Gaea Posted March 16, 2008 Report Posted March 16, 2008 Why Does The Book Of Abraham need To Quote The Gods If There Is One God. I Know You Speak About The God Head, But Jesus The Christ Is The Son Of God. They Are One And The Same. But I Cant Seem To Get Past The Fact Of Genesis Saying That God Created These Things. But If Right Then Any Times The Bible States Creation Then The Word Gods Should Be Used And Not The Word God. I Believe The Book Of Abraham Is Real, But The Hebrew Bible Must Also Be True, Due To The Facts Of It Saying Gods And Not God Creating. Help me Out Here. Why Dont You State To Yourselves That The book Of Genesis Is Not Correct, Because The Book Of Abraham Is. Should We Be reading The Holy Bible That The Roman Empire Compiled Of The The Old Testament Of The Herbew Bible. I Am Not Completely Sure About The Word Gods Acually Meaning The God Head And Jesus The Christ. I Am Concerned That The Facts Would Say That There Is Only One True God And No More. Please Help Me Out With This, Because I Feel Hurt That Im Writing These Things. Even Though They feel Important To Ask.
MaidservantX Posted March 16, 2008 Report Posted March 16, 2008 . . . just keep asking your questions, and your Father in heaven will show you the answers. Great care should always be taken in reading the King James Version of the Bible. Sometimes you should go deeper into the original language(s) (Hebrew, Greek). I am not an expert in the Hebrew language, but I have heard that the Hebrew word used in the Genesis account should, or at least could, be rendered plural. It is worth exploring that on your own -- what the Hebrew version of Genesis is, and what it tells us. Also, perhaps a key to understanding both Genesis and Abraham could be found in Doctrine & Covenants 121:30-32. By the way, there are many, many things in the scriptures that seem to contradict each other. The trick, for me anyway, is to stop thinking of them as contradictions, and start thinking that "Hey, I'm learning MORE." or "There must be a secret treasure of learning in that!" I am not exactly sure what you are asking in your post. All of the scriptures testify to us that we need a Savior, Jesus Christ; and that we have a Savior, Jesus Christ; and how to come to our Savior. The rest of the information in the scriptures can be based on how much we are spiritually prepared to know, but it will never be more important than the knowledge and power of deliverance of a Savior. The differing creation accounts, whether they say "Gods" or "God" or have other differences -- it is not a matter of whether they are correct or incorrect historically -- because the creation account is not a history. It is a teaching of the gospel. It teaches us the gospel and it teaches us the purpose of our mortal earth life. It doesn't purport to give every historical detail. Happy Seeking, My friend!
WillowTheWhisp Posted March 16, 2008 Report Posted March 16, 2008 In Genesis it actually says 'let us make man in our image' so that implies more than one person in a conversation.Should We Be reading The Holy Bible That The Roman Empire Compiled Of The The Old Testament Of The Herbew Bible.The Bible that we have is nothing more than a collection of writings which were decided upon by men as you so rightly observe, but it's the best we have in that respect and so it makes sense that we do study it. It also makes sense that we have the Book of Mormon as another testament of Jesus Christ and the additional scriptures of the Pearl of Great Price and modern day revelation.As we study what we do have then more is revealed to us.I do not accept the Bible as a finite compilation, and in fact it contains one book which Joseph Smith saidn was not scripture and I've never been able to understand why it is in there (The Song of Solomon)
prisonchaplain Posted March 16, 2008 Report Posted March 16, 2008 Here is a non-LDS perspective on the Genesis passage, related to this question: Q&A. BTW, am I wrong in understanding that the Bible is considered God's Word (as far as it is correctly translated), according the LDS teaching?
WillowTheWhisp Posted March 16, 2008 Report Posted March 16, 2008 Interesting link PC, may I ask you what is meant by "Heavenly Court" to someone non-LDS? To me it would mean something like the Council in Heaven mentioned by Abraham which involved all of us in the pre-existence. The double negative in your question has confused my brain at this time of night here so I'll answer it differently by saying that as far as I am aware LDS teaching is to believe the Bible and accept it as the Word of God - as far as it is translated correctly, meaning that there can be mistakes in there but they are mistakes of man in the translation.
prisonchaplain Posted March 16, 2008 Report Posted March 16, 2008 Willow, Heavenly Court would likely refer to the angels. To clarify my question, I understood that the Bible is part of the LDS open canon of Scripture, but occasionally read posts that cast a shadow of the Bible--as if it is the "runt" of the Scriptures. Sometimes I'm told that the proviso "as far as it is correctly translated," is just a logical statement, and at other times people seem to read into that a good deal of unreliability.
WillowTheWhisp Posted March 16, 2008 Report Posted March 16, 2008 I hadn't thought of that - in a way it is what we believe too until you look at the underlying meaning. I guess we might refer to them as angels too but don't mean the same thing. To you are angels separate beings to us? To me they are pre-mortal souls or the spirits of the deceased or resurrected beings like Moroni.Well given that we study the Old Testament for a year in our Sunday School, Seminary and Institute classes and then the New Testament for another year I think the Church holds the Bible in very high regard (we study the Book of Mormon for a year too). It saddens me to think that any church member regards it as something inferior.
Elgama Posted March 16, 2008 Report Posted March 16, 2008 Willow, Heavenly Court would likely refer to the angels. To clarify my question, I understood that the Bible is part of the LDS open canon of Scripture, but occasionally read posts that cast a shadow of the Bible--as if it is the "runt" of the Scriptures. Sometimes I'm told that the proviso "as far as it is correctly translated," is just a logical statement, and at other times people seem to read into that a good deal of unreliability.My own view is the bible is sacred having been to the temple it makes sense to me like never before - I don't think the Book of Mormon or the Temple make sense without the Bible or vice versa we need it as much. If a Latter Day Saint feels it inferior they are missing out on a lot our faith has to offer in terms of understanding.-Charley
utcowboy Posted March 17, 2008 Report Posted March 17, 2008 The cross references between the Bible and all other scripture should point out to anyone, LDS or not, that we read, use and study each to get a better understanding of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. I've looked back into several older copies of the scriptures and I have to say that I am glad to be living in this day and age. If I had to search the scriptures for all of the cross references when preparing a lesson, weeehh* I don't know if I could do it. The Bible and the lessons in the Bible are just as important today as they were when they were first writen down. Its a shame that so many people think that these lessons are antquited and no longer important. Just my thoughts....
Dale Posted March 17, 2008 Report Posted March 17, 2008 The Father and Son are the one God. If they are more than one distinct modern person its more precise to call them Gods not God. The New Testament idea of God expanded on the idea of one God to include one God the Father and one Lord Jesus.(1 Cor. 8) These were still supposed to be one God, but can't be without a little latin word. Those who wrote the creeds did not want to confess the three persons of God were Gods. So what they did was compare the persons of God to the mere roles of an actor in a play. That way they could hold they was only one God, and persons at the same time without contradiction.Some of the gods idea comes from the "let us make man in our image" language in Genisis 1:26,27. I have seen attempts to explain that away as merely plurals of majesty. Other arguments is that God is talking to the angelic host. But if Jesus is with God why can't he be talking to the Son? (John 1:1) Eloheim in Genisis 1:1 can be translated Gods, but its thought to be improper. But once its admitted God and Christ are admitted distinct persons you can still call them Gods. Even if Christ is a God under the supreme Deity he is still a God. Any lesser Gods can be called Gods also.In The Book of Abraham God the Father is supreme Deity. (Abraham 3) Jesus would be the agent of God in creation. And the other gods meaning the angelic host help him to create. So God creates via his agents. Abraham 3-4) They are called Gods, but are not before or after God as Gods. The question is whether the gods helped create in Genisis 1? Only if you hold the plural of majesty explanation can you says God is not talking to Gods. If you hold God is talking to the angels its hard to escape the conclusion they are called gods. Genisis 3:22, "the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil:" One of us what? Gods including God are called "gods" in Genisis 3:5) The Lord does not disagree with Satan's use of the term "gods" one 3:22 is taken into account.A Jewish apologetic article destroys the plurals of majesty argument. The Gods and gods created people need to get over it. Unless once wishes to argue the angels did nothing, but listen to God give a speech. Outreach Judaism - responds directly to the issues raised by missionaries and cults. Responds to Jews For Jesus
Recommended Posts