Bret Ripley wrote:I would add a conceptual layer, here: rather than thinking of it in terms of "YHWH commanded X", I'd suggest looking at it as "Ezekiel says YHWH commanded X" and "Exodus 22:29 says YHWH commanded X", keeping in mind that the two authors lived during different times and in different cultural settings and may have had quite different points of view.
But it seems to me that is making the assumption I'm arguing against. Whether the authors had radically differing points of view or not, I'm suggesting - from what the texts appear (to me) to be saying - that "Ezekiel says YHWH commanded X" and "Exodus says YHWH commanded Y with disclaimer Z." In other words, I don't see why it is necessary for us to see Ezekiel 20:25-26 as responding to Exodus 22:29. It doesn't seem to fit with the rest of Ezekiel 20.
Ideas regarding God's nature have evolved in post-biblical times, and these ideas are influenced by culture. I think it would be strange indeed if we saw no evidence of something similar occurring in the biblical texts.
That could be true but at least in my limited way of looking at things, I tend to believe that while human conceptualizations of God may evolve, God himself doesn't.
It's a pleasure talking to you, Roger. Cheers.
You too!
"...a pious lie, you know, has a great deal more influence with an ignorant people than a profane one."
- Sidney Rigdon, as quoted in the Quincy Whig, June 8, 1839, vol 2 #6.
Bret Ripley wrote:I would add a conceptual layer, here: rather than thinking of it in terms of "YHWH commanded X", I'd suggest looking at it as "Ezekiel says YHWH commanded X" and "Exodus 22:29 says YHWH commanded X", keeping in mind that the two authors lived during different times and in different cultural settings and may have had quite different points of view.
That's the Bible in a nutshell. A collection of writings by human beings, each with their own preconceptions and agenda's putting words into God's mouth.
That said, with the Book of Mormon, we are not dealing with a civilization with no written record. What we are dealing with is a written record with no civilization. (Runtu, Feb 2015)
huckelberry wrote:Perhaps it would be more to the point to say Mormon doctrine of Baptism for the dead is not based upon Bible interpretation.
Fundamentally it's not, but those who suggest 1 Cor 15:29 does not show Christians were legitimately practicing some kind of baptism for the dead in the early church are uninformed. Scholars are pretty widely in agreement that something like that was going on, as even the Shepherd of Hermas shows. Proxy ordinances for the dead are also found in 2 Maccabees.
huckelberry wrote:Mormons understand it to be based upon modern revelation. I must try and beg a moment of patience while I try to tease out an interesting irony from this embattled territory. I have read more than once observations that meaning in Biblical texts can be approached from different angles. What the earliest author meant is one. It might also be considered what meaning stories found in tradition or what they came to mean to later writers.
We use reception history, reader-response theory, and other disciplines like that to engage that kind of meaning.
huckelberry wrote:Things are put together and their meaning shifts by being included with other statements. It can also be asked and considered what Bible statements mean to the church at later times. If a person believes there is inspiration in the scriptures then each of these consideration can have its own inspired significance. Nippers hope of finding the combined meaning of all these different texts is not foolishness something sought by multitudes. Perhaps sought is the operative word instead of possession. If there is a God to which scriptures look to then an overarching harmony is possible. Any thought would also see it is not within human knowledge. Instead it is something we seek, (through a glass darkly etc)
My critique is of the naïve insistence that it is the only proper way to read the Bible, and that it is the purpose of the Bible. Nipper is not knowingly employing these other disciplines, he's promoting a manufactured hermeneutic designed to protect fundamentalist dogmas about the Bible.
huckelberry wrote:One irony I see here is than Nipper in reference the combining meaning of different scriptures is reference an ongoing process of revelation. Something which at least has resonance with Mormon thought. Makalem is focusing upon a original author meaning and not speaking at this time much about how those meanings can develope in time. One might expect Nipper to be locking into that authority of first author instead.
He's promoting whatever will protect his dogmas. At this point I'm directly challenging his approach. I can and often do employ other methodologies, but now I'm using only one.
huckelberry wrote:But each view has its own value.
When employed with an understanding of the limits, values, and purposes of the approach. LN is doing none of those things.
huckelberry wrote:I find myself thinking about the oddity of saying original author of Exodus.
I would say authors.
huckelberry wrote:Seeing it as put together after the fall of Jerusalem one has a picture of traditions of several sources being put together over time. Realistically the author would be a whole community over centuries having a variety of viewpoints and concerns.
Not so much. The scribal communities responsible for the composition of the biblical texts would have been very small. Some good books on this are David Carr, Writing on the Tablet of the Heart, and Karel van der Toorn, Scribal Culture and the Making of the Hebrew Bible.
huckelberry wrote:Much of the Old Testament has that quality. As the author reworks material over the centuries its meaning alters and morphs as it settles into new contexts. which context matters to us?
Those that inform and give meaning to our contemporary communal experiences. Those that do not will be ignored, abandoned, or reinterpreted.
huckelberry wrote:I am not saying I can imagine avoiding the peculiarity of specific authors thinking and style. To my mind Ezekiel is angry. He is enraged, one has to wipe the spittle off ones shirt while reading him. All I can hear with the give bad laws is rhetoric meaning something like God saying to a certain audience , "I will not listen to you ,you are dead to me now."
And that's the message that many people heard when Israel was taken to Babylon.
LittleNipper wrote:Jesus cannot be a god if there is only one God.
But he can be 100% God and 100% man? You have a funny way of deciding which logical impossibilities you assert and which you abandon.
LittleNipper wrote:So then one must realize that only God created everything.
This does not follow from the concept of only one God.
LittleNipper wrote:Only God can be eternal. Only God saves. And these are attributed not only to God but Christ the "I AM," by the way of the Holy Spirit --- three in One.
naïve dogmatism.
God calls himself the "I AM." The very implication is that "They're NOT!" God says He created everything including that which is visible and that which is invisible... That doesn't leave anything out for anything else to create. And your opinions are not supported by the Bible, but by the philosophical views of men. That is known as false doctrine, and you certainly are dogmatic concerning your OWN values and opinions.
How did I know you weren't going to respond to a word of my concerns?
LittleNipper wrote:The very implication is that "They're NOT!"
No such implication exists.
LittleNipper wrote:God says He created everything including that which is visible and that which is invisible...
No, human authors said that. Of course, in the earlier literary strata, God doesn't create the earth. he just waters it to bring life, exactly as an ancient Near Eastern storm deity.
LittleNipper wrote:That doesn't leave anything out for anything else to create. And your opinions are not supported by the Bible, but by the philosophical views of men. That is known as false doctrine, and you certainly are dogmatic concerning your OWN values and opinions.
No, I will happily change my mind if the evidence demands it. Here the evidence doesn't even begin to do so. You're promoting a very, very late ideology that has nothing whatsoever to do with the biblical text itself.
Roger wrote:In other words, I don't see why it is necessary for us to see Ezekiel 20:25-26 as responding to Exodus 22:29. It doesn't seem to fit with the rest of Ezekiel 20.
I understand where you're coming from. It's just that Ezekiel has YHWH saying "I gave them statutes ...", but we have no record in which YWHW commands his people to sacrifice their children to other gods. To be honest, the assertion that any ancient god is being portrayed as commanding his/her followers to "honor" competing gods in this fashion is extraordinary enough to require firm evidence. The tradition recorded in Exodus 22:29 allows Ezekiel to make sense without invoking a "statute" not in evidence.
Ideas regarding God's nature have evolved in post-biblical times, and these ideas are influenced by culture. I think it would be strange indeed if we saw no evidence of something similar occurring in the biblical texts.
That could be true but at least in my limited way of looking at things, I tend to believe that while human conceptualizations of God may evolve, God himself doesn't.
And that's fine. But it seems to me that if we look at the biblical writings as containing these evolving human conceptualizations of God (deeply influenced by time and culture), whatever issues you may have with the texts are resolved.
2 Kings 16:1-20 During the 17th year of Pekah the son of Remali′ah, Ahaz the son of Jotham, king of Judah, began to reign. Ahaz was 20 when he began to reign, and he reigned 16 years in Jerusalem. And he did not do what was right by God, as had David had done. He walked in the way of the kings of Israel. He even burned his son as an offering,[a] according to the abominable practices of the nations whom the Lord drove out before the people of Israel. He sacrificed and burned incense on the high places, and on the hills, and under every green tree.
Rezin king of Syria and Pekah the son of Remali′ah, king of Israel, came up to wage war on Jerusalem, and they besieged Ahaz but could not conquer him. At that time the king of Edom recaptured Elath for Edom, and drove the men of Judah from Elath; and the E′domites came to Elath, where they dwell to the day of this record. Ahaz sent messengers to Tig′lath-pile′ser king of Assyria, saying, “I am your servant and your son. Come up, and rescue me from the hand of the king of Syria and from the hand of the king of Israel, who are attacking me.” Ahaz also took the silver and gold that was found in the house of the Lord and in the treasures of the king’s house, and sent a present to the king of Assyria. The king of Assyria listened to Ahaz and marched against Damascus, and took it, carrying its people captive to Kir, and killed Rezin.
King Ahaz went to Damascus to meet Tig′lath-pile′ser king of Assyria, he saw the altar that was at Damascus. And King Ahaz sent to Uri′ah the priest a model of this altar, and its pattern, exact in all its details. Uri′ah the priest built the altar; in accordance with all that King Ahaz had sent from Damascus. Uri′ah the priest had it constructed, before King Ahaz arrived from Damascus. When the king finally arrived, he viewed the altar. The king drew near, and went up on it, and burned his burnt offering and his cereal offering, and poured his drink offering, and threw the blood of his peace offerings upon the altar. And the bronze altar which was before the Lord he removed from the front of the house, from the place between his altar and the house of the Lord, and put it on the north side of his altar. King Ahaz commanded Uri′ah the priest, saying, “Upon the great altar burn the morning burnt offering, and the evening cereal offering, and the king’s burnt offering, and his cereal offering, with the burnt offering of all the people of the land, and their cereal offering, and their drink offering; and throw upon it all the blood of the burnt offering, and all the blood of the sacrifice; but the bronze altar shall be for me to inquire by.” Uri′ah the priest did as King Ahaz commanded.
King Ahaz had dismantled the frames of the stands, removing the basin from them, and he took down the sea from off the bronze oxen that supported it, and put it upon a pediment of stone. And he had stored away that which had existed inside the palace for the sabbath, and the outer entrance for the king he removed from the Temple of God, because of the king of Assyria. Now the rest of the acts of Ahaz, are written on the book of the Chronicles of the kings of Judah. Ahaz finally died, and was buried with his fathers in the city of David; and Hezeki′ah his son reigned in his stead.
Young's Literal Translation (YLT)
1 In the seventeenth year of Pekah son of Remaliah reigned hath Ahaz son of Jotham king of Judah.
2 A son of twenty years [is] Ahaz in his reigning, and sixteen years he hath reigned in Jerusalem, and he hath not done that which [is] right in the eyes of Jehovah his God, like David his father,
3 and he walketh in the way of the kings of Israel, and also his son he hath caused to pass over into fire, according to the abominations of the nations that Jehovah dispossessed from the presence of the sons of Israel,
4 and he sacrificeth and maketh perfume in high places, and on the heights, and under every green tree.
5 Then doth Rezin king of Aram go up, and Pekah son of Remaliah king of Israel, to Jerusalem, to battle, and they lay siege to Ahaz, and they have not been able to fight.
6 At that time hath Rezin king of Aram brought back Elath to Aram, and casteth out the Jews from Elath, and the Aramaeans have come in to Elath, and dwell there unto this day.
7 And Ahaz sendeth messengers unto Tiglath-Pileser king of Asshur, saying, `Thy servant and thy son [am] I; come up and save me out of the hand of the king of Aram, and out of the hand of the king of Israel, who are rising up against me.'
8 And Ahaz taketh the silver and the gold that is found in the house of Jehovah, and in the treasures of the house of the king, and sendeth to the king of Asshur -- a bribe.
9 And hearken unto him doth the king of Asshur, and the king of Asshur goeth up unto Damascus, and seizeth it, and removeth [the people of] it to Kir, and Rezin he hath put to death.
10 And king Ahaz goeth to meet Tiglath-Pileser king of Asshur [at] Damascus, and seeth the altar that [is] in Damascus, and king Ahaz sendeth unto Urijah the priest the likeness of the altar, and its pattern, according to all its work,
11 and Urijah the priest buildeth the altar according to all that king Ahaz hath sent from Damascus; so did Urijah the priest till the coming in of king Ahaz from Damascus.
12 And the king cometh in from Damascus, and the king seeth the altar, and the king draweth near on the altar, and offereth on it,
13 and perfumeth his burnt-offering, and his present, and poureth out his libation, and sprinkleth the blood of the peace-offerings that he hath, on the altar.
14 As to the altar of brass that [is] before Jehovah -- he bringeth [it] near from the front of the house, from between the altar and the house of Jehovah, and putteth it on the side of the altar, northward.
15 And king Ahaz commandeth him -- Urijah the priest -- saying, `On the great altar perfume the burnt-offering of the morning, and the present of the evening, and the burnt-offering of the king, and his present, and the burnt-offering of all the people of the land, and their present, and their libations; and all the blood of the burnt-offering, and all the blood of the sacrifice, on it thou dost sprinkle, and the altar of brass is to me to inquire [by].'
16 And Urijah the priest doth according to all that king Ahaz commanded.
17 And king Ahaz cutteth off the borders of the bases, and turneth aside from off them the laver, and the sea he hath taken down from off the brazen oxen that [are] under it, and putteth it on a pavement of stones.
18 And the covered place for the sabbath that they built in the house, and the entrance of the king without, he turned [from] the house of Jehovah, because of the king of Asshur.
19 And the rest of the matters of Ahaz that he did, are they not written on the book of the Chronicles of the kings of Judah?
20 And Ahaz lieth with his fathers, and is buried with his fathers, in the city of David, and reign doth Hezekiah his son in his stead.
LittleNipper wrote:2 Kings 16:1-20 During the 17th year of Pekah the son of Remali′ah, Ahaz the son of Jotham, king of Judah, began to reign. Ahaz was 20 when he began to reign, and he reigned 16 years in Jerusalem. And he did not do what was right by God, as had David had done. He walked in the way of the kings of Israel. He even burned his son as an offering,[a] according to the abominable practices of the nations whom the Lord drove out before the people of Israel. He sacrificed and burned incense on the high places, and on the hills, and under every green tree.
Yeah, Francesca Stavrakopoulou's book King Manasseh and Child Sacrifice goes into plenty of detail regarding why the biblical authors and editors framed those events the way they did. When you've read that book you can come back and talk to me about it.
huckelberry wrote:Perhaps it would be more to the point to say Mormon doctrine of Baptism for the dead is not based upon Bible interpretation.
Fundamentally it's not, but those who suggest 1 Cor 15:29 does not show Christians were legitimately practicing some kind of baptism for the dead in the early church are uninformed. Scholars are pretty widely in agreement that something like that was going on, as even the Shepherd of Hermas shows. Proxy ordinances for the dead are also found in 2 Maccabees.
.........
My critique is of the naïve insistence that it is the only proper way to read the Bible, and that it is the purpose of the Bible. Nipper is not knowingly employing these other disciplines, he's promoting a manufactured hermeneutic designed to protect fundamentalist dogmas about the Bible.
......
He's promoting whatever will protect his dogmas. At this point I'm directly challenging his approach. I can and often do employ other methodologies, but now I'm using only one.
huckelberry wrote:I find myself thinking about the oddity of saying original author of Exodus.
I would say authors.
huckelberry wrote:Seeing it as put together after the fall of Jerusalem one has a picture of traditions of several sources being put together over time. Realistically the author would be a whole community over centuries having a variety of viewpoints and concerns.
Not so much. The scribal communities responsible for the composition of the biblical texts would have been very small. Some good books on this are David Carr, Writing on the Tablet of the Heart, and Karel van der Toorn, Scribal Culture and the Making of the Hebrew Bible.
Maklelan, Perhaps my whole communities is exaggerated. I looked at the David Carr book you referenced back a couple pages. It is a more in depth study than I have read on the question but one that could be worth my while to read. Probably will not have time in the next few weeks.
I woud expect that you are making a specific choice of narrowing your approach to interpretation in this discussion.I would not suggest that other approaches were outside of your awareness. Nippers approach is shaped by conservativeProtestant rules for formation of church doctrine. It is intended to maintain some approximate unity.
I have watched a few arguments about the Bible, Mormons and baptism for the dead. The argument usually grinds on going nowhere.. I would not wish to dispute the idea that some Christian did some kind of baptism for the dead. It would be interesting to know more. However if we discovered a document explaining how it was done I doubt LDS church would alter the practice to match if there were differences. IT has been decades since I read Hermes and I remember being unsure of baptism for dead reference. For the sake of curiosity, can you be more specific on the references?
huckelberry wrote:Maklelan, Perhaps my whole communities is exaggerated. I looked at the David Carr book you referenced back a couple pages. It is a more in depth study than I have read on the question but one that could be worth my while to read. Probably will not have time in the next few weeks.
It's a dense book, but well worth whatever amount of time it takes to get through it.
huckelberry wrote:I woud expect that you are making a specific choice of narrowing your approach to interpretation in this discussion.I would not suggest that other approaches were outside of your awareness. Nippers approach is shaped by conservativeProtestant rules for formation of church doctrine. It is intended to maintain some approximate unity.
I didn't think you were trying to say that, but I could have been more clear.
huckelberry wrote:I have watched a few arguments about the Bible, Mormons and baptism for the dead. The argument usually grinds on going nowhere.. I would not wish to dispute the idea that some Christian did some kind of baptism for the dead. It would be interesting to know more. However if we discovered a document explaining how it was done I doubt LDS church would alter the practice to match if there were differences. IT has been decades since I read Hermes and I remember being unsure of baptism for dead reference. For the sake of curiosity, can you be more specific on the references?
Sure thing. The following is just copied and pasted from an old translation. It's chapter 30 in a modern translation:
15[92]:2 "It was necessary for them," saith he, "to rise up through water, that they might be made alive; for otherwise they could not enter into the kingdom of God, except they had put aside the deadness of their [former] life.
15[92]:3 So these likewise that had fallen asleep received the seal of the Son of God and entered into the kingdom of God. For before a man," saith he, "has borne the name of [the Son of] God, he is dead; but when he has received the seal, he layeth aside his deadness, and resumeth life.
15[92]:4 The seal then is the water: so they go down into the water dead, and they come up alive. "thus to them also this seal was preached, and they availed themselves of it that they might enter into the kingdom of God."
15[92]:5 "Wherefore, Sir," say I, "did the forty stones also come up with them from the deep, though they had already received the seal?" "Because," saith he, "these, the apostles and the teachers who preached the name of the Son of God, after they had fallen asleep in the power and faith of the Son of God, preached also to them that had fallen asleep before them, and themselves gave unto them the seal of the preaching.
15[92]:6 Therefore they went down with them into the water, and came up again. But these went down alive [and again came up alive]; whereas the others that had fallen asleep before them went down dead and came up alive.
The "seal" is baptism in early Christian literature.
