Difference between revisions of "Talk:Abr 3:1-21"
From Feast upon the Word (http://feastupontheword.org). Copyright, Feast upon the Word.
Joe Spencer (Talk | contribs) (→broad outline) |
(→broad outline: Question for Joe & musings.) |
||
| Line 22: | Line 22: | ||
:I've got to learn to make those tables! I like this, Matthew. I like especially the Kolob-Christ-Adam thing, since it goes beyond the Kolob-Christ thing usually read into this chapter. In my own researches on this chapter, I've tried at times to work out a separation between planets and stars (a separation that seems to parallel the separation between men and angels). If that is read into your chart... might there be another column? Stars as one, planets as another. In which case, there is a sort of double parallelism: stars vs. planets against spirits vs. bodies (if you will). In short, just as the "spirits" parallel the "earth's creations," there may be a parallel between "stars" and "planets." While it would complicate things some, it would also, I think, be more archaic (double parallelism is certainly common in Hebrew thought), and it would set all of this up as a sort of fourfold structure: mortals and immortals dwell on planets and stars, etc. Perhaps I'm too Heideggerian, but I think there is something here. --[[User:Joe Spencer|Joe Spencer]] 16:00, 16 Aug 2006 (UTC) | :I've got to learn to make those tables! I like this, Matthew. I like especially the Kolob-Christ-Adam thing, since it goes beyond the Kolob-Christ thing usually read into this chapter. In my own researches on this chapter, I've tried at times to work out a separation between planets and stars (a separation that seems to parallel the separation between men and angels). If that is read into your chart... might there be another column? Stars as one, planets as another. In which case, there is a sort of double parallelism: stars vs. planets against spirits vs. bodies (if you will). In short, just as the "spirits" parallel the "earth's creations," there may be a parallel between "stars" and "planets." While it would complicate things some, it would also, I think, be more archaic (double parallelism is certainly common in Hebrew thought), and it would set all of this up as a sort of fourfold structure: mortals and immortals dwell on planets and stars, etc. Perhaps I'm too Heideggerian, but I think there is something here. --[[User:Joe Spencer|Joe Spencer]] 16:00, 16 Aug 2006 (UTC) | ||
| + | |||
| + | ::Joe, I am only half following the double parallel. I like the idea of stars vs planets in contrast to spirits vs bodies. Can you explain more on this? | ||
| + | ::As something of an aside, Abraham 3 for me is odd enough that I have wonder if my time isn't better spent on more of what we are working on in 3 Ne 11. But when I think of this as a preface or context setting for the creation story, I keep coming back to it. I also feel like the skill (not sure if that is the right word) required to understand Abraham is the same skill required to understand the temple ceremony. Abraham gives me a chance to develop this skill in relation to others since we can openly talk and think about the text here--a skill which I can then apply to better understanding the temple. --[[User:Matthewfaulconer|Matthew Faulconer]] 13:50, 30 Aug 2006 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 09:50, 30 August 2006
I haven't really digested this comment yet, but thought it might be interesting to ponder.... --RobertC 18:09, 3 Jul 2006 (UTC)
broad outline
I always wonder if there isn't some sense in which the purpose of chapter 3 is to teach us how to understand chapters 4 and 5. There is a certain pattern at work here. Here are the major indicators of the pattern. First, the pattern is stated explicitly in proof-like wording (Abr 3:8 (in relation to stars / time), Abr 3:16 (in relation to stars / time, Abr 3:18 (first half--apply what Abraham has learned about start to spirits.} Next, the fact that Kolob signifies the first creation (see explanation on Figure 1 for Facsimile 2) and Abraham chapter 4, more than any other creation story, makes a point of Adam being the first creation.
If I try to put it all together, maybe it gets a bit strained. You'll all have to tell me what you think.
| All things | Stars / Time | Spirits | Earth's creations |
|---|---|---|---|
| Some are greater | moon, Earth | some noble and great | living/non-living? |
| Some are close to God (rulers) | governing ones | rulers | animals? |
| One is very close to God (first) | Kolob (first creation) | Christ (first born) | Man (first flesh) |
| God | Throne of God | God | Gods (the us in "Let us go down") |
A couple of to-do's: Fill this out and think through. Add scripture references. --Matthew Faulconer 06:46, 16 Aug 2006 (UTC)
- I've got to learn to make those tables! I like this, Matthew. I like especially the Kolob-Christ-Adam thing, since it goes beyond the Kolob-Christ thing usually read into this chapter. In my own researches on this chapter, I've tried at times to work out a separation between planets and stars (a separation that seems to parallel the separation between men and angels). If that is read into your chart... might there be another column? Stars as one, planets as another. In which case, there is a sort of double parallelism: stars vs. planets against spirits vs. bodies (if you will). In short, just as the "spirits" parallel the "earth's creations," there may be a parallel between "stars" and "planets." While it would complicate things some, it would also, I think, be more archaic (double parallelism is certainly common in Hebrew thought), and it would set all of this up as a sort of fourfold structure: mortals and immortals dwell on planets and stars, etc. Perhaps I'm too Heideggerian, but I think there is something here. --Joe Spencer 16:00, 16 Aug 2006 (UTC)
- Joe, I am only half following the double parallel. I like the idea of stars vs planets in contrast to spirits vs bodies. Can you explain more on this?
- As something of an aside, Abraham 3 for me is odd enough that I have wonder if my time isn't better spent on more of what we are working on in 3 Ne 11. But when I think of this as a preface or context setting for the creation story, I keep coming back to it. I also feel like the skill (not sure if that is the right word) required to understand Abraham is the same skill required to understand the temple ceremony. Abraham gives me a chance to develop this skill in relation to others since we can openly talk and think about the text here--a skill which I can then apply to better understanding the temple. --Matthew Faulconer 13:50, 30 Aug 2006 (UTC)
