e-book The Worth of a Soul: Exegesis and the Doctrine and Covenants (BYU Religion Courses Book 1)

Free download. Book file PDF easily for everyone and every device. You can download and read online The Worth of a Soul: Exegesis and the Doctrine and Covenants (BYU Religion Courses Book 1) file PDF Book only if you are registered here. And also you can download or read online all Book PDF file that related with The Worth of a Soul: Exegesis and the Doctrine and Covenants (BYU Religion Courses Book 1) book. Happy reading The Worth of a Soul: Exegesis and the Doctrine and Covenants (BYU Religion Courses Book 1) Bookeveryone. Download file Free Book PDF The Worth of a Soul: Exegesis and the Doctrine and Covenants (BYU Religion Courses Book 1) at Complete PDF Library. This Book have some digital formats such us :paperbook, ebook, kindle, epub, fb2 and another formats. Here is The CompletePDF Book Library. It's free to register here to get Book file PDF The Worth of a Soul: Exegesis and the Doctrine and Covenants (BYU Religion Courses Book 1) Pocket Guide.

Some of the more recent commentaries include Duane A.

Writing Style

Hagedorn, ed. Additionally, I have consulted J. Michael D. Coogan, vol.

About Jeffrey M. Bradshaw

Marvin H. Waltke and M. I agree with their assessment that the ancient intent here was most likely authorship, but that this is a traditional ascription, not proof of actual authorship. See further, for example, Michael D. Coogan, as well as others, uses Song —12 as support against Solomonic authorship. Coogan, The Old Testament , Baba Batra , 15a. Noegel and Gary A. See also Longman, Song , 18— John Kitto, vol. Additionally, there is disagreement over the number of literary units in the Song. See also Exum, Song of Songs , 37— See Scott H.

  1. Category 1: What Are the Textual Sources of the Translation?!
  2. Translation and Historicity of the Book of Abraham.
  3. "The Precise Purposes of the Book of Mormon" | Religious Studies Center;
  4. The Carter Conspiracy.
  5. Alpha Predator: How to be Victorious Over Life’s Ultimate Adversary and What to Do When You’re Not!.
  6. About Kevin Christensen.

Fahlring, Kent P. Jackson, and Robert J. That, however, is incorrect; it is called the Song of Songs in the singular, not the plural. Lawson New York: Newman, , Blessed likewise, is he who understands songs and sings them. And as the man who enters holy places still needs much to make him able to enter the holy of holies. Other Church Fathers, including Hippolytus ca.

Cross New York: Oxford, , On our lack of knowledge about how and why the Song was canonized, see also, for example, Murphy, Commentary , 5—6; and J. Lawrence H. Schiffman and James C. VanderKam Oxford: New York, , See also page Waugh and T. Mason, , — Jenson is one modern commentator who has proposed that the Song did not originate as simply love poetry but originated with coding to invite hearers to think of divine love for humans. I repeat it, and I wish to be heard by young ministers, take the plainest texts when you attempt to convince men of sin. However, there are no specific reports of Joseph Smith consulting the commentary on the Song or any other issue, so no direct link can be established.

References to Adam Clarke and his commentary in the Times and Seasons are too late for consideration with the status of the Song. Noyes, A New Translation , See also such later claims as Elder Dallin H. It is a member of the royal family of scripture. Robert L. Millet and Robert J. Matthews Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, , 11, William W.

Hallo and K. Lawson Younger, vol. For comments on Mesopotamian love poetry and its relationship to the biblical Song, see Tawny L. Daniel C. Snell Malden, MA: Blackwell, , — See also the review by Exum, Song of Songs , 47— For an overview of the opinions of early Christian authors, see, for example, P.

Recent Comments

Angelo Di Berardino, trans. Adrian Walford New York: Oxford, , — Joseph Smith and some other early Mormon leaders began to study Hebrew in Kirtland, Ohio, in late Andover, MA: Gould and Newman, In , Nauvoo was named. Although it cannot be proved, this interesting datum provides one more potential link between Joseph Smith and the Song of Solomon. I thank my colleague Matthew Grey for reminding me of this fact.

Patrick H. Alexander et al. These two words also appear together in a different context in poetic passages in Isaiah ; When Joseph Smith concocted the Book of Mormon, he just assumed that the ancient Amerindians had the same kind of agriculture as that which he knew in upstate New York.

Consequently, he had his ancient characters growing wheat, barley, corn, and flax, and planting vineyards for wine, and being able to understand the symbolism of the olive and trees. Now, of course, Smith was right about the corn - that is, maize. But is there anyone of Smith's day who had not heard of "Indian corn," or did not know that corn had come from the Indians?

What Smith did not know, however, was that corn was but one of three staple crops raised by the Indians of Central America - the region in which the discovery of ruined civilizations had triggered enormous amounts of speculation in the time of Smith's youth. The other two major crops were squash and beans. These were supplemented by such things as avocados, amaranth, etc. You can search all you want in the Book of Mormon, but you won't find any mention, apart from corn, of the crops actually raised in ancient America. Incidentally, we have numerous cases where these crops have been preserved in archaeological sites and are easily identifiable.

What does archaeology tell us of the presence or absence of the crops Smith claimed were the staples of ancient America? No remains of wheat or domesticated barley have ever been found. In fact, the one possible pre-Columbian specimen of barley discovered at a site in Arizona [not a Book of Mormon location anyway per apologists] is of a species different from the species of domesticated barley allegedly brought from the Near East. And what of flax? No dice, again.

Fortunately for lovers of truth, the Mormon apologists cannot simply say we haven't been looking in the right place, or that the remains of these plants have all perished with the passage of time. The reason for our good fortune is the fact that these domestic plants are all flowering plants. As such, they produce pollen - in great abundance. If the Mormonic civilizations had been growing these crops for even a few decades - let alone the thousands of years allegedly chronicled by the Book of Mormon - every soil coring taken in Central America should show traces of wheat, barley, and flax pollen.

Pollen is one of the most indestructible natural objects known.

  • Arcadias Gift (Arcadia Series Book 1).
  • Civilian To Soldier: Moving Through The Ranks.
  • How To Build A Home Recording Studio.
  • The Bible, a Sealed Book.
  • Reading the Song of Solomon as a Latter-day Saint.
  • An example of the type of research that shows Book of Mormon agriculture to be nineteenth century fantasy is David J. He could tell from pollen when the region was forested, when the forest was cut and burned for agriculture, what crops were grown and for how long.

    Although he found clear records of pollen from corn maize and amaranth - two Amerindian staples - he makes no mention of wheat, barley, or flax pollen. Perhaps the LDS Church would like to pay him to go through his cores again, looking more carefully for the mythical motes that should be in them if the Book of Mormon be true! Reference: How do you lose a steel mill? Cultural artifacts or circumstances mentioned in the Book of Mormon that have not been discovered or verified in any ancient American archaeological expedition or historical investigation in the last years.

    Metal work in the BOM can best be summed up with 2 Nephi :. And I did teach my people to build buildings, and to work in all manner of wood, and of iron, and of copper, and of brass, and of steel, and of gold, and of silver, and of precious ores, which were in great abundance. The MormonThink editors are not going to chase down every anachronism—there are simply too many to ignore and LDS apologists will always come up with some sort of answer to explain how these anachronisms do not entirely necessarily discredit the Book of Mormon.

    There may be viable explanations that makes sense for some, but it's difficult to believe that they all can be explained away. Here is a typical full analysis of one of these additional anachronisms we received from a critic - the use of the word compass in the BOM. We do this to show the reader how adequate or inadequate their explanations can be for anachronisms in the BOM. Critics charge that the description of the Liahona as a "compass" is anachronistic because the magnetic compass was not known in B.

    Believing it was called a compass because it pointed the direction for Lehi to travel is the fault of the modern reader, not the Book of Mormon. In every case, it is clear that, at least in Jacobean England, the word was regularly treated as meaning either a round object, or something which moved in a curved fashion.

    Scripture Study

    Further evidence of the archaic meaning of the word comes from a study of the rather lengthy listing for the word in the Oxford English Dictionary. It includes definition 5. The Book of Mormon refers to the Liahona as "a compass" not because it anachronistically pointed the way to travel, but because it was a perfectly round object. And within the ball were two spindles; and the one pointed the way wither we should go into the wilderness. Now followed by Alma :.

    And now, my son, I have somewhat to say concerning the thing which our fathers call a ball, or director —or our fathers called it Liahona, which is, being interpreted, a compass ; and the Lord prepared it.

    The Book of Mormon explicitly states that the "Liahona", was a director , it was certainly used by Lehi's party to direct them in the wilderness, and Alma the younger even made more clarification of its nature by calling it a director and compass —this is an anachronism because the compass which directed one's course wasn't invented yet for many centuries.

    FAIR grasps at straws by stating "In every case, it is clear that, at least in Jacobean England, the word was regularly treated as meaning either a round object, or something which moved in a curved fashion.

    see url

    Fall Review Magazine () by Brent Nordgren - Issuu

    Joseph Smith nor the Nephites lived in Jacobean England. All this statement does is transfer the problem to why God chose to have Joseph Smith translate the Book of Mormon into King James Version biblical language see that topic below. Also notice how the apologists blame you for taking "director" to mean "director". Editor Comment: We'll let the reader decide whether the apologists or the critics' arguments make the most sense. More critical analysis and LDS apologist responses can be found on Wikipedia's Book of Mormon Anachronisms page and other various sites to discuss some of the culture, metallurgy and linguistic anachronisms that the contributors of this site haven't fully yet analyzed.