99 replies to this topic

[Hick Preacher]

ElfLord, on 01 December 2010 - 11:55 AM, said:

I can agree with most of this. But... you have to admit that the world being created crossed the boundary, some of it being created prior to and some of it being created after time started being counted.  "The Lord said let there be light... and it was the ___ day..."

In the Bible we are told next to nothing about the little bit of time (ie everlasting) just before creation and very little about the time (ie everlasting) just after the ending.

Yes God and sons of God used the matter drawn out of the waters of creation to make this universe within this time or these ages (aion or eons).  But I tend to think that  God created the matter when time was created.  So there never was a time when there was not matter.  So Matter had its origin at the brink of eternity, but is not actually eternal matter.  God and His sons could have been the "US" of Genesis, but I am not sure.

This is an overlap between orthodoxy and certain LDS assertions.-- But was taught by at least one orthodox ECF that I know of( Irenaeus).

The Bible only hints at what is beyond time. I do not think it is the mission of the Bible or its canon to reveal  all about our ultimate human destiny in Eternity. The Bible is designed to deliver the Gospel which saves us in this age and guides to become Christ-like-ready to meet out Father in Eternity. So the Bible canon can prepare us and make-up presentable to God ready to undergo our next step. There is quite an explanation to this view of the Bible.- and I think this is why Traditional Churches say the Bible is complete. It would be very hard to explain on a forum like this-- but that is the gist of it.

Edited by Hick Preacher, 01 December 2010 - 12:24 PM.

[urroner]

Did the ancients have any concept of infinity?  From what I understand, they had no concept of infinity and so, their use of their word for "everlasting" or "eternity" would be very different from our use of those words.  It's a text and context problem.

[ElfLord]

urroner, on 01 December 2010 - 12:18 PM, said:

Did the ancients have any concept of infinity?  From what I understand, they had no concept of infinity and so, their use of their word for "everlasting" or "eternity" would be very different from our use of those words.  It's a text and context problem.

RE: Infinity

Quote

Infinity

The ultimate in large numbers was, until recently, the concept of infinity, a number defined by being greater than any finite number, and used in the mathematical theory of limits.However, since the 19th century, mathematicians have studied transfinite numbers, numbers which are not only greater than any finite number, but also, from the viewpoint of set theory, larger than the traditional concept of infinity. Of these transfinite numbers, perhaps the most extraordinary, and arguably, if they exist, "largest", are the large cardinals. The concept of transfinite numbers, however, was first considered by Indian Jaina mathematicians as far back as 400 BC.

http://en.wikipedia....f_large_numbers

Hmmm... even "Infinity" had a limit. And something out side of that was only devised after much of the OT had been compiled.

Edited by ElfLord, 01 December 2010 - 12:31 PM.

[Hick Preacher]

urroner, on 01 December 2010 - 12:18 PM, said:

Did the ancients have any concept of infinity?  From what I understand, they had no concept of infinity and so, their use of their word for "everlasting" or "eternity" would be very different from our use of those words.  It's a text and context problem.

I guess this is directed toward me but others should give opinion too.

From what I recall ancient cultures, and meso-americans too had on concept of zero or infinity. And Hebrews thought in terms of ages- so had no developed ideas of Eternity-- but started to around 600 B.C. with no single word to represent the growing concept.   So around the time of the Josiah  and the Deuteronomic reform the idea became integrated into Hebrew thinking officially.-- This is roughly by the time of the post-exile period--- SO the notion of a God and select sons of God "before time" developed late on in Israel.  I have not specifically studied this for 25 years or so. But it seems clear to me that it was around the post-exile the idea that the highest God was strictly Eternal developed.  This probably was a considerable factor in the development of what became monotheism.  In my view this development was guided by God, in preparation of the coming Christ-- so that we could understand his nature.

Language is associated with the formation of concepts too (in theory)-- so we do not see even Early Christians or Christ expressing what would be before time as
"eternity'.  This is why our modern term "Eternal Life" is not something that Jesus literally promised us. Literally translated it is Life of the coming Ages, meaning a life beyond this world, realm-- or in a higher sphere-- or in Canaanite terms on a higher tier, where the rules of existence differ from that of this earthly tier. This is because time on a higher tier is somehow different than time on this earth on this tier or sphere.  This idea is in the Bible too-- Peter mentions that a day in heaven is 1000 years on Earth.

But this is just off of the top of my head-- I was studying these things mostly in the 1980s, and had cooresponded with Eugene Seaich, Kirk Holland Vestle and a little with Reed Duraham on these ideas.  But recently one can draw the lines between the dots from the other newer stuff that Bakker, and Mike Heiser has made accessible on the WWW about the Divine Council.

Edited by Hick Preacher, 01 December 2010 - 12:53 PM.

[Mansquatch]

Hick Preacher, on 01 December 2010 - 12:48 PM, said:

This is because time on a higher tier is somehow different than time on this earth on this tier or sphere.  This idea is in the Bible too-- Peter mentions that a day in heaven is 1000 years on Earth.

In the same verse Peter says that 1000 years is also as a day. "But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day." So time on a higher tier is very different than this earth according to that.

[Hick Preacher]

Mansquatch, on 01 December 2010 - 12:57 PM, said:

In the same verse Peter says that 1000 years is also as a day. "But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day." So time on a higher tier is very different than this earth according to that.

Thanks Manswuatch--

I think that what Peter spoke of is consistent with an idea of a tiered universe, where we live separated from the Celestial Sphere/Tier.  These tiers have great gulfs from one to another.   So when Joseph Smith seemed to contradict God being strictly Eternal in the King Follett funeral sermon, he was trying to express an idea from the view point of a higher tier. Afterall, it was at a funeral (King Follett) were the deceased had passed to a another tier.   Explaining things of some other sphere or tier is likely going to get confusing to disconnected outside audience.

Personally I have somewhat a different motion of these tiers than SLC UT Churched LDS folks. But, if you understand the notion of it, and see it in the Bible and other ancient texts-- it is much easier to understand Mormonism more accurately when you are not a Mormon.

Edited by Hick Preacher, 01 December 2010 - 01:29 PM.

[jesussavesbygrace]

Mola Ram Suda Ram, on 01 December 2010 - 09:31 AM, said:

There is no contradiction with the bible. That simple.

What?   Joseph Smith said He was not God from all eternity and the Bible says He was.  Can you explain your answer...

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

jesussavesbygrace, on 06 December 2010 - 10:15 AM, said:

What?   Joseph Smith said He was not God from all eternity and the Bible says He was.  Can you explain your answer...

Um the bible does not say that God was God from all of eternity. Often time and I am assiming you mean eternity past. The scriptures never once use that term.

Everlasting to everlasting does not mean eternity past, it neve has and it never will.

Edited by Mola Ram Suda Ram, 06 December 2010 - 10:21 AM.

[BCSpace]

Quote

How do you explain Joseph's contradiction of the Bible?

Because there are larger infinities and smaller infinities, there is no conflict with the Bible here.

[Vance]

jesussavesbygrace, on 06 December 2010 - 10:15 AM, said:

What?   Joseph Smith said He was not God from all eternity and the Bible says He was.  Can you explain your answer...

It is rather obvious that you aren't paying attention.

[jesussavesbygrace]

David Bokovoy, on 01 December 2010 - 10:11 AM, said:

First, Joseph Smith’s doctrinal views  do occasionally contradict biblical conceptions.  When this happens, Latter-day Saints believe that Joseph’s position was inspired and that the contrary expression reflects the philosophies of men mingled with scripture.

In terms of Psalm 90:2 it is important to note that the KJ phrase “from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God” is a translation of the Hebrew expression ‘atta (1st person common singular independent pronoun) followed by the noun ‘el or “god.”  Grammatically, the phrase literally means “you are a god,” which implies the existence of more than one deity.  Note the KJ translation of the exact same phrase in Isaiah 45:12 and Jonah 4:2:

“Verily thou art a God that hidest thyself, O God of Israel, the Saviour”

“And he prayed unto the LORD, and said, I pray thee, O LORD, was not this my saying, when I was yet in my country? Therefore I fled before unto Tarshish: for I knew that thou art a gracious God, and merciful, slow to anger, and of great kindness, and repentest thee of the evil.”

So Latter-day Saints can reconcile this biblical passage with Joseph’s views under the premise that once our Father in Heaven was exalted as a God, he remained a God from “everlasting to everlasting.”

I still don't understand how you go from everlasting to everlasting thou art God, to well, he must have been a man before he was God. That makes no sense. The verse is saying that he has Always been God.


Could you also explain in the Book of Mormon where it says "For behold, God knowing all things, being from everlasting to everlasting, behold, he sent angels to minister unto the children of men, to make manifest concerning the coming of Christ; and in Christ there should come every good thing."Moroni 7:22     And also "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

[jesussavesbygrace]

Mola Ram Suda Ram, on 06 December 2010 - 10:20 AM, said:

Um the bible does not say that God was God from all of eternity. Often time and I am assiming you mean eternity past. The scriptures never once use that term.

Everlasting to everlasting does not mean eternity past, it neve has and it never will.

So what does everlasting to everlasting mean?

[jesussavesbygrace]

BCSpace, on 06 December 2010 - 10:30 AM, said:

Because there are larger infinities and smaller infinities, there is no conflict with the Bible here.

Ok, then give me a definition of larger infinites and smaller infinites.

[Vance]

How long is "everlasting"?

Genesis 49:26 The blessings of thy father have prevailed above the blessings of my progenitors unto the utmost bound of the everlasting hills: they shall be on the head of Joseph, and on the crown of the head of him that was separate from his brethren.

Habakkuk 3:6 He stood, and measured the earth: he beheld, and drove asunder the nations; and the everlasting mountains were scattered, the perpetual hills did bow: his ways are everlasting.

[Vance]

David Bokovoy, on 01 December 2010 - 10:41 AM, said:

This is actually a very important observation.  The term "everlasting" in these passages and in Psalm 90 is a translation of the Hebrew word 'olam which the Koehler-Baumgartner Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament defines as "long time, duration (usually eternal, eternity, but not in a philosophical sense)."

[ElfLord]

Vance, on 06 December 2010 - 10:44 AM, said:

How long is "everlasting"?

Genesis 49:26 The blessings of thy father have prevailed above the blessings of my progenitors unto the utmost bound of the everlasting hills: they shall be on the head of Joseph, and on the crown of the head of him that was separate from his brethren.

Habakkuk 3:6 He stood, and measured the earth: he beheld, and drove asunder the nations; and the everlasting mountains were scattered, the perpetual hills did bow: his ways are everlasting.

Not too long according to those verses.

[jesussavesbygrace]

Vance, on 06 December 2010 - 10:36 AM, said:

It is rather obvious that you aren't paying attention.

Saying that there is no contradiction of the Bilble is hardly an answer. This is an apologectics board right?

I pose the same question to you about my first post...

[jesussavesbygrace]

Vance, on 06 December 2010 - 10:44 AM, said:

How long is "everlasting"?

Genesis 49:26 The blessings of thy father have prevailed above the blessings of my progenitors unto the utmost bound of the everlasting hills: they shall be on the head of Joseph, and on the crown of the head of him that was separate from his brethren.

Habakkuk 3:6 He stood, and measured the earth: he beheld, and drove asunder the nations; and the everlasting mountains were scattered, the perpetual hills did bow: his ways are everlasting.

You have to look at the context of a verse. Obviously you do not have an endless amount of mountains. Its also like saying when your at the beach looking at the ocean and say "Wow, the ocean goes on forever."  

So, I guess if you take it the way you are trying to protray what everlasting means than God is not actually going to be God forever right? Sometime in the future He is going to be something else.  C'mon...

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

jesussavesbygrace, on 06 December 2010 - 10:38 AM, said:

Could you also explain in the Book of Mormon where it says "For behold, God knowing all things, being from everlasting to everlasting, behold, he sent angels to minister unto the children of men, to make manifest concerning the coming of Christ; and in Christ there should come every good thing."Moroni 7:22     And also "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

What this means is that God is unchanging in how he operates or in His principals. It does not mean that he is unchanged in every aspect from all eternity to all eternity. If you stick to such a rigid interpretation you are going to have massive issues even in your own theology.


Jesus did not always have a body. Jesus to you is God. Yet he changed and recieved a body a about 2000 years ago.

[rodheadlee]

jesussavesbygrace, on 06 December 2010 - 10:59 AM, said:

You have to look at the context of a verse. Obviously you do not have an endless amount of mountains. Its also like saying when your at the beach looking at the ocean and say "Wow, the ocean goes on forever."  

So, I guess if you take it the way you are trying to protray what everlasting means than God is not actually going to be God forever right? Sometime in the future He is going to be something else.  C'mon...

I don't think they are talking about the quantity of the mountains but rather their life span, which is very short compared to eternal.