FAIR

Subscribe To Our Newsletter

Come, Follow Me Old Testament Resources

Questions

Abraham’s Hebron: Then and Now, Part 1: Introduction (Old Testament Gospel Doctrine Lesson 8A)

by

Jeffrey M. Bradshaw: Four-Horned Altar at Beersheba, 2014

An Old Testament KnoWhy for Gospel Doctrine Lesson 8: Living Righteously in a Wicked World (Genesis 13–14; 18–19) (JBOTL08A)

The purpose of this five-part series of videos is to provide a brief introduction to some of the places linked in tradition to the lives of the family of Abraham and Sarah. Many, though not all, of the sites we will visit are in or near the city of Hebron. Hebron and surrounding areas served as somewhat of a hub for Abraham in his many journeys.

Although archaeology cannot directly substantiate the scriptural stories of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, it can tell us something about the geography, settlements, and daily life of their contemporaries. Learning more about these places helps us get a more realistic sense of the setting in which the patriarchs lived.

Because the area surrounding Hebron is located in a part of the Palestinian-controlled West Bank that often has been the scene of violent dispute, it is not visited by tourists as frequently as some other places in Israel. Other sites such as Rachel’s tomb (near Bethlehem), as well as Jacob’s well and Joseph’s tomb further north are also in areas of the West Bank to which travel is sometimes complicated. It is hoped that this series of presentations will increase exposure to these lesser-known sites, so rich in biblical history.

Following this introduction, a second presentation will take us to the most well-known site connected with Abraham, the Tomb of the Patriarchs located in modern Hebron. In the Bible, this site is connected with the place names of Machpelah and Kiryat Arba. Here Abraham purchased a cave for the burial of Sarah from local residents. In the third presentation we will visit other areas in the West Bank: the traditional sites of Jacob’s well and Joseph’s tomb to the north, and the tomb of Rachel near Bethlehem. In the fourth presentation, we will return to Hebron to see excavations of ancient Hebron at Tel Rumeida, also known as Tel Hebron. Tradition associates this area not only with Abraham but also with David, Ruth, and Jesse. Finally, the fifth presentation will bring us to two sites associated with the tree on the plains of Mamre where Abraham welcomed heavenly visitors who promised him a child through Sarah and announced the impending destruction of Sodom.

The video may be found at the Interpreter Foundation website: KnoWhy OTL08A — Abraham’s Hebron: Then and Now, Part 1: Introduction

This video can also be seen on the FairMormon YouTube channel (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dL7BipxVcbA).

Submit a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

If “All Are Alike Unto God,” Why Were Special Promises Reserved for Abraham’s Seed? (Gospel Doctrine Old Testament Lesson 7A)

by

Howard Lyon: I Am a Child of God. Children from many cultures “stand with Christ, bearing witness with him that they are children of God. [The children] look directly at the viewer confident in the joy they feel in the presence of their Savior.”
An Old Testament KnoWhy for Gospel Doctrine Lesson 7: The Abrahamic Covenant (Abraham 1:1-4; 2:1–11; Genesis 12:1-8; 17:1-9) (JBOTL07A).

Question: The Book of Mormon teaches that “all are alike unto God.” Yet “Abraham received promises concerning his seed” that continue to this day. How do we reconcile the idea of the “chosenness” of the family of Abraham with the idea that “God is no respecter of persons”?

Summary: There is no conflict between the “chosenness” of Abraham’s family and the universality of the Father’s love. Every one who receives the Gospel becomes Abraham’s seed and will bless him as their father. In the beginning, God organized the human family according to a divine plan and timetable. “All … alike” would have the opportunity to “come unto him and partake of his goodness,” but to achieve that end God invited each willing soul to participate with Him in the effort. We made premortal covenants that put us in a partnership with our Heavenly Father. Individuals were to play their unique parts faithfully at the appointed time. Jesus Christ was chosen to become our Savior. Abraham and others — both men and women — also received specific assignments. Abraham’s seed was given the responsibility to bear a “ministry and Priesthood unto all nations.” Through the ministry and Priesthood of Abraham’s seed, “all mankind may be saved,” “through the Atonement of Christ” and “by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel.” The disorganization and confusion of the human family will come to an end; “it must be joined together, so that there [will] be a perfect chain from Father Adam to his latest posterity.”

The full article may be found at the Interpreter Foundation website: KnoWhy OTL07A — If “All Are Alike Unto God,” Why Were Special Promises Reserved for Abraham’s Seed?

For a video supplement to this lesson explaining, among other interesting topics, why virtually everyone in our day is a descendant of Abraham, see the presentation by Ugo A. Perego “All Abraham’s Children: A Genetic Perspective,” given at the 2016 Science & Mormonism Symposium: Body, Brain, Mind & Spirit, which took place on 12 March 2016 in Orem, Utah. (http://interpreterfoundation.org/ugo-a-perego-all-abrahams-children-a-genetic-perspective-2/).

What Was All the Confusion About at the Tower of Babel? (Old Testament Gospel Doctrine Lesson 6C)

by

M. C. Escher, 1898-1972: Tower of Babel, 1928. A confused group of different peoples quarrel and cry out as the work comes to a standstill.

An Old Testament KnoWhy for Gospel Doctrine Lesson 6: “Noah … Prepared an Ark to the Saving of His House” (Moses 8:19-30; Genesis 6-9; 11:1-9) (JBOTL06C).

Question: At the beginning of the Tower of Babel story, we read that “the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech.” Later, we are told that “the Lord did there confound the language of all the earth.” But the scientific history of languages tells us that the diverse tongues of the world did not originate from the splitting of a single language. Must we choose between science and scripture?

Summary: To begin with, the Hebrew word eretz used in Genesis 11:1 (and also in the story of Noah’s flood) can mean either “earth” or “land,” and it is impossible to know which except from context. Here, the phrase probably just means that the people in the land where the story took place originally spoke a common language. In addition, despite the chapter’s focus on the confounding (mixing up) of languages, God’s most important concern seems to have been the confounding (mingling) of the covenant people with their unbelieving neighbors. As with other stories in Genesis 1-11, temple themes are woven throughout the account of the confusion at Babel. In this case, the Tower can be seen as a sort of anti-temple wherein its builders attempted to “make … a name” for themselves rather than acknowledging God as the one who gives names to those He has chosen because of their faithfulness. Abraham’s posterity will be separated out from other nations. His great name “will be achieved not in the present through heroic feats and imposing monuments but rather in a divinely promised future through the begetting of numerous offspring.” Though Abraham successfully passed the tests of his day, his latter-day posterity must continue their vigilance, for the project of Babel is making a strong comeback today.

 

The full article may be found at the Interpreter Foundation website: KnoWhy OTL06C — What Was All the Confusion About at the Tower of Babel?

As a video supplement to this lesson, see Jeffrey M. Bradshaw, “A Tower of Literary Beauty: Wordplay and Chiasmus in the Story of Babel” on the Interpreter Foundation website (http://cdn.interpreterfoundation.org/ifvideo/TowerOfLiteraryBeauty.m4v) or on YouTube (https://youtu.be/2enAFPODShs).

For a video that discusses some of society’s current “Babel projects,” see Jeffrey M. Bradshaw, “The future isn’t what it used to be: Artificial Intelligence meets natural stupidity.” Presentation at the Second Interpreter Science and Mormonism Symposium, March 12, 2016 (http://www.templethemes.net/media/videos/Jeff%20Bradshaw-480p.m4v). Links to an expanded, written version of this presentation published in a series of Meridian Magazine articles can be found here (http://www.templethemes.net/publications.php#mm-future).

Was Noah Drunk or in a Vision? (Old Testament Gospel Doctrine 6B)

by

Noah in His Vineyard, Holkham Bible, ca. 1325-1350. Here we see an industrious Noah diligently tending his vineyard, in striking contrast to a later depiction in the same Bible chapter that features him in an inebriated stupor. Scholars have noted the odd inconsistency between these two scenes.

An Old Testament KnoWhy for Gospel Doctrine Lesson 6: “Noah … Prepared an Ark to the Saving of His House” (Moses 8:19-30; Genesis 6-9; 11:1-9) (JBOTL06B)

Question: In Genesis 6:9, Noah is described as “a just man and perfect in his generations,” a noble patriarch who, like Enoch, “walked with God.” However, the story of Noah finishes in a puzzling way. Immediately after Noah makes his covenant with God, his sons find him “drunken” and “uncovered within his tent.” Can these two opposing pictures of Noah be reconciled?

Summary: It is difficult to know whether this contradiction is the result of different traditions, textual misunderstanding, or the abbreviated nature of the biblical account. Some scholars even wonder whether there was a deliberate effort to defame or belittle the character of Noah. What seems certain is that the biblical author deliberately framed this sequel to Noah’s Creation and Garden story as a replay of the scene of the Adam and Eve’s Fall and consequent judgment in Eden. Most often the instigator of this “Fall” is seen to be Noah, who, it is reported, succumbed to the intoxicating influence of wine from his vineyard. However, it is significant that the scriptures omit any hint of wrongdoing by Noah and put all the blame on Ham and his son Canaan. In the admittedly tentative interpretation given in this article, I will discuss the possibility that Ham’s wrongdoing consisted in his having approached, without authorization, the inner curtains of the sacred tent where Noah was enwrapped in vision. Some ancient traditions viewed Ham’s actions as part of an effort to steal Noah’s priesthood garment and undermine his authority.

 

The full article may be found at the Interpreter Foundation website: KnoWhy OTL06B — Was Noah Drunk or in a Vision?

As a video supplement to this lesson with additional details and artwork not included in this article, see Jeffrey M. Bradshaw, “The Ark and the Tent: Temple Symbolism in the Story of Noah” on the YouTube Interpreter Foundation channel (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kIfArfB54Mk ).

Was Noah’s Ark Designed As a Floating Temple? (Old Testament Gospel Doctrine 6A)

by

Thomas Cole, 1801-1848: The Subsiding Waters of the Deluge, 1829

An Old Testament KnoWhy for Gospel Doctrine Lesson 6: “Noah … Prepared an Ark to the Saving of His House” (Moses 8:19-30; Genesis 6-9; 11:1-9) (JBOTL06A).

Question: In the Bible, Noah’s ark is described as a huge, rectangular box with three floors and a roof, which makes it sound more like a building than a boat. Was Noah’s ark designed as a floating “temple”?

Summary: In the Bible, God reveals the design of three man-made structures: two of these are temples and one is Noah’s ark. To ancient Israelites, the dimensions, shape, layout, materials, and function of the Ark would have immediately suggested that it, too, had been designed as a “temple.” In addition, the story of the Flood explicitly echoes the scenes of Creation and Eden found in the story of Adam and Eve, including the Ark’s final destination on the heights of a mountain.

 

The full article may be found at the Interpreter Foundation website: KnoWhy OTL06A — Was Noah’s Ark Designed As a Floating Temple?

As a video supplement to this lesson with additional details and artwork not included in this article, see Jeffrey M. Bradshaw, “The Ark and the Tent: Temple Symbolism in the Story of Noah” on the YouTube Interpreter Foundation channel (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kIfArfB54Mk ).

Could Joseph Smith Have Drawn On Ancient Manuscripts When He Translated the Story of Enoch? (Old Testament Gospel Doctrine 5C)

by

George Campfield, fl. 1861: Enoch, Creation Window, All Saints Church, Selsley, England, 1861

An Old Testament KnoWhy for Gospel Doctrine Lesson 5:“If Thou Doest Well, Thou Shalt Be Accepted” (Moses 5-7) (JBOTL05C). See the link to video supplements to this lesson at the end of this article under “Further Reading.”

Question: Some say that Joseph Smith drew on ancient stories about Enoch not found in the Bible as he translated the chapters on Enoch in Moses 6-7. How similar are the stories of Enoch in ancient accounts to modern scripture? And could Joseph Smith have been aware of them?

Summary: Although an English translation of the Ethiopian book of 1 Enoch appeared in 1821, the ancient manuscripts that are most relevant to the LDS story of Enoch were not available during Joseph Smith’s lifetime. The Qumran Book of Giants, discovered in 1948, contains striking resemblances to Moses 6-7, ranging from general themes in the story line to specific occurrences of rare expressions in corresponding contexts. It would be thought remarkable if any nineteenth-century document were to exhibit a similar density of close resemblances with this small collection of ancient fragments, but to find such similarities in appropriate contexts relating in each case to the story of Enoch is astonishing.

 

The full article may be found at the Interpreter Foundation website: KnoWhy OTL05C — Could Joseph Smith Have Drawn On Ancient Manuscripts When He Translated the Story of Enoch?

As a first video supplement to this lesson with additional details and artwork not included in this article, see Jeffrey M. Bradshaw, “Could Joseph Smith Have Drawn on Ancient Manuscripts When He Translated the Story of Enoch?” available at The Interpreter Foundation (http://cdn.interpreterfoundation.org/ifvideo/180122-Could Joseph Smith Have Drawn on Ancient.m4v) and FairMormon (https://youtu.be/7zJwuZ_yPyY).

As a second video supplement to this lesson, see Jeffrey M. Bradshaw, “The LDS story of Enoch As a Temple Text (http://www.templestudies.org/2013-enoch-and-the-temple-conference/conference-videos/). Several other excellent video presentations on Enoch and the temple, including one by David J. Larsen discussing ancient parallels with the taking up of Enoch’s city to heaven, are available at this same link.

How Does Moses 5-8 Illustrate the Consequences of Keeping and Breaking Temple Covenants One By One? (Old Testament Gospel Doctrine 5B)

by

Jan van Eyck, ca. 1395-1441: Offering of Abel and Cain, 1425-1429

An Old Testament KnoWhy for Gospel Doctrine Lesson 5: “If Thou Doest Well, Thou Shalt Be Accepted” (Moses 5-7) (JBOTL05B). See the link to video supplements to this lesson at the end of this article under “Further Reading.”

Question: Some people believe that the basic teachings and covenants available today in LDS temple ordinances were not revealed to Joseph Smith until he got to Nauvoo. Others say he knew a great deal about temple matters long before that time. What could the Prophet have learned about temple covenants as he translated Moses 5-8 in 1830-31?

Summary: Because the book of Moses tells the story of the Creation and the Fall of Adam and Eve, it is obvious to endowed members of the Church that the book of Moses is a temple text, containing a pattern that interleaves sacred history with covenant-making themes. What may be new to many Latter-day Saints, however, is that the temple themes in the book of Moses extend beyond the first part of this story that contains the fall of Adam and Eve — their “downward road.” There is a part two of the temple story given in the book of Moses that describes an “upward road” that is to be climbed by making and keeping an ordered sequence of temple covenants. Significantly, Moses 5-8 appears to have been structured so as to present the consequences of both keeping and breaking specific temple covenants one by one.

 

The full article may be found at the Interpreter Foundation website: KnoWhy OTL05B — How Does Moses 5-8 Illustrate the Consequences of Keeping and Breaking Temple Covenants One By One?

As a video supplement to this lesson, see Jeffrey M. Bradshaw, “The LDS story of Enoch As a Temple Text” (http://www.templestudies.org/2013-enoch-and-the-temple-conference/conference-videos/). Several other excellent video presentations on Enoch and the temple are available at this same link.

For additional discussion of evidence that Joseph Smith knew much about temple matters early on in his ministry, see: “What Did Joseph Smith Know about Temple Ordinances by 1836?” (http://interpreterfoundation.org/conferences/2014-temple-on-mount-zion-conference/2014-temple-on-mount-zion-conference-videos/).

Why Was Joseph Smith Initially Prohibited from Publishing His Bible Translation? (Old Testament Gospel Doctrine 5A)

by

Liz Lemon Swindle, 1953-: Go with Me to Cumorah, 1997

An Old Testament KnoWhy for Gospel Doctrine Lesson 5: “If Thou Doest Well, Thou Shalt Be Accepted” (Moses 5-7) (JBOTL05A). See the link to video supplements for this lesson at the end of this article under “Further Reading.”

Question: For a while, the Lord prohibited Joseph Smith from sharing his Bible translation publicly. Also, Moses 1:42 explicitly says that the account of Moses’ vision should not be shown “unto any except them that believe.” Any guesses as to the reasons behind these restrictions?

Summary: I believe that these initial restrictions were due, at least in part, to the sacred content of many of the changes and additions in Joseph Smith’s Bible translation. This makes sense if we regard the knowledge that Joseph Smith received as he translated the Bible as part of a divine tutorial on priesthood and temple doctrines, authority, and ordinances. In fact, some parts of Genesis seem to contain echoes of what temple studies scholars would call a “temple text.” My study of the book of Moses and others of the initial revelations and teachings of Joseph Smith have convinced me that he knew early on much more about these matters than he taught publicly, contradicting the view of those who consider the fundamental doctrines, covenants, and teachings of the Nauvoo temple ordinances a late invention

The full article may be found at the Interpreter Foundation website: KnoWhy OTL05A — Why Was Joseph Smith Initially Prohibited from Publishing His Bible Translation?

For more discussion of evidence that Joseph Smith knew much about temple matters early on in his ministry, see the first video supplement to this lesson: “What Did Joseph Smith Know about Temple Ordinances by 1836?” (http://interpreterfoundation.org/conferences/2014-temple-on-mount-zion-conference/2014-temple-on-mount-zion-conference-videos/).

For a playlist of one-minute video clips discussing various aspects of Mormonism and Masonry in Nauvoo, see the second video supplement to this lesson at the FairMormon YouTube Channel (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X0zdSoYy_fg&list=PLw_Vkm1zYbIHW8n88zdpJuzK83caT7A2H).

Was Adam Meant to “Rule Over” or “Rule With” Eve? (Old Testament Gospel Doctrine 4B)

by

Eugène Delaplanche, 1836-1890: Eve, After Transgression, 1869. Photograph copyright by Jeffrey M. Bradshaw. In this poignant sculpture, the vacant, tearless eyes and agonized posture of the solitary figure bespeak the depths of Eve’s utter hopelessness immediately after her transgression.

An Old Testament KnoWhy for Gospel Doctrine Lesson 4: “Because of My Transgression My Eyes Are Opened” (Moses 4; 5:1–15; 6:48-62) (JBOTL04B). See the link to the video supplement to this lesson at the end of the article under “Further Reading.”

Question: After the Fall, God told Eve: “thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.” However, some say that the words “rule over” should be translated “rule with.” Which translation is correct?

Summary: A modern English translation makes the meaning of this difficult phrase clear: “You will want to control your husband, but he will dominate you.” Looking at the verse in context, it is evident that the Lord is not telling the couple how they should treat each other, but rather describing a tragic tendency in mortal marriages that they must avoid. As further evidence for this interpretation, note that the same Hebrew terms for “desire” and “rule” that describe a relationship of competition and rancor will later reappear in God’s warning to Cain: “Satan desireth to have thee; … And thou shalt rule over him.” In an honest effort to make sense of the troubling English translation of “rule over” in the King James Version, some have suggested that it should be read instead as “rule with.” Unfortunately, the “rule with” translation does not hold up under scholarly scrutiny. For example, in her BYU Masters Thesis, RoseAnn Benson argued conclusively that the “rule with” translation should be abandoned. In every occurrence of the underlying Hebrew she examined the phrase is best understood as “rule over,” as when a king rules over his subjects. This further confirms the idea that the verse is describing broken marriage relationships that would become a common tendency in the fallen world, with each spouse contending to “rule over” the other. It’s obvious that God did not intend Adam and Eve’s marriage to work that way. Instead, as the Proclamation on the Family explains, “fathers and mothers” — both then and now — “are obligated to help one another as equal partners.”

The full article may be found at the Interpreter Foundation website: KnoWhy OTL04B — Was Adam Meant to “Rule Over” or “Rule With” Eve?

For a video supplement to this lesson, see “The Tree of Knowledge as the Veil of the Sanctuary” on the FairMormon YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K-B1FeOcTZ8

Did Satan Actually Deceive Eve? (Old Testament Gospel Doctrine 4A)

by

Jan Breughel, the Elder, ca. 1568-1625: The Garden of Eden, 1612. Brueghel masterfully fills the foreground of the scene with the abundance, happiness, and beauty of newly created life, and then skillfully draws our eyes toward the two tiny figures in the background ominously reaching for the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge.

An Old Testament KnoWhy for Gospel Doctrine Lesson 4: “Because of My Transgression My Eyes Are Opened” (Moses 4; 5:1–15; 6:48-62) (JBOTL04A), 15 January 2018

Question: The scriptures say that Eve was “beguiled” by Satan when she partook of the forbidden fruit. But Latter-day Saints believe she made the right choice. How can both statements be true?

Summary: Some people paint Eve in a negative light, blaming her for bringing sin into the world. This is not the view of the Latter-day Saints. We emphasize her wisdom and perceptiveness, and see her actions in the Garden of Eden as a positive step forward in the divine plan. We teach that she did not commit a sin in taking the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge and honor her lifelong faithfulness. However, a few have taken this view to an unreasonable extreme, arguing that, for various reasons, she was not actually “beguiled” by Satan in her decision to eat the forbidden fruit. On the one hand, some believe that Satan was entirely truthful when he spoke to Eve. On the other hand, others teach or imply that regardless of what Satan did or said, Eve made the right choice with full understanding of the situation. These beliefs are based on honest intent, but are all mistaken. Scripture exposes how Satan used a series of clever tactics to mislead Eve, how God’s wisdom prevailed, and how Eve became a symbol of Wisdom itself.

The full article may be found at the Interpreter Foundation website: KnoWhy OTL04A — Did Satan Actually Deceive Eve?

For a video supplement to this lesson, see “The Tree of Knowledge as the Veil of the Sanctuary” on the FairMormon YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K-B1FeOcTZ8