{"version":1,"type":"rich","provider_name":"Libsyn","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.libsyn.com","height":90,"width":600,"title":"Here It Is, Dave Butler - How To Study The Gospel","description":"Warriors of Teancum Men's Retreat - https:\/\/www.cwicmedia.com\/warriors-of...  Two big \u201carchetypes\u201d of Bible commentary: Critics (Type A) vs Preachers (Type B). Type A is academic, puzzle-solving: authorship, dates, audiences, layers of editing. Type A can be written as if God is methodologically \u201cout of scope\u201d\u2014even by believers. Tools on the critic side: languages, textual criticism, archaeology, history, sociology. Archaeology shifted from \u201cconfirming the Bible\u201d to often complicating\/contradicting surface readings. There\u2019s a spectrum \/ hybrid zone (e.g., scholars who do serious work but keep discipleship in view). Dave proposes a \u201cthird model\u201d: the Bible as a damaged record of a real encounter with God, not mere secular artifact. The Book of Mormon provides \u201cother data\u201d critics don\u2019t have\u2014an anchored point-of-view. The Book of Mormon is hyper-explicit about authors\/editors (\u201cHi, my name is Mormon\/Nephi\u2026\u201d) and record transmission. That explicitness gives \u201cplanks to stand on\u201d when approaching a messy, anonymous biblical anthology. It also helps solve two problems: (1) Is the Bible solvable? (2) What can you responsibly take to the pulpit? Pulpit takeaway: you can preach from known voices\/perspectives (Jacob, Nephi, Alma) without getting lost in source debates. Observation: most Saints read Type B; Type A feels dry, hard, \u201coutside comfort zone,\u201d and takes effort to digest. Engaging scholarly tools can illuminate both Bible and Book of Mormon more deeply.  Cwic Media Website: http:\/\/www.cwicmedia.com   ","author_name":"Cwic Media- LDS Podcast \/ Latter-day Saints","author_url":"http:\/\/www.cwicmedia.com","html":"