Learning about scripture is not a matter of learning something that is merely internal to the scriptures. My experience is that I have learned and continue to learn a great deal from the scriptures, things about myself, things about God’s relation to me and his demands of me, things about the commandments–on and on. All of those things are things about our lives together here, not just things we learn if we treat the scriptures as hypothetically true. But what I have learned has come because I gave up treating the scriptures as if they were either naive history (the best description that an unrelenting secularism can give them) or a history written in the way we currently understand it (the usual view of those we call–I think mistakenly–literalists).

The scriptures teach me how to see the world, neither through the eyes of thorough-going secularism nor through the eyes of a fundamentalism that takes most of its understanding of the holy from an out-dated secularism, but through the eyes of God and his prophets. When I see the world that way, there are things that I cannot answer intellectually–such as how much of the world the flood covered–but they cease to be important. However, the kinds of things you mention remain important. Can God work miracles? I can be skeptical about the flood. I can perhaps be skeptical about some other particular miracle. But I see no way to take the scriptures seriously, to see the world that they open to me, without seeing a God of miracles, a God who answers prayers–and also one who often does not answer them as we would like.

In my times of trial, nothing I suspect in comparison to yours, several things have, together, kept me going. Standing out among them are the faith and confidence of my wife, prayer, the remembrance of past blessings, and the scriptures. They are not merely allegorical. They are not merely stories. They are not to be treated merely hypothetically. But I can neither teach nor understand them if I approach them from the understanding of things that the contemporary world–secular and fundamentalist–has given me. However, because I do not think that fundamentalism is the alternative to secularism, I also do not believe that understanding the scriptures as they understand themselves and seeing the world that they give to me means rejecting every other possible understanding. I am comfortable having understandings that cannot be made part of a final rational structure because I do not believe that the world has such a structure. The scriptures reveal God’s world to me, but there are also other revelations of the world, many of which have a place in human existence.

I’m usuaully don’t actually prepare my lessons till Sunday morning, partly b/c that’s my schedule and habit (to procrastinate), but partly so I can be the last one to poach everyone else’s thoughts. Plus I usually spend the first 15 minutes reviewing previous material with my kids anyway, which gives me a chance to slip in any new insights regarding older lessons.

Regarding kids and staying up late, we’ve been pondering here how to make sense of Psalm 127. Reading the psalm as a whole seems to contrast staying up late and rising up early with having children. That’s certainly not been my experience!

Regarding the outstretched arm, thanks for the Ludlow lead. I think I also heard this interpretation in my BYU Isaiah class by Monte Nyman, and I think I’ve read it somewhere in one of Gileadi’s books on Isaiah, so they should all be given credit too (though I think they get the embracing connotation of the outstretched arm directly from Nephi, I’d have to go back to look up the exact references—and I think Nephi may suggest this in the context of quoting Isaiah…). This is partly why I was surprised I couldn’t seem to find the connotation anywhere in the OT (or NT) itself. By the way, I think the “kinsman” connotation of “redeem” you guys discussed in a previous lesson could be read as support for this view: inasmuch as family doesn’t just protect each other, but also loves each other (a question I think Shakespeare addresses in King Lear).

(Anyone reading this cooment should know that Jim is an excellent, honest, fair, and caring teacher. My low grade was probably merciful on his part. I have said many times that I would take that class again–no hesitations.)

P.S. I’m going to steal this quote: “I think careful textual analysis can serve as an important check that prevents us from mis-interpreting personal revelation for personal preference.” It’s because I repeat thoughts like that that my friends think I’m smart.

“[m]any Book of Mormon expressions involving the hand of God differ from those in the Bible but are similar enough to have apparently developed from Bible phrasing.

The image of the lengthened arm. One of these speaks of God’s arm being “lengthened.” A Hebrew phrase meaning lack of strength or power is “short of hand.” This occurs three times in the Old Testament. In each of these cases, the Lord poses a rhetorical question whether mortals think that his hand is shortened; that is, whether men consider that God is powerless to save his people. Obviously, the question is a roundabout way of stating that the Lord does have power to save.

Seely cites Isa. 50:2 here (noting that 2 Ne. 28:32 uses a reversal of the image of the shortened arm). Isa. 59:1 is similar.

Jer. 27:5 and 32:17 speak of the Lord making the earth with an outstretched arm.