How Does LDS Church resolve conflicts with the Bible ???


CHowell
 Share

Recommended Posts

Do you have examples?

But we should certainly start with scriptures first and see what they say.

Do you have a biblical reverence for the Father being a man "like us"

He isn't like us, we are like Him...Genesis 1:27 27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

My point is; "God cannot be tempted by evil" (James 1:13) That part is clear. Therefore I have nothing to show you. Only Man is tempted."

And yet, we all know Jesus was tempted three times...

Mark 1:13

13 And he was there in the wilderness forty days, tempted of Satan; and was with the wild beasts; and the angels ministered unto him.

Also, if Jesus and His Father are the same person, then how did Jesus grow in wisdom, when He is omnipotent?...Luke 2:52 And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 402
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Do you have examples?

I do, but I thought you wanted to focus on the Bible. This isn't a derail attempt by any chance?

This could also be said of you, but this will get us nowhere.

Really? Where have I been reading philosophical terms into the Bible?

Time for the ancient Hebrews was not the abstract philosophical idea that we are familiar with now. Eternity (olam) can be rendered as either an age or a world. The usual construct was from age to age. Why is this important? It changes the entire way we read statements regarding eternity. There is no reason to conclude that the text has much to do with questions such as the ultimate origins of anything.

I agree with you the Bible was;

But we should certainly start with scriptures first and see what they say.

Wow, you've completely missed the point. The very first thing we ought to do is check our cultural bias and assumptions. Seeing what the scriptures say all too often means read it through the lens of your own time and culture. For example, were the Pharisees upset that the 12 disciples had lousy personal hygiene?

Do you have a biblical reverence for the Father being a man "like us"

That happens to be the premise of the New Testament. God once being man like us, I mean.

and Jesus being once just an "intelligence"

Just as soon as you provide me with the exact formulations of Nicene Trinity in the Bible.

and they both progressed to Godhood?

Hebrews 1.

Or even a BOM reference?

Roses are red, herrings are too.

My point is; "God cannot be tempted by evil" (James 1:13) That part is clear. Therefore I have nothing to show you. Only Man is tempted.

Let me ask you another question. For the sake of argument, lets say that Christ gave in to the temptation in the desert. Would the divine nature have been affected? Basically, what I'm getting at is that for your premise to work, we need to assume that there is a complete and total separation between two essences, something that I would dearly love for you to show from the Bible. I won't hold my breath. You have to read that idea into scripture. The text does not require, let alone support it.

I believe He never surrendered His divinity. How does God cease to be God? He was God before He "became flesh"(John 1:1) God while He was flesh (John 1:14) He is both the Son of God and the Son of man.

Thanks

What would have happened had Christ not completed his mission, would he have remained divine?

What is the point of Hebrews presenting a picture of Christ being enthroned as divine because of his success on earth?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He isn't like us, we are like Him...Genesis 1:27 27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Hello jayanna

I was merely referring to this;

It is the first principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty the character of God and to know...that he was once a man like us. - The Prophet Joseph Smith, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 342-345,

No He isn't like us, but those who are "born again" will regain the fullness of that image; "But we all, with unveiled face, beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, just as by the Spirit of the Lord" (2 Cor. 3:18)

And yet, we all know Jesus was tempted three times...

Mark 1:13

13 And he was there in the wilderness forty days, tempted of Satan; and was with the wild beasts; and the angels ministered unto him.

I agree that in His humanity He was tempted, but I believe the Bible says He has two natures.

Also, if Jesus and His Father are the same person, then how did Jesus grow in wisdom, when He is omnipotent?...Luke 2:52 And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man.

They aren't the same person.

Again as man Jesus would grow in wisdom,... not know the day and hour of His return etc...

Phil 2:5 "Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, 6 who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, 7 but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross".. When He became man Jesus voluntarily relinquished the prerogative of freely exercising His divine attributes and subjected Himself to the will of the Father while on earth. (John 5:30, 6:38, 8:28-29, 12:49)

As God while also on earth He would say "I and the Father are one" and receive worship (John 9:38) (Matt 2:11 and 8:2)

Hope this helps.

Thanks

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps that silly attidue found in your post of FARMS adulation on the one hand, and a condemnation of things not found in the standard works on the other raised some hackles.

That being said, scroll down to the comments here.

Arguments need to be considered on their own merits. FARMS good others bad is really the logical fallacy known as an appeal to authority.

Let's put it this way: Every one has an opinion. I can provide lots of opinions by well-meaning people that end up being so off track that it spoils just about everything they say/write thereafter. I recall one particular geologist from Arizona some years back who had everyone glued to their chairs where ever he went when he spoke about ancient writings only to be shown that he was somewhat less informed than he originally thought.

If everyone was required to provide their bona fides and a CV that might be different. But we do not for a good reason: we do not want to beheld accountable for what we say. It is hard enough for even the general authorities to get it right all the time. Think the first edition of Mormon Doctrine, The JoD and Mark E Peterson. Maybe in some venues speculation is appropriate. But in this forum I feel uncomfortable going down that road. Too many will take speculation as doctrinally based rather than just an exercise in a particular discipline such as was intended by the writer of the piece you referred me to. This isn't a High Priests group although it would be very interesting if it was.

Edited by jlf9999
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's put it this way: Every one has an opinion. I can provide lots of opinions by well-meaning people that end up being so off track that it spoils just about everything they say/write thereafter. I recall one particular geologist from Arizona some years back who had everyone glued to their chairs where ever he went when he spoke about ancient writings only to be shown that he was somewhat less informed than he originally thought.

If everyone was required to provide their bona fides and a CV that might be different. But we do not for a good reason: we do not want to beheld accountable for what we say. It is hard enough for even the general authorities to get it right all the time. Think the first edition of Mormon Doctrine, The JoD and Mark E Peterson. Maybe in some venues speculation is appropriate. But in this forum I feel uncomfortable going down that road. Too many will take speculation as doctrinally based rather than just an exercise in a particular discipline such as was intended by the writer of the piece you referred me to. This isn't a High Priests group although it would be very interesting if it was.

Bona fides and CVs don't show much. Hugh Nibley and Matthew Brown (to name but two) have been wrong many times. That is why an argument needs to be evaluated on its own merits and methodology, not according to reputation. If you can check a reference, then please do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bona fides and CVs don't show much. Hugh Nibley and Matthew Brown (to name but two) have been wrong many times. That is why an argument needs to be evaluated on its own merits and methodology, not according to reputation. If you can check a reference, then please do.

That is my point exactly. The two you mention have stumbled when they got away from established doctrine. Wandering off into the dark does leave one open to stubbing his toe. I will have you know even I make mistakes. Just ask my wife. At times I am amazed at how often I can be so wrong on so many subjects at the same time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

JT,

The difference is that Hugh Nibley and Matthew Brown provided concepts with evidence, knowing some things may be wrong. When found wrong, they accepted it and adapted. Volgadon and I are the same. I continually discuss things with LDS scholars and have changed some of my views over time.

As for sending you my "real name", I don't do that without good cause. LDS Scholars generally know me by my real name. You can ask many of them if they've heard of "rameumptom" on the blogs, etc. They'll usually note they do. Some disagree with me, many agree on a variety of concepts.

I suggest you check out my OT and NT blogging to see what I've done in the past and recently. You can check them out here on LDS.Net:

New Testament - LDS Social Network Forums

Old Testament - LDS Social Network Forums

Or, you could ask those who have read my blog both here and at joelsmonastery.blogspot.com

Volgadon has already posted his blog site above. While I am very comfortable with the Dead Sea Scrolls and other ancient documents, I usually will defer to Volgadon's strong understanding of Hebrew and their customs, as he grew up learning all of that in Israel.

We make mistakes, yes. But I would deem that what we generally suggest is much closer to the truth than you think.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SonInMe,

The duality of Christ was a long debated issue in early Christianity, because it is NOT found in the Bible. The concept of the Trinity, which was supposedly settled at Nicaea in 325AD, opened up a huge question regarding Christ. If Jesus was the same substance as the Father, then how could he also have been mortal? This was "decided" at the Council of Chalcedon in 451 AD, more than a century later. Had it been clearly taught in the Bible, why would it take more than 4 centuries after Jesus' death to figure this out? Because it was and is not found in the Bible.

The reality is, Jesus has one nature. Just as an acorn grows into an oak tree, or a caterpillar transforms into a butterfly, so Jesus' nature just grew. Hebrews explains this. Jesus had to become mortal to suffer that he would know how to succor us. He was divine before his birth, and he became fully divine after his resurrection.

A major mistake lies in thinking the Bible holds all truth. It doesn't. It does not include half the books that ancient Jews and Christians considered sacred. Just in looking at the Dead Sea Scrolls, we find that there were dozens of books considered holy and inspired that did not make it into St Jerome's canon. The Book of Enoch was so important to early Jews and Christians that it is quoted or referenced 39 times in the New Testament. Just look at Jude's quote from Enoch as an example. Yet St Jerome tossed it out because it did not fit his view of Christianity.

It is too easy for us to proclaim, "a Bible, a Bible, we have got a Bible and we need no more Bible!" But it does not bring us closer to understanding God. Instead of having more of his revealed word and works through His pattern of revealing things through prophets (Am:7), too many have long relied on the traditions and creeds of men. This is where the Restoration is so very important. If God reveals truth to us through modern prophets then we not only have the truths of the Bible, but many of the lost truths and new truths God would reveal to us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is my point exactly. The two you mention have stumbled when they got away from established doctrine. Wandering off into the dark does leave one open to stubbing his toe. I will have you know even I make mistakes. Just ask my wife. At times I am amazed at how often I can be so wrong on so many subjects at the same time.

I think you missed my point entirely. I'm talking about their use of primary and secondary sources as well as historical analysis. They have not wandered off in the dark into forbidden paths, they made some mistakes in their academic work. This despite their association with FARMS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you missed my point entirely. I'm talking about their use of primary and secondary sources as well as historical analysis. They have not wandered off in the dark into forbidden paths, they made some mistakes in their academic work. This despite their association with FARMS.

I understand however wandering off doesn't mean forbidden, just unexplored.

Edited by jlf9999
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The duality of Christ was a long debated issue in early Christianity, because it is NOT found in the Bible

ram

I don't understand why you would make such a statement. John 1:14 says "the Word became flesh". Phill 2: 6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: 7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:.

Jesus, "being in the form of God", or the same form as the Father and the Holy Spirit, prior to the incarnation, (spirit, no body of flesh and bones) then "took upon Himself" an added nature, that of a man.

You state yourself that;

He was divine before his birth, and he became fully divine after his resurrection

Does one go from almighty God to godman to then "fully divine"? Was that the path of the Father in LDS teaching?

The reality is, Jesus has one nature. Just as an acorn grows into an oak tree, or a caterpillar transforms into a butterfly, so Jesus' nature just grew.

Except you haven't answered Psalm 90:2 "Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God.

Volgadon suggests that

Eternity (olam) can be rendered as either an age or a world. The usual construct was from age to age.

Does that suggest that God is only God until the end of the age:confused:I am no Hebrew expert but for what it's worth, Strong's Number: 5769 "olam"

always, ancient time, any more, continuance, eternal, for, everlasting, long time,

Or lolam {o-lawm'}; from alam; properly, concealed, i.e. The vanishing point; generally, time out of mind (past or future), i.e. (practically) eternity; frequentatively, adverbial (especially with prepositional prefix) always -- alway(-s), ancient (time), any more, continuance, eternal, (for, (n-))ever(-lasting, -more, of old), lasting, long (time), (of) old (time), perpetual, at any time, (beginning of the) world (+ without end).

From NAS exhaustive concordance

Definition

long duration, antiquity, futurity

NASB Word Usage

ages (1), all successive (1), always (1), ancient (13), ancient times (3), continual (1), days of old (1), eternal (2), eternity (3), ever (10), Everlasting (2), everlasting (110), forever (136), forever and ever (1), forever* (70), forevermore* (1), lasting (1), long (2), long ago (3), long past (1), long time (3), never* (17), old (11), permanent (10), permanently (1), perpetual (29), perpetually (1).

I don't see "either an age or a world. The usual construct was from age to age".

One would have to read that into the text.

Please note, I have quoted no creed or philosopher just scripture and Hebrew dictionaries.

Thanks

Edited by Soninme
Link to comment
Share on other sites

ram

I don't understand why you would make such a statement. John 1:14 says "the Word became flesh". Phill 2: 6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: 7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:.

Jesus, "being in the form of God", or the same form as the Father and the Holy Spirit, prior to the incarnation, (spirit, no body of flesh and bones) then "took upon Himself" an added nature, that of a man.

You state yourself that;

Does one go from almighty God to godman to then "fully divine"? Was that the path of the Father in LDS teaching?

Except you haven't answered Psalm 90:2 "Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God.

Volgadon suggests that

Does that suggest that God is only God until the end of the age:confused:I am no Hebrew expert but for what it's worth, Strong's Number: 5769 "olam"

always, ancient time, any more, continuance, eternal, for, everlasting, long time,

Or lolam {o-lawm'}; from alam; properly, concealed, i.e. The vanishing point; generally, time out of mind (past or future), i.e. (practically) eternity; frequentatively, adverbial (especially with prepositional prefix) always -- alway(-s), ancient (time), any more, continuance, eternal, (for, (n-))ever(-lasting, -more, of old), lasting, long (time), (of) old (time), perpetual, at any time, (beginning of the) world (+ without end).

From NAS exhaustive concordance

Definition

long duration, antiquity, futurity

NASB Word Usage

ages (1), all successive (1), always (1), ancient (13), ancient times (3), continual (1), days of old (1), eternal (2), eternity (3), ever (10), Everlasting (2), everlasting (110), forever (136), forever and ever (1), forever* (70), forevermore* (1), lasting (1), long (2), long ago (3), long past (1), long time (3), never* (17), old (11), permanent (10), permanently (1), perpetual (29), perpetually (1).

I don't see "either an age or a world. The usual construct was from age to age".

One would have to read that into the text.

Please note, I have quoted no creed or philosopher just scripture and Hebrew dictionaries.

Thanks

You aren't using a Hebrew dictionary, you are using Strong's concordance. Strong's concordance is an index of KJV words and the Hebrew or Greek they are translating.

You can find the original word quickly, that is about all that Strong's is useful for.

Strong's doesn't give you the semantic range, nor lexical classifications and usage of a word.

Even the theologically-loaded "International Standard Bible Encyclopedia" writes that the OT "has no special term for 'eternity' that can be contrasted with 'temporality.' The Hebrew word most often used to express 'eternity' is olam. It is the same word that expresses duration of time, and it designates 'eternity' only in such statement as 'from olam' and 'until olam' (Ps. 90:2). Its meaning also shifts from a quantitative/temporal sense of a long span of time to a qualitative sense conveying the idea of permanence or immutability (2 Sam. 23:5; Ps. 78:69). Use in this latter sense does not deny the essential temporal quality of all OT thought when olam is used. While this word can shift in meaning to the qualitative ideas of greatness, power or transcendence when refering to God, it must be noted that these are qualities of God and are not implied in olam itself."

CHALOT (an actual lexicon) says of olam , " I. long time, constancy, all (coming) time (in Eng. usu. 'eternity,' 'eternal,' but not to be understood in philosophical sense)... 3. long time ago, the dim past:... so mehaolam wead haolam Ps 41:14 &c.;"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd like to add to Volgadon's point one other thing.

You are viewing this as a duality, when in LDS belief, it isn't. As mentioned before, one can view it as an acorn becoming a great oak. There is no duality in this. There is only progression of one species from infant to adulthood.

Christ thought it not robbery to be equal with God, being in his form. What does that mean? It does not mean Christ is the same being in a dual nature. It means that Christ is a separate being that could become as God is. And you'll note that Paul told us to also think this same way for ourselves. We also can become heirs of God and joint heirs with Christ. There is no dualism in this concept, unless one attempts to interpret it via the Trinity lens. Occam's Razor, beware!

We do not know the path of God the Father. There is little taught regarding it, and it is open to interpretation. What I can tell is the path of the Son to his exalted state. He showed us the path to follow, so we can grow from children to godhood. We can become fully like God is. D&C 93 explains that Christ went from grace to grace receiving grace for grace until he achieved a fullness of grace and glory of God.

And ancient Jewish literature (including the Bible) assures us that God had divine children in a pantheon. Elohim sent his greatest, Yahweh, to earth as the Messiah to save all mankind and to bring them back into God's presence.

For Jesus, and for Latter-day Saints, we understand that it is all "one eternal round." An eternity, or olam, is a long period of time composed of a cycle wherein God's children may become as he is. In that period, God has not changed, nor will change. Jesus, as with us, was created by God from the same substance God is made of. We were created as spiritual infants, and through stages of existence developed into who we are now (mortals). The next step can lead us fully to God and be like him through Christ. These were steps Jesus also went through, leading the way and setting the example for all the rest of us to follow.

To me, it makes no sense to try and follow Jesus, if I can never be fully like him. If we are of a different and impure substance, then there is always something dividing us from God. However, it is as St Augustine wrote, "God became man so that man might become a god." (cf. St. Athanasius, De Incarnatione or On the Incarnation 54:3, PG 25:192B; also Catechism of the Catholic Church paragraph 460)

In the premortal existence, Christ had become spiritually perfect and holy. He was God. Yet, he was not fully as Heavenly Father is. He still needed a mortal experience, and to gain a physical body. Paul taught that Jesus' sufferings taught him how to succor us. Why would this be necessary if Jesus as God already knew all things? Why resurrect with a physical body, if he was to return back to being a Spirit with duality? Again, Occam's Razor, beware!

Instead, he was worthy of godhood before mortality, and was made God under the divine guidance of Heavenly Father, who brought him into the Godhead. Yet, to become fully exalted and fully divine required more steps. Jesus was a god in chrysalis, no longer a caterpillar, but still not the butterfly he was to become.

And in marking the path, he showed the rest of us how to do this. He showed us how we can also become divine, fully divine, through Him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd like to add to Volgadon's point one other thing.

You are viewing this as a duality, when in LDS belief, it isn't. As mentioned before, one can view it as an acorn becoming a great oak. There is no duality in this. There is only progression of one species from infant to adulthood.

Christ thought it not robbery to be equal with God, being in his form. What does that mean? It does not mean Christ is the same being in a dual nature. It means that Christ is a separate being that could become as God is. And you'll note that Paul told us to also think this same way for ourselves. We also can become heirs of God and joint heirs with Christ. There is no dualism in this concept, unless one attempts to interpret it via the Trinity lens. Occam's Razor, beware!

We do not know the path of God the Father. There is little taught regarding it, and it is open to interpretation. What I can tell is the path of the Son to his exalted state. He showed us the path to follow, so we can grow from children to godhood. We can become fully like God is. D&C 93 explains that Christ went from grace to grace receiving grace for grace until he achieved a fullness of grace and glory of God.

And ancient Jewish literature (including the Bible) assures us that God had divine children in a pantheon. Elohim sent his greatest, Yahweh, to earth as the Messiah to save all mankind and to bring them back into God's presence.

For Jesus, and for Latter-day Saints, we understand that it is all "one eternal round." An eternity, or olam, is a long period of time composed of a cycle wherein God's children may become as he is. In that period, God has not changed, nor will change. Jesus, as with us, was created by God from the same substance God is made of. We were created as spiritual infants, and through stages of existence developed into who we are now (mortals). The next step can lead us fully to God and be like him through Christ. These were steps Jesus also went through, leading the way and setting the example for all the rest of us to follow.

To me, it makes no sense to try and follow Jesus, if I can never be fully like him. If we are of a different and impure substance, then there is always something dividing us from God. However, it is as St Augustine wrote, "God became man so that man might become a god." (cf. St. Athanasius, De Incarnatione or On the Incarnation 54:3, PG 25:192B; also Catechism of the Catholic Church paragraph 460)

In the premortal existence, Christ had become spiritually perfect and holy. He was God. Yet, he was not fully as Heavenly Father is. He still needed a mortal experience, and to gain a physical body. Paul taught that Jesus' sufferings taught him how to succor us. Why would this be necessary if Jesus as God already knew all things? Why resurrect with a physical body, if he was to return back to being a Spirit with duality? Again, Occam's Razor, beware!

Instead, he was worthy of godhood before mortality, and was made God under the divine guidance of Heavenly Father, who brought him into the Godhead. Yet, to become fully exalted and fully divine required more steps. Jesus was a god in chrysalis, no longer a caterpillar, but still not the butterfly he was to become.

And in marking the path, he showed the rest of us how to do this. He showed us how we can also become divine, fully divine, through Him.

For a kid you did good!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It does not mean Christ is the same being in a dual nature. It means that Christ is a separate being that could become as God is

Where do you see that in Phil 2:6 ? "who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God". It clearly says Christ had God's "form" (nature) He was exactly like God. He also (verse 7) took the "form" (nature) of a servant. He was exactly like a servant. It even says He already was equal with God. Occam's Razor indeed.

And you'll note that Paul told us to also think this same way for ourselves.

Phil 2:1 (Therefore if there is any consolation in Christ, if any comfort of love, if any fellowship of the Spirit, if any affection and mercy, 2 fulfill my joy by being like-minded, having the same love, being of one accord, of one mind. 3 Let nothing be done through selfish ambition or conceit, but in lowliness of mind let each esteem others better than himself. 4 Let each of you look out not only for his own interests, but also for the interests of others. 5 Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus,") I see the context here as one of unity through humility, not of becoming as God is.

We do not know the path of God the Father. There is little taught regarding it, and it is open to interpretation.

I believe the Bible is clear when God says He's always been God and there is no other? What of the teaching from LDS prophets that the Father was once a man "like us"?

What I can tell is the path of the Son to his exalted state. He showed us the path to follow, so we can grow from children to godhood. We can become fully like God is.

Except that the Son (Word) was God BEFORE He became flesh and dwelt among us, so we can't follow that path.

D&C 93 explains that Christ went from grace to grace receiving grace for grace until he achieved a fullness of grace and glory of God.

Has Christ sinned that He has need to receive grace?

Jesus, as with us, was created by God from the same substance God is made of. We were created as spiritual infants, and through stages of existence developed into who we are now (mortals).

Chapter and verse please. I don’t recall this in the BOM. The Bible teaches that Jesus is the creator of ALL things. John 1:3 Colossians 1:16-17 Heb. 1:10

To me, it makes no sense to try and follow Jesus, if I can never be fully like him.

Okay…… but consider

Those who follow Him have been saved from eternal misery. I’m sure that whatever God has planned for me will be beyond my wildest imaginations. I for one am eternally grateful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe the Bible tells us that God is a different "species" if you will, than humans.(Num. 23:19) (Hosea 11:9)

Yet the Song at the Sea tells us that YHWH is a man of war. Why say man and not god?

Also, in Hosea YHWH says Israel will call him Ishi. What do you think the root of Ishi is?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When reading that God is one, we need to consider what this would have meant in the biblical world.

The following text is most instructive, coming as it does from a pagan source.

"THOU ART the sole one, WHO MADE [ALL] THAT IS,

[The] solitary sole [one], who made what exists,

From whose eyes mankind came forth,

And upon whose mouth the gods came into being."

-Hymn to Amon-Re, Pritchard, Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament (ANET), 3rd ed. with supplement, pg. 366.

So here we have a creator god who at the same time is both the ONLY god and also the creator of other gods.

From the mountain of sunrise to the mountain of sunset,

There is no (other) lord in the land, you alone are king,

Enlil, in all the lands there is no queen, your wife alone is queen.

-Hymn to Enlil as the Ruling Deity of the Universe. ANET, pg. 576.

Moshe Weinfeld, in his book, The Decalogue and the Recitation of "Shema": The Development of the Confessions, points out that all these texts are hymnodal-liturgical, and that the Shema is confessional-liturgical (pg. 128).

On page 130 Weinfeld states that "there appears to be a deep connection between the definition of God as 'one' and the obligation to love him." He provides two passages from the Hebrew Bible which make the connection obvious.

And he said, Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest...

-Genesis 22:2.

Isaac, as you'll recall, was not Abraham's only child.

My dove, my undefiled is but one; she is the only one of her mother, she is the choice one of her that bare her...

-Song of Solomon 6:9.

The lover states in chapter 1 that she has siblings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We use the Bible as far as it is correctly translated.

But i have fantastic news for you God is very much live and He still communicates with us. The Bible is a beautiful sacred work, deep and meaningful, great way to know of God. BUT it is not God, God is more than a book.

Nothing trumps that personal relationship, and we have the advantage of greater understanding than most Christian Churches. We have the Gift of the Holy Ghost and God's prophet on Earth.

I am LDS because God taught me it was the right path, not because the Bible said so. The Bible is the Word of God because God says so.

God and His word are one, Therefore the Bible is God speaking to us, And revealing truth.

We get to know God through the Bible's teachings.

We, Through knowledge , belief and exceptance of the Bible can have a deep relationship with God, In fact if a person doesn't have a relationship with God, They aren't saved.

The Bible teaches the rebirth into the family of God, It teaches that all born again believers can and should have the Holy Ghost and His gifts.

God will only confirm His word, And the Bible is His word.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is something I found on Mormon.org, which I figured was a good resource, and confirmed by a friend of mine.

As God’s first children on earth, Adam and Eve were living in their garden paradise. They didn’t feel any sorrow or pain, which might seem nice, except that without it, they also couldn’t feel joy. They didn’t remember their pre-earth life. If they hadn’t eaten the forbidden fruit, they would have lived like that forever and never had children. Mankind never would have been born or the world populated.

Quoted from: God's Plan of Happiness | Mormon.org

This clearly isn't what the Bible teaches. The Bible tells us in Genesis 2 prior to the fall of man kind. That God commanded Adam & Eve to be fruitful and to multiply.

People fall int error when the move away from the Biblical teachings.

If anything doesn't agree with the Bible, It isn't from God.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People fall int error when the move away from the Biblical teachings.

If anything doesn't agree with the Bible, It isn't from God.

With respect Livingstone, the bible is chock full of errors. I understand the current popularization that God is sovereign therefore the bible must be absolutley correct in every way. However, even the most rudimentary inspection of the book will prove what I am saying. May I suggest that it is interpretation of scripture that has gotten so many people into trouble doctrinally but it is also because the bible is less than clear on so many important issues. The nature of God is the first thing that comes to mind. It bears directly on whether Christ and God the Father are one being or two separate beings.

A little outside reading might be helpful. I suggest Misquoting Jesus by Bart Ehrman. Also, one British writer from Oxford is J G Davies. I think I got his affiliation right. His book The Early Christian Church will help too. Neither writer is LDS. Both are university religion professors and researchers. They are true academics. Both writers will provide an easy to read history of how the bible came to be. Both will explain what the first , second and third century Christian fathers had to day about religious doctrine and how that was changed in the fourth and fifth centuries and in some cases, why.

Edited by jlf9999
Link to comment
Share on other sites

People fall int error when the move away from the Biblical teachings.

If anything doesn't agree with the Bible, It isn't from God.

Whose Biblical Teaching? Because, LDS, Catholics, Protestants, etc... they all use the same Bible yet they teach different things...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whose Biblical Teaching? Because, LDS, Catholics, Protestants, etc... they all use the same Bible yet they teach different things...

I joined this forum to find out what the LDS believe and how they started. So I don't know what they teach, But I know catholics don't teach Biblical truths.

They DO twist the scriptures to try to form their beliefs, Such as purgaory,Praying to Mary, priests giving absolution to name some of their wrong doctrines.

If you say with what the Bible teaches, You can't go wrong

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share