Difference between revisions of "Alma 44:6-10"
From Feast upon the Word (http://feastupontheword.org). Copyright, Feast upon the Word.
(→Questions) |
|||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
|} | |} | ||
== Questions == | == Questions == | ||
| − | * '' | + | * v. 7 ~ The nature of covenants. Are these "covenants" as we think of them today? Or merely oaths/promises? (It is called an "oath" up until verse 14, where it specifically mentions the "covenant of peace.") If the former, how can it be a ''true'' covenant when the only other option is destruction? |
| − | + | * v. 8-9 ~ Zarahemnah refuses on the grounds that he won't be able to ''keep'' the oath? Isn't this honorable--refusing to promise something you won't be able to do? Or is it proud--''refusing'' to take the oath, because he doesn't ''want'' to maintain peace for the rest of his life? Which of the two does Zarahemnah mean when he says "we will not suffer ourselves to take an oath unto you, which we know that we shall break"? He goes on to speak of his ''children'' as also being unable to keep this oath--how can he speak for them? Does this support the latter interpretation of his refusal? | |
== Lexical notes == | == Lexical notes == | ||
Revision as of 10:30, 21 October 2007
The Book of Mormon > Alma > Chapter 44
| Previous (Alma 44:1-5) | Next (Alma 44:11-15) |
Questions
- v. 7 ~ The nature of covenants. Are these "covenants" as we think of them today? Or merely oaths/promises? (It is called an "oath" up until verse 14, where it specifically mentions the "covenant of peace.") If the former, how can it be a true covenant when the only other option is destruction?
- v. 8-9 ~ Zarahemnah refuses on the grounds that he won't be able to keep the oath? Isn't this honorable--refusing to promise something you won't be able to do? Or is it proud--refusing to take the oath, because he doesn't want to maintain peace for the rest of his life? Which of the two does Zarahemnah mean when he says "we will not suffer ourselves to take an oath unto you, which we know that we shall break"? He goes on to speak of his children as also being unable to keep this oath--how can he speak for them? Does this support the latter interpretation of his refusal?
Lexical notes
- Click the edit link above and to the right to add lexical notes
Exegesis
Click the edit link above and to the right to add exegesis
Related links
- Click the edit link above and to the right to add related links
| Previous (Alma 44:1-5) | Next (Alma 44:11-15) |
