Gotta love Nibley

[martybess]

SECRETS OF THE SCRIPTURES - THE CREATION, Hugh Nibley

“you read the Bible and you say, "Oh yes, but that's an abstract. That's not even fourth dimensional." See what they have done to the scriptures here? Well, how do you know that these scriptures were originally meant to be taken literally? Any history, any scientific structure can be interpreted allegorically but no one goes to the trouble to invent really good history to have it denatured as allegory or symbolism.

Most Bibles stories weren't made up, that scripture wasn't made up for the purpose of being allegorized and was certainly not invented as an allegory or as a symbol. That was read into it later, until the fourth century. It never occurred to anyone to do that. Remember what these doctors of the fourth century called the Early Christians: they called them 'primitive', and that has a note of contempt in it. They call their stories 'old wives' tales' because they really believed in these things. They called them literalists and made great fun of them. (That is the word Jerome used for them.) And we are the spiritualizers. We understand all these things in a spiritual sense. We are not contaminated by this idea of a physical world, but you go back to the early Christian world and they accepted these things physically, and this puts everything on a different footing. It makes them more interesting than science fiction. Science fiction is only rather a horrible aberration from this, but it's so much more optimistic, and you might even say more convincing. “

If I get what Nibley is saying here the Bible was a historical account and was straight foward but over the years of interpretations it ended up more like stories to make them interesting and mystically spiritual. If you look at the differances in the Bible and the BOM this makes scenes to me.

-Marty

[Hemidakota]

Marty, have you ever taken a course or class with Professor Nibley? Your first requirement is a voice recorder. Remember, he has a recall span of pure accuracy when he converse an article in detail in class as it is written ten-years ago, referencing what magazine or book to read. :)

I have to agree with some of his assessment with the Bible. Even Joseph noticed this when trying to correct the mistakes within.

[martybess]

No, I'm old enough to have been there while he taught I thought I was to smart for that kind of sutff. Young and dumb as they say. LOL Was he classes hard?

-Marty

[Hemidakota]

Yes....he would have an open statement and then before closing it back on subject, diverse into more than 20-plus directions that had ties to the subject. Confusing? Yes....but the wealth he brought to a class, books, or articles, that most in the church would not even considered.

It opened many doors of research and asking for a divine answer on outside of the box doctrinal stuff.

[Moksha]

SECRETS OF THE SCRIPTURES - THE CREATION, Hugh Nibley

... no one goes to the trouble to invent really good history to have it denatured as allegory or symbolism.

I am sure Tolkien and Lewis would agree that their stories were meant to be taken as a whole and not denatured in any way. However they would freely admit that their stories are full of symbolism and that we could profit by gleaning the truths in much of the symbolism.

As to historicity, are we not enriched by having read of the deeds of the three ages of Middle Earth, whether they happened or not?

:)

[RipplecutBuddha]

I am sure Tolkien and Lewis would agree that their stories were meant to be taken as a whole and not denatured in any way. However they would freely admit that their stories are full of symbolism and that we could profit by gleaning the truths in much of the symbolism.

As to historicity, are we not enriched by having read of the deeds of the three ages of Middle Earth, whether they happened or not?

:)

Tolkien and Lewis never claimed their writings were real history. The Bible has made that claim from the beginning. Therein lies the difference.

As to the Rings Trilogy...they are entertaining and morally uplifting pieces of fiction sure enough, but how much more powerful would those stories have been were they actual history? That is the impact the Bible should have upon all of us, for the stories of valor, honor, truth, and loyalty to moral right exceed anything of fictional origin.

[Snow]

If I get what Nibley is saying here the Bible was a historical account and was straight foward but over the years of interpretations it ended up more like stories to make them interesting and mystically spiritual. If you look at the differances in the Bible and the BOM this makes scenes to me.

-Marty

He might be saying that, but he isn't saying that he believes all the accounts are historically true. I spoke with him in his living room shortly before his death and his explanation of the Book of Job didn't leave me feeling like he thought it was literally true.

[Traveler]

He might be saying that, but he isn't saying that he believes all the accounts are historically true. I spoke with him in his living room shortly before his death and his explanation of the Book of Job didn't leave me feeling like he thought it was literally true.

I believe you are close Snow. My brother was the home teacher of brother Nibley and I have had to opportunity to be in his home with my brother discussing gospel topics. It is my impression that Nibley understood that scriptures were full of “types and shadows”. The epochs of scripture reflect both things that have been and things that will be. This is not really based in symbolism or allegories.

As a student I did not have a pleasant experience in that class I took from Nibley. Many times during class he would be reading an article (not written in English) and forget what language he was speaking going on for some time. Since I lacked the gift of tongues I had no clue what he was talking about. He would seldom recognize a raised hand with a question or pay any attention to please speak English until he had finished his point but preferred to ask question of students when he felt like it. Usually leaving a student wondering what just happened. His sense of humor was dry and hard to handle. For the final (Book of Mormon class) he came in and wrote on the black board one question and left the class. The question was something like – explain page 257 of the Book of Mormon. About 5 minutes later he returned to and class giggling and asked if we really believed that was the final. Feeling relieved because I did not know the Book of Mormon page by page then to my dismay he erased the seven and replaced it with eight and left the class room. I was lucky because I remembered that he had highlighted page 258 but most of the class could not answer. BTW when I was at BYU Hugh only taught honor classes.

Personally I would attend any lecture or audit any class but after that one class I had no desire to matriculate any class taught by Brother Nibley I was challenged enough at the time with advanced Laplace Transforms and Integral Calculus.

The Traveler

[Snow]

I believe you are close Snow. My brother was the home teacher of brother Nibley and I have had to opportunity to be in his home with my brother discussing gospel topics. It is my impression that Nibley understood that scriptures were full of “types and shadows”. The epochs of scripture reflect both things that have been and things that will be. This is not really based in symbolism or allegories.

As a student I did not have a pleasant experience in that class I took from Nibley. Many times during class he would be reading an article (not written in English) and forget what language he was speaking going on for some time. Since I lacked the gift of tongues I had no clue what he was talking about. He would seldom recognize a raised hand with a question or pay any attention to please speak English until he had finished his point but preferred to ask question of students when he felt like it. Usually leaving a student wondering what just happened. His sense of humor was dry and hard to handle. For the final (Book of Mormon class) he came in and wrote on the black board one question and left the class. The question was something like – explain page 257 of the Book of Mormon. About 5 minutes later he returned to and class giggling and asked if we really believed that was the final. Feeling relieved because I did not know the Book of Mormon page by page then to my dismay he erased the seven and replaced it with eight and left the class room. I was lucky because I remembered that he had highlighted page 258 but most of the class could not answer. BTW when I was at BYU Hugh only taught honor classes.

Personally I would attend any lecture or audit any class but after that one class I had no desire to matriculate any class taught by Brother Nibley I was challenged enough at the time with advanced Laplace Transforms and Integral Calculus.

The Traveler

Great story Traveler.

One of my earliest remembrances of Nibley was one Saturday my dad and were driving down to Provo for a visit. I was about 8. In the car I asked my dad what happened to Lake Bonneville. He explained a bit and said, why don't you ask Hugh when we see him. We caught up with Dr. Nibley in his office on campus, (working on a Saturday). I asked the question and recall thinking, as he answered, "HEY, I'm Eight Years Old!" He was talking to me like a adult geologist.

[Hemidakota]

I spoke with him in his living room shortly before his death and his explanation of the Book of Job didn't leave me feeling like he thought it was literally true.

If it wasn't true, why would the Savior mention this to Joseph Smith in the Doctrine and Covenants?

[Traveler]

If it wasn't true, why would the Savior mention this to Joseph Smith in the Doctrine and Covenants?

If Job is literal then what was Satan doing in heaven after being cast out? I have my own answer but thought I would ask this to follow up on your post.

The Traveler

[Hemidakota]

It doesn't matter on what the original author written observed but what did the Lord state to Joseph Smith. I concur with Job thought when I had encountered a vision of something similar. Was Lucifer in the presence of the GOD or the Savior? I would say yes from my observation, whether or not it did happen is another topic.

Traveler, then there is opinion on what transpired with selecting a Savior for this world. This assumption would follow the observation of two great prophets, Moses account on whom spoke first vice what Abraham account. Authorship observation on what was seen and written doesn't distract from the core of the content.

[Hemidakota]

Late edition: to add, do you not think that Joseph Smith would have corrected this fact or stated, it was not a true account? It is the same thinking with the Lord sitting in the dirt conversing with the adulterer that was condemn by the priests. If it didn't happen, would not Joseph simply removed it or stated, it did not happen? See the point? We can assume, a Seer, who is greater than a prophet, would of seen it and made those remarks.

[Maxel]

Late edition: to add, do you not think that Joseph Smith would have corrected this fact or stated, it was not a true account? It is the same thinking with the Lord sitting in the dirt conversing with the adulterer that was condemn by the priests. If it didn't happen, would not Joseph simply removed it or stated, it did not happen? See the point? We can assume, a Seer, who is greater than a prophet, would of seen it and made those remarks.

I believe the story of Job is factual, but I do want to point out, Hemi, that a seer's job isn't to correct every single error promulgated by tradition and time. Even if the story of Job is wholly allegorical, it is still inspired and, therefore, "profitable... for instruction in righteousness" (2 Timothy 3:16). I can see the prophet not being information about the actuality of Job as a person because his concern and mission was about procuring helpful scripture and doctrine for the final dispensation.

[Snow]

If Job is literal then what was Satan doing in heaven after being cast out? I have my own answer but thought I would ask this to follow up on your post.

The Traveler

Nibley explains that Satan in the story is not the devil. Satan is Hasatan, a typical figure is such literature who is an agent or spy for the king (God), hanging out in alleys and bathrooms checking on what people really think and say about the king when the king isn't around.

[Snow]

I believe the story of Job is factual, but I do want to point out, Hemi, that a seer's job isn't to correct every single error promulgated by tradition and time. Even if the story of Job is wholly allegorical, it is still inspired and, therefore, "profitable... for instruction in righteousness" (2 Timothy 3:16). I can see the prophet not being information about the actuality of Job as a person because his concern and mission was about procuring helpful scripture and doctrine for the final dispensation.

See - that's the problem. If you think it is literal, you think that God conspired with Satan to kill God's family to prove a point to Satan.

That God would engage is such repugnant behavior is absurd.

[Snow]

Late edition: to add, do you not think that Joseph Smith would have corrected this fact or stated, it was not a true account? It is the same thinking with the Lord sitting in the dirt conversing with the adulterer that was condemn by the priests. If it didn't happen, would not Joseph simply removed it or stated, it did not happen? See the point? We can assume, a Seer, who is greater than a prophet, would of seen it and made those remarks.

If you believe that Joseph Smith automatically understood all truth. Obviously he did not. There were lots of things he didn't know.

[Snow]

If it wasn't true, why would the Savior mention this to Joseph Smith in the Doctrine and Covenants?

Why do you think that Christ has to have talk Joseph Smith everything about the scriptures?

The point of Job is that it teaches an allegorical truth and that is true regardless of what God did or did not teach JS.