Category: Doctrine

Today’s game features a battle of two LDS academics:

Lowell Bennion was the first director of the LDS Institute of Religion at the University of Utah and a professor of Sociology. His biography is reviewed here and here and who is quoted here. A brief biography is given here and here is a collection of works by him.

Truman Madsen is an emeritus professor of Philosophy at BYU and was the Richard L. Evans chair of Christian Understanding. He has written several books on LDS doctrine, including, most famously, a series of lectures on Joseph Smith.

Please vote to the left and comment below.

So, the KJV isn’t the best translation one could use (see Ronan’s post here). Although it’s very good, the authors of the KJV often took liberties in translation where perhaps they should not (Isa. 26:19, anyone?). I imagine this is OK, given that much of what we know of the ancient languages today may not have been known back in the late 1500s to early 1600s. They did the best they could given what they knew at the time.

But there’s one verse where I wince at the KJV translators, and it came up last Sunday in Sunday School. I didn’t mention it to the class, and I lament somewhat for not saying anything.

Genesis 12:1 reads: “Now Yahweh said unto Abram: ‘Go from your land, and from your relatives, and from the house of your fathers unto THE land which I will cause you to see.'”

One stark difference, which I emphasized here, is the definite article on the word “land.” Indeed, the KJV translators went with the anarthrous translation of the word, and I believe this to be erroneous.

First, the concept of “land” in the OT is immense. It is the locale of Israel’s salvation and kingdom; so much so that even today is one of the major causes for war and oppression in the Middle East. A cursory reading of the book of Joshua would reveal the importance of the conquest of the land, and of its allotment to the tribes of Israel. The idea of land reserved for God’s people continued through the tradition, had a place in the united and divided monarchies, and even is part of the reason for the rise of a resurrection doctrine in Jewish lore. “Resurrection? David J, have you lost your marbles?” Yes, resurrection doctrine. But that’s for another post later on (when I review N.T. Wright’s The Resurrection of the Son of God).

Next, the idea of being gathered into the land is one of the high points of Biblical (OT) theology. But this isn’t just any land, this is God’s chosen space unto the children of Israel. It’s a big deal, and they all know it, even today. Curiously, the translators get it right in Gen. 12:7, where the adjectival demonstrative “this” is employed in conjunction with “the land.”

One would do well to read the indefinite article, “a,” as “the” when reading from Genesis 12:1. The KJV (and its sister ship, the NKJV), so far as I can tell, are the only translations I have in my possession which contain the indefinite article.

I’m not saying “lets sack the KJV,” (well, on this post, anyway) but I am saying that other translations often reveal insights that the boys of the KJV missed.

Canaan isn’t just “any” land, it’s THE land.

Hellmut Lotz always inspires thought in me. Usually, I try to find the quickest way to contradict him (as I don’t usually agree with his conclusions). He came to a conclusion today over here and I decided that to question him on it would constitute a threadjack. So, instead, I am poaching.

Hellmut said, “As for God, there is no reason to believe that he or she requires our devotion. We cannot hurt God. If our devotion were important then God would have an obligation to let us know. ”

My initial response is, if we cannot hurt God, why does he weep? In the LDS tradition, God does feel personal sorrow when confronted with his wayward children. Should Hellmut’s statement be construed as a denial of that belief?

I doubt it. I think what Hellmut meant was that God’s salvation isn’t ultimately dependent upon human activity, which appears to be standard Mormon doctrine. Nonetheless, the question intrigues me. So, I put it to you, in three parts.

1. Can we hurt God in any way, aside from the causation of sorrow due to our sins?
2. If our sin is the only manner in which we hurt God, does that alter our perception of our purpose in coming to earth?
3. If our sin is the only manner in which we hurt God, does that alter our image of God?