies poured out like a molten mirror, and Daniel 12:3 and Ezekiel 1:22 portray it as shiny — the sky was thought to be like a glass dome.<BR/><BR/>Above the firmament was the dwelling place of God. Under the earth were pillars that supported it as well as Sheol, the dwelling place of the dead.<BR/><BR/>There are several artists conceptions of this that will help you grasp the idea:<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://www.aug.edu/~nprinsky/Humn2001/bbl-gn-hvn.GIF" REL="nofollow">Artist's conception 1</A><BR/><A HREF="http://www.worldhistory1a.homestead.com/files/newcosmology.jpg" REL="nofollow">Artist's conception 2</A><BR/><A HREF="http://www.hofesh.org.il/articles/science/hebrew_cosmo.jpg" REL="nofollow">Artist's conception 3</A><BR/><BR/>It's clear from your last post that you prefer option 2 in my last message (interpretation). I don't think, however, that it's necessary for the ancient Hebrew authors of the OT to have had a correct understanding of cosmology. What was important (and correct) was that God created the universe.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1126805846422340872005-09-15T12:37:00.000-05:002005-09-15T12:37:00.000-05:00The Mike:Genesis 1:6-7. There was a firmament pl...The Mike:<BR/><BR/>Genesis 1:6-7. There was a firmament placed, and there were waters above the firmament and waters below the firmament. What is a "firmament"? And is it still there?<BR/><BR/>If the firmament is "heaven" as in verse 8, then is "sky" or "atmosphere" a proper synonym for firmament? <BR/><BR/>What were the waters above it? Was there a layer of water or water vapor in orbit over the earth above the atmosphere?<BR/><BR/>Was the "firmament" actually a dome or barrier up in the sky or just an expanse?<BR/><BR/>My grandfather theorized that the waters that were above the firmament came down in Noah's flood. And that the down-flow of that water did several things:<BR/><BR/>1. Removed the partial "filter" that the water vapor provided from the sun's rays and other cosmic radiation.<BR/><BR/>2. Washed trace minerals out of the earth and into the sea.<BR/><BR/>As the life span of men decreased from pre-flood to post-flood, my grandfather theorized that a cause may have been the reduction of trace minerals in the diet.Bookslingerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15077778974473538408noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1126801643209316812005-09-15T11:27:00.000-05:002005-09-15T11:27:00.000-05:00steve: When science and the scripture agree, excel...<I><B>steve:</B> When science and the scripture agree, excellent. When science and the Scripture DISAGREE, I will take the Scriptures.</I><BR/><BR/>The problem with this is determining what the scriptures <I>say</I> versus what we <I>think</I> they say. Interpretation is the crux of the matter, and it is interpretation that divided Christianity over and over again for 2,000 years.<BR/><BR/>For example, the literalist reading of Genesis 1 would indicate that the earth was created in 6 days of 24 hours each, with light created first, then a solid dome ("firmament") for the sky, then dry land and plants, then stars, and so forth. But we know — not theorize, <I>know</I> — that the sky isn't a solid structure and that stars existed before dry land.<BR/><BR/>So we're left with three options: (1) reject science and believe that the sky really <I>is</I> solid, etc., or (2) interpret Genesis 1 to make it fit with our understanding of science, or (3) accept that the Genesis account reflects the understanding of the writers, and is not a scientific textbook.<BR/><BR/>(Personally I vouch for 3.)<BR/><BR/>But to insist that "when science and the Scripture disagree, I will take the Scriptures" is an overly dogmatic view that leads to unreasonable interpretations and an unfortunate rejection of scientific understanding of the universe that God has allowed us to grasp.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1126792720378755692005-09-15T08:58:00.000-05:002005-09-15T08:58:00.000-05:00It's wonderful knowing we haven't had everything r...It's wonderful knowing we haven't had everything revealed to us; it means there are things that will be revealed! Thus, God and His Son continue to watch out for us and guide us to this very day - and beyond!<BR/><BR/>Maybe if many of us heed the Prophet's call to read the BoM by the end of the year, we will be blessed with many things, including more revealed truth.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com