[lucerna] [reform] - Made Up History?... tumbling down earthquake country
Wed Jun 28 21:13:10 HST 2006
Good find, Stephen! And speaks to the idea that "historical" does not mean
"factual," at least not in the TT.
And, my particular heresy is that in some fashion, ALL statements in ALL
testaments will be found to be accurate on every level of understanding--I'm
not sure it's even correct to assert that there will never be a city of gold
landing on the Minnesota cornfields, an image that one of my GC friends uses
to disparage a literal take on the book of Revelations. Who can say? And,
it might not look like that to our contemporary eyes, but when it ever, if
it ever, happens, the folks when it does will say, Hey, look at that! City
of gold! And it will seem obvious to them that this phenomenon is that to
which John was referring. Especially if we grant him poetic license and the
use of metaphor in his predictions.
And of course, Carlie Simon thinks that it's already "landed," in New
York--has anyone heard her song, New Jerusalem, which was the themesong to
Working Girl a while ago (Melanie Griffin, Harrison Ford)? Beautiful song;
the movie was kind of sad. Poignant now, to watch the opening shots of NYC
with the twin towers shining in the sunlight.
Governance! That's supposed to be the theme on reform! (Has the committee
come up with anything that speaks to how decisions will be made, who will be
in charge of them, and what the focus of the church's efforts will be over
the next several years? 'Cause that's what I thought reform was
addressing!) Which is why I've re-addressed this message to lucerna.
----- Original Message -----
To: "'Organization and government issues'" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2006 4:47 PM
Subject: Re: [reform] - Made Up History?... tumbling down earthquake country
> Hi Alan and Leon,
> I just started reading a number from the Third Testament after reading the
> email below from Alan about the styles in the Word. Here is what the
> Testament says about the first chapter of Genesis:
> "  Be it known that by the creation of heaven and earth in the first
> chapter of Genesis, in the internal sense, is meant and described the new
> creation, or regeneration, of the man of the church at that time, thus the
> setting up of a celestial church; and that by the paradise are meant and
> described the wisdom and intelligence of that church, and by eating of the
> tree of knowledge its fall in consequence of reasoning from
> memory-knowledges about Divine things. That such is the meaning may be
> from what has been shown on this subject in the explications at those
> For all the things contained in the first chapters of Genesis are made up
> historical things, in the internal sense of which, as before said, are
> Divine things concerning the new creation or regeneration of the man of
> celestial church.
> This method of writing was customary in the most ancient times, not only
> among those who were of the church, but also among those who were outside
> the church, as among the Arabians, Syrians, and Greeks, as is evident from
> the books of those times, both sacred and profane. "
> ( Arcana Coelestia (Potts) n. 9942 )
> So this number explains that the first chapter of Genesis is "made up
> historical things". Yet this does not detract from Its Divinity.
> With warm regards,
> Stephen D. Burleigh
> -----Original Message-----
> From: email@example.com
> Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2006 9:15 PM
> To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Subject: [reform] tumbling down earthquake country
> Leon, you ask me [end below], how do you see the teaching that the Word
> its historical parts is accurate? The famous number on this score is
> Coelestia 66, which says: The second style is historical . . . It
> on to say: The third style is the prophetical one . . . which . . . is
> in connected and historical form . . . The fourth style is that of the
> Psalms of David. I am a trained historian, Leon, and to me the key word
> all of these is style. The second style is historical, but it is not
> strictly speaking history. The style is that of the historical or
> narrative: but in my mind it was never intended to be a genuine reporting
> actually events. (Indeed, the is one fellow I know who thinks the Lord
> ordered the historical events to happen so that they could be writ-ten to
> reflect their correspondences, but that is too deterministic for me.
> There are too many examples stretching history to name, but as Joseph
> Bronowski says about Joshua and Jeri-cho in The Ascent of Man: Did Joshua
> finally destroy the city? And did the walls really come tumbling down? . .
> Yes, you might say in the accurate sense that the tribes of Israel were
> fighting to get into the Fertile Cres-cent [and Jericho] they had to
> conquer, and they did about 1400 BC. However, the Bible story was not
> written down until perhaps 700 BC; There is no archeological evidence on
> this site that suggests on the one hand that a set of walls one fine day
> really fell flat. On the other hand, this is earthquake country. There
> tremors here every day. And there is a Bronze Age period here where a
> of walls was rebuilt at least six-teen times. For me, what I once heard a
> Jewish couple say on TV captures it: the Old Testament is the record of a
> peoples angst. And it is to that degree historical and accurate, and it
> to that degree representative and significative. It is as the internal
> of the Third Testament may touch on our angst at this day.
> Emanuel Swedenborg was not a trained historianno one in his day wasbut I
> do not think he was using the expressions historical the way I would use
> it to describe my work. Further, to the degree that Swedenborgs
> interactions in the world of spirits were beyond time and space, it is to
> questionable to describe the events as strictly speaking historicalsave
> for his act of writing them outor factually accurate. This is parsing
> mean of historical and factually accurate, I know, but in answer to
> question, I think we must, just do it. And, I still am unsure of what you
> meant by No one here has denied anything from the literal sense. Alan
> >Reply-To: Organization and government issues
> >To: Organization and government issues <email@example.com>
> >Subject: Re: [reform] deny me three times
> >Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2006 12:53:53 -1000 (HST)
> >On Wed, 28 Jun 2006, Alan Longstaff wrote:
> > > Leon, this phrase [founf below] is a little ambiguous to me: No one
> > > has denied anything from the literal sense. Let me use Davids
> > > example
> > > 'Earths in the Universe.' As I would imagine it, your sentence is
> > > NOT
> > > whatever is written in the literal sense must be taken literally, as
> > > for example applying it to the observable universe. Rather, as I
> > > imagine it,
> > > ARE saying that no one has nor should deny the words of the literal
> > > since these are the context in which the spiritual or inner sense is
> > > immersed. A little clarification would be welcomed. Alan
> >Hi Alan,
> >This is a conundrum that broke my head more than once, so I don't know
> >if it can be clarified fully at this point.
> >The Writings say that the all historical parts of the Word are accurate
> >and factual -- historical and scientific. The Memoralble Relations,
> >including EU, and a few selected passages here and there where Sw.
> >tells something about himself, are historical parts of the Word, and
> >therefore, are accurate, factual, and scientifically correct.
> >Hence, when Sw. says, I spoke to this spirit, it is factually accurate.
> >Or, I visited this society. Or, this took place in the world of spirits
> >on this date. Or, I spoke to so and so by name. These I take to be
> >factual and therefore we can take them in the literal sense to be true.
> >Of course, these passages also have a spiritual and a celestial inner
> >sense, since they are written in pure correspondences and appearances
> >of truth. The angels know nothing about the person, the place, the
> >moon, Mercury spirits, etc., as they read the passages correspondeing to
> >Somewhere it is written (we need to find the place, not easy), that EU
> >and Memorable Relations are written "according to the appearances of
> >the senses" In SE 3427 it lists "APPEARANCES ACCORDING TO WHICH IT IS
> >PROPER TO SPEAK, BUT NOT TO THINK." And this one: NJHD 262: "The sense
> >of the letter of the Word is according to appearances in the world. And
> >is adapted to the capacity of the simple"
> >Yet there is a warning: NJHD 262: "Innumerable heresies arise from the
> >sense of the letter without the internal sense, or without true
> >doctrine from the Word. (remember the plagues I was telling Stephen
> >And we have this from DP 220: "Now since all the uses, that is, the
> >truths and goods of charity, that a man does to the neighbour may be
> >done either according to appearances or according to the truths
> >themselves in the
> >Word: if he does them according to appearances confirmed in himself he
> >is in fallacies; but if he does them according to truths he does them
> >as he ought."
> >This is a critical pssage, hard to interpret at first.
> >And this in De Conjugio 82. "They who read the Word without doctrine
> >cannot but fall into many fallacies from the sense of the letter which
> >is according to appearances with man, and at the same time they have
> >acquired many falsities and confirmed themselves in them, and at the
> >same time are thence in the pride of their own intelligence"
> >By the way, this is one reason I suggested that drawing forth doctrine
> >is a commandment, and if you ignore it, you fall into the plagues of
> >the literal sense. It is not necessary to fall into these plagues just
> >because we are regenerating. Stephen seems to think that we cannot
> >both regenerate and avoid the plagues.
> >Now this: AC 9424: "But they who are in the genuine doctrine of truth
> >from the Word, and in enlightenment when they read the Word, see
> >everywhere truths that agree, and nothing whatever that is opposed; for
> >they do not dwell upon what is said therein according to appearances,
> >and according to the common apprehension of men, because they know that
> >if the appearances are unfolded, and as it were unswathed, the truth is
> laid bare."
> >Those who say that we cannot take EU literally in this modern world of
> >moon and Mars landings, must therefore show how it is that we are to
> >read the assertion that all historical events in the Word are factual,
> >historical, scientifically accurate. Justifying this departure from the
> >Letter COMES BEFORE the rationale that there are no people on the moon.
> >If you can justify this departure (I doubt that one can, but I remain
> >open), then one can go on to the next step, what we found in our moon
> >landings, etc. Perhaps AC 9424 (above) might be a method of
> >approaching this rightly!
> >Alan, what is your take on EU, and how do you see the teaching that the
> >Word in its historical parts is accurate?
> >To pacify Michael -- I do think this topic is relevant to Reform and
> >its focus, such as it has evolved.
> >reform mailing list
> reform mailing list
More information about the lucerna