Getting Caught Off Guard

I managed to wind up getting in the debate I wanted to avoid with my Jehovah's Witness friends yesterday. I totally blame myself for that. I read ahead in the book we were using, and came across a section I knew I would have trouble with. I should have seen the signs and prepared better. Instead, we wound up debating how accurate the Bible is when it comes to science and prophecy.

The discussion started out well enough. Jehovah's Witnesses hold to a variation of the ransom theory of atonement. Last week, I pointed out that ransoms are usually paid to someone and asked to whom was the ransom paid. They weren't clear about it themselves, so I asked them if they could get material for the official Watchtower teaching. They provided it this week. It's material I still have to look over. It could be the beginning of some work comparing different Atonement theories. We'll see.

Then we began covering chapter six of What Does the Bible Really Teach? (WDBRT), a PDF version which can be found here. Some of it is standard Christian teaching, i.e., death began with Adam. The crux of the chapter, however, is about the distinctive teaching of the Jehovah's Witnesses that the dead are basically in a state of sleep until if and when they are resurrected. That is, a person's spirit does not go to heaven or hell while awaiting the final judgment. They did make a good biblical case for that view, although, as I pointed out, other interpretations are also possible. Their view is consonant with scholarship on the development of the doctrine of the afterlife.¹

No problems there. I'm not horribly concerned with what happens after we are dead. I figure we are all going find out sooner or later anyway.

No, my problems did not start until we hit the final section “Knowing the Truth About Death Is Beneficial” (p. 64-65). I didn't find this section very beneficial. In this section, the book talks about the reasons why people believe other things about what happens after death. Basically, it boils down to Satan blinds them and religious teachers are lying. That's where I slammed the brakes in our discussion.

It's one thing to say people are wrong. The solution is to present your case and let people decide. To say something like “People believe other things because Satan has blinded them” is utterly dismissive of their views. It refuses to consider the possibility that people might have good reasons for believing what they do. And when you go further and start accusing people of actually lying … well, then, you had better be ready to prove it.

When I said as much, they turned to the Bible. Next thing you know, we're discussing whether the earth is supposed to be topped of with a dome (Gen. 1:6-8, 14-19) and whether Ezekiel's prophecies regarding Tyre and Egypt came true. They promised to come back with answers to the issues I raised (which I'm sure is going to be the same old stuff I've heard before). I marked a few passages of my own in case they really want to continue that discussion.

The problem is I don't want to continue the discussion. As I noted before, such a debate would be pointless anyway. In this case, it is also worthless because a discussion on the Bible's reliability will not advance my understanding of the Jehovah's Witnesses. That is the point I need to keep in mind.

So my plan for the next meeting is to apologize for derailing the discussion so badly. Meanwhile, I need to do my homework better. If I can anticipate a problem, I need to know better what I am going to say so that pointless debates don't ensue.

1 See, for example, Alan E. Bernstein, The Formation of Hell: Death and Retribution in the Ancient and Early Christian Worlds (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1993).

Things Old

This is a copy of a talk I gave in church in October 1997. I'm now divorced and no longer active in the Church, but this talk still captures much of my belief.

I would like to start by reading Alma 32:26-27:

Now, as I said concerning faith--that it was not a perfect
knowledge--even so it is with my words. Ye cannot know of their surety at
first, unto perfection, any more than faith is a perfect knowledge. But
behold, if ye will awake and arouse your faculties, even to an experiment
upon my words, and exercise a particle of faith, yea, even if ye can no more
than desire to believe, let this desire work in you, even until ye believe in
a manner that ye can give place for a portion of my words.

I shall return to this passage in a little bit. It was my wife that
first got me interested in the Gospel. At the time, I was a fairly new
member of a local Baptist church, and with the zeal of a new convert, I was
sure that my decision for Christ had been the right one. When I found out
that Carrie and her boyfriend of the time were LDS, I decided that it would
be a good idea to learn more about the Latter-day Saints and their beliefs.
So I went to a local Christian bookstore and picked up a book on
Mormonism. It was, of course, an anti-Mormon work. I knew that I should not
take the inflammatory remarks too seriously, but what facts I could confirm,
I was able to, usually from Mormon sources, and on a few occasions,
confirmation came right out of Carrie's mouth. Hateful and mean as the
anti-Mormon works were, I apparently could come to no other conclusion than
the Church was not true.

If only I could leave it at that. But I could not. I soon found myself
trying to convert Carrie and my friend away from Mormonism, using the facts
that I had gathered, inviting her to confirm them for herself. On one
occasion that I remember, she did try to confirm or deny certain facts found
in the anti-Mormon works. She came back shaken; my facts were dead on. But
she did not give up her faith, either in Joseph Smith or the restored Gospel.
I actually wound up envying her faith and hating it for its emotional
simplicity.

But there were a few things that I liked very much about the Mormon
gospel. To begin with, I liked the idea of celestial marriage, wherein one's
family could be sealed for time and eternity. Likewise, I liked the idea of
the degrees of glory described in D&C 76, since it fit my conceptions of a
just God far better than the either heaven or hell theory of most Christians.
I also liked the command to "seek learning, even by study and also by
faith." I definitely came to the point where I desired to believe.
And yet I could not. Always hanging at the back of my mind were those
anti-Mormon works which got their facts right. Faith is not a perfect
knowledge, but the Latter-day Saints' faith is based on verifiable
information. The Latter-day Saints themselves were the ones who suggested
that faith must be grounded in reason, else why should they actively
encourage learning at all? My studies had thus far shown that the Gospel of
the Latter-day Saints could not be true.

This problem intensified somewhat when Carrie and I started dating and
talking about marriage. Throughout this time, we kept on discussing our
faith openly, and we encouraged each other solely on the basis of commonly
held beliefs. But Carrie wanted the temple, and that meant I had to become a
Latter-day Saint. And this I could not do unless I could be convinced from
the facts that the Church was what it said it was. We had many arguments
over this point; I insisted that she had to prove that the Gospel was true if
she expected me to accept it.

She tried, and she tried hard. She checked out books from her Institute
library. She bought Sorenson's An Ancient American Setting for the Book of
Mormon. Through a friend of her family's, I received a little book called
Why I Believe by George Edward Clark. I dutifully read everything that she
got, and rejected them all. Few of them addressed the problems I had with
the Church, or glossed them over. Sorenson may have achieved plausibility
for placing the Book of Mormon lands where he did, but he never approached
the probability demanded by archaeologists.

So we always reached an impasse, with neither one of us getting anywhere.
We even broke up for a short while, but our love drew us back together. Our
problems remained. We were both convinced that God wanted us to marry each
other. But Carrie remained convinced that she was to marry in the temple,
and I was sure that it did not matter.

Lets go back to Alma 32 and read verse 28:

Now, we will compare the word unto a seed. Now, if ye give place, that a
seed may be planted in your heart, behold, if it be a true seed, or a good
seed, if ye do not cast it out by your unbelief, that ye will resist the
Spirit of the Lord, behold, it will begin to swell within your breasts; and
when you feel these swelling motions, ye will begin to say within
yourselves--It must needs be that this is a good seed, or that the word is
good, for it beginneth to enlarge my soul; yea, it beginneth to enlighten my
understanding, yea, it beginneth to be delicious to me.

Actually, even a good seed must be placed in good soil, or, even if the
seed is good, it will not grow very well. The soil must provide the right
nutrients. It was not the seed that was bad. The only soil I had was the
soil of the anti-Mormon books leaving its undeniable hold on me. As I said,
I had the will to believe, I just did not have a reason to believe.
Part of the problem was my view of the Bible. Like most conservative
Baptists, I viewed the Bible as being completely inerrant. 1 Ne. 13, 2 Ne.
29, and the eighth Article of Faith were direct attacks on the Bible, and
often used as an excuse for ignorance. One time, Carrie used the excuse of
"mistranslation or missing parts" one too many times, and I yelled at her
something to the effect of, "Don't try to hide behind that excuse ever again!
Unless you can offer hard evidence that something is missing from the Bible
or that mistranslations have not been corrected, I don't ever want to hear it
again!"

She never did that again to this day. If I still harbor any resentments
of any kind from this period, it is this: Latter-day Saints try too often to
get around problems with the Bible by assuming the mistranslation or removal
of certain parts. This begs the question, never resolves the problem.
Having looked into the issue very carefully, I have no choice but to conclude
that the Bible is basically reliable.

And this is was the key. The Bible is basically reliable, but it is not
completely inerrant, as I had been led to believe. This nearly undermined my
whole faith in Christ.

It was a book meant primarily for Catholics which finally gave me some
good soil in which to plant the seed of the Gospel. It pointed out to me
many new spiritual insights which I could reconcile a Bible with errors of
fact without undermining faith in Christ. It also pointed out a few things
about the nature of prophecy and inspiration that I had never even thought of
before. I was now well on my way not to Catholic faith, but to a knowledge
of the restored Gospel.

With the idea of complete inerrancy taken care of, I could look at the
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints with new eyes. There were still
several problems with Church history that needed to be taken care of, and so
I turned to newer sources to resolve these problems. The turning point,
ironically enough, came when I read Fawn Brodie's No Man Knows My History.
Where she saw evidence of fraud, I saw evidence of inspiration from God.
Finally, I had a good seed, planted in good soil, and starting to swell
in my breast. Back to Alma 32:

Now behold, would not this increase your faith? I say unto you, Yea;
nevertheless it hath not grown up to a perfect knowledge.
But behold, as the seed swelleth, and sprouteth, and beginneth to grow,
then you must needs say that the seed is good; for behold it swelleth, and
sprouteth, and beginneth to grow. And now, behold, will not this strengthen
your faith? Yea, it will strengthen your faith: for ye will say I know that
this is a good seed; for behold it sprouteth and beginneth to grow. And now,
behold, are ye sure that this is a good seed? I say unto you, Yea; for every
seed bringeth forth unto its own likeness.

"Behold, I would exhort you that when ye shall read these things," said
Moroni, "that ye would . . . ponder it in your hearts. And when ye shall
receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal
Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall
ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will
manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost. And by
the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things."
Did you know that the Hebrews considered the heart the seat of the
intellect? This passage could easily read, "Ponder it in your minds."
Moroni was telling us to ponder it in our minds, to study it out, then ask
God for confirmation of the Holy Ghost.

Oliver Cowdery was told the same thing in April 1829 while he and the
Prophet Joseph Smith were working on the Book of Mormon. D&C 9:7-8 reads:

Behold, you have not understood; you have supposed that I would give it
unto you, when you took no thought save it was to ask me. But, behold, I say
unto you, that you must study it out in your mind; then you must ask me if it
be right, and if it is right I will cause that your bosom shall burn within
you; therefore, you shall feel that it is right.

In March 1836 at the dedication of the temple at Kirtland, Joseph Smith
offered these words as part of his prayer:

And as all have not faith, seek ye diligently and teach one another words
of wisdom; yea, seek ye out of the best books words of wisdom, seek learning
even by study and also by faith. (D&C 109:7)

Notice how study again is first. By study and by faith. It was a long
and sometimes torturous path for me. But I finally gained a testimony of the
restored Gospel of Jesus Christ. I am convinced that Joseph Smith was a
Prophet inspired by God. Moreover, I have a testimony that diligent study,
hard work, and performing an experiment will eventually lead to a perfect
knowledge, if guided by faith.

I opened with Alma, and I will close with Alma. The final verses of
chapter here offer me the same hope that it should offer you who are willing
to nourish the word by study and by faith:

But if ye will nourish the word, yea, nourish the tree as it beginneth to
grow, by your faith with great diligence, and with patience, looking forward
to the fruit thereof, it shall take root; and behold it shall be a tree
springing up unto everlasting life. And because of your diligence and your
faith and your patience with the word in nourishing it, that it may take root
in you, behold, by and by ye shall pluck the fruit thereof, which is most
precious, which is sweet above all that is sweet, and which is white above
all that is white, yea, and pure above all that is pure; and ye shall feast
upon this fruit even until ye are filled, that ye hunger not, neither shall
ye thirst.

Then, my brethren, ye shall reap the rewards of your faith, and your
diligence, and patience, and long-suffering, waiting for the tree to bring
forth fruit unto you.

I leave these things with you in the name of Jesus Christ. Amen.

The Illusory “Intertestamental Period”

While writing Part Three of “An Approach to the Fall Story in Genesis,” I quickly became sidetracked into a discussion about why we should stop using the term “intertestamental period.” Normally, I'd simply refer readers to Wikipedia for an overview, but that article is so poorly done as to make it unusable. It has already been nominated for deletion twice, and the talk page for the piece indicates the article's continued existence is still controversial. Nor could I find a decent article discussing the terminology on the Web. Rather than needlessly digressing from my main topic, I decided to write a post I could then refer readers to.

The notion of an “intertestamental period” is a peculiarly Protestant concept. It derives partly from the order of the Christian Old Testament and partly from the fact Protestants deny the canonicity of the Apocrypha. Especially when using a Protestant Bible that does not contain the Apocrypha, the reader can be left with the impression that there is a gap between the Old and New Testaments. The general idea is that after Malachi, no one wrote inspired Scripture until the beginning of the New Testament period.

There are big differences in book order between the Jewish Tanakh and the Christian Old Testament. See the chart created by Felix Just. The variant order of books also has implications for its meaning. Michael Fridman wrote a concise, if somewhat sarcastic, note about the meaning of the different book orders. I'm going to concentrate on the implications of making Malachi the last book of the Old Testament. As Fridman and others have noted, ending the Old Testament with Malachi makes for a perfect segue into Matthew. To some extent, it also has the implication of being God's final word until the new era begins.

However, that implication by itself is not enough to create a gap called the “intertestamental period.” Jews, of course, have no “intertestamental period.” Most Christian traditions include other material, like various books of the Maccabees and Sirach in their Old Testament. For another handy chart, see “What's in Your Bible?” This material, considered apocryphal in the Protestant Bible, considerably closes the gap between Malachi and Matthew. By relegating this material to the Apocrypha, Protestants effectively created the “intertestamental period.”

The effect isn't so bad when a Protestant Bible contains the Apocrypha. Since the Apocrypha is generally printed between the Old and New Testaments, the reader is aware that something is going on. A Protestant Bible without the Apocrypha leaves a black hole between the testaments. The difference is so stark that I now consider the failure to translate the Apocrypha in a Protestant English version to be prima facie evidence the whole translation will be sectarian.¹

Even left with the confines of the Protestant Old Testament, the idea that there was complete silence between Malachi and Matthew is simply wrong. Daniel was almost certainly written around 165 BCE, and Esther was most likely written after Malachi as well. Other books that might have been written after Malachi include: 1 Chronicles, 2 Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, Joel, and Jonah.² Even without the Apocrypha, the “intertestamental period” has become very small indeed.

A quick look at Just's chart will reveal that most of these books fall in the Khetuvim / Writings section of the Jewish canon. This fact is actually very revealing. The order of books in the Tanakh has more to it than, as Fridman stated, providing “a complete testimony of Israel’s glory, exile and redemption.” The divisions of Law, Prophets, and Writings also accord well with the eras the books were written and/or canonized. Scattering the Writings throughout the Christian Old Testament obscures this point.

What then, is left of the “intertestamental period?” Even viewing the Protestant canon, the gap is at most around two hundred years. For most other Christian groups, there is no gap between the Old and New Testaments. For Jews, Tanakh is already complete in itself. In light of these facts, it is probably better to do away with the “intertestamental period” altogether.

1 “Failure to translate” is to be distinguished from failure to print. For example, one can obtain a printing of the New Revised Standard Version with or without the Apocrypha. One does not have that option with the New International Version. I had long considered the 1984 edition of the NIV a thoroughly sectarian piece of work before coming to my conclusion about the Apocrypha. The 2011 edition may be different, but the fact Biblica's Committee on Bible Translation still hasn't done a translation of the Apocrypha doesn't give me much hope.

2 See the introductions for these books in Michael D. Coogan, ed., The New Oxford Annotated Bible, 3^rd ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001). Some scholars would add Ruth to this list.

An Approach to the Fall Story in Genesis, Part Two

In Part One, I proposed we should not talk about “what Scripture says” about a given topic by assuming all the authors spoke with a unified voice. Instead, to answer any given question about scriptural teaching, we need to look at what each individual author wrote. Only then can we start suggesting some tentative answers to those questions. In this part, I am going to apply that methodology to answer questions about what Scripture says about the origin of death.

Going back to the beginning means starting with Genesis chapters two and three. For this discussion, I largely draw on David P. Wright's “Sex and Death in the Garden of Eden.”¹ Biblical quotations are taken from the New Revised Standard Version.

When we try to look at Genesis as Genesis, it becomes unclear whether the one of the story's purposes is to describe the origin of death. The text does not clearly say this and could actually be read both ways. Some scholars, including Wright himself at one point, have concluded the story does talk about the origin of death.² Since this is the most common position, we need not dwell on it. Instead, we will look at the evidence that points in the other direction.

The Genesis story, in many respects, is about how humans became differentiated from the animals. Some of the questions it seeks to answer include: Why are humans more intelligent than animals? Why are humans able to act beyond mere instinct? Why do humans use clothing? Possibly, why do humans engage in non-reproductive sexual activity?³

Obviously, the fact of death does not make humans different from animals. Since there is no reason to suspect that animals can't die before the Fall of Adam, there is also no reason to suspect that Adam was not already subject to death. If the story was meant to be about how death in general came into the world, the failure to mention the animals leaves a huge gap in the story.⁴ If the story was intended to only show how humans became mortal, that still leaves us with the implication that animals were already subject to death.

Curiously, this hole remains when we look at other texts about the origin of death. Certainly there are passages that could be construed to say that Adam's transgression brought death on animals as well as humans (e.g., 1 Cor. 15:21). However, those passages are so human-centric that we are not forced into that conclusion.

It is hard to make sense of the threat of Gen. 2:17 without assuming death was already a factor in the Garden of Eden. If death was not already a factor, then Adam would have no conceptual basis on which to fear such a penalty. Instead, the force of the threat lay in stressing premature death (“in the day that you eat of it you shall die,” emphasis added).⁵ This implies that even for Adam, death was natural. Notably, Eve only eats the fruit when the threat of immediate death is removed.

Finally, what can we make of the Tree of Life?⁶ On could argue that so long as they had access to the Tree of Life, the humans could have staved off death—potentially forever. The sequel in Gen. 3:22-24 seems to have this implication. Fearing the humans would eat from the Tree of Life, God expels them from the Garden and places a guard on the tree. Let's explore the implications a little further.

When God gave the humans permission to “freely eat of every tree” except for “the tree of the knowledge of good and evil,” (Gen.2:16-17), by implication they were permitted to eat of the Tree of Life. One could suppose they were freely eating from it, and that it was keeping them alive until no longer had access to it. However, there are some indications that, even if it was permitted, Adam and Eve did not eat from the Tree of Life.

The whole point of the sequel is to prevent the humans from taking “also from the tree of life” (Gen. 3:22). Though it is by no means conclusive, the passage seems to say that Adam and Eve had not yet eaten from this tree. If so, then the Tree of Life did not account for their alleged immortal state before eating of the Tree of Knowledge. In other words, they were mortal from the beginning.⁷

Moreover, if Genesis chapter three is a story about the origin of death, this would be a strange way of telling it. If the humans' continued immortality depended on eating from the Tree of Life, then that implies they were subject to death without it. To tell a story about the origin of death by implying Adam and Eve were already mortal turns the story into complete nonsense.

Finally, we should consider the parallelism between the Trees of Life and Knowledge. The Tree of Knowledge conferred a once-and-for-all benefit: knowing good and evil. We would expect that the Tree of Life does the same. If this is so, then Adam and Eve would not need to continue eating from the Tree of Life in order to have immortality; once would be enough. This would explain why God was so anxious to prevent the humans from accessing the Tree of Life and further usurp divine prerogatives.⁸

To summarize, the Fall story in Genesis may not be about the origin of death after all. Even when we try to read the story while setting aside later interpretations, we can't fully be sure whether the author meant to tell the story of how death came into the world. With this in mind, we can take a stab at answering some of the questions that were raised in Part One.

To the question of whether there was death in the world before Adam ate the fruit, we can only say we don't know if that is what the author of Genesis meant. As far as Genesis is concerned, a range of answers is possible. The author could have meant there was absolutely no death before the Fall; he could have meant only Adam and Eve weren't subject to death before eating the fruit; he could have merely assumed that death was already present in the garden.

The lack of certainty opens up some options. One could say that if there is any question about what the author of Genesis meant, then Paul and Joseph Smith settle the matter. The answers to the other questions will tend to fall in line.

However, if Genesis is not about the origin of death, then the fact that evolutionary theory requires the presence of death from the beginning is less of a problem. One could then argue that Paul and Joseph Smith were talking about the origin of spiritual death. True, some problems will remain. With regard to Paul, such thinking would likely be anachronistic. However, if one must try reconciling evolution with a somewhat literal reading Scripture (something I do not recommend), that is about the best way of doing it.

If we can't be sure whether the Fall story is talking about the origin of death, it is a moot point whether physical or spiritual death is meant. More than likely, a strict division between “physical” and “spiritual” death is a concept that simply did not exist yet.⁹ So the best answer in our terminology is both. Barring access to the Tree of Life effectively condemned humans to physical death. Expelling them from the garden meant they no longer had direct communion with God. That is pretty close to what we moderns would call spiritual death. Of course, later writers would also wind up saying both (e.g., Hel. 14:16). As long as we are careful not to press this is as the author's intent, it is a valid approach to read the story of the Fall this way.

I have no problems whatsoever in regarding the Tree of Life as symbolic. I would, however, shy away from one-to-one correspondences; the Tree of Life may be symbolic, but it is not allegorical. Symbols often bristle with meaning, no one of which should be considered the “correct” one. In this sense, the meaning of a symbol can go far beyond what its creator meant. This having been said, equating the Tree of Life with the Atonement would probably be very anachronistic if imposed on the author of Genesis.

The question of whether Adam felt guilt over his transgression is not answered by Genesis. As far as we can tell from Genesis, after being expelled from the garden, Adam and Eve simply went on with their lives. This really should not be very surprising. The author is not very interested in exploring the inner thoughts of the characters. He seemed content to allow the readers to read between the lines based on what the characters say and do.

Having explored what Genesis might or might not say about the origin of death, I am going to pause. When I take up the topic again, I will discuss the literature of the so-called intertestamental period and its possible influences on the next major interpreter of the Fall story, Paul.

1 Sunstone, June 1998, 33-39.

2 Wright, “Sex and Death,” 33. See especially notes five and six for arguments that the story of the Fall is about the origin of death.

3 This last question is a bit shakier. It assumes the line “yet your desire shall be for your husband” in Gen. 3:16 is a reference to non-reproductive sex and the author was not aware of any animals that engage in non-reproductive sex.

4 Wright, “Sex and Death” 33-34.

5 In this sense, Abr. 5:13 reduces the immediacy of the death threat by changing “in the day” to “in the time.” While this may indicate Adam was conceived as immortal before eating the fruit. Nevertheless, to say “if you eat the fruit you will die someday” is not much of a threat. Since the Book of Abraham remains unfinished, it is impossible to say what direction the parallel story to Genesis 3 may have gone.

6 The following argument tracks Wright, “Sex and Death,” 35-36, but I'm also elaborating on it.

7 Wright, “Sex and Death,” 36.

8 See also Wright, “Sex and Death,” 35-36.

9 That discussion is beyond the scope of these posts, however. For such a discussion, see Alan E. Bernstein, The Formation of Hell: Death and Retribution in the Ancient and Early Christian Worlds (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1993).

An Approach to the Fall Story in Genesis, Part One

Over the last week, I have been contributing to Feast Upon the Word, a Wiki commentary on the Standard Works of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Typically, each page is divided into four sections: Questions, Lexical notes, Exegesis, and Related Links. If there is something that doesn't quite fit these categories, users can post it on the related discussion page. I am generally trying to answer something in the questions section with my contributions.

The site's users posed some very good questions about Gen.3:21-24. I would like to answer them, or at least suggest possible directions. However, I think my answers would prove too controversial for the site, so I'm going to post them here and hope for the best. Here are the questions:

• Verse 22: Was there death on this earth prior to Adam partaking of the fruit (before answering see Bible Dictionary entry for the fall)?¹
• If there was no death previously, how does this fit into popular views of theological evolution, evolution or other controversial issues? Can current views of science be reconciled with the creation account, or is this simply a matter of faith?
• Is the death referred to in verse 22, a spiritual or physical death? Or both?
• If the account in symbolic, what is the tree? Is it the atonement? A previous atonement (assuming Adam could have come from another Earth)?
• How do we find our way to our own "tree?" Can we partake (of the atonement) and live forever after we overcome our sins?
• Did Adam feel guilt for this transgression (See 2 Nephi 2)? What is the role of guilt?

Note that many of these questions assume that modern Mormon theology can answer these questions as if the author of Genesis had these things in mind. The first question is explicit about it: consult the Bible Dictionary first. The Bible Dictionary, of course, interprets the Fall story in light of later revelation. Assuming all the scriptural writers were speaking with a unified voice and the author of Genesis knew what the later writers knew, then the answer is simple. No, there was no death prior to Adam partaking of the fruit. The answers to the other questions will tend to fall in line. But is the answer really that simple?

I have already noted in another post that I don't assume scriptural writers mean the same thing even when speaking about the same topic using the same words. I also noted that not making this assumption has some staggering implications. At a very minimum, it is hard to talk about what Scripture “teaches” without qualification. To say, “Scripture teaches X,” assumes the various authors spoke with a (more or less) unified voice. That may be true, but we just can't assume it. Thus, when the first question implies its own answer by asking us to consult the Bible Dictionary, my response is, “Hold on, not so fast!” While I don't deny later writers have interpreted this passage to say there was no death before the Fall, that doesn't necessarily mean the author of Genesis intended that meaning.

If we can't properly talk about what Scripture “teaches,” what can we do? We start at the beginning. We try to figure out what each individual author meant, without necessary reference to later interpretations.² If a later writer uses a previous author's writing, we try to figure out how that material is being used, without necessary reference to the original author's intent.³ Should a unified voice emerge when we do this, fine and well. But if a unified voice does not emerge, then we will have do deal with it. I think it is more likely that we will find that we will many recurring themes, but that the individual authors are going to have different takes on those themes.

What if we find that the scriptural writers are not speaking with a unified voice? I don't think this is a cause for concern. After all, the Scriptures as we have them were written by numerous authors over a span of some three thousand years. We should expect differences in outlook and even contradictions. Differences and contradictions only matter when we impose inerrancy on the authors—and Latter-day Saints really should know better. Furthermore, the whole point of the Mormon doctrine of continuing revelation is that God “will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom” (A of F 9). The author of Genesis had to work with the light he had no less than Paul and Joseph Smith did. We need not suppose these writers all had the same knowledge. Instead of trying to impose the framework of modern Mormon doctrine on the authors, let us see what they have to say for themselves. After that, we can start suggesting answers to these questions.

I will begin this process in Part Two by considering the question of whether the author of Genesis intended to describe the origin of death.

1 The reference is to the Appendix “Bible Dictionary” attached to the Bible published by the Church (Salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1979). The entry “Fall of Adam” is found on p. 670 of the Appendix.

2 This doesn't mean we can't use later interpretations as evidence regarding the original author's intent. When the interpreters are part of the originally intended audience, their readings can be particularly valuable as evidence of original intent. This is especially true when the original author's thoughts are (like most Scripture writers) unknown or lost.

3 For example, when I quote or cite another author's work, I don't necessarily mean to say that author intended the use I make of it. As a Book of Mormon environmentalist, I make free use of some historicist works even though those authors and I have radically different starting points and come to different conclusions regarding the same evidence.

Biblical Inerrancy: A Pointless Debate

As I continue my discussions with the Jehovah's Witnesses ministers, I've been reading ahead in the book we are using, What Does the Bible Really Teach?¹ (hereafter WDBRT). We will be getting to chapter two soon. The chapter title is “The Bible—A Book from God” (p. 18-26). My first thought after reading it was, “How the hell am I going to avoid a fight here?” My second thought was “How the hell am I going to avoid a fight here?”

The problem is that I reject nearly every point made in this chapter. My friends are aware I don't share their view of verbal inspiration. They are also aware that I don't share their views on how the Bible should be interpreted. They seem to accept the fact that when I share my views with them, I am in no way out to prove they are wrong. Even so, I am tempted to ask whether we can skip this chapter entirely.

Why am I so keen to avoid a debate? Two reasons. One, I am participating in these discussions because I want to understand the Jehovah's Witnesses as Jehovah's Witnesses. Whether they are “right” or “wrong”about their beliefs is irrelevant.

Two, after numerous debates with biblical inerrantists, I have come to the conclusion they simply can't be reasoned with. Their arguments and defenses are only plausible if one is already predisposed to accept biblical inerrancy. If one does not have that predisposition, those same arguments are incoherent, circular, or erroneous. No matter what argument one makes against inerrancy, the inerrantist will have some way out. In short, an honest debate is impossible because the participants are operating from completely different premises.²

This is not an accusation of dishonesty on their part. I don't believe my opponents were being dishonest to anyone, except perhaps themselves. I also know from personal experience that giving up on biblical inerrancy entails realigning and reconstructing a host of different beliefs. So I don't expect an inerrantist to give up at the first sign of trouble. However, I do expect that there will be some standard of falsifiability.

I don't think I am being unreasonable here. Biblical inerrancy, on its face, is a falsifiable hypothesis. One can, in theory, examine the Bible and weigh its claims against available evidence. If it contains just one contradiction, one error of scientific or historical fact, then the hypothesis of inerrancy is wrong. In practice, getting through to a biblical inerrantist in debate was a frustrating experience because they always had some escape hatch.

I wanted to write about what these outs were and why they are so frustrating for a skeptic in debate. Then I came across the Chicago Statement of Biblical Inerrancy (hereafter CSBI) and the related statement on hermeneutics (hereafter CSBH) and really read them. These statements set forth explicitly what most on-the-ground biblical apologists do unconsciously. The scholars who put these statements together make it abundantly clear that no amount of evidence and no standard of proof could ever be used against biblical inerrancy. I have rarely seen such a blatant example of wanting to have one's cake and eat it too.

Taken as a statement of creed, I don't really have any problems with the Chicago Statements. If asked to take it or leave it, I would say thanks but no thanks. I could cite my reasons for not accepting it. If a person who accepts the statements wants to engage in genuine dialogue, the statements make a pretty good starting point.

 

Biblical apologists, however, have a different agenda. Works like Josh McDowell's The New Evidence That Demands a Verdict³ and to a lesser extent, WDBRT chapter two are active attempts to prove biblical inerrancy. When these apologists do implicitly what the Chicago Statements do explicitly, it becomes no wonder that skeptics accuse them of arguing in bad faith.

When it comes to matters of checking the accuracy of a biblical statement, the whole problem can be summed up by Article XX of the CSBH: “Article XX: WE AFFIRM that since God is the author of all truth, all truths, biblical and extrabiblical, are consistent and cohere, and that the Bible speaks truth when it touches on matters pertaining to nature, history, or anything else. We further affirm that in some cases extra-biblical data have value for clarifying what Scripture teaches, and for prompting correction of faulty interpretations. WE DENY that extrabiblical views ever disprove the teaching of Scripture or hold priority over it.”

This is certainly the attitude that biblical apologists take, whether they acknowledge it or not. But really, this is just a fancy way of saying we can only appeal to extrabiblical sources so long as it doesn't contradict Scripture. As an in-group statement of a hermeneutic principle, this is well and good. It really isn't up to me to tell someone how they should interpret their scriptures. To take this position in a debate about whether the Bible really is inerrant is special pleading resulting in a circular argument. The crux of the matter is that one simply can't test the Bible's accuracy in scientific or historical matters without reference to extrabiblical material.

If one can't use extrabiblical data to test the Bible's claims, then surely one can use the Bible itself. Hence all the arguing about contradictions, inconsistencies, discrepancies, and other biblical difficulties. In debates, I usually stuck with outright contradictions, i.e., mutually exclusive claims where only one or the other account can be right. If only one account can be right, the other must be wrong—simple law of non-contradiction.⁴ If one account must be wrong, then the claim of biblical inerrancy has been falsified.

Obviously, an inerrantist can't allow for contradictions then. Article XIV of CSBI puts is this way: “WE AFFIRM the unity and internal consistency of Scripture. WE DENY that alleged errors and discrepancies that have not yet been resolved vitiate the truth claims of the Bible.”

Fine and well. I've studied history long enough to know that there are discrepancies involved in accounts of even the most well-attested events. Discrepancies, as such, don't bother me too much unless too many of them add up. One might well wonder why God would, for all practical purposes, dictate (Just don't call it that!) texts containing discrepancies. Nevertheless, I acknowledge that discrepancies by themselves don't mean much when evaluating a truth claim.

However, I'm not talking about a mere discrepancy, I am talking about outright contradictions. Discrepancies can be resolved such that both parties might somehow be right. For example, witnesses at the scene of a crime might say the color of a suspects shirt is different. But if they all point at the same person, the discrepancies are basically irrelevant. A contradiction is when one witness accuses someone of a crime but another witness provides that same person with an alibi. It is impossible for both witnesses to be right.

The official Exposition of CSBI tries to clarify: “Apparent inconsistencies should not be ignored. Solution of them, where this can be convincingly achieved, will encourage our faith, and where for the present no convincing solution is at hand we shall significantly honor God by trusting His assurance that His Word is true, despite these appearances, and by maintaining our confidence that one day they will be seen to have been illusions.”

I'm talking about contradictions rather than inconsistencies, but this does track well what happened in my debates about biblical inerrancy. I pointed out contradiction A. My opponents offered solution B. I showed solution B doesn't work because of argument C. My opponents then offered solution D if they couldn't work around argument C. Round and round we went. Sometimes the debate devolved into ad hominem arguments; sometimes my opponent took the ultimate escape hatch.

This final escape hatch is suggested by the official Exposition of CSBI. However, another definition of biblical inerrancy makes things a little clearer: “Inerrancy ... means that when all the facts are known, the Bible, ... when properly interpreted, will prove itself to be without error in all matters that it covers.”

Basically, this means we can't truly test the inerrancy hypothesis until we've become omniscient. When that happens, biblical inerrancy will be fully vindicated. Again, as a statement of faith, this is wholly acceptable. When one is trying to prove biblical inerrancy, however, such a statement becomes problematic. This is the kind of argument that makes me believe that either the biblical apologist can't be reasoned with or is uninterested in honest debate. If one can't really debate biblical inerrancy until all the facts are known, why debate the topic in the first place?

Knowing the outcome of a potential debate doesn't help me much in figuring out how to avoid it. I sidestepped a creation/evolution argument this week by saying I believe God did it but I'm not really concerned about the details.⁵ I suspect my basic mantra (“I just don't see it that way”) can only go so far before I start trying their patience. Hopefully, after we get through chapter two of WDBRT, the hard part will be over.

1 (Brooklyn, New York: Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, 2005), 215-218. A PDF version of this book can be found here.

2 To be fair, a biblical inerrantist might make the same argument about those skeptical of their positions. That's actually my point.

3 (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1999).

4 Obviously, both accounts could be wrong, but that would require the use of extrabiblical sources to prove.

5 It probably helped that the ministers were not prepared for a sustained debate on the topic, either. I also explained that I accepted evolution as the best explanation of the available evidence, rather than believed it in a way one might believe in God.

Assumption Upon Assumption: The Role of Worldviews in Eschatological Speculation

If two people don't share the same worldview, they may mean very different things even when talking about the same topic. Nowhere is this axiom more true than when the discussion involves religious topics. One of the main reasons I now steer away from apologetics is I can never be sure whether I'm debating the same thing as the person I'm talking with.¹ This was true whether I was talking to an Evangelical defending biblical inerrancy, Book of Mormon historicity with another Latter-day Saint, or the implications of either issue with a skeptic/atheist.²

A recent discussion I had with a couple Jehovah's Witnesses made me realize that apologetics was not the only religious topic where worldview makes a difference. The topic turned to the last days, and I was asked whether I believed we were approaching the end. I honestly replied that I thought the entire subject was irrelevant.³ In retrospect, that really should have been a red flag. I was asked whether I thought it would make a difference if it could be proven we are in the last days. On that point I hesitated, because I honestly did not know whether it would affect my feelings.⁴ That proved a natural point for them to discuss why Jehovah's Witnesses believe we are, in fact, in the last days.

I was happy about that, because I finally learned the significance of the year 1914 to Jehovah's Witnesses.⁵ According to Watchtower doctrine, 1914 was the year Jesus was installed as the ruler of the heavenly kingdom. Jesus' ascension to the throne marks the beginning of the end. I'm sure there is more involved, but that is the gist of it. The teaching reminded me of the Seventh-day Adventist doctrine of investigative judgment, wherein Christ is said to entered the holy of holies area in the heavenly temple to begin the final judgment.⁶

As a supernatural event, the Watchtower's doctrine is impossible to either prove or disprove—one either believes it or they don't.⁷ It is not my place to make that determination. What really got me thinking about the problem of worldviews was the biblical reasoning Jehovah's Witnesses used to get to 1914. What follows is a reflection of how my understanding of the Bible causes problems with the Watchtower's dating system—and by extension almost all eschatological speculation.

Please note my intent is not about “proving” the Watchtower “wrong.” Even if that were my intent, I'd be foolish to think my statements are successful. In fact, stated as an argument, it is completely unfair. With one notable exception, all my reflections are directed at an appendix of the Watchtower publication What Does the Bible Really Teach?⁸ (hereafter WDBRT). This appendix, “1914—A Significant Year in Bible Prophecy” is obviously just a summary of key points meant for a general reader. A more detailed explanation would probably answer some of the specific issues I raise.⁹

If it looks like I'm picking on the Jehovah's Witnesses, it is only because I'm working with material that I have right in front of me. Consider this a case study illustrating a general point. These issues could have been applied to the Millerite movement of the 1830s. They can be applied to Tim LaHaye and Jerry B. Jenkins' Left Behind series. They would apply to virtually any eschatological theory that requires a fairly literal reading of the biblical end times material. All these interpretations require a certain mindset, without which they could not begin their work. Someone who does not accept their worldview will find their work hard to follow and difficult to accept.

The Jehovah's Witnesses, along with all others that seek to relate the Bible's apocalyptic material to real world events, share the view that Scripture is verbally inspired. As one of my friends put it, the biblical authors are God's secretaries.¹⁰ A fair way to state this is to say they believe Scripture is the Word of God because it is God's words. I do not take this view. The best way to summarize my view is to say Scripture is the Word of God, but not (necessarily) God's words.¹¹

The implications of this difference are stunning when it comes to discussing the “last days.” If the biblical authors are God's secretaries, it makes sense that various passages mean (more or less) the same thing when they discuss a given topic using similar wording.¹² I don't think the biblical authors are God's secretaries, and therefore I cannot assume different authors mean the same thing even when they use the same word. For example, when Jesus talks about Jerusalem being “trampled on by the nations,”¹³ Luke is alluding to Isaiah 63:18, Daniel 8:13, or both. And they are all likely talking about different empires. Isaiah 63:18 likely has the Babylonians (or possibly the Persians) in mind; Daniel 8:13 likely has the Greeks in mind; and Luke 21:24 likely has the Romans in mind. Each writer must be taken in their own context first, a point I will return to later.

If we don't assume different biblical writers mean the same thing when talking about the same subject, the repercussions are staggering.¹⁴ The whole concept of setting specific dates for events to happen in the last days becomes nearly impossible. In order to do it, we would have to show all the authors have the exact same timeline in mind and the flag drops on the exact same event. We cannot just assume it. Should the authors have differing timelines or if the flag drops on a different events, the differences would have to be reconciled. If the differences can't be humanly reconciled, then game over.

The other big problem I have with eschatological discussions is the assumption of exclusive literalism.¹⁵ Note this is not a problem unique to the Watchtower's chronology. Most end time hypotheses suffer from the same problem, from William Miller to Hal Lindsey to (more recently) the Left Behind series. This is not necessarily a fault—one probably can't relate eschatological texts to the real world without assuming some degree of literalism. Without the assumption of literalism, most discussions about whether we are in the last days become moot, even ludicrous. I take only one biblical text about the last days literally: “But about that day or hour no one knows, neither the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father” (Mark 13:32, NRSV).

Let's move on to our specific application. According WDBRT, the Bible teaches that the Gentiles began trampling on God's rule when the Babylonians conquered Jerusalem, which they date to 607 BCE. This “trampling” would last for “seven times,” citing Dan. 4:10-16. Revelation 12:6, 14 is used to establish this amounts to 2520 days. This is obviously wrong, so the day-year principle is invoked to to get 2520 years. Adding 2520 years to 607 BCE yields 1914. Ergo, this is when Jesus was became the heavenly king. With Jesus' ascension to the throne, the “last days” have begun.

The 607 BCE date for the fall of Jerusalem threw me. I had never encountered a date that early before. Indeed, the only significant debate among modern historians is whether the date was 587 or 586 BCE. Even most Evagelicals don't dispute this.¹⁶ My new friends did not appear to be aware of any other date but 607 BCE, so I had to go looking for the Watchtower's justification. I found it here. Basically, the 607 BCE date is based on a literal reading of Jeremiah's prediction (25:11-12; 29:10) of a seventy year exile. If the Jews were released from captivity with Cyrus' decree in 537 BCE, then counting back seventy years gets us to 607 BCE.¹⁷ The historical data pointing to 587/6 BCE is wrong.

Thus, the whole chronology hinges on taking Jeremiah's “seventy years” literally. It is used to date the fall of Jerusalem to 607 BCE and drop the flag that leads to 1914. But what if Jeremiah's seventy years is not supposed to be taken literally?¹⁸ If, for example, “seventy” is a rounded off figure for anything between sixty-five to seventy-four years, the end date would be off by as much as five years. And if the number is entirely symbolic, the end date is anyone's guess. The Jehovah's Witnesses may be right the seventy years should be taken literally. I can't just assume it though.

Using Rev. 12:6, 14 appears to stem from the fact that Daniel chapter 4 does not define what is meant by times. I have no question that John drew upon the book of Daniel in composing Revelation. However, I have no assurance John and the author of Daniel meant the same thing by “times.” I could set aside my reservations and stipulate that John's “times” is the same as the author of Daniel's “times.” The math works if nothing else. But even that doesn't work! As WDBRT says, “the Gentile nations did not stop 'trampling' on God's rulership a mere 2,520 days after Jerusalem's fall” (p. 217). For me, that is a clear and bright line that something is wrong.

This appears to be the reason why the day-year principle is invoked. Yes, the day-year principle has a long history in biblical studies, particularly in studying the books of Daniel and Revelation. It is specifically invoked in Num. 14:34 and Ezek. 4:6 and implied in Dan. 9:24-27. And the Jehovah's Witnesses are not the only ones who use it; the day-year principle is commonly invoked by more “orthodox” Christians as well.¹⁹ The day-year principle “saves the prophecy” because a straightforward reading can only lead to the conclusion the prophecy failed. If one believes the Bible is verbally inspired and inerrant, then surely the prophecy is right and we just need to figure out how it actually works. Hence, the fall of Jerusalem was actually in 607 BCE regardless of the historical data, and the “days” of Daniel and Revelation really mean “years.”

Because I feel so strongly that each biblical book should be taken in its own context, anyone who invokes the day-year principle raises a red flag for me. For me, a variation of Occam's razor comes into play. The more texts that are needed to prove an otherwise obscure point, the less likely the Bible really teaches that point. I become suspicious the person making the argument is simply proof-texting. When the day/year principle is invoked, I'm tempted to respond, “Look, if the Bible meant to say the end times begin 2,520 years after the fall of Jerusalem, it would say, 'The end times will begin 2,520 years after the fall of Jerusalem.' No need to go through complicated codes.”²⁰

If pressed further, I would ask why I should assume the day-year principle is in play when it is not apparent in the immediate context, other than to save the prophecy.²¹ With specific regard to the Watchtower's chronology, other than the fact that 2520 days doesn't work literally, why should I assume this principle is in play? “[W]ith the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like one day” (2 Pet. 3:8, paraphrasing Ps. 90:4). I could use that reasoning to say the last days will start 2.52 million years after the fall of Jerusalem with as much justification.²²

If one does not begin with the assumptions of verbal inspiration or biblical inerrancy, one does not need to save the prophecy. I can just say the prophecy failed, be done with it, and move on. In the past, this attitude has perplexed biblical literalists, Book of Mormon historicists, and complete skeptics alike. No doubt this attitude will prove puzzling to my Jehovah's Witness discussion partners, if it hasn't already done so. Hopefully, we'll be able to keep our radically different starting points in mind as we go forward.

1 Another reason is that I've come to realize that apologetic arguments are not meant for nonbelievers. Finally, such debates have a tendency to devolve into shouting matches, literally or figuratively.

2 While my worldview overlaps to some degree with all these groups, in practice, their representatives don't know what to do with me. Consider these statements: “The Bible is full of errors and contradictions; “The Book of Mormon was written by Joseph Smith;” and “Evolution proves Genesis is wrong.” My reply to any of these statements would be “Yeah, so, what's your point?”

3 For the record, I do believe that Christ will return … someday. I just don't believe the Second Coming is an appropriate focus on which to live my life.

4 After further reflection, I decided that it still would not matter if it could be proven we are in the last days. I admit I might feel a sense a relief that it will all be over soon. But meanwhile I still have work to do today.

5 I had come across references in Watchtower literature to some event in 1914, but they were mostly passing references. I knew it was important, but not why.

6 I am, of course, aware there is more involved in the Seventh-day Adventist teaching than my one-sentence summary implies. For an overview, see “Investigative judgment.”

7 As a reminder, much the same thing could be said of Christ's resurrection or Joseph Smith's First Vision.

8 (Brooklyn, New York: Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, 2005), 215-218. A PDF version of this book can be found here.

9 However, I doubt it would address the fundamental difference of worldviews, my main theme.

10 I do not know if this means she follows a dictation model or a verbal, plenary view. She may not be aware of the distinction. I would consider it a distinction without a difference for practical purposes.

11 I have not sweated out the details, so please don't press the point.

12 In fact, if one believes Scripture is verbally inspired, then even the most outrageous proof-texting is justifiable.

13 Luke 21:24, New World Translation as quoted in What Does the Bible Really Teach, p. 215.

14 The repercussions are not limited to discussions about the last days. The whole concept of “Biblical theology” also requires a (more or less) unified voice throughout the Bible in order to work. Nor can we properly say, “Scripture teaches X” without qualification. We could talk about recurring themes, or compare the theological views of the different authors, but that is about as far as we can go.

15 What I mean by “exclusive literalism” is a topic for another essay. Briefly, the term refers to biblical literalism that takes the literal meaning of Scripture to the point of denying scientific or historical data, logic, or even common sense.

16 I once threw Jeremiah's “seventy years” at an Evangelical claiming the Bible's prophecies were completely fulfilled as an example of a failed prophecy. 586 BCE to 537 BCE only amounts to some fifty years, after all. Notably his rebuttal did not dispute these dates.

17 The Jehovah's Witnesses are not the only ones who use this reasoning. See this for an example of someone using the same reasoning to get to the same date. The sites editors specifically deny other Watchtower claims.

18 I am aware of the other biblical texts supporting a contention Jeremiah should be taken literally. But for the argument to work, one has to assume those texts have to be taken literally. It is the assumption of literalism itself I'm questioning.

19 For an overview, see “Day-year principle.”

20 Again, this does not apply only to eschatological speculation. I have gotten the same type of runaround when I press for a book, chapter, and verse when someone declares something to the effect of, “The Bible says abortion is wrong.”

21 Daniel chapter nine may imply the day-year principle; Revelation chapter 12 does not.

22 However, it should be noted that we may have a case where a mere summary of the chronology does not do the argument justice. Using this reasoning to “prove” the Jehovah's Witnesses “wrong” would likely be a strawman argument.