Differences in Biblical Interpetations

[esmith]

Thank you Harmonious: I knew the order of books of the Tanakh and understood their grouping and importance. It was the Christian ordering; when I tried to read them it just didn't mesh (With me at least. That is why I purchased the JPS Study Bible)

 

[kylixguru]

Very interesting information...

... This covenant is still in effect as far as I can tell.

What do you make of the Lord pronouncing a divorce in Hosea 1:9 of the people of the northern kingdom?

Hosea 1:9
"Then said God, Call his name Loammi: for ye are not my people, and I will not be your God."
​

What do you make of the Lord extending the same status to the southern kingdom of Judah when he likened the two kingdoms to two sisters Aholah and Aholibah?

Ezekiel 23
4 And the names of them were Aholah the elder, and Aholibah her sister: and they were mine, and they bare sons and daughters. Thus were their names; Samaria is Aholah, and Jerusalem Aholibah.
5 And Aholah played the harlot when she was mine; and she doted on her lovers, on the Assyrians her neighbours,
...
11 And when her sister Aholibah saw this, she was more corrupt in her inordinate love than she, and in her whoredoms more than her sister in her whoredoms.
...
17 And the Babylonians came to her into the bed of love, and they defiled her with their whoredom, and she was polluted with them, and her mind was alienated from them.
18 So she discovered her whoredoms, and discovered her nakedness: then my mind was alienated from her, like as my mind was alienated from her sister.
19 Yet she multiplied her whoredoms
...
22 Therefore, O Aholibah, thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I will raise up thy lovers against thee, from whom thy mind is alienated, and I will bring them against thee on every side;
...
31 Thou [Aholibah] hast walked in the way of thy sister [Aholah]; therefore will I give her cup into thine hand.
...
35 Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD; Because thou hast forgotten me, and cast me behind thy back, therefore bear thou also thy lewdness and thy whoredoms.
36 The LORD said moreover unto me; Son of man, wilt thou judge Aholah and Aholibah? yea, declare unto them their abominations;
37 That they have committed adultery, and blood is in their hands, and with their idols have they committed adultery, and have also caused their sons, whom they bare unto me, to pass for them through the fire, to devour them.
...
46 For thus saith the Lord GOD; I will bring up a company upon them, and will give them to be removed and spoiled.
47 And the company shall stone them with stones, and dispatch them with their swords; they shall slay their sons and their daughters, and burn up their houses with fire.
48 Thus will I cause lewdness to cease out of the land, that all women may be taught not to do after your lewdness.
49 And they shall recompense your lewdness upon you, and ye shall bear the sins of your idols: and ye shall know that I am the Lord GOD.
​

It seems very clear to me the old covenant was breached and the "wife" was put to death.
As I see it, a new covenant is indeed needful in order for their standing to be redeemed.

 

[esmith]

I think we are getting off of the original posters intent. Will refrain from proceeding along this line.

 

[kylixguru]

I think we are getting off of the original posters intent. Will refrain from proceeding along this line.

Yes, good call. Let's see what xkatz has to say first if he wants it to continue or not. Thanks.

 

[xkatz]

Yes, good call. Let's see what xkatz has to say first if he wants it to continue or not. Thanks.

You guys are getting a little off topic

However, I am now curious as how the LDS interpretation of the Bible (mainly OT but also NT as well) differs from other Christian and Jewish interpretations.

 

[kylixguru]

You guys are getting a little off topic

Acknowledged.

However, I am now curious as how the LDS interpretation of the Bible (mainly OT but also NT as well) differs from other Christian and Jewish interpretations.

I would be interested in knowing the Jewish interpretation of the NT. I am totally ignorant of what their general take on it is.

Also, would you prefer to know modern LDS interpretation or Joseph Smith's interpretation? They have significantly diverged over the past century.

The modern LDS people seem to have reverted almost wholesale in doctrine and interpretation of the NT to what the modern Christians of today hold to. Well, to be fair, they have influenced one another heavily. Very few significant things distinguish their basic doctrines and eschatology. And, there is as much variations among the LDS as there are Christians in all the rest of the more minor details.

The most major differentiating point now seems to have devolved to the argument of who has priesthood and whose ordinances are recognized by God. Even though the LDS claim to be a restoration of the original Church of Jesus Christ, much of what it was given to be has now been altered or abolished. But, I can still give you their perspective if you want it, even though I find it considerably flawed and schitzophrenic.

Joseph Smith's manner of interpreting scripture is he understood everything to ultimately resolve into practical and pragmatic things that were hidden underneath some very fantastical sounding metaphors. Everything to him was simple and practical. He could read books like Revelation and call them 'simple'. He said they could be simple for everyone if they are read in what he called the 'spirit of prophecy'.

Some people, yet caught up in the fantastical expectations that surround religious things, thought of this as some spiritual entity that had to come into your mind and reveal it all and that you were powerless to attain on your own without it. But, not knowing Joseph Smith's simplistic and practical nature, they entirely missed his point. He was simply telling them that the book is an oracle that requires a certain 'methodology' to decode and get the practical message from it. He said this about other books in the Bible as well, suggesting that they be read with the 'spirit of prophecy' to be properly understood. In this respect, he was a translator of oracles.

When I take the simple methodology he used and apply it to various books in the Bible, I find that it works very well. Unfortunately, there isn't sufficient of his writings to validate exactly which books he read that way and what all of his conclusions were. I have been able to confirm all of his core teachings though. Most everything Joseph Smith Jun. taught in terms of doctrines and administrative procedures can ultimately be sourced from the Bible. Those that aren't sourced directly pose no conflict and maintain a seamless flow with everything else established.

His biggest source of conflict comes by way of his view of the Godhead. He views each personage of it as a glorified being standing in that office or capacity of leadership. For example, he viewed the Father of Jesus as a separate and distinct personage. He viewed the Holy Ghost also as a separate and distinct personage. He taught that men such as ourselves have progressed and are who fill all of those stations and that each Creation has its own Godhead and that there are many such creations.

This was just a simple and practical thing that made God real to him and that enabled the scriptures to make perfect sense. Obviously this elevated the status of mankind and many people found that to be blasphemous. To him it was self evident as he was able to be visited by the Father and the Son in person and speak to them face to face as Moses had with Jehovah.

 

[xkatz]

I would be interested in knowing the Jewish interpretation of the NT. I am totally ignorant of what their general take on it is.

TBH, there really isn't a single Jewish interpretation. Since the NT is not part of the Tanakh, it isn't part of our scripture(s) so their is no official interpretation of it. Each individual for the most part has their own interpretation of the NT. The only exception are Messianic Jews, who do use the NT. However, I am not Messianic so I don't know what their interpretation is like or how it differs from Christian interpretations.

While I have begun reading the NT (NIV version), I haven't finished reading so I can't really give my own thoughts and comments on it yet.

 

[Debunker]

Christians list the books in what they believe is the order of chronology. Jews list the books in the order of importance in revelation.

The Five Books of Moses, or the Torah, are the source of all things, including Torah law, God's relationship with humanity, and the main focus, God's relationship to the Children of Israel.

Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy.

The next section is the Prophets. There were all kinds of prophets, ultimately numbering in the millions, but only a few became worthy to get their own books.

It is also worthy to note that Moses is the only prophet (perhaps since Adam) who had a direct encounter with God, as if they spoke "face to face." No prophet before or since (except, arguably Bil'am) has had a closer, more authoritative connection with God. No prophet can gainsay what God gave to Moses. If he did, it MUST have a non-literal interpretation, because God's word to Moses was law.

Everything since then was "support for the Torah that God gave to Moses."

The section the Jews call Prophets is more or less in two sections: the Early Prophets (after Moses) and the Later Prophets.

The Early Prophets mostly contain history of what happened to the Jews.

The books of the Early Prophets are: Joshua, Judges, Samuel I and II, and Kings I and II.

The Later Prophets mostly contain reprimands, rebuke, visions of the future, and verses of consolation after the description of punishment.

The books of the Later Prophets are: Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and The Twelve.

The Twelve are a subset of smaller books that are a kind of potpourri of prophecy. Some of them have visions, some of them focus on reprimand, some of them focus on a rebuke to the Jews (regardless of whether they were in the Kingdom of Israel or the Kingdom of Judea) by addressing history that focuses on other people who were contemporary.

The Twelve are: Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadia, Jonah, Micha, Nahum, Habakuk, Zephania, Haggai, Zecharia, and Malachi.

Malachi is considered to be the last of the Prophets, chronologically, who were given a national message to all Jews everywhere, on that level of prophecy.

The third section is called "the Writings." The authors of first three seem to have been given a level of prophecy, but the message was not as urgent as the prophets in the section Prophets. They are: Psalms, Proverbs, and Job.

The first five (which sometimes get different orders for various reasons) are, in Hebrew, called Megillot. I think their grouping has to do with two things: the fact that they are seasonally topical, and they are relatively short.

I'll list the holidays in the Jewish calendar cycle and the Megilla that is read during that time.

Passover - Song of Songs

Shavu'ot (Festival of Weeks) - Ruth

Tisha B'Av (serious day of mourning for all Jews in the summer - 9th of the month of Av) - Lamentations

Sukkot (Festival of Booths) - Ecclesiastes

Purim - Esther.

The Book of Esther is so beloved, it is often referred to as THE Megilla. The history and reasoning behind that is a bit complicated to discuss right before Shabbat.

The others are a bit of history, with visions of the future thrown in for flavor. (It's a little more complicated, but that is what I have for a reasoning for them to be together.)

They are: Daniel, Ezra, Nechemiah, and Chronicles I and II.

Sir, you have done an excellent job in outlining what the Torah and Old Testament is. Thank you for such a clear vision of God's word. Based on what you said, would you agree with the assumption I will now make in how we should interpret the Bible? I assume you are of the Jewish faith but I would like to point out where Christians have continued your vision on to the New Testament.

Commenting on the Old Testament the Apostle Paul said "2Tm:3:16: All scripture is given by inspiration of God,...." This to me means that all scriptures were "natural theology" before it was written and became "revealed theology." The Epistle to the Romans was Paul's introduction of Christians to natural theology. The Epistle makes clearer what Paul meant by his persistent references to the division of the "spirit and the flesh" which was a theme Paul discovered from the beginning of the Torah.

In the Torah God said " Gen:1:26: And God said, Let us make man in our image,..." God did not say to make man as a statue of God but God was speaking in words of maximum idealism, the image of dabar, the true God as the creator of the universe. God did have an idea or image of what man was to be. The Bible is a history of how God has been shaping and creating man into this image, This the continues theme of the Old Testament and carried over into the New Testament.

The creation of man was first a "spiritual" creation as an idea in the mind, then God took dust of the earth and formed the "flesh" of man but this alone was not possible to be the image of dabar, therefore God breathed spirit and life into man and all of man became a living soul. Through "inspiration" and influence of the "spirit" the flesh is being carved into God's image. What many people call flaws in God's creation of man and God's plan for man is not flaws at all but God sculpturing and forming the image (idealism) of God in the clay-ness of man. Paul summarized this concept and purpose of creation of man like the following:" 2Thes:2:13:...., brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth:"

Christ confirmed the distinction of the difference of the flesh and spirit by saying God was a Spirit and that was the way you had to worship God (John 4:23}. John outright said that was dabar/logos in the first chapter of his Gospel. The theme of the whole Bible was to bring us to the full image of God.Christ was a fleshly image of God but He was truly God in the Spirit. He died in the flesh upon the cross but he rose in both flesh and spirit to take His place on the throne in the Kingdom of God. According to this theme is how we should interpret the Bible.

 

[Debunker]

The way I see it is God made a "covenant " with the people of Israel. The Stele of the Vultures is the earliest example of a written covenant that we have. It is from approximately 2500BCE. The Tanakh provides two forms of covenants. The "vassal or suzerainty treaty" formulation underlies the covanant at Sinai (the Mosaic covenant). The "royal grant" model is associated with the covenants to Noah, Abraham, and David. Both forms are explicated by what may be called an "I-Thou" relationship or contracts between unequals: lord and vassal, humanity and God. The terms of the contract are binding on both parties. The convenantal form has six primary part,
1. The preamble opens with titles of the superior party (this appears at the opening of the Decalogue): I am the Lord your God"
2.The historical prologue: who brought you out of the land of Egypt the house of......
3. Regulations and stipulations: You shall have no other Gods before me......:
the stipulations section, vassal/suzerainty treaties concentrate on the vassal's obligation(Israel) in surety for future service and loyalty. The royal grant, associated with Noah, Abraham, and David, stresses the Lord's obligations in responding to loyalty shown by the vassal. In the Bible, it includes guarantees of safety from universal destruction(Noah); promises of land, descendants, and blessing(Abraham); and promises of an eternal throne(David).

The next set of convenantal forms is not included in the Decalogue proper.
4. Requires the safe deposit of the contract and regular public readings. (deposit: The Ark) (public readings: every seven years, at the set time of the year of release)
5. Lists Witnesses: The Bible has the people function as both signatories and witnesses (Israel has no other gods to witness the contract)
6. Last section introduces blessings on those who abide by the covenantal terms and curses on those who forsake them.

Now in a legal system, one either obeys the laws or suffers consequences mandated by the state. In the covenantal system, one chooses to obey. Now some Christian theologies hold that biblical laws are an (ineffective) means of earning salvation. However, the covenantal model God gave the Jewish people is different. Covenantal stipulations do not earn one standing or election: standing or election are presupposed. One obeys commandments because one is a member of the covenant community. This covenant is still in effect as far as I can tell.

Translating Torah instructions as law is probably not as accurate as we might want.

It is my opinion one can take confusion out of interpreting legality with a spiritual interpretation of God's covenant with man. When God made the covenant He was shaping man into His image. The covenant of God was always spiritual and existed in natural theology. When Abram came from the land of his fathers, he knew the covenant given to him by God through natural theology since Moses had not written the covenant into "revealed" theology. Adam knew the covenant and all his descendent's all the way to Moses knew the covenant. The covenant was spiritual and Christ and Paul made a clear distinction between the covenant and the Law of Moses, which Paul admitted was carnal. The covenant was always spiritual. The closest you get to the covenant being revealed theology is when God wrote the Ten Commandments on pillars of stone with His own finger. Moses wrote the rest of the law but the law of Moses did not make it into the Ark of the Covenant but was placed outside the Ark of the Covenant

When Christ said he fulfilled the law and the prophets, He was talking about the New Covenant, which was not new at all. It was the same covenant that God originally made, where man had always worshiped God in Spirit. There is only one way to worship God and that is through natural theology. The Bible will confirm whether or not you are doing correct worship. The purpose of the Bible is to confirm our faith that God is.

 

[Debunker]

Very interesting information...

What do you make of the Lord pronouncing a divorce in Hosea 1:9 of the people of the northern kingdom?

Hosea 1:9
"Then said God, Call his name Loammi: for ye are not my people, and I will not be your God."
​

What do you make of the Lord extending the same status to the southern kingdom of Judah when he likened the two kingdoms to two sisters Aholah and Aholibah?

Ezekiel 23
4 And the names of them were Aholah the elder, and Aholibah her sister: and they were mine, and they bare sons and daughters. Thus were their names; Samaria is Aholah, and Jerusalem Aholibah.
5 And Aholah played the harlot when she was mine; and she doted on her lovers, on the Assyrians her neighbours,
...
11 And when her sister Aholibah saw this, she was more corrupt in her inordinate love than she, and in her whoredoms more than her sister in her whoredoms.
...
17 And the Babylonians came to her into the bed of love, and they defiled her with their whoredom, and she was polluted with them, and her mind was alienated from them.
18 So she discovered her whoredoms, and discovered her nakedness: then my mind was alienated from her, like as my mind was alienated from her sister.
19 Yet she multiplied her whoredoms
...
22 Therefore, O Aholibah, thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I will raise up thy lovers against thee, from whom thy mind is alienated, and I will bring them against thee on every side;
...
31 Thou [Aholibah] hast walked in the way of thy sister [Aholah]; therefore will I give her cup into thine hand.
...
35 Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD; Because thou hast forgotten me, and cast me behind thy back, therefore bear thou also thy lewdness and thy whoredoms.
36 The LORD said moreover unto me; Son of man, wilt thou judge Aholah and Aholibah? yea, declare unto them their abominations;
37 That they have committed adultery, and blood is in their hands, and with their idols have they committed adultery, and have also caused their sons, whom they bare unto me, to pass for them through the fire, to devour them.
...
46 For thus saith the Lord GOD; I will bring up a company upon them, and will give them to be removed and spoiled.
47 And the company shall stone them with stones, and dispatch them with their swords; they shall slay their sons and their daughters, and burn up their houses with fire.
48 Thus will I cause lewdness to cease out of the land, that all women may be taught not to do after your lewdness.
49 And they shall recompense your lewdness upon you, and ye shall bear the sins of your idols: and ye shall know that I am the Lord GOD.
​

It seems very clear to me the old covenant was breached and the "wife" was put to death.
As I see it, a new covenant is indeed needful in order for their standing to be redeemed.

A very nice story but how do you relate this to how one interprets the Bible? I am ashing out of interest and not in rebut to what you say. Please consider what I said in my purpose of the Bible in my last post on this thread.

 

[Debunker]

TBH, there really isn't a single Jewish interpretation. Since the NT is not part of the Tanakh, it isn't part of our scripture(s) so their is no official interpretation of it. Each individual for the most part has their own interpretation of the NT. The only exception are Messianic Jews, who do use the NT. However, I am not Messianic so I don't know what their interpretation is like or how it differs from Christian interpretations.

While I have begun reading the NT (NIV version), I haven't finished reading so I can't really give my own thoughts and comments on it yet.

As you read the NT, please keep in mind that the theme of dabar begins the OT and is continued in the form of logos. The two concepts are one and the same. By not following this theme closely is where all the different opinions come about this and that covenant. The true covenant with God is spiritual as I have already stated. Good luck in your search for the truth. It will not be found in all these points of view you are getting but it will be found in your heart. As Christ said, you will know the truth and it will make you free(John 8:32).

 

[Debunker]

OC righteous by deed. Atonement for sin through action.
NC righteous by faith in Christ. His atonement is absolute.

The covenant was always by faith and because of faith, according to Paul, faith was the reason for righteousness. My reference is the Epistle to the Hebrews by the Apostle Paul. Faith in the old covenant and faith in the new covenant was one and the same and its atonement, as you say, was absolute.

 

[esmith]

As I stated previously I am not Jewish or Christian, but I believe in and of the God of the Hebrew Bible. To me the Bible is a book of history, attempting to show how the people of ancient Israel came to be. How religion, moral and ritual purity/impurities, geopolitics, and internal strife shaped their beliefs and ideas. Biblical religion is not a unity but a collection of differing and often competing opinions and traditions. You have the Deuteronomic-covenantal relligion based on the legal form of a treaty between Israel and it's deity. The Priestly religion, centering on the cult and observance of rituals. Wisdom religion, focusing on obtaining a understanding of the cosmos and laws of human nature. This biblical religion should be examined individually. I do not think that you can use the Bible to "prove a point" or as some religions do to validate their religion. The Bible is a "personal" involvement between you and your God, taken from it what you need. I do not wish to comment on the Christian New Testament, because there is no way for me to interpret it. I have my beliefs and why I believe what I believe but this is not the place to discuss it (in my opinion).

 

[Debunker]

One should not be like the blind leading the blind. It is better to have an idea of where one is headed even if he does not follow the correct path. When one is lost in the woods, undecided is not a strong virtue. In interpreting the Bible always keep in mind the idealism of the God of the Bible. Yes, the Bible is a collection of many authors but its inspiration is of one source or else why would a spiritual man want to even read it?

 

[kylixguru]

A very nice story but how do you relate this to how one interprets the Bible? I am ashing out of interest and not in rebut to what you say. Please consider what I said in my purpose of the Bible in my last post on this thread.

Understood.

In the scriptural example, I demonstrated how God carried out the law against his Bride(s) who committed adultery against Him. This identifies a parallel plane that can be explored that will certainly bear a heavy influence upon one's manner of interpretation when doing so.

Often times passages will only touch on portions of the law with some aspects left ambiguous. If you can identify parallel overlays representing the same core image or vision, then you can get bits and pieces from each separate overlay and superimpose them to get a more complete vision of the whole picture.

Once each distinct plane is identified and the linking points between them are established, then you are able to make inferrences about what something on one plane represents on another plane. Then, you can take the entire law of Moses where the carnal commandments were given, and extrapolate using them as a basis to understand realities that exist on a higher plane. You can also perceive in their rituals prophecy that tells you what is going to play out on a higher plane.

Each bit and piece woven throughout holy writ tends to point towards a unified truth that when understood enables a person to see the 'big picture' in such a way that they could actually write holy writ because they 'got it'. Their understanding is perfected because they can judge if things are in harmony with the overall vision or pattern or if they are out of harmony. This is the basis for what Jesus referred to as the 'well of living water' that eventually shall spring up inside of you such that you can fully realize things for yourself outside of wrote parameters. This is what He offers to everyone and claims He can give them. Why? So that they can fully self-govern based on absolute truth and thereby truly become free.

For example, Jesus offered many linking points to show what the law of carnal commandments was pointing to on a higher plane. He said committing adultery against your spouse in the flesh has a spiritual component on the higher plane and what it was. He viewed men lusting after women as adultery in his heart. Adultery against who? The man's Lord is Christ. Thus, his fidelity was tarnished if he even so much as lusted for a woman. If such a man is committing spiritual adultery in this manner then he shall be "cast into hell" which is spiritual death. The penalty of the carnal law for adultery is carnal death and the penalty for adultery on the spiritual plane is spiritual death. A clear and precise linkage is formed here.

Jesus clearly understood the 'big picture' and could calibrate all truths via conceptual reasoning from that 'vision of all' rather than from a wrote memorization of codes and procedures to be meticulously adhered to.

As I see it, Joseph Smith Jr. also tapped into this same 'vision of all' well of knowledge and understanding such that he was able to be a suitable instrument through which God could reassemble that which had been lost to mankind. He made a great effort to establish things in a much fuller manifestation but he only got as far as laying the foundation.

To my knowledge, his manner of interpreting holy writ was not passed on and became lost. Successors have devolved to the point that they won't take clear and precise positions on doctrine anymore. This is because they are just like the rest of the world floundering about being blown by every wind of doctrine and never able to come to that one grand 'vision of all' that makes all things plain, clear and practical.

 

[kylixguru]

The true covenant with God is spiritual as I have already stated. Good luck in your search for the truth. It will not be found in all these points of view you are getting but it will be found in your heart. As Christ said, you will know the truth and it will make you free(John 8:32).

Negating the carnal plane and only looking at the spiritual plane will leave you 'ever learning but never able to come to the truth'. You will know you have found the truth of which Jesus spoke when you can see how it is manifested both carnally and spiritually in a parallel manner. The interconnections and interactions are undeniable. You cannot isolate them apart from eachother and claim to have the full truth at the same time.

 

[Debunker]

Understood.

In the scriptural example, I demonstrated how God carried out the law against his Bride(s) who committed adultery against Him. This identifies a parallel plane that can be explored that will certainly bear a heavy influence upon one's manner of interpretation when doing so.

Often times passages will only touch on portions of the law with some aspects left ambiguous. If you can identify parallel overlays representing the same core image or vision, then you can get bits and pieces from each separate overlay and superimpose them to get a more complete vision of the whole picture.

Once each distinct plane is identified and the linking points between them are established, then you are able to make inferrences about what something on one plane represents on another plane. Then, you can take the entire law of Moses where the carnal commandments were given, and extrapolate using them as a basis to understand realities that exist on a higher plane. You can also perceive in their rituals prophecy that tells you what is going to play out on a higher plane.

Each bit and piece woven throughout holy writ tends to point towards a unified truth that when understood enables a person to see the 'big picture' in such a way that they could actually write holy writ because they 'got it'. Their understanding is perfected because they can judge if things are in harmony with the overall vision or pattern or if they are out of harmony. This is the basis for what Jesus referred to as the 'well of living water' that eventually shall spring up inside of you such that you can fully realize things for yourself outside of wrote parameters. This is what He offers to everyone and claims He can give them. Why? So that they can fully self-govern based on absolute truth and thereby truly become free.

For example, Jesus offered many linking points to show what the law of carnal commandments was pointing to on a higher plane. He said committing adultery against your spouse in the flesh has a spiritual component on the higher plane and what it was. He viewed men lusting after women as adultery in his heart. Adultery against who? The man's Lord is Christ. Thus, his fidelity was tarnished if he even so much as lusted for a woman. If such a man is committing spiritual adultery in this manner then he shall be "cast into hell" which is spiritual death. The penalty of the carnal law for adultery is carnal death and the penalty for adultery on the spiritual plane is spiritual death. A clear and precise linkage is formed here.

Jesus clearly understood the 'big picture' and could calibrate all truths via conceptual reasoning from that 'vision of all' rather than from a wrote memorization of codes and procedures to be meticulously adhered to.

As I see it, Joseph Smith Jr. also tapped into this same 'vision of all' well of knowledge and understanding such that he was able to be a suitable instrument through which God could reassemble that which had been lost to mankind. He made a great effort to establish things in a much fuller manifestation but he only got as far as laying the foundation.

To my knowledge, his manner of interpreting holy writ was not passed on and became lost. Successors have devolved to the point that they won't take clear and precise positions on doctrine anymore. This is because they are just like the rest of the world floundering about being blown by every wind of doctrine and never able to come to that one grand 'vision of all' that makes all things plain, clear and practical.

Although the Smith doctrine is interesting and I defiantly need to know more about it before I dismiss it, it sounds rather more complicated than the simple Gospel that the Bible supports. Maybe I should say the orthodox vision that the Bible supports. For the time being, I do not believe Smith has anything to add to the Scriptures.

The OP ask about the interpretation of the Old Testament and is reading the NT. Christianity believes in the leadership of the Holy Spirit and believes the Spirit will lead to all truth, total freedom, and is the only source of spiritual or natural theology. I believe we have only the Bible to confirm that we have found the truth.I think the OP might be confused if he thinks on too many plains. Christ sent the Spirit to teach us spirituality only on the human plain.

To correctly interpret the Bible, it is best to focus on the main theme of the Bible. It begins with dabar/logos as God and ends with dabar/logos still as God.
Rv:22:13: I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.

 

[kylixguru]

In the Torah God said " Gen:1:26: And God said, Let us make man in our image,..." God did not say to make man as a statue of God but God was speaking in words of maximum idealism, the image of dabar, the true God as the creator of the universe. God did have an idea or image of what man was to be. The Bible is a history of how God has been shaping and creating man into this image, This the continues theme of the Old Testament and carried over into the New Testament.

I find much agreement with you here. I agree Adam was given to be a full and complete manifestation of God. And, I see how Jesus clearly indicated there was more to follow himself and that he was pointing to the future Adam to come to lay the foundation for the new creation.

I question what you mean when you say 'universe'.

The creation of man was first a "spiritual" creation as an idea in the mind, then God took dust of the earth and formed the "flesh" of man but this alone was not possible to be the image of dabar, therefore God breathed spirit and life into man and all of man became a living soul.

That first idea was an idea in the mind of a human being. That human being became "man" when the idea was formed in his mind. The "idea" is the "breath of life" and the dust of the ground was a human being. The "universe" that Man created was first made by forming a spiritual family from the raw materials around him (other particles of dust). They liked his "idea" and willingly devoted themselves to build it up by organizing things.

To use the LDS term 'estate', they say much the same thing with deeper implications.
Our 'first estate' is when we are born spiritually as a part of God's spiritual family.
Our 'second estate' is when we are born physically as a part of God's physical family.
There isn't a 'third estate' or a 'fourth estate' that is distinctly mentioned.
We cycle between the first and second estates in a cyclical manner as individual entities of intelligence who must learn to navigate ourselves in the wind currents.

There is an interplay and cyclical relationship between these two estates that is woven throughout holy writ. It must be fully considered when interpreting holy writ or you will have gaping holes in your understanding.

I could go into the concept of 'estates' more so that it would give an idea of how it affects one's interpretive filters, but that would probably be going too far off topic and really should go into its own thread for those interested.

 

[kylixguru]

Although the Smith doctrine is interesting and I defiantly need to know more about it before I dismiss it, it sounds rather more complicated than the simple Gospel that the Bible supports. Maybe I should say the orthodox vision that the Bible supports. For the time being, I do not believe Smith has anything to add to the Scriptures.

Perfectly understandable.

The OP ask about the interpretation of the Old Testament and is reading the NT. Christianity believes in the leadership of the Holy Spirit and believes the Spirit will lead to all truth, total freedom, and is the only source of spiritual or natural theology.

Christianity assumes the other personages of the Trinity would never manifest in the flesh. Thus, they assume the Holy Ghost would not have a physical advent as Jesus had. But, Jesus told them to watch for the day(time) and the hour(time) of His coming(s) when the Father would setup the Kingdom. Jesus pointed to much more that was yet to be fulfilled.

Thus, a major difference between how the LDS interpret the NT is they see it as pointing to many great and marvellous things we should look for the fulfillment of in practical ways.

For example, Jesus returning in the 'clouds of heaven', according to Joseph Smith Jr. simply meant the advent of the Father to establish His Kingdom would be at a time when all those in positions of governance (world leaders, religious, political, economical, etc.) would be in darkness and far astray from what the Gospel Light would have them doing. To Joseph Smith, 'heavenly bodies' are people who are 'governing ones'. Clouds of darkness in the heavens is great confusion, tumolt, chaos, conflict, secret combinations, etc. among those who are in positions of power over us.

Other rather miraculous sounding things to Christians are decoded to a simple understanding of things. For example, Lucifer's 'fall' from heaven could be as simple as a group of men conspiring to overthrow freedom being impeached from their offices of authority.

Another example. The 'rapture' simply means you know where the advent of the Father is and you go into concealment with Him while the woes of the great tribulation are happening to everyone else. Nobody is 'raptured' off into a secret space station somewhere or hyperdimensionally shifted to another plane in an instant. Those 'raptured' are people hunkered down somewhere in concealment with the Bridegroom.

I believe we have only the Bible to confirm that we have found the truth. I think the OP might be confused if he thinks on too many plains. Christ sent the Spirit to teach us spirituality only on the human plain.

It might also be the missing pieces he's been looking for. How am I to know? Perhaps my comments will benefit someone just passing by... Perhaps I need to hear something in response to my comments... We just don't always know. At least the author of the OP will have a chance to see the methods others use to interpret holy writ and some examples of how it affects things.

To correctly interpret the Bible, it is best to focus on the main theme of the Bible.

I agree and the more witnesses a person can find to calibrate the truth of that central theme the more complete a person's knowledge becomes. And, at some point, the well Jesus spoke of is opened wide and you then come to know the Father personally. Absent this, you fall short of Eternal Life.

When I ask Christians if they know the Father, they can never bring it into anything practical, consistent and real. Thus, I know the truth is not in them. When you look at the Nicea Creed, by its own admission it denounces the entire basis upon which Eternal Life can be realized. Jesus says you must know the Father but it says man cannot.

It begins with dabar/logos as God and ends with dabar/logos still as God.
Rv:22:13: I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.

Yes! But, how to you bring all of that into practical understanding you can describe in simple pragmatic terms and put a name of an individual upon who best represents that? If you cannot do this with complete confidence and be correct, it's all just myth and fantasy with the reality of it being unobserved and therefore not real to you.

 

[Harmonious]

Translating Torah instructions as law is probably not as accurate as we might want.

The way the Jews do it, it is balanced between what is in the Five Books of Moses and the Oral Law that was handed to Moses to help explain what he was directed to write.