What's Real In The Ot?

[Ron Beron]

My wife and I have an essential disagreement about the OT. She believes that most of the OT is basically authentic and actually occurred. I feel much of the OT is a series of analogies that were used to teach us of God and His plan for us. Case in point. I believe Noah to have been borrowed from the Sumerian and Akkadian texts during the Babylonia captivity and redacted into the literature of Genesis. She believes that the story is fairly true as it is presented. What do the majority of posters feel about this? And what stories in the OT are absolutely historically authentic?

[jwhitlock]

Some of both. The OT has gone through too many hands; I suspect that parts of it are not to be taken literally.

[bunnzy]

I believe that there was an actual flood, and the reason for this is that the earth itself needs to go through its own 'ordinances' as such, in order to be celestialised after the second coming. The flood was the earths 'baptism'. The eath is also going to be cleansed by 'fire' which will be like our baptism of fire (receiving the Holy Ghost) So i do believe that the flood was literal.

I remember learning of the OT in Seminary, and we were taught (using Church approved manuals) that the OT is literal, (but like the article of faith, it is not all translated correctly) It has been a while since ive been in seminary. I would like to get a hold of that manual again, and do some of my own personal study, i dont think i have studied the OT enough. (I did study Isaiah, but that was more because it is encouraged in the BOM)

[siouxz72]

Some of both. The OT has gone through too many hands; I suspect that parts of it are not to be taken literally.

I agree with whitlock. If you'll notice, too, when we study the OT in gospel doctrine or such as now with our challenge from the stake prez, we usually skip of may parts of the book. I think that is because of the fact that it has "gone through too many hands".

[Sheelah]

So Lot's wife may not of been turned into a pillar of salt?! I get a slight stab of disappointment finding out too many of the stories might not be real. Darn you scholars anyway!!

[HiJolly]

I agree with jwhitlock, too. Also, much in the OT was written "after the manner of the learning of the Jews" (paraphrase) and so if you don't know their system, it tends to get way confusing. The Song of Solomon, for example, can't really be understood without a knowledge of Jewish mysticism, IMO.

I believe that there was an actual flood, and the reason for this is that the earth itself needs to go through its own 'ordinances' as such, in order to be celestialised after the second coming. The flood was the earths 'baptism'. The eath is also going to be cleansed by 'fire' which will be like our baptism of fire (receiving the Holy Ghost) So i do believe that the flood was literal.

I used to believe the 'ordinances' thing about the earth. I now have a really hard time believing it. It is NOT scriptural, and is NOT LDS originally. The idea was first found in nineteenth century protestantism, IIRC.

I believe in a local flood only. The evidence against a global flood is overwhelming. Symbolically, though, there is a ton of truth to be found in the Flood stories of the ancient world. This opinion of mine is contrary to the majority of the LDS membership, and is actively frowned on in the Church, so I usually don't say anything about it.

HiJolly

[Guest moreholinessgiveme]

My wife and I have an essential disagreement about the OT. She believes that most of the OT is basically authentic and actually occurred. I feel much of the OT is a series of analogies that were used to teach us of God and His plan for us. Case in point. I believe Noah to have been borrowed from the Sumerian and Akkadian texts during the Babylonia captivity and redacted into the literature of Genesis. She believes that the story is fairly true as it is presented. What do the majority of posters feel about this? And what stories in the OT are absolutely historically authentic?

Perhaps a healthier way to look at the Old Testament (since it is difficult, if not impossible to know how it has been modified) is "What can I learn from this story about the relationship between God and myself?" or "How does this story, when applied to my life, bring me closer to God?"

This brings us much more benefit than asking, "Did this actually happen as it says it happened?"

[HiJolly]

Perhaps a healthier way to look at the Old Testament (since it is difficult, if not impossible to know how it has been modified) is "What can I learn from this story about the relationship between God and myself?" or "How does this story, when applied to my life, bring me closer to God?"

This brings us much more benefit than asking, "Did this actually happen as it says it happened?"

Excellent point. Nephi nailed it when he said to liken the scriptures to ourselves. Totally agree w/ your point.

HiJolly

[jwhitlock]

Perhaps a healthier way to look at the Old Testament (since it is difficult, if not impossible to know how it has been modified) is "What can I learn from this story about the relationship between God and myself?" or "How does this story, when applied to my life, bring me closer to God?"

This brings us much more benefit than asking, "Did this actually happen as it says it happened?"

I also agree.

One of the very interesting books in the OT is Job; there is quite a bit of dispute as to whether Job was a real character or not. I'm not sure that question will every be resolved (and it is a valid question); however, there is a great deal to be learned from studying the book as additional insight into human affliction and that relationship with God and His blessings - putting aside the question of whether the book records an actual occurrence or not.

And the Savior did refer to Job in the context of what Joseph Smith was experiencing (D&C 121). Most of the benefit I gain from the OT is studying it in conjunction with latter day revelation.

[Guest moreholinessgiveme]

I also agree.

One of the very interesting books in the OT is Job; there is quite a bit of dispute as to whether Job was a real character or not. I'm not sure that question will every be resolved (and it is a valid question); however, there is a great deal to be learned from studying the book as additional insight into human affliction and that relationship with God and His blessings - putting aside the question of whether the book records an actual occurrence or not.

And the Savior did refer to Job in the context of what Joseph Smith was experiencing (D&C 121). Most of the benefit I gain from the OT is studying it in conjunction with latter day revelation.

What I thoroughly enjoy doing is taking ONE verse at a time, and sitting down with the Lord and allowing Him to teach me everything He is willing to teach me (and I am ready to receive) about that ONE verse. This is an interesting experience. A really exciting way to study and learn from the Source, Himself.

[Ron Beron]

I believe that there was an actual flood, and the reason for this is that the earth itself needs to go through its own 'ordinances' as such, in order to be celestialised after the second coming. The flood was the earths 'baptism'. The eath is also going to be cleansed by 'fire' which will be like our baptism of fire (receiving the Holy Ghost) So i do believe that the flood was literal.

I remember learning of the OT in Seminary, and we were taught (using Church approved manuals) that the OT is literal, (but like the article of faith, it is not all translated correctly) It has been a while since ive been in seminary. I would like to get a hold of that manual again, and do some of my own personal study, i dont think i have studied the OT enough. (I did study Isaiah, but that was more because it is encouraged in the BOM)

A lot of manuals are available on-line at LDS.org

[Ron Beron]

Perhaps a healthier way to look at the Old Testament (since it is difficult, if not impossible to know how it has been modified) is "What can I learn from this story about the relationship between God and myself?" or "How does this story, when applied to my life, bring me closer to God?"

This brings us much more benefit than asking, "Did this actually happen as it says it happened?"

It seems this approach is more consistent with the Jewish thought on the OT.

[SeattleTruthSeeker]

Look up the Documentary Hypothesis (or J, D, E and P Theory. J = Jehovah; D = Dueteronomist; E = Elohist; P = Priestly).

There is also a debate about the flood not being universal but local. However, majority of cultures have their own flood stories where a Godlike being came down and spoke with one man and commissioned him to save his family and animals.

Also, Genesis 6:1-5 is a partial of the coptic Enoch ch. 6 about the watchers and the rebellion in Heaven between the adversary and angelic hosts and why God destroyed the world by a flood.

Also, majority of the English translations of the bible rely solely on the MT (Masoretic Text) which was compiled in as early as 90 AD and completed around 900 AD (that is a generous span of time and don't recall the exact time frame).

The more accurate translation is that of the LXX or the Setpuagint.

However, there is more and more evidence supporting the Old Testament. The only other dispute that I know of is that of the Book of Daniel is said to be a canonized Psuedipigraphal work.

[Guest moreholinessgiveme]

It seems this approach is more consistent with the Jewish thought on the OT.

Really?

[Ron Beron]

Really?

Yep! Most of my Jewish friends and the commentaries I have read seem to indicate that the stories in the OT are more illustrative of the relationship between man and God than an actual historical occurrance. It seems that it doesn't matter if the incident occurred or not what is more important is that God could do such things. In the meantime mankind needs to know that without God man is nothing. Having said that the stories of the OT is equally illustrative in that they show God's infinite love and compassion for His children.

[Deborah]

We can debate what is real or not but it is interesting how the prophets (both in olden times and today) refer to some of these incidents and characters as if they were real. There are references in the NT to Job and to the flood for example. Now whether because it was understood these were illustrative stories or real events I don't know. But I do not think the stories told are at all impossible for God if we truly understand the principles and laws behind them. (for example all the animals on the Ark---has no one watched Dr. Who and the Tardis? )

[MorningStar]

Hi Ron,

My family is reading the OT together and we ask ourselves this question frequently. Some stories seem to be symbolic, but some my husband wonders if things were added or changed to justify bad behavior.

[Moksha]

I see it as mostly allegory and many of the stories without a very good moral either. Still all in all, it is a predecessor tale to the meat of the New Testament,

[Pa Pa]

My wife and I have an essential disagreement about the OT. She believes that most of the OT is basically authentic and actually occurred. I feel much of the OT is a series of analogies that were used to teach us of God and His plan for us. Case in point. I believe Noah to have been borrowed from the Sumerian and Akkadian texts during the Babylonia captivity and redacted into the literature of Genesis. She believes that the story is fairly true as it is presented. What do the majority of posters feel about this? And what stories in the OT are absolutely historically authentic?

The talking donkey...I'm sure thats true. Its gotta be.

[NeuroTypical]

And what stories in the OT are absolutely historically authentic?

My take on things:

If I get to heaven, and learn that 85% of the Bible is symbolism, oral tradition, or otherwise didn't literally happen, I'll still fall at the feet of my Savior.

If I get to heaven, and learn that everything documented in the Bible literally happened just as it says, I'll still fall at the feet of my Savior.

In other words, I'm content saying "I dunno" in this life.

LM

[Doctor Steuss]

My wife and I have an essential disagreement about the OT. She believes that most of the OT is basically authentic and actually occurred. I feel much of the OT is a series of analogies that were used to teach us of God and His plan for us. Case in point. I believe Noah to have been borrowed from the Sumerian and Akkadian texts during the Babylonia captivity and redacted into the literature of Genesis. She believes that the story is fairly true as it is presented. What do the majority of posters feel about this? And what stories in the OT are absolutely historically authentic?

I think the majority of Genesis is allegorical/analogous/mythoi (to follow in your line regarding Noah, I believe the serpent in the garden was most likely representative of another nation's/culture's god that was commonly depicted as a serpent, thus showing [through the Eden narrative] the primacy of Israel's G-d while at the same time establishing the evil nature of the other nation's/culture's god). Exodus is probably a mixture of myth and fact. There are a few other stories (such as Elias) that just don't seem to line up with a just and merciful G-d, so I usually put those on the shelf as analogy/allegory/myth (if for no other reason than to maintain belief). It can be a tricky line to tow as there have been several instances in modern revelation that seemingly establish the literal historicity of many of these events/stories.

I guess it ultimately comes down to the eloquence of LM; regardless I will probably "still fall at the feet of my Savior."

[fish4kitty]

My take on things:

If I get to heaven, and learn that 85% of the Bible is symbolism, oral tradition, or otherwise didn't literally happen, I'll still fall at the feet of my Savior.

If I get to heaven, and learn that everything documented in the Bible literally happened just as it says, I'll still fall at the feet of my Savior.

In other words, I'm content saying "I dunno" in this life.

LM

RIGHT ON !!!!! YES YES YES thats what I say about everything I don't get..

[MorningStar]

The talking donkey...I'm sure thats true. Its gotta be.

Which verse is that anyway? I've been meaning to look that up.

[MorningStar]

My take on things:

If I get to heaven, and learn that 85% of the Bible is symbolism, oral tradition, or otherwise didn't literally happen, I'll still fall at the feet of my Savior.

If I get to heaven, and learn that everything documented in the Bible literally happened just as it says, I'll still fall at the feet of my Savior.

In other words, I'm content saying "I dunno" in this life.

LM

That's a good way of looking at it.

[Pegtagatha]

I had thought that the LDS fully believed in the Holy Bible 100%. The first elder I came into contact, told me this.