Figurative vs Literal


mikbone
 Share

Recommended Posts

16 hours ago, priesthoodpower said:

* For the record. There have been many people that have had near death experiences where they talk to angels or even God himself, one particular NDE said she Talked to God, she asked God which religion or church is his, God told her none of them. Im sure vort will chime in here and say she was deceived because its not the answer that vort wanted to hear. smh!

syh indeed. I see you're quite proficient at pummeling strawmen and scarecrows. Careful Mr Wayne, people will guess your alter ego.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought to bring this thread back to its roots - which is the understanding of literal meanings in scripture as opposed to symbolic meanings.  When we talk about literal meaning - what is that?  Some look at scripture (Genesis) and say because the scripture say certain things were created on certain days that in adding up the days we are to understand that the earth and heaven were created in 6 days and that G-d rested on the 7th.  It is argued that this is the "Literal" meaning of scripture.  This approach has many "literal" problems.  The first problem is that of translation.  The LITERAL problem of translation is that languages have different literal structures and therefore in many cases, Literal translations are not even possible.  

In addition every word has a extent or extended meaning (which is all the possible meaning for a word) and the intent or intended meaning (the intended meaning is the limited special edition meaning of the word as defined specifically within the literal structure or context of the word).  I can give many examples of how translations create problems.  Here is a personal favorite beyond translation.  "The lamb is too hot to eat."  Even though we have the entire phrase we do not know from this phrase if the lamb is trying to eat something itself or if it is being eaten by something else - which is kind of opposite meanings.  In order to understand the correct meaning of the phrase one would have to dig deeper into the literary context or structure of the phrase.  In order to dig deeper one has to have an intimate knowledge of the language in which the phrase was given.  Sometimes the individual initiating the communication makes literal errors that causes confusion especially if one takes such mistakes literally. 

What is very interesting to me is that many do not understand ancient literature and that anciently there was a difference in between spoken and written constructs.  Certain pieces of literature like the book of Isaiah and Revelation the literary structures are part of the intended understanding.  Anciently it was believed that only a prophet called of G-d could write scripture in the proper literary formats.  Note that I said formats (plural).  Then it was also believed that one must have divine power bestowed upon them to read and understand scripture properly.  Some ancient cultures such as the Gnostics seemed to take this concept to extreems.  Sadly many that claim that scripture is to be understood literally lack the "education" to understand the literal structures of scripture.  It is like someone saying, "I believe what the prophet says."  And so we ask, "What did the prophet say?" - And they cannot answer that question.

What is even more interesting is how Jesus used scripture.  For example when he made direct reference to scripture he never quoted the scripture exactly. - as in John 10:34.  Yet often he would quote scripture almost word for word without making a reference to the source of the scripture as he did in what we call the sermon on the mount.  I personally think he did such things for many reasons - including, one being to rattle the brains of the Pharisees that thought themselves masters of the literary structures of scriptures.

I already posted that the Book of Mormon can be traced as "Historical" through places in the Saudi Arabian Peninsula but once the narrative goes to the sea we cannot trace if the ocean journey went east or west - which would significantly impact where they would have arrived in the Americas. If there was data that indicated time of year and length of days then we could with some confidence determine longitude within the Americas.  But such information is missing.  It is interesting that the Book of Mormon says little about seasons - which may or may not be clues to help establish possible locations.  There are some geographical features but they are not conclusive.  I am not an expert but from the geographical features included - none of the "suggested" location I have considered make sense.

I can say I believe certain details concerning the Book of Mormon but I cannot provide enough empirical evidence to back my impressions.  And for me - I have not been given any divine instruction into this matter.  In addition, I have been given divine direction indicating that I need to understand the Book of Mormon - not so much to understand the Nephits (that no longer exist on this planet) but to understand the religious and political conditions currently going on in the Americas and the rest of the world.

 

The Traveler

Edited by Traveler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/10/2019 at 4:19 AM, priesthoodpower said:

My argument with the resurrected Jesus Christ (his earthly ministry is a little different of an argument) is that only a handful of people saw him face-to-face and no one else can do that anymore. Only 15 people saw the Golden plates and no one else can see it anymore. As missionaries we were taught that without the spirit you will not convert anyone so what does that say about the tangible resources that currently exist?

It is interesting that you make statements of speculation that you cannot prove in criticism of what you think are speculations from others that they cannot prove.   I can give examples where some thinking they had divine revelation to contradict empirical evidence were wrong - I do not know of any cases when they were correct.  Likewise I can give examples where some have used what they thought was empirical evidence to disprove revelation - and they have been wrong.  Not sure I know of any examples here where they were right.

It is my understanding that if we want to understand much of anything that we should pay close attention to what we can glean from divine inspiration and empirical evidence - and then, while still considering both, if we come across better understanding - that we should be anxious to accept it.

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought to add something more about literal reading and understanding the Book of Mormon.  In a previous post I have made reference to literal forms and structure in understanding "literal" intent of scripture.  So here is a thought:  If we understand literal forms and structure by type - how many realize that there are at least 5 identical literal poetic forms in the Book of Mormon that speak of a exodus that parallels the exodus in the Old Testament under the direction of Moses acting as a prophet deliverer.  I call these references the exodus literal format.

There are also several accounts of what I will call a war literal formats that parallel Isaiah's war literal sauga concerning the war between Israel and Assyria.  How in time or great threat a people turn to G-d for protection from a seemingly greater army.  It is my understanding that this will also parallel the great and final war between good and evil prior to the return of the messiah.

I believe that when such literary forms and formats are used in a literary consistent manner that the proper term is a "type and shadow".   Is there anyone else that believes types and shadows are literal interpretations of scripture?  And the next question is - what is a symbolic interpretation?  Is it possible that literal and symbolic meanings ought to be the same thing?

 

The Traveler

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎9‎/‎11‎/‎2019 at 11:04 AM, Traveler said:

I already posted that the Book of Mormon can be traced as "Historical" through places in the Saudi Arabian Peninsula but once the narrative goes to the sea we cannot trace if the ocean journey went east or west - which would significantly impact where they would have arrived in the Americas. If there was data that indicated time of year and length of days then we could with some confidence determine longitude within the Americas.  But such information is missing.  It is interesting that the Book of Mormon says little about seasons - which may or may not be clues to help establish possible locations.  There are some geographical features but they are not conclusive.  I am not an expert but from the geographical features included - none of the "suggested" location I have considered make sense.

I can say I believe certain details concerning the Book of Mormon but I cannot provide enough empirical evidence to back my impressions.  And for me - I have not been given any divine instruction into this matter.  In addition, I have been given divine direction indicating that I need to understand the Book of Mormon - not so much to understand the Nephits (that no longer exist on this planet) but to understand the religious and political conditions currently going on in the Americas and the rest of the world.

 

The Traveler

Parts of it, anyways.  The part which many Mormon Historians claim that Lehi and his family went through are impassable...which makes most who have seen the area HIGHLY DOUBT that ANY family passed through that area. 

It's not just a matter of time, the family probably would have lost over half it's members trying travel through the area it's so dangerous to traverse in the fashion they would have those many centuries ago.

In addition, once you have seen some of the other areas...they don't actually match up with what is described.

With the timeline of 8 years and mostly an Eastward direction, to ME it makes more sense that after spending some time through the Peninsula that they traveled East through Asia.  The timeline fits better...AND the currents of the ocean match better with a voyage that could have actually gotten them to the Americas (the currents and winds from Saudi Arabia stand a better chance of having them end up elsewhere with the technology of ships they had during that time period).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

Parts of it, anyways.  The part which many Mormon Historians claim that Lehi and his family went through are impassable...which makes most who have seen the area HIGHLY DOUBT that ANY family passed through that area. 

It's not just a matter of time, the family probably would have lost over half it's members trying travel through the area it's so dangerous to traverse in the fashion they would have those many centuries ago.

In addition, once you have seen some of the other areas...they don't actually match up with what is described.

With the timeline of 8 years and mostly an Eastward direction, to ME it makes more sense that after spending some time through the Peninsula that they traveled East through Asia.  The timeline fits better...AND the currents of the ocean match better with a voyage that could have actually gotten them to the Americas (the currents and winds from Saudi Arabia stand a better chance of having them end up elsewhere with the technology of ships they had during that time period).

There are questions and problems concerning Lehi in Arabia.  Among the problems are political difficulties in getting access to places described in the Book of Mormon.  Regardless of debates there are places that meet descriptions that fit the historical narrative.  For example the Book of Mormon references the "borders" near the Red Sea.  Borders are a known ancient reference to mountain ranges.  Though such terminology is currently known - it was not known among scholars in America when Joseph translated the Book of Mormon.  The point being here is that geographical descriptions in the Book of Mormon can be shown, not just possible, but with a preponderance of being accurate.  So much so that there is not a single element or description that can be said to be a provable flaw.  Various archaeologists can argue if one place or another better fits the narrative but there is no argument that any place in the narrative could not exist within the very limited range of possibilities.

There is a place on the Arabian Peninsula that fits the narrative for "Bountiful" - right down to details of the exact oars in the local mountains to wild honey and lots of fruit that would have existed at the time of Lehi.  I do not know of any such place in Eastern Asia.  I would also point out that when European mariners (post Crusades) were able to navigate around the Southern reaches of Africa that within 40 years were blown off course trying to return and ended up in the Americas (south America).  Had Nephi started his sea journey from Asia the trade winds and currents would have landed them either to the extremes north (Canada) or South in Chile - neither of which seem to meet the narrative as I understand it. 

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/11/2019 at 11:04 AM, Traveler said:

I already posted that the Book of Mormon can be traced as "Historical" through places in the Saudi Arabian Peninsula

Well, not really.    Jeff Lindsay and others have published various therories (though Jeff Lindsay's is usually second hand, he has perhaps the most comprehensive collection of theories about locations in the Book of Mormon), but none can be traced historically and all are just speculation and guesswork.    All of the theories have several holes in them when it comes to geographic descriptions.    The same is true of the proposed locations for the events in the Book of Mormon in the Americas.    They're all just guesswork/speculation and not definitive.  It might be fun to speculate on such locations, but we really don't know and none of the theories match the geography in the Book of Mormon with any definitive pinpointing.   I'd suggesting taking any claims of discovering each location in the Book of Mormon with a grain of salt.   

Quote

There is a place on the Arabian Peninsula that fits the narrative for "Bountiful" - right down to details of the exact oars in the local mountains to wild honey and lots of fruit that would have existed at the time of Lehi. 

There are many who claim to find such a place.    Some candidates are Khor Kharfot or Wadi Sayq.    While coastal Oman would be the mostly likely candidate, there is no definitive consensus as to the exact location.  Also, even if it were in Oman (which is likely), the journey from the northern Red Sea to Oman (which is a long distance) is a very long one which doesn't fit any narrative.   

The same is true for the locations in the Americas.  I have sometimes thought, for example, that Ciudad Perdida in Colombia might be Zarahemla, but that's merely guesswork and speculation on my part and by no means definitive.  

 The same is also true of claims of people (including ones not of our faith) who have "discovered" the real Mt Sinai, Noah's ark landing place, etc.  They're just guesswork and speculation.  

Edited by Scott
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
Guest CoEternal
On 9/6/2019 at 5:43 AM, mikbone said:

Is it ok to believe that the Fall of Adam or that the Book of Mormon narratives are just stories that God has revealed or should we perceive these accounts as actual events that occurred to real people? And does it matter?

Yes, because they are, as Brigham has told us , "a Hollow Toadstool Story". A story meant to satisfy without revealing the truth that the audience is not ready to hear. Where the truth would do more harm than good. But Joseph revealed some of the true garden story to us, it is found in many places - The Doctrines of Salvation for one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share