The Nature of God

[Guest Leeanntheonetwo]

Tell them ‘I AM’ has sent you

This is what Leeann said; I think I see what you’re saying Skalenfehl , our Mormon beliefs are based upon the bible only if they agree with the book of Mormon. Please correct me if I am wrong, but are we not then just picking and choosing what we want to believe? I mean does God change His mind on what is true from one day to the next like man does?

For I know that God is not a partial God, neither a changeable being; but he is unchangeable from all eternity to all eternity. (Moroni 8:18)

But thou art the same yesterday, today, and forever; and thou hast elected us that we shall be saved, whilst all around us are elected to be cast by thy wrath down to hell; for the which holiness, O God, we thank thee; and we also thank thee that thou hast elected us, that we may not be led away after the foolish traditions of our brethren, which doth bind them down to a belief of Christ, which doth lead their hearts to wander far from thee, our God. (Alma 31:17)

Now let us look at what the bible says about God’s unchangeable word.

I believe the Bible literally. So when it says God is the same yesterday, today and forever, I believe it. Let’s look at the bible and compare what we read in the Book of Mormon. Let just see if they agree or not.

Let us read from Hebrews 13:8

V8 “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever.

Jesus is God and He said so in John 8:58

V58 “Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you before Abraham was, I AM.”

Who was it that spoke to Moses when He said; “Tell them that I AM that IAM sent you”? It was God.”

So if Jesus teachings are different from the Book of Mormon then I have a problem with that. The question that immediately comes to mind is this; is the bible that we have today copied from the original manuscripts. I am talking about the time when the disciples were on this earth. What if these discrepancies that we find in the bible are in the original manuscripts?

This is what Willow The Whisp said; What Jesus actually said was that he was the I AM of the Old Testament. The I AM of the Old Testament, the God of the Old Testament was referred to by the name of Yahweh or Jehovah. This is in line with Latter-day Saint doctrine which teaches that Jehovah/Yahweh was the pre-existance name of Jesus. He only took on the name of Jesus when he was born in Bethlehem. When the New Testament tells us that nothing was made except things that were made by Jesus Christ it is nit contradicting the Old Testament which says all things were made by Jehovah because Jesus is the same person as Jehovah. Jehovah was not Heavenly Father.

I think this is where the confusion arises about Jesus being the same person as Heavenly Father.

Ok sister I hear you and that’s what I have been taught too. But I think we have inadvertently discovered our first discrepancy. Jesus says in John 8:58 “Most assuredly, I say to you before Abraham was, I AM.”

Jesus himself makes the claim that He is the Great I AM. Even before Abraham was even born. Nowhere in the bible does it say that Jesus claimed to be the I AM of the old Testament. I can’t find this teaching in the book of Mormon either. The facts are, at the time Moses visited God in Exodus 3:14 God told him that; “I AM THE ONE WHO ALWAYS IS.

Exodus 3:14; “God replied, “I AM THE ONE WHO ALWAYS IS. Just tell them I AM has sent me to you.

Now let us read what the Great I AM told Moses one more time.

V13 “But Moses protested, “If I go t the people of Israel and tell them, “The God of your ancestors has sent me to you, ‘they won’t believe me. They will ask, ‘Which god are you talking about? What is his name? Then what should I tell them?”

V14 “God replied, “I AM THE ONE WHO ALWAYS IS. Just tell them I AM has sent me to you

.

V15 “God also said, “Tell them, “The LORD, the God of your ancestors---the God of Abraham,

V16 “Now go and call together all the leaders of Israel. Tell them, “The LORD, the God of your ancestors---the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob---has sent me to you.” “This will be my name forever; it has all ways been my name and it will be used throughout all generations.

God told Moses that He is; the LORD, the God of your ancestors and this will be my name forever and not only that it has always been His name. Now go back and read where Jesus says before Abraham was, I AM.

I submit to you my dear brothers and sisters and x that Jesus’ name before He came to earth was I AM. And just like Exodus 3:16 says; “This will be my name forever; it has all ways been my name and it will be used throughout all generations.”

One more time for the record;

Jesus is God and He said so in John 8:58

V58 “Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you before Abraham was, I AM.”

Lovem peace and joy to all,

Leeann

[skalenfehl]

I'm having a hard time distinguishing if you're quoting a previous post or separating your thoughts, Leeann. We don't claim to believe just one or two verses conveniently. I've been saying all along that Jesus is Jehovah, the "I Am", the Alpha and Omega, the Holy one of Israel, etc.

What I am further saying is that according to our doctrine, Jesus, who is Jehovah, also has a Father in Heaven, which is who Jesus prayed to when he taught the Jews to pray in the Sermon on the Mount, for example. This is where xanmad and we part in our interpretations. When we pray, we pray to Father in Heaven in the name of His son, Jesus Christ. Does that make sense now?

Edit: Jehovah is not Heavenly Father. When Christ prayed, He said, "Our Father who art in heaven, hallowed be thy name, etc." He was addressing Heavenly Father, not Himself. This is our doctrine.

[xanmad33]

Skalen, I'm trying to make sense here if you can enlighten me...

Scripture's are the words from prophets correct?

So by Mormon definition, scriptures are the written words of God -as given through the prophets..isn't it illogical to try to put one above the other?

[skalenfehl]

Skalen, I'm trying to make sense here if you can enlighten me...

Scripture's are the words from prophets correct?

Since by Mormon definition, scriptures are the written words of God -as given through the prophets..isn't it illogical to try to put one above the other?

When holy men of God (elders of the church, apostles, prophets, etc) write or speak by the power of the Holy Ghost, their words "shall be scripture, shall be the will of the Lord, shall be the mind of the Lord, shall be the word of the Lord, shall be the voice of the Lord, and the power of God unto salvation" (D&C 68:4). In other words, the spirit of prophecy is from the Lord and will never deviate from truth. If a man is filled with and moved upon by the Spirit, then he will never utter anything contrary to God's truth.

The official, canonized scriptures of our church, often called the standard works, are the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price.

I can understand what you mean by putting one above another because Joseph Smith did claim that "a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts than by any other book."

It is because the Book of Mormon is the "keystone" of our religion.

The Book of Mormon is a keystone because it establishes and ties together eternal principles and precepts, rounding out basic doctrines of salvation. It is the crowning gem in the diadem of our holy scriptures.

It is a keystone for other reasons also. In the promise of Moroni previously referred to—namely, that God will manifest the truth of the Book of Mormon to every sincere inquirer having faith in Christ —we have a key link in a self-locking chain.

A confirming testimony of the Book of Mormon convinces “that Jesus is the Christ, the Eternal God” and also spiritually verifies the divine calling of Joseph Smith and that he did see the Father and the Son. With that firmly in place, it logically follows that one can also receive a verification that the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price are true companion scriptures to the Bible and the Book of Mormon.

All of this confirms the Restoration of the gospel of Jesus Christ and the divine mission of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, led by a living prophet enjoying continuous revelation. From these basic verities, an understanding can flow of other saving principles of the fulness of the gospel.

We can only get so far with the Bible. As I've mentioned before, the Bible alone cannot prove that God lives or that Jesus existed. It cannot baptize us or give us the authority to act in God's name, etc. By praying about the Bible, we can receive personal revelation that Christ did indeed walk the Earth and that He lives. He is our Redeemer. But by likewise praying about the Book of Mormon, we can receive personal revelation that there was indeed an apostacy and a restoration. And that like Isaiah, and Ezekiel and Peter and Paul, likewise was Joseph Smith a prophet and that today we have a restoration and a fullness of the gospel.

So you can see, by knowing about the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon one can know the truthfulness of our Church and have a hope of exaltation and eternal joy with our Father in Heaven as is our doctrine as opposed to not knowing what happens to us in eternity, as you mentioned in a previous post. I hope this makes sense.

[xanmad33]

Thanks Skalen, it makes sense... I disagree with the Bible part but I can see your beliefs

[xanmad33]

Back to the Nature of God for a sec... I have another quest... since you love Isaiah

Isaiah 44:6,8 says that there is no God beside the God of the Bible and that this God does not know of any other gods.

Consider what that says...If that is Jesus (Jehovah) speaking—as attested to by Mormon Apostle Bruce McConkie (The Promised Messiah, p.312)—does that mean Jesus does not know His own Father? I don't understand that?

[skalenfehl]

You're very welcome.

[skalenfehl]

Back to the Nature of God for a sec... I have another quest... since you love Isaiah

Isaiah 44:6,8 says that there is no God beside the God of the Bible and that this God does not know of any other gods.

Consider what that says...If that is Jesus (Jehovah) speaking—as attested to by Mormon Apostle Bruce McConkie (The Promised Messiah, p.312)—does that mean Jesus does not know His own Father? I don't understand that?

Those wonderful Israelites, bless their hearts. They just loved worshiping idols and making graven images as we read very often throughout the Old Testament. Verse 9 makes that very clear. No other god or graven image or idol ever had any power. They were non existent except in the vain hearts of the people of Israel. Hence the LORD saying there was no other God.

And of course Jesus (Jehovah) knew His Father. He prayed to Him often in the New Testament and with Him appeared before Steffen and much later to Joseph Smith. Of course this is where we differ.

[xanmad33]

Those wonderful Israelites, bless their hearts. They just loved worshiping idols and making graven images as we read very often throughout the Old Testament. Verse 9 makes that very clear. No other god or graven image or idol ever had any power. They were non existent except in the vain hearts of the people of Israel. Hence the LORD saying there was no other God.

Isaiah 44:6

This is what the LORD says—

Israel's King and Redeemer, the LORD Almighty:

I am the first and I am the last;

apart from me there is no God.

Skalen, if you believe there is another god apart from Jehovah, why would God not aknowledge that here? This is an absolute statement.

And of course Jesus (Jehovah) knew His Father. He prayed to Him often in the New Testament and with Him appeared before Steffen and much later to Joseph Smith. Of course this is where we differ.

The Bible defines prayer as flesh praying to deity ie: the flesh part of Jesus' humanity was praying to the divine that is in him and also in Heaven because it is onipresent

[skalenfehl]

Isaiah 44:6

This is what the LORD says—

Israel's King and Redeemer, the LORD Almighty:

I am the first and I am the last;

apart from me there is no God.

Skalen, if you believe there is another god apart from Jehovah, why would God not aknowledge that here? This is an absolute statement.

I know what you're saying, but I don't subscribe to that interpretation, but rather the explanation that I gave you previously.

[a-train]

Fist of all I think we need to start by aknowledging that God cannot ever be put into some box of human rationalle. Any intellectual argument could not ever define him. If any argument could put him into complete understanding in that box in our mind, then he wouldn't be God.

Then how is it that human intellect is justified in saying God does not have a body of flesh and bone? The Bible does not say so. The whole notion rests on human logic alone. There is in fact verses that say He has a body of flesh and bone. They have already been noted.

You are avoiding the quesiton. Can you demonstrate that Joseph Smith's interpretation was wrong? Did Jesus do things that He did NOT see the Father do? Did Jesus alone suffer death and resurrection without seeing the Father do it?

God has physically manifested himself or made himself visible to us in a physical way even though he is spirit. It doesn't negate or cancel his spirit.

Exactly, then why do you insist that God has no body of flesh and bone?

This is the mystery...God is singular...It all began with him. He is the only God... But as a singular God he is also a plural God.

Then why do the Mormons not get to believe that?

It's not either or it's both. That goes beyond any human rationalle, we cannot comprehend that.

It seems easy enough for me. The Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are one God. It is the unscriptural embelishment of man-made logic that gets confusing.

there are many things I could say about Joseph Smiths claims being unbiblical, Insinuating God was once a man etc.

And you've already said much. But if it is a sin to accept a revelation from God not found in the Bible, why is it proper to accept the unbiblical notion that God has no physical body?

-a-train

[a-train]

Isaiah 44:6 concerns the Godhead as a whole. The Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are One. The tetragrammaton can be applied to the Godhead as a whole. Chapter 53 contains language that if rigidly interpreted would demonstrate that Jesus is NOT Jehovah. Verse 6, for instance, says: 'the LORD [Jehovah] hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.'

Further, if we are to so rigidly interpret statements in Isaiah that the LORD is God and there is no God beside him, to mean that there literally exists no being whatsoever that can be considered a god in any way, then we must also do the same for the term saviour. Many instances in Isaiah proclaim that there is no saviour beside the LORD.

Such a rigid interpretation would not only defy logic, but the scriptures themselves, such as Obad. 1:21: 'And saviours shall come up on mount Zion to judge the mount of Esau; and the kingdom shall be the Lord’s.'

Duet. 10:17 says: 'For the Lord your God is God of gods, and Lord of lords, a great God, a mighty, and a terrible..' Nobody claims He is the only lord whatsoever. But certainly he is the Lord of lords. Why is it that we must rigidly claim there is no being of the same species or of a similar type to our God? If we are indeed His offspring as proclaimed by Paul, are we not His species?

-a-train

[xanmad33]

Then how is it that human intellect is justified in saying God does not have a body of flesh and bone? The Bible does not say so. The whole notion rests on human logic alone. There is in fact verses that say He has a body of flesh and bone. They have already been noted.

And they have been refuted.

Here it is further clarified; taken from "the oneness of God":

In other words, the Bible describes infinite God in finite, human terms in order that we may better comprehend Him. For example, the heart of God denotes His intellect and His emotions, not a blood-pumping organ (Genesis 6:6; 8:21). When God said heaven was His throne and earth was His footstool, He described His omnipresence, not a pair of literal feet propped up on the globe (Isaiah 66:1). When God said His right hand spanned the heavens, He described His great power and not a large hand stretching through the atmosphere (Isaiah 48:13). "The eyes of the LORD are in every place" does not mean that God has physical eyes in every location but indicates His omnipresence and omniscience (Proverbs 15:3). When Jesus cast devils out by the finger of God, He did not pull down a giant finger from heaven, but He exercised the power of God (Luke 11:20). The blast of God's nostrils was not literal particles emitted by giant heavenly nostrils, but the strong east wind sent by God to part the Red Sea (Exodus 15:8; 14:21). In fact, literal interpretation of all the visions and physical descriptions of God would lead to the belief that God has wings (Psalm 91:4). In short, we believe God as a Spirit does not have a body unless He chooses to manifest Himself in a bodily form, which He did in the person of Jesus Christ. (See Chapter 4 - JESUS IS GOD.)

Some say that in the Old Testament God had a spirit body visible to other spirit beings such as angels. They raise this hypothesis because human spirits seem to have a recognizable form visible to other spirits (Luke 16:22-31) and because some passages indicate the angels and Satan could see a visible manifestation of God in the Old Testament (I Kings 22:19-22; Job 1:6). However, God did not need a spirit body to do this because He could have manifested Himself at various times to other spirits just as He did to man. One key verse of Scripture implies that ordinarily God is not visible even to spirit beings unless He chooses to manifest Himself in some way: "God was manifest in the flesh… seen of angels" (I Timothy 3:16). At the least, if God did have some type of spirit body He certainly was not confined to it like other spirit beings are confined to their bodies; for then He would not be truly omnipresent. For example, God's omnipresence means He could have appeared simultaneously to men on earth and to angels in heaven. Also, we must realize that in New Testament times God has chosen to reveal Himself fully through Jesus Christ (Colossians 2:9). There is no possibility of separating God and Jesus, and there is no God visible outside of Jesus. "

You are avoiding the quesiton. Can you demonstrate that Joseph Smith's interpretation was wrong? Did Jesus do things that He did NOT see the Father do? Did Jesus alone suffer death and resurrection without seeing the Father do it?

I believe I have answered you in many posts already, it seems to me this argument is picking and chosing what fits and ignoring the rest..but I digress....

How about a question.. In Alma 11:26-29 Amulek tells Zeezrom that there is only one "true and living God." If that is true, which of the three Gods in the Mormon godhead is not true and/or living?

Also how about looking at the very definition of "OMNIPOTENCE" :

The word "omni" means "all" and "potent" means "powerful." If two or more beings had the ability to have "all" power, the different powers would cancel each other out and therefore render the word meaningless.

Exactly, then why do you insist that God has no body of flesh and bone?

Just because he choses to manifest himself in different ways like a bush, or a mountain or Jesus even, does not in ANY was negate his omnipresence.

Then why do the Mormons not get to believe that?

That is not what Mormons believe.

Mormons believe that there are 3 DISTINCT PERSONAGES that make up the godhead.

I have CLEARLY outlined our differing doctrines on that in MANY ways in previous posts.

"Heavenly Father. Also referred to as God the Father or Elohim, a created being who was originally a mortal man and became God at a certain point in time (The Gospel Through the Ages, p. 104). God is the offspring of another god who was also once a man, ad infinitum (The Seer, p. 132). Heavenly Father is but one of many gods. "

It seems easy enough for me. The Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are one God. It is the unscriptural embelishment of man-made logic that gets confusing.

Instead of making these accusations, why dont you prove it scripturally?

And you've already said much. But if it is a sin to accept a revelation from God not found in the Bible, why is it proper to accept the unbiblical notion that God has no physical body?

-a-train

Give me the scriptures that say that God has a body of flesh and bone in heaven

[xanmad33]

Isaiah 44:6 concerns the Godhead as a whole. The Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are One. The tetragrammaton can be applied to the Godhead as a whole. Chapter 53 contains language that if rigidly interpreted would demonstrate that Jesus is NOT Jehovah. Verse 6, for instance, says: 'the LORD [Jehovah] hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.'

Further, if we are to so rigidly interpret statements in Isaiah that the LORD is God and there is no God beside him, to mean that there literally exists no being whatsoever that can be considered a god in any way, then we must also do the same for the term saviour. Many instances in Isaiah proclaim that there is no saviour beside the LORD.

Such a rigid interpretation would not only defy logic, but the scriptures themselves, such as Obad. 1:21: 'And saviours shall come up on mount Zion to judge the mount of Esau; and the kingdom shall be the Lord’s.'

Duet. 10:17 says: 'For the Lord your God is God of gods, and Lord of lords, a great God, a mighty, and a terrible..' Nobody claims He is the only lord whatsoever. But certainly he is the Lord of lords. Why is it that we must rigidly claim there is no being of the same species or of a similar type to our God? If we are indeed His offspring as proclaimed by Paul, are we not His species?

-a-train

How about we start by considering context and how about we also consider the FULL weight of scripture? That way there is no need for "rigid" dogmatic arguments...

We are his creation.

He created us out of NOTHING ....

and I quote:

"Joseph Smith taught that matter is eternal and God had no power to create out of nothing. God reorganized already present elements, which have no beginning or end and cannot be destroyed (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pp. 350-352). “Since Mormons believe that the elements are eternal, it follows that they deny the ex nihilo creation” (Encyclopedia of Mormonism 1:400).

In Christianity, since there are no actualities that are coeternal with God, it is understood that God created all things "ex-nihilo," or out of nothing. God made the world without any use of pre-existent materials. God is the primary cause of all things (Psalm 33:6; John 1:3; Romans 4:17; Hebrews 11:3). "

In the morning I will go over each verse IN CONTEXT for you A-train, gnight!

peace and blessings

[Dale]

Xan-This link might interest you The Mormon Defense

[ztodd]

Wow, you all do a lot of debating here. Took me a while to read through all that. :) There was one thing you said that I wanted to ask about though. Forgive me if you've addressed it, but I didn't find it anywhere.

The Bible tells us our hearts are deceptive, and we cannot rely on our "feelings"

Then how do you know the bible is true?

What about all those other religions? They all claim divine revelation too

Do they? In my experience, most other christian religions don't claim divine revelation, but just claim that it doesn't matter which church you go to as long as you follow Jesus Christ and the bible. Does your church claim divine revelation?

Most of all, I just want to know how you have such a strong faith in the bible if you can't rely on your feelings. It's circular reasoning to say that you believe the bible is true because the bible says it is. You must rely on your feeling that it is true, don't you?

As for your concerns about how folks in other religions will pray and seem to get conflicting answers- the reasons could vary... part of it I'm sure is that people are at different spiritual levels in their life and are prepared for different things.

But most of all, I just want to know how you have such a strong faith in the bible if you can't rely on your feelings. :)

[xanmad33]

Wow, you all do a lot of debating here. Took me a while to read through all that. :) There was one thing you said that I wanted to ask about though. Forgive me if you've addressed it, but I didn't find it anywhere.

Then how do you know the bible is true?

There is much evidence of the reliability of the Bible, I will not go into it all here, but here is a taste taken from an article on the matter:

"

About prophesy: One of the strongest arguments for the accuracy of the Bible is its 100% accuracy in predicting the future. These future predictions are called “prophecies.” The Old Testament was written between approximately 1450 BC and 430 BC. During that time, many predictions of the future were recorded in the Bible by God’s prophets. Of the events that were to have taken place by now, every one happened just the way they predicted it would. No other “sacred writing” has such perfectly accurate predictions of the future.

about Jesus: Jesus gave sight to the blind, made the lame walk, cured those who had leprosy, gave the deaf hearing, and raised people from the dead! These miracles and others were done many times in front of thousands of witnesses for three years. About 30 AD, Jesus was crucified (a prophecy) and died (a prophecy). Three days later he rose from the dead (another prophecy), after which He was seen by over 500 witnesses. Since these prophecies were written down at least 400 years before they happened, there is no doubt that the Bible’s writers were inspired supernaturally—by God

The proof of textual evidence:Both the Old and New Testaments are strongly supported by manuscript evidence (the evidence of early hand written copies). The famous Dead Sea Scrolls are one example of the Old Testament evidence. These documents came from the “library” of a settlement founded at Qumran before 150 B.C. and abandoned about 68 A.D. Some of the manuscript copies were made during that period, and some were written earlier (third century BC) and brought to the settlement. Ignoring spelling-oriented (orthographic) changes and similar small differences, the Dead Sea Scrolls match the Hebrew text behind today’s Old Testament, in spite of the passage of over 2,000 years (where one would expect errors to creep in).

Over 20,000 known manuscripts document the New Testament text. This makes the New Testament the most reliable document of antiquity (a document written before the printing press). These manuscripts vary in size from a part of a page to an entire Bible (Old and New Testaments). The earliest New Testament manuscripts date from the second century (100-199) AD These manuscript copies were written in different languages by people of different nationalities, cultures, and backgrounds. In spite of all those differences between them, the New Testament texts all agree. (That is, those differences that we do observe between these hand written documents are occasional changes in the spelling of names or isolated cases of missing or changed words. Still, since we have so many copies, it is obvious to anyone but the hardened skeptic can that they all represent the same tex

Special proof exists for the New Testament, since Christians were strongly persecuted by both the Jews and the Roman government. If the New Testament writings were false, these two groups would have produced a great deal of evidence to stop the growth of this “sect.” None exists. Further, the New Testament writings (before they were assembled into the “book” we call the New Testament) circulated during the lifetimes of thousands of people who had actually seen Jesus’ miracles and other historic events. No one ever refuted the New Testament writings as “fairy tales.”

Scientific*** Dinosaurs are referred to in several Bible books. The book of Job describes two dinosaurs. One is described in chapter 40 starting at verse 15, and the other in chapter 41 starting at verse 1

***The Bible also teaches that each star is unique:

1 Corinthians 15:41

There is one glory of the sun, another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for one star differs from another star in glory.

All stars look alike to the naked eye.* Even when seen through a telescope, they seem to be just points of light. However, analysis of their light spectra reveals that each is unique and different from all others. (*Note: We understand that people can perceive some slight difference in color and apparent brightness when looking at stars with the naked eye, but we would not expect a person living in the first century A.D. to claim they differ from one another.)

***The Bible describes the precision of movement in the universe:

Jeremiah 31:35,36

Thus says the LORD,

Who gives the sun for a light by day,

The ordinances of the moon and the stars for a light by night,

Who disturbs the sea,

And its waves roar

(The LORD of hosts is His name):

“If those ordinances depart

From before Me, says the LORD,

Then the seed of Israel shall also cease

From being a nation before Me forever.”

***The Bible describes the suspension of the Earth in space:

Job 26:7

He stretches out the north over empty space;

He hangs the earth on nothing.

*** Statements Consistent With Meteorology

The Bible describes the circulation of the atmosphere:

Ecclesiastes 1:6

The wind goes toward the south,

And turns around to the north;

The wind whirls about continually,

And comes again on its circuit.

***The Bible includes some principles of fluid dynamics:

Job 28:25

To establish a weight for the wind,

And apportion the waters by measure.

The fact that air has weight was proven scientifically only about 300 years ago. The relative weights of air and water are needed for the efficient functioning of the world’s hydrologic cycle, which in turn sustains life on the earth.

***The book of Leviticus (written prior to 1400 BC) describes the value of blood:

Leviticus 17:11

‘For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that makes atonement for the soul.’

The blood carries water and nourishment to every cell, maintains the body’s temperature, and removes the waste material of the body’s cells. The blood also carries oxygen from the lungs throughout the body. In 1616, William Harvey discovered that blood circulation is the key factor in physical life—confirming what the Bible revealed 3,000 years earlier.

***The Bible describes biogenesis (the development of living organisms from other living organisms) and the stability of each kind of living organism:

Genesis 1:11,12

Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb that yields seed, and the fruit tree that yields fruit according to its kind, whose seed is in itself, on the earth”; and it was so. And the earth brought forth grass, the herb that yields seed according to its kind, and the tree that yields fruit, whose seed is in itself according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.

Genesis 1:21

So God created great sea creatures and every living thing that moves, with which the waters abounded, according to their kind, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.

Genesis 1:25

And God made the beast of the earth according to its kind, cattle according to its kind, and everything that creeps on the earth according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.

***We have cave paintings and other evidence that people inhabited caves. The Bible also describes cave men.

Job 30:5,6

They were driven out from among men,

They shouted at them as at a thief.

They had to live in the clefts of the valleys,

In caves of the earth and the rocks.

Note that these were not ape-men, but descendants of those who scattered from Babel. They were driven from the community by those tribes who competed successfully for the more desirable regions of the earth. Then for some reason they deteriorated mentally, physically, and spiritually. (Go into a bad part of your town and you will see this concept in action today.)

***Geology:The Bible describes the Earth’s crust (along with a comment on astronomy).

Jeremiah 31:37

Thus says the LORD:

“If heaven above can be measured,

And the foundations of the earth searched out beneath,

I will also cast off all the seed of Israel

For all that they have done, says the LORD.”

Although some scientists claim that they have now measured the size of the universe, it is interesting to note that every human attempt to drill through the earth’s crust to the plastic mantle beneath has, thus far, ended in failure.[1]

The Bible described the shape of the earth centuries before people thought that the earth was spherical.

Isaiah 40:22

It is He who sits above the circle of the earth,

And its inhabitants are like grasshoppers,

Who stretches out the heavens like a curtain,

And spreads them out like a tent to dwell in.

The book of Isaiah was written sometime between 740 and 680 BC. This is at least 300 years before Aristotle suggested that the earth might be a sphere in this book On the Heavens

I think you get the point, the belief in the BIble is more than blind faith.

It rings of authenticity and revelation only a divine hand could have placed there.

[xanmad33]

Do they? In my experience, most other christian religions don't claim divine revelation, but just claim that it doesn't matter which church you go to as long as you follow Jesus Christ and the bible. Does your church claim divine revelation?

I never claimed Christians did.

I claimed that many other religions did

Islam

Jehova's whitnesses

Toronto Blessing Movement..etc..etc...

Divine revelation CAN happen, but where is the test to see if in fact you are hearing from God?

Manson said he was hearing from God... Likewise many sane people who did not conspire murder also claim this...Hiow do we know who the real God is with such a sea of claims to divine personal revelation...

Most of all, I just want to know how you have such a strong faith in the bible if you can't rely on your feelings. It's circular reasoning to say that you believe the bible is true because the bible says it is. You must rely on your feeling that it is true, don't you?

There are many reasons one can have such strong faith in the Bible, I illistrated a few above. There are some pretty powerful evidences! The simple fact is, the only thing debated about the Bible is if it is the divinely inspired Word of God which it claims to be, this belief requires faith. Faith for me is more than a subjective "feeling". Faith can also be defined as "belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing."

3. a. Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices: an objective critic. b. Based on observable phenomena; presented factually: an objective appraisal.

I believe the Bible is worthy of my faith as it has repeatedly demonstrated it's complete trustworthiness in all matters.

After all the evidence is laid out at the end of the day, the faith required to believe in the Bible is not hard to come by.

Joseph Smith believed it, and it's considered doctrine for Mormons, so obviously you believe it too

[Guest tomk]

What doctrine, in the Book of Mormon, you LIKE?

[ztodd]

I never claimed Christians did.

I claimed that many other religions did

Islam

Jehova's whitnesses

Toronto Blessing Movement..etc..etc...

That's cool if they do claim divine revelation, but as far as I know, the Church of Jesus Christ of LDS is pretty much singular in it's specific claim that God, Jesus and angels actually came down to earth in modern times and appeared to someone to instruct him how to build up God's church. I don't know a lot about other religions, so correct me if I'm wrong.

Divine revelation CAN happen, but where is the test to see if in fact you are hearing from God?

Manson said he was hearing from God... Likewise many sane people who did not conspire murder also claim this...Hiow do we know who the real God is with such a sea of claims to divine personal revelation...

That's the question to be asking then...

There are many reasons one can have such strong faith in the Bible, I illistrated a few above. There are some pretty powerful evidences!

That's wonderful that people will look for these scientific/historic evidences to help support their faith. But why did they look for these evidences in the first place? They must have first had "blind" faith and then decided to go look for evidences to support it.

Now the problem with putting aside your faith entirely and relying completely on these evidences, is that there will be many who will come back at you with their own evidences to refute you. They might find some way to discredit your evidences.

So is the truth of the bible really up to which side finds the best evidence? Or is it possible for you to find a faith you can trust in despite what all the critics say? What if the critics found enough evidence to seemingly disprove the bible- or poked enough holes in your evidence supporting it? Would that shatter your faith? Or is it possible for you to base your faith on something else?

I submit to you that if you spend all your days researching the scientific and historical evidence of the bible in order to keep your faith, in the end you'll realize that you could had a more sure spiritual witness, and you could have been spending your time going on to learn the more important spiritual truths that God would have us to learn, without having to worry about having enough good scientific or historical evidence.

I believe the Bible is worthy of my faith as it has repeatedly demonstrated it's complete trustworthiness in all matters.

That's wonderful- I don't fault you for that one bit. But I just wish you could know that it is possible for you to also gain a spiritual witness by the power of the Holy Ghost.

After all the evidence is laid out at the end of the day, the faith required to believe in the Bible is not hard to come by.

But you must still choose to believe in that evidence rather than in the evidence put forth by the critics.

Joseph Smith believed it, and it's considered doctrine for Mormons, so obviously you believe it too

I sure do. But not based solely on history and science. Don't get me wrong- I'm always glad to learn more of what science and history have to teach us.

If you're worried about possibly being deceived by false spirits, then seek to study the workings of the spirit, and to gain experience with them- the fruits of the spirit are love, joy, peace, goodness. I submit to you that if someone honestly follows after such feelings, seeking to do the will of God and not their own will, they will not go wrong. But there are also levels of "rightness" - levels of truth if you will... all of us are at a different level, and are prepared to be led by God to certain things. Truth is a spectrum. God will lead us toward the good end. The devil will lead us toward the bad. There are many good churches, and people might need to be led from church to church until they find the one that has the most truth, that will benefit them the most.

How does this all feel to you? Do you think it's possible it could be true?

[Traveler]

How do you know your praying to the true God when you pray the prayer in Moroni?

If you are NOT praying to the one true God, then who are you praying to?

For such [are] false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.

2 Corinthians 11:13-14 (KJV)

How is Satan transformed into an angel of light?

Because he uses partial truth to fool us.

All Christians must keep in mind that any prayers offered to anyone or anything other than God, constitute prayers and / or worship to demons. It opens the way for evil spirits to have access to that place or person. This is Biblical, look it up.

I am sorry that I do not have the time that others have for the internet.

How does one know the one true G-d? The Pharisees, Scribes and Jews that rejected Christ argued that they knew G-d from the Scriptures. Jesus taught that those that know G-d “do the deeds of G-d” and love those that G-d sends to testify. (see John 8) Those that testify of G-d and do not keep the commandments are lying. One last point here with another reference to John 8 – what did Jesus say was the most important indication of someone praying to the wrong G-d? (see verse 44) Now I ask you – what did the traditional Trinitarian Christians do to anyone that did not agree with their Trinitarian doctrine? When in history was a law (first recorded) finely passed that prevented a sentence of death to someone that did not believe in the Trinity? I do not think you have researched of thought much on this subject.

lol, no Traveler, I do not worship scripture, but I do see the importance of bringing all "prophets" that preach another gospel back into it's light.

If Jesus indicated that scriptures testify of him and that he is the truth, dont you think it would then be reliable to learn about him from them?

Why would Jesus tell us to look to scripture to learn about him if we could not do so?

I agree that the scriptures are not the source of truth, but that Gods spirit living in it is.

God is the source of the truth we find in scripture.

I personally believe I have done a very good job of showing that to you T, and of warning you of the importance of seeking a Biblical understanding before another book.

I believe that someone worships that to which they look toward as a source or the source of truth. I do not put much in what a person says – it is what they do that tells me what they believe and worship (again see John chapter 8). If scripture (the Bible) is your religious authority and source of your truth then that is your G-d. Jesus said that many would make claim to his name but he never knew them. Where would they learn of his name and claim to do things in his name if it was not from the scriptures – but (for example) if they would hold the scriptures of more value than praying to him to know what religion he would have us follow – he would not know them. I want to make it very clear why I do not believe in your witness.

Now do you know that the Nestorian Christians of “The East” have a scripture that they believe was written by the very hand of Jesus? Do you know that the document has been tested and found to come from the area of Jerusalem at the time of Jesus? But since it is not in the Bible is this “another gospel” that you would reject. And how do you know that it was not written by Jesus? Or how are you to know if it was?

I do not think you understand the meaning of an unchanging G-d. Therefore, I ask you:

• Was the manifestation of Jesus in the flesh a change in how G-d had manifested himself in the Old Testament?
• Did Jesus change from a baby to a boy and then again from a boy to a man? Do you not count this as change?
• Did Jesus die? Is death a change from life?
• Did the resurrection of Jesus from the dead really happen? Is the resurrection count as a change?

Why is it called the "theory" rather than fact of evolution? Ilbeit that it may be the best explanation scientifically as of yet, but it is still a theory at best.

Refer back to your latest biology book for clarification, I just looked at mine.

My problem with evolution has nothing to do with this discussion, I only spoke of it because you said that God was truth in evolution, and I was telling you no, God does not change.

I understood your reference to God and evolution as comparative of there nature?

Gravity is also called a theory so is electrical magnetism called a theory. I guess since it is just a theory we should not wire our houses for electricity?

What I said is that any truth must come from G-d and that truth from G-d will reveal, at least in part unto us, his nature. Do you understand what evolution is? Or do you reject it because some miss-informed preacher said something about which he knew nothing?

The Traveler

[Dr T]

It's the law of gravity not the theory of gravity. A scientific Law is a redily demonstable fact, that cannot be disproven. Consider your nits officially picked Traveler. :)

[Traveler]

It's the law of gravity not the theory of gravity. A scientific Law is a redily demonstable fact, that cannot be disproven. Consider your nits officially picked Traveler. :)

You are correct - it was called the law of gravity until the flaw in the law of gravity was demonstrated by special relativity. Some still refer to gravity as the law of gravity – but the theory gravity has been modified twice. Once by Special Relativity and once by Quantum Physics and any scientist worth his salary also knows that there is still a flaw in all the theories of attraction of masses. And this bring us to a very interesting question – Can there be a flaw in what is truth?

The Traveler

[Dr T]

I'd say "no there cannot be a flaw in actual truth."

[a-train]

And they have been refuted.

So you refute biblical scripture and accept nonbiblical teaching, but the Mormons are the ones who are doing wrong by accepting extrabiblical revelation?

In other words, the Bible describes infinite God in finite, human terms in order that we may better comprehend Him. For example... ...In short, we believe God as a Spirit does not have a body unless He chooses to manifest Himself in a bodily form, which He did in the person of Jesus Christ. (See Chapter 4 - JESUS IS GOD.)

It is understood that there are many symbolisms in the Bible, but do you think that the Gospel message of the physical birth of God, His life, His death, His resurrection and ascension, was all merely figurative?

In Alma 11:26-29 Amulek tells Zeezrom that there is only one "true and living God." If that is true, which of the three Gods in the Mormon godhead is not true and/or living?

You have asked this question many times, the answer is simple and plain. God the Father, His Son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost are One God. That One God is the only true and living God.

Also how about looking at the very definition of "OMNIPOTENCE" :

The word "omni" means "all" and "potent" means "powerful." If two or more beings had the ability to have "all" power, the different powers would cancel each other out and therefore render the word meaningless.

Unscriptural and highly presumptive. What basis do we have to verify this? Is it even necessary that we do so?

Just because he choses to manifest himself in different ways like a bush, or a mountain or Jesus even, does not in ANY was negate his omnipresence.

I'm not saying otherwise.

I have CLEARLY outlined our differing doctrines on that in MANY ways in previous posts.

I know. The Bible teaches plainly that God has a body of flesh and bone and you don't believe that, you refute it. This is one reason why I am Mormon. The LDS Church seems to be the only Church that actually believes the Bible.

Heavenly Father. Also referred to as God the Father or Elohim, a created being..

Sorry, not LDS teaching. God the Father is Endless, He is without beginning or end. (Moses 1:3)

who was originally a mortal man and became God at a certain point in time

Completely unfounded. What LDS source states that the Father's origins are in mortality? Or anyone else for that matter?!?!?

God is the offspring of another god

The Bible plainly states that Jesus (God) is the offspring not only of God, but of a woman. Are you saying that God cannot be born as a child to parents?

who was also once a man

Are you saying that Jesus was never a man?

why dont you prove it scripturally?

Is the New Testament as a whole not a declaration of the literal, physical, corporeal nature of God? Are the Gospels not testaments that God was once a man on earth with a body of flesh and bone? If you refute scripture, how will scripture prove anything?

Give me the scriptures that say that God has a body of flesh and bone in heaven.

What scriptures say that God has NOT a body of flesh and bone in heaven?

Luke 24:36-43:

And as they thus spake, Jesus himself stood in the midst of them, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you. But they were terrified and affrighted, and supposed that they had seen a spirit. And he said unto them, Why are ye troubled? and why do thoughts arise in your hearts? Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have. And when he had thus spoken, he shewed them his hands and his feet. And while they yet believed not for joy, and wondered, he said unto them, Have ye here any meat? And they gave him a piece of a broiled fish, and of an honeycomb. And he took it, and did eat before them.

3 Nephi 11:14-15:

Arise and come forth unto me, that ye may thrust your hands into my side, and also that ye may feel the prints of the nails in my hands and in my feet, that ye may know that I am the God of Israel, and the God of the whole earth, and have been slain for the sins of the world. And it came to pass that the multitude went forth, and thrust their hands into his side, and did feel the prints of the nails in his hands and in his feet; and this they did do, going forth one by one until they had all gone forth, and did see with their eyes and did feel with their hands, and did know of a surety and did bear record, that it was he, of whom it was written by the prophets, that should come.

Luke 24:50-51:

And he led them out as far as to Bethany, and he lifted up his hands, and blessed them. And it came to pass, while he blessed them, he was parted from them, and carried up into heaven.

What indication do we have that our LORD did not bodily ascend into heaven? Did he lose it somewhere on the trip to Bethany? If the Bible does not say so, then the notion is unbiblical. If he did lose His body on His way to Bethany, what hands did He lift when He arrived? If He was an omnipresent spirit without any body, how then did He ascend to heaven being He was already there? Am I expected to believe that it is unbiblical and illogical that the body of Jesus ascended into heaven, but more biblical and logical that it did not?

The physical, bodily resurrection and ascension of our LORD is a basic truth for which the disciples died as they bore witness of it. It is scriptural, it is Biblical, it is true. God has a body of flesh and bone as tangible as man's.

-a-train