No. But no doubt individual leaders have held that sort of opinion in the past.]]>
According to Wikipedia there are tombs for Job in Turkey and Lebanon as well. Take your pick!]]>
Just one for your gee wiz collection.]]>
The whole deal between Satan and God falls under my “I don’t know yet” category. I know God is the same yesterday, today and forever and this looks contradictory, but I know THAT’S not true, so something else must be in play. Maybe I’ll have a confirming witness that it’s allegorical or maybe I’ll learn of something else, but I’m content to put this and a whole lot of other things in the scriptures under the “I don’t know yet, but looking to know” category.
By the way, wouldn’t have to have been a universal flood. If it was local, then wouldn’t God have broken his promise of never flooding the earth again? (there having been lots of local floods since Noah’s time?)]]>
The original circumstance in the post is about a Sunday school environment, and one person wanted to point out that Job “didn’t really happen.” For example, let’s take Seth’s articulation that the “real value of Job is in its transformative power in the lives of the faithful.” Okay, now, my question is this: in order for the elder sister to appreciate this value of transformative power, must accept the younger sister’s comment that “Job didn’t really happen” and drop her belief that Job really happened? Is her belief, rightly or wrongly, that Job is a historical figure barring or preventing her from understanding the “transformative power in the lives of the faithful”? That is the question. If the elder sister can believe both that the story of Job “happened” and also appreciate the transformative power of the story in her life, then what is gained by the younger sister advocating that Job didn’t really happen in a Sunday school environment? It isn’t a general question. It’s a question attached to a specific context and a specific environment.]]>
I think most here would agree that the real value of Job is in its transformative power in the lives of the faithful. The question of whether it “really” happened or not is at best, of secondary importance (and possibly utterly irrelevant).
As for the note on literalness in the manual.
Keep in mind that this was happening in Relief Society this past year. So we’re obviously not talking about the official RS/Priesthood manual. I think the manual in question was the Old Testament Study Guide. I’ll defer to those who actually have done the legwork to investigate it though.]]>
Nibley, for all his flaws, had a very good point. There are two other issues at play. One is that the author may be writing literally but is limited from their point of view. (Both cultural and also historical) Thus whatever the history of Noah we’re stuck with the fact that Noah or one of his sons are recording things. What may look like the world being flooded shouldn’t be taken as some sort of God’s eye view. Just his perspective.
Second there is the issue that much of the OT was compiled after the return from the exile from varying sources. The compilers may have seen things as literal but there were issues of historical accuracy and problems of editing and redaction. This doesn’t imply that it is to be taken allegorical just that we question its accuracy.
To say something is inaccurate is not to say it is allegorical or ahistorical. For instance a news report we hear today may be inaccurate in that it gets many facts wrong. But the basic event is probably historical and one can’t take it as allegorical.
Of course anything can be turned for allegorical purposes. Analogy being the obvious example. And often, especially in the ancient world, historic narratives were often cast in terms of existing archetypes so as to give it meaning. (Consider, for example, the astounding parallels between Nephi’s journey and Moses’)]]>