Genesis

[Vort]

36 minutes ago, CV75 said:

our current version of Genesis, originally authored by Moses

I suspect this is not correct. I suppose that Moses got a lot of his early Genesis content from Enoch.

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Vort said:

I suspect this is not correct. I suppose that Moses got a lot of his early Genesis content from Enoch.

That is the same supposition as Enoch getting it from others who in turn got it from Adam, orally (which includes angelic and divine ministrations and interviews) and in writing for as long as Adam's book of remembrance was accessible to them. But Moses might as well have written the first chapters of Genesis based on revelation (see our Peral of Great Price, Moses chapters 1 -4 ("...these are the words which I spake unto my servant Moses...") as any other source such as inspired recitation of oral history, sacred records not made available to us, etc. 

The three apocryphal books of Enoch that are acknowledged today were written in 1st - 5th centuries AD and these sources seem to be mostly based on oral tradition and lost texts. But the doctrine of the dispensations allows for a fresh restoration of the creation account each time.

My personal opinion is that the New Testament Sermon on the Mount was authored by Jesus and passed down orally and in writing, which is why the Book of Mormon version is so similar.

[Traveler]

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

.....

My personal opinion is that the New Testament Sermon on the Mount was authored by Jesus and passed down orally and in writing, which is why the Book of Mormon version is so similar.

Since Jesus was the Jehovah of the Old Testament era, we can be sure that in essence Jehovah is the source of light and truth to mortal mankind.   But it is important to note that much of the Sermon on the Mount was previously recorded in the Book of Enoch.  What is interesting to me is that the early Christians recorded their councils where “men” argued over what should be canonized scripture – there was no word of G-d as to what is the word of G-d.  BTW that reason for canonized scripture did not come from any Old Testament or New Testament revelation but from the Greek pagans.  I like that idea that in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints we use the term “standard works” rather than “canon” and declare as a foundation of our religion that G-d will yet reveal many important things pertaining to the kingdom of G-d.

Back to the Book of Enoch.  The reason the Book of Enoch was left out of medieval canon was because it was argued that the Book of Enoch was a false manmade fabrication copied from New Testament texts and therefore not divine.  This argument held for over a thousand years, until a copy of the Book of Enoch was discovered among the Dead Sea Scriptures that was over 300 years older than the time of Jesus and the Apostles.   The traditions and doctrines of traditional Christianity is so set on the Greek idea of canon that at this point traditional Christianity will not (or cannot) accept any new additional scripture.   The idea that something was missing for 2,000 years is contrary to the foundation of traditional Christianity.

It reallly is not that difficult for well informed LDS to understand why we are excluded from the world's title of "traditional" Christianity.

 

The Traveler

[Traveler]

4 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

In OUR era, Pre-History is before written records.  It is probably good to go by the definitions of our era in using terms.   It's before we have written records of the civilization. 

....

The problem with this notion is determining what is a written record.  I would also point out that there are societies still existing today that have no written language.   So where in human history is the time that before is prehistoric and after is historic?  Also, until rather recently the majority of individuals in any society were incapable of reading or writing – are they historic or prehistoric?

You may notice that there are many arguments if a particular written text (even a publish text) is historic or fiction – which is the basis of the initial ancient Greek definition.

 

The Traveler

[CV75]

17 hours ago, Traveler said:

Since Jesus was the Jehovah of the Old Testament era, we can be sure that in essence Jehovah is the source of light and truth to mortal mankind.   But it is important to note that much of the Sermon on the Mount was previously recorded in the Book of Enoch.  What is interesting to me is that the early Christians recorded their councils where “men” argued over what should be canonized scripture – there was no word of G-d as to what is the word of G-d.  BTW that reason for canonized scripture did not come from any Old Testament or New Testament revelation but from the Greek pagans.  I like that idea that in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints we use the term “standard works” rather than “canon” and declare as a foundation of our religion that G-d will yet reveal many important things pertaining to the kingdom of G-d.

Back to the Book of Enoch.  The reason the Book of Enoch was left out of medieval canon was because it was argued that the Book of Enoch was a false manmade fabrication copied from New Testament texts and therefore not divine.  This argument held for over a thousand years, until a copy of the Book of Enoch was discovered among the Dead Sea Scriptures that was over 300 years older than the time of Jesus and the Apostles.   The traditions and doctrines of traditional Christianity is so set on the Greek idea of canon that at this point traditional Christianity will not (or cannot) accept any new additional scripture.   The idea that something was missing for 2,000 years is contrary to the foundation of traditional Christianity.

It reallly is not that difficult for well informed LDS to understand why we are excluded from the world's title of "traditional" Christianity.

 

The Traveler

Here is where tracing the origins of various texts get complicated (an example here: Beatitudes Found Among Dead Sea Scrolls, Benedict T. Viviano, BAR 18:06, Nov-Dec 1992. : Center for Online Judaic Studies (cojs.org)). We do not know exactly where or how Jesus learned the Sermon on the Mount (or Plain as in Luke) in his mortal life; it could have been a combination of revelation, oral history, the religious texts of his day (known and unknown to us today). It makes sense to me that He wrote it down and others copied it, though that is just my supposition.

Do you have the translations of the Sermon on the Mount from the Dead Sea scrolls other than similar phrases that were also used throughout Old Testament text? Do you have references to show that Jospeh Smith did not consider the Book of Enoch (as we have it) to be apocrypha (D&C 91)? 

[rcthompson88]

On 8/25/2023 at 4:26 PM, Traveler said:

It reallly is not that difficult for well informed LDS to understand why we are excluded from the world's title of "traditional" Christianity.

I was recently reading the book Misquoting Jesus by Bart Ehrman, and this thought kept coming to me as well. Ehrman provides some examples and big ideas of biblicial textual criticism in the book. While some may see it as an attack on Biblical canon, Latter-Day Saints should recognize it as largely in line with what we believe about the accuracy of the Bible. It goes to show the importance of seeking understanding through the spirit when reading the scriptures.

[JohnsonJones]

On 8/25/2023 at 4:57 PM, Traveler said:

The problem with this notion is determining what is a written record.  I would also point out that there are societies still existing today that have no written language.   So where in human history is the time that before is prehistoric and after is historic?  Also, until rather recently the majority of individuals in any society were incapable of reading or writing – are they historic or prehistoric?

You may notice that there are many arguments if a particular written text (even a publish text) is historic or fiction – which is the basis of the initial ancient Greek definition.

 

The Traveler

You can have pre-historic societies today. 

As a Historian I normally deal more with the writing a society has recorded than trying to decipher who or what they were merely from trying to interpret the different physical clues they have left behind.  With the written records we can still know about societies that we may not have written records for.  Written language is normally the key for history, but not the only way that a culture or society can have written records. 

One major thing that can differentiate between fiction and reality (though not the only way) is whether a source is a primary source or not.  Is it something that the writer actually witnessed and/or experienced? 

If it is something that they are merely relating that they've heard, but never seen or experienced themselves, it greatly devalues how reliable that information is.  WE can still use those types of records to try to figure out culture, traditions, and rituals of a society and how they interacted with their lives, but those records are not something that can always be reliable on relating what actually happened. 

In regards to the Bible, this means that some parts are more acceptable as possibly being related to events that are proveable, while other parts are not. 

[JohnsonJones]

On 8/25/2023 at 12:33 PM, Vort said:

I suspect this is not correct. I suppose that Moses got a lot of his early Genesis content from Enoch.

Though not the Book of Mormon, if we go by the Pearl of Great Price (which has part of the First Book of Moses) we learn that (according to that book) it was revealed to Moses by the Lord, or that's what it seems.