Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Why Do Mormons Have Difficulty Believing . . .


consiglieri

Recommended Posts

Why would that be curious? Day has the same function in English.

It seems to me, at least in this case, God is being very specific. Words have meaning.

Words do have meanings. Let's look at the very first appearance of the word "day" in Genesis 1 and see if we can discover that meaning.

In Genesis 1:5 we read:

And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

The very first time the word "day" appears in the Bible is in the phrase "God called the light Day." Here the word "day" appears to be equated with the phenomenon of electromagnetic radiation called "light" and is not used as a unit of time measurement. Does anyone think this is what God meant?

But, even if we decided to view "day" as a measurement of time, it certainly is NOT a 24 hour time period. It is only "light" for about half of each revolution of this earthly sphere, a time of approximately only 12 hours. So, is God saying here that "day" means a period of 12 hours?

The second occurrence of the word "day" is in the sentence "And the evening and the morning were the first day." Here the word "day" appears to be used as a measurement of time, but its length is specified as beginning in "the evening" and continuing until "the morning." This length of time constitutes "the first day." But again, this period of time is approximately only 12 hours. It is certainly NOT a 24 hour time period. So, again, is God saying that "day" means a period of 12 hours?

From looking at the plain English of the scriptures, I do not see a 24 hour "day" in Genesis 1:5. Does anyone else see a 24 hour "day" here?

Link to comment
But haven't you just conceded your argument here, Hoops?

If Peter's calling a "day" 1,000 years is a literary device, how can you say with certainty that the use of the word "day" in Genesis 1 is not?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

It's context. That has meaning. And, for Gen 1 to have significant meaning, which, being the account of creation, I would assume it does, it must be a literal day.

Link to comment
Words do have meanings. Let's look at the very first appearance of the word "day" in Genesis 1 and see if we can discover that meaning.

Okay.

And God called the light Day,

The first instance of seperation between "daytime" and night. See we were able to figure it out. By its context.

and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day. The very first time the word "day" appears in the Bible is in the phrase "God called the light Day." Here the word "day" appears to be equated with the phenomenon of electromagnetic radiation called "light" and is not used as a unit of time measurement. Does anyone think this is what God meant?

No.

But, even if we decided to view "day" as a measurement of time,

we're not in the case you mention.

The second occurrence of the word "day" is in the sentence "And the evening and the morning were the first day." Here the word "day" appears to be used as a measurement of time, but its length is specified as beginning in "the evening" and continuing until "the morning." This length of time constitutes "the first day." But again, this period of time is approximately only 12 hours. It is certainly NOT a 24 hour time period. So, again, is God saying that "day" means a period of 12 hours?

No, He is saying, just like we do, that "daylight" and night together make one day. In addition, from what you've gleaned one can not consider "day" as an epoch. That would mean there was daylight for billions of years then night for billions of years - or the other way around. That doesn't work. So your left with 24 hour day.

From looking at the plain English of the scriptures, I do not see a 24 hour "day" in Genesis 1:5. Does anyone else see a 24 hour "day" here?

Me.

Link to comment
The first instance of seperation between "daytime" and night. See we were able to figure it out. By its context.

O.k., this is not really completely on topic, but does anyone else think it's really interesting that God separated the light from the dark and called the light day and the darkness night before the sun, stars, or moon were even created?

What exactly was the light that was making it 'day' when there was no sun yet?

And since there was no sun yet, it seems that 'day' in this context is not easily interpreted to mean the same thing that 'day' means to us now.

:P

Link to comment
If true it might say that LDS are more open to scientific truth than some EV's.
As long as it supports Mormonism.

As soon as it goes against Mormonism, well, then science isn't reliable for ANYTHING.

I can't think of a single example of science going against Mormonism. What have you come up with?

Link to comment
As long as it supports Mormonism.

As soon as it goes against Mormonism, well, then science isn't reliable for ANYTHING.

That strikes me as a pretty absurd assertion...did you break out the 80-ft. brush for that one cuz it was pretty BROAD.

Link to comment
This question was posed on another thread, and I thought it deserved a thread of its own, because it raises an interesting issue.

As a general rule, Mormons do not believe in a creation period of six twenty-four hour days.

I thought that they did. LDS believers, thanks to The Pearl of Great Price, merely have a new definition of "day", comprising 1,000 years to help bridge literal biblical beliefs with the scientific consensus.

I was of the belief once that the earth was created fairly close to the account as found in Genesis. That is probably why I also believed in a literal Adam in a literal garden of Eden in a literal world before the fall (before death).

This is in contrast to Evangelicals who seem in large part to endorse this view.
See above. They merely lack the bridge of flexibility given by revelation of Joseph Smith. J.S. indeed was brilliant.
What does this say about Mormons and their belief system?

What does this say about Evangelicals and their belief system?

Joseph Smith introduced new doctrines that added flexibility into the LDS worldview that superceded the older traditional Christian beliefs. Again, it was brilliant on the prophet's part...either by design or, dare I say, revelation? Who knows? :P
Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...