What's Real In The Ot?

[NeuroTypical]

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

We believe the Bible to be the word of God, as far as it is translated correctly.

The discussion is around how literalally should we take the things written there? How much symbolism was used?

LM

[Moksha]

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

Numbers 22: 28-30 The Donkey said to Balaam: "What have I ever done to you that you have beat me these three times?" Balaam said, "Because you've been playing games with me! If I had a sword I would have killed you by now." The donkey said to Balaam, "Am I not your trusty donkey on whom you've ridden for years right up until now? Have I ever done anything like this to you before? Have I?"

Do any of you remember the Francis the Talking Mule movies with Donald O'Conner?

[Pegtagatha]

I understand why the OT is taken carefully, because of what we know with the book of Mormon.

[HiJolly]

I understand why the OT is taken carefully, because of what we know with the book of Mormon.

Your comment is wierd, IMO.

All scripture should be taken carefully, even that which is received personally from the Holy Ghost.

HiJolly

[Pegtagatha]

Your comment is wierd, IMO.

All scripture should be taken carefully, even that which is received personally from the Holy Ghost.

HiJolly

SO, which is it?

[HiJolly]

SO, which is it?

Both. What we are given by the spirit is possible to be misunderstood. Same for any scripture that is written down, such as the Bible, Book of Mormon, Doctrine & Covenants, etc. So, both. Unless I misunderstand your question, which is also possible.

HiJolly

[The_Monk]

It's important to note that "true and inspired" are not equivalent to literal reading and/or history.

It's largely a case of genre. For example, we all recognize, thanks to the New Testament, a subgenre called "parable." Are Jesus' parables true? Inspired? (I'm assume we'd all say "yes.")

Now, did the events of Jesus' parables have to have happened to be valid? The answer is no. So they are not "history." This is something we tend to recognize.

When we say the parables are ahistorical, does that mean we're reading them figuratively? That is, in the story of the Good Samaritan, is the Samaritan really a person, or does he represent something else? Was the man really beaten, or does that represent something else? In its original intent, all the parables are meant to be read literally, but not historically. That's all part of the genre we call parable.

One of the problems of the Old Testament is that it has genres that, as moderns in a vastly different culture, we don't tend to recognize very well.

Cutting out lots and lots of typing, I believe the genres of the creation accounts (gen 1-2:4, and Gen 2:4ff, as well as the third nebulous account referenced n psalms, Isaiah, and job) and the flood account are meant to be read literally but not historically AND further that the Israelites understood that.

We are most familiar with the metagenre of "history" and read that back in to these accounts.

In other words, moderns who read Gen 1 literally AND historically, and accuse those who don't take it as a history as reading it "figuratively" are actually reading it differently than an Israelite would have. Reading as history is misreading :)

Note the following from Lawrence Schiffman, an Orthodox Jew and professor of Hebrew and Judaic Studies at NYU-

"the Bible was never taken literally in Judaism. It doesn’t mean that it’s not historical, but it is not taken literally in the Protestant sense. It’s not an issue in Judaism.... I heard a recent lecture by a rabbi who is becoming a medical doctor. He talked about the problem of creation. And he said, well, evolution is obviously true. What do I do about it if evolution is obviously true? He said that we learn from Nachmanides that nothing in the Bible about creation is intended literally. What’s important to me is that I have the experience of God as the creator."

That's a Jewish reading, explained in an interview for a lay audience. (Note he's using the terms slightly differently than I am, he says "literally *in the Protestant sense.*")