Heiser on Barker in FR 19/1

[MormonMason]

MormonMason,

I don't believe the Bible is silent on this issue. Genesis 1:1 reveals that God gave a beginning to all (heaven and the earth) that exists outside of himself.

You are not following the argument, johnny. English cannot be your primary language as you did not 'get' the puns I gave in earlier posts. There is nothing inherently wrong with this but it is interfering with your ability to understand and follow an argument. This is a problem. The Bible is silent on a number of issues unless the text is bent in such ways so as to make it not silent. This is precisely why various scribes altered various passages of the Bible and virtually rewrote it to match their theology. The evidence of the Dead Sea Scrolls definitely shows that for the Old Testament, which has been rewritten for theological/political reasons, and why the Christian scribes altered certain passages of even the New Testament. For examples of such tampering in the New Testament, see Bart Ehrman's book, The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture.

I would say that the Father was "above all" (Eph 4:6).

I talked of a wall because you seem to be describing a version of God that recalls memories of Humpty Dumpty, who sat on a wall and who told Alice, "When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less." You seem to be saying that God causes one thing to be said with one meaning at the beginning of a sentence but changes the meaning of the same words at the end of the same sentence. The angels dancing on a pin comes from philosophical discussions relative to the number of angels who can dance on the head of a pin.

The angels are part of these heavens.

They are not part of the heaven that was created when this earth developed an atmosphere, the siderial heavens that are attached to this earth but not that in which God dwells.

This view of the Catholic Church is as such:...

I know full well the view of the Catholic Church; you need not cite it. But, notwithstanding, just because it is written does not make it truer than if it were not written. Of course the Catholic Church would hold the views you cite. Their theology depends upon holding such a position. If the Catholic Church were to discard that position, they would have to throw out an entire collection of theology and beliefs.

Here is one English rendering of Genesis 1:1-10 with the very first word of Genesis taken as a construct rather than as absolute. Read this rendering carefully as there are subtle differences in meaning and which does not agree with your view as you think that it does.

When God began to create heaven and earth -- 2 the earth being unformed and void, with darkness over the surface of the deep and a wind from God sweeping over the water -- 3 God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and God separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, a first day. 6

[urroner]

Johnny, how many inhabited worlds has God created? If more than one, were they all created at the same time? Did God or His Son create them? Was the Son required to be sacrificed for any of these other worlds?

If God has created more inhabited worlds than this one, how long has He been creating them? Is Jesus the Savior of all these other inhabited worlds, if they exist?

[MormonMason]

While I am not johnny, I wanted to mention a few things from my observations. Johnny's answers will differ significantly at points.

...how many inhabited worlds has God created?

Millions upon millions, according to the Book of Moses.

If more than one, were they all created at the same time?

No. They were created at different times. There are millions that have passed away and millons that now stand, as well as millions that will follow.

Did God or His Son create them?

God created them through his Son Jesus Christ.

Was the Son required to be sacrificed for any of these other worlds?

Christ was sacrificed once on this world for all other worlds that have been, which are, and which will be.

If God has created more inhabited worlds than this one, how long has He been creating them?

Unknown. However, given the present known age of this universe, I would say he has been creating for something around 20 billions of years, give or take.

Is Jesus the Savior of all these other inhabited worlds, if they exist?

Indeed. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints seems to be leaning in this doctrinal direction if the recent Institute manuals published by the Church are any indication. The one on the Pearl of Great Price and the one entitled Doctrines of the Gospel definitely state that such is the case.

This teaching also is enunciated from Doctrine and Covenants 76:20-24, 42-43, and from Joseph Smith's own poetic rewriting of the same section, wherein he clearly stated:

19. And I heard a great voice, bearing record from heav'n,

He's the Saviour, and only begotten of God-

By him, of him, and through him, the worlds were all made,

Even all that career in the heavens so broad,

20. Whose inhabitants, too, from the first to the last,

Are sav'd by the very same Saviour of ours;

And, of course, are begotten God's daughters and sons,

By the very same truths, and the very same pow'rs. ...

("A Vision," in Times and Seasons 4 [1 February 1843]:82-83; bold emphasis mine).

[e=mc2]

My buddy Lach said to Johnny about the scriptures lacking mentioning Mother:

BTW, where are all the mothers in Luke 3:24-38?

Oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo, a most interesting point here that we all ought not to miss.........

JOhnny to me:

Your analogy is not consistent with scripture.

Actually it is. The problem is scripture has not spelled it all out in black and white terms. It is scripture which is inconsistent with the obvious fact that ALL men have Mothers and Fathers. You're just afraid of letting the Bible be incomplete, but I know better.

[MormonMason]

...You're just afraid of letting the Bible be incomplete, but I know better.

And, herein lies the problem. The Bible very often does not spell things out in black and white and this is the reason why tradition and the ecumenical councils had to step in and spell it out for the Bible.

[johnny]

MormonMason,

Since Colossian 1:15-20 uses "all things" in different ways, let us focus on 1Cor 8:6, it says:

1Cor 8

[6] But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.

The lexicon would disgree with your narrow usage of "heaven" in Genesis 1:1, the lexicon says ""heaven, heavens, sky". I would agree that God the Father did not create himself. God the Father is not part of "all things" since he transcends (Eph 4:6). Genesis 1:1 shows that God is outside of "heaven and earth", God is the creator of "heaven and earth".

Please provide the scripture to support the idea that angels existed BEFORE the creation of "heaven and earth". God existed before the creation of "heaven and earth". Genesis 1:1 reveals that God gave a beginning to "heaven and earth". "Heaven" is the abode of angels. If there is no heaven, there is no place for angels to abode. When God gave a beginning to "heaven", he gave a beginning to a place for his creation the angels.

Adam was the offspring of the Father, the Father created or generated him, Adam is a son of God. Scripture does NOT indicate Adam was the offspring of a Father and a Mother.

[urroner]

Scripture does NOT indicate Adam was the offspring of a Father and a Mother.

So it's an "argumentum a silentio."

Do the scriptures indicate that I exist? If not, then I must not exist.

[e=mc2]

No dice Urroner. I can testify that you exist......

[Doctor Steuss]

No dice Urroner. I can testify that you exist......

Yeah, but you believe in a different Urroner.

[e=mc2]

Nope, he's the same smart alec insult hurdling sun of a gun at me that I know.......

[urroner]

Nope, he's the same smart alec insult hurdling sun of a gun at me that I know.......

I do not think, therefore I am not.

[e=mc2]

Are you stealing Johnny's words here Urroner?

[urroner]

Are you stealing Johnny's words here Urroner?

I have repented and have returned them.

Sorry!!

[MormonMason]

MormonMason,

Since Colossian 1:15-20 uses "all things" in different ways, let us focus on 1Cor 8:6, it says:

1Cor 8

[6] But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.

No, Johnny, the phrase all things is used exactly the same way throughout the entire sentence of which Colossians 1:15-20 is comprised. There is no need to focus on 1 Corinthians 8:6, which does nothing but support my argument about the limitation factor in the use of the phrase. It is just that you do not want to admit that the phrase means the same thing from one part of the sentence to the other part of the SAME sentence because it will undercut your theology.

So, Humpty Dumpty it is, which is really apt considering the use of the egg analogy by many Catholics and Evangelicals with whom I have spoken over the years. So, basically, your rendition of God is like Humpty Dumpty, a god that changes the meanings of words from one part of a sentence to another as he feels and is fragile. That is fine if you want to believe in a god of confusion but my God is not a God of confusion as your rendition appears to be.

The lexicon would disgree with your narrow usage of "heaven" in Genesis 1:1, the lexicon says ""heaven, heavens, sky". I would agree that God the Father did not create himself. God the Father is not part of "all things" since he transcends (Eph 4:6). Genesis 1:1 shows that God is outside of "heaven and earth", God is the creator of "heaven and earth".

That is a rather fantastic claim considering that if you go back and re-read my previous posts very carefully you will see that I have used all the English glosses of your lexicon synonymously and have used all the phrases related to this in discussion of the first chapter of Genesis. Based upon the wording of the English glosses that you quote, you are using the Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, or a work upon which it is based. That text has a decidedly evangelical theological bent to it, notwithstanding its usefulness. Nevertheless, it does not change the fact that the very same Hebrew word in verse 1 is the same word in verse 8. But, herein is where you get into trouble. To rely upon lexicons alone is to engage in the root fallacy and other like semantic fallacies.

Now, I can also cite lexicons galore, but what would that do? I have 37 different Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek lexicons alone on by bookshelves at home, not to mention more for the Sanscrit, German, French, Latin, Syriac, Arabic, Coptic and Egyptian Heiroglyphic languages. Do you really want to get yourself into a "my lexicon is better than your lexicon" war with me?!?

Yet, I found the following of interest from the Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament: "The double idiom ['the heavens of heavens'] is to be understood as a superlative or (more precisely) an elative, meaning the 'the entire enormous expanse of heaven...'" (15:205), and, while the text discusses merisms in relation to descriptions of the cosmos, I also find this:

The "classic" cosmology, originating in its fundamentals in Mesopotamia, is summarized formulaically in Ex. 20:4//Dt. 5:8 and took on quasi-canonical authority through the influence of Gen. 1. In it, heaven is a solid vault (Ps. 19:2[1]), which keeps the waters of chaos above and beside it from invading the cosmos (Gen. 1:6-8; Ps. 148:4). To it are attached as lights the sun, moon, and stars (Gen. 1:14-17). It has openings through which the waters of chaos can once more invade the world during the deluge (Gen. 7:11; 8:2; cf. Isa. 24:18, which speaks of "openings of the heights"; 2 K. 7:2,[19], which Hertzberg erroneously mentions in the same breath, has to do with hatches that Yahweh could make in heaven: there is no mention of any cloudburst). According to 2 S. 22:8 and Job 26:11, this enormous bell-shaped firmament rests on a foundation (pillars, analogous to the i

[e=mc2]

Who is this MormonMason dude? Niiiiiiiiiiiiiiice rebuttal........ you really have that many lexicons on yer shelves bub? Good heavenlies, you remind me of ........... well................ me!

[structurecop]

Who is this MormonMason dude?

That's my question. Unmask yourself, MormonMason!

[johnny]

MormonMason,

The phrase "all things" does have a limitation factor, for example in 1Cor 8:6 it does not include the Godhead. The Son is before all things.

It does not make sense for Genesis 1:1 to use "the heavens of the heavens". Genesis 1 is a development. First comes heaven, then latter "the heavens of the heavens". The entire universe matures over time. The angles were in place before the earth matured.

It makes no sense to say that angels were created before heaven, just like it makes no sense to say man was created before the dust of the earth.

In the end, the heavens and the earth will be transformed. They won't be completely destroyed.

My argument that scipture does NOT indicate Adam was the offspring of a Father and a Mother is consistent with scripture. Your belief that a Mother was involved simply adds words to Holy Scripture.

[urroner]

My argument that scipture does NOT indicate Adam was the offspring of a Father and a Mother is consistent with scripture. Your belief that a Mother was involved simply adds words to Holy Scripture.

Do Traditions add words to the Holy Scripture?

[MormonMason]

Who is this MormonMason dude? Niiiiiiiiiiiiiiice rebuttal........ you really have that many lexicons on yer shelves bub? Good heavenlies, you remind me of ........... well................ me!

Thank you for your kind words. Yes, I really have quite a few lexicons on the shelves. Actually, I miscounted. I actually have 38 Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek Lexicons of various sorts. I forgot to count one because it is contained inside my reading copy of the Greek New Testament. I have others in other languages as well, along with a number of grammars dating from 1829 to the present.

Who am I? Should I unmask myself? Well, I will have to deliberate on that a bit.

That's my question. Unmask yourself, MormonMason!

I'm thinking about it. Give me some time...

[Facsimile 3]

Thank you for your kind words. Yes, I really have quite a few lexicons on the shelves. Actually, I miscounted. I actually have 38 Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek Lexicons of various sorts. I forgot to count one because it is contained inside my reading copy of the Greek New Testament. I have others in other languages as well, along with a number of grammars dating from 1829 to the present.

Who am I? Should I unmask myself? Well, I will have to deliberate on that a bit.

I'm thinking about it. Give me some time...

You are a wonderful human being.

[MormonMason]

MormonMason,

The phrase "all things" does have a limitation factor, for example in 1Cor 8:6 it does not include the Godhead. The Son is before all things.

The main point of your argument is that your rendition of God is like Humpty Dumpty. I get that. I disagree with the view but I will defend to the death your right to believe in Humpty Dumpty.

It does not make sense for Genesis 1:1 to use "the heavens of the heavens". Genesis 1 is a development. First comes heaven, then latter "the heavens of the heavens". The entire universe matures over time. The angles were in place before the earth matured.

Why does it not make sense? It makes perfect sense in the passages in which it is used. The Heavens of the heavens as a phrase indicates the whole of the universe. It is true that there is development in the universe. I agree with at least that remark you make. The LDS view is in perfect keeping with the idea of development in the universe. Each world with an atmosphere has its own siderial heavens that are a part of the greater whole. The angels dwelt in the greater whole during the creation of the earth and its heavens. Based upon astronomical science, we know that the universe, the greater part of the heavens, was here for nearly 13-15 billions of years before this earth was created. I agree that the angels were already there when the earth was created. The Bible states that they were there rejoicing when the foundations of the earth were laid.

It makes no sense to say that angels were created before heaven, just like it makes no sense to say man was created before the dust of the earth.

It does when we speak of the creation of the heavens that are attached to this earth. The angels were then in the heavens of the heavens and were watching the creation of this earth and its siderial heaven.

In the end, the heavens and the earth will be transformed. They won't be completely destroyed.

Your Official Catholic Bible says otherwise:

5 They deliberately ignore the fact that the heavens existed of old and earth was formed out of water and through water by the word of God; 6 through these the world that then existed was destroyed, deluged with water. 7 The present heavens and earth have been reserved by the same word for fire, kept for the day of judgment and of destruction of the godless. 8

[Zakuska]

Mormon Mason says...

So, because the angels had to have been there already at the foundation of the earth which occurred in verses 1-2, if we hold to your view, then we can deduce that angels had to have been there when the heavens or sky were stretched out over the earth in verses 6-8.

Second, your argument is fallacious from the start, johnny. You keep claiming that angels have to have a heaven in which to exist and that if heaven does not exist there can be no angels. But, what do you do with the fact that the current heavens and earth are going to be destroyed and a new heavens and a new earth created in their places??? Where, O where will the angels ever be when this happens, if your fallacious claims have any truth to them? Are you saying that God will destroy all the angels because he will have no place to put them? Or, will you admit that you are wrong about this and that angels certainly could have existed in some other heaven or location at the time of the creation of this earth and its heavens? Will you admit that your argument has little to no foundation? Will you finally admit that Genesis 1:1 refers to the creation detailed in 1:3-10? I realize that you might have to give up a precious theology but how little a price is that compared to the incomparable riches of the truth?

Obviously, God and angels will still have some place to hang out when the heavens and the earth are burnt up and completely destroyed so as to have need for God to create a new heavens and a new earth. So, where will they be, johnny? Where? Could it not be that they will be where they were when this earth and its heavens were created?

I'd like to submit that God, the Cheif Angel, as well as the other Angels and all of us where all there before the Heaven or earth where streched out...

Prov 8

22 The LORD possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old.

23 I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was.

24 When there were no depths, I was brought forth; when there were no fountains abounding with water.

25 Before the mountains were settled, before the hills was I brought forth:

26 While as yet he had not made the earth, nor the fields, nor the highest part of the dust of the world.

27 When he prepared the heavens, I was there: when he set a compass upon the face of the depth:

28 When he established the clouds above: when he strengthened the fountains of the deep:

29 When he gave to the sea his decree, that the waters should not pass his commandment: when he appointed the foundations of the earth:

30 Then I was by him, as one brought up with him: and I was daily his delight, rejoicing always before him;

31 Rejoicing in the habitable part of his earth; and my delights were with the sons of men.

32 Now therefore hearken unto me, O ye children: for blessed are they that keep my ways.

Who where all these "Sons of Men" God and his wisdom where deligting with... before the heaven and earth where spread out?

[MormonMason]

Let's put these into the words of the Official Catholic Bible:

22 "The LORD begot me, the first-born of his ways, the forerunner of his prodigies of long ago; 23 From of old I was poured forth, at the first, before the earth. 24 When there were no depths I was brought forth, when there were no fountains or springs of water; 25 Before the mountains were settled into place, before the hills, I was brought forth; 26 While as yet the earth and the fields were not made, nor the first clods of the world. 27 "When he established the heavens I was there, when he marked out the vault over the face of the deep; 28 When he made firm the skies above, when he fixed fast the foundations of the earth; 29 When he set for the sea its limit, so that the waters should not transgress his command; 30 Then was I beside him as his craftsman, and I was his delight day by day, Playing before him all the while, 31 playing on the surface of his earth; and I found delight in the sons of men. 32 "So now, O children, listen to me; 33 instruction and wisdom do not reject! Happy the man who obeys me, and happy those who keep my ways,

(Proverbs 8:22-31, NAB Official Catholic Bible)

[johnny]

MormonMason,

Why does it not make sense? It makes perfect sense in the passages in which it is used. The Heavens of the heavens as a phrase indicates the whole of the universe. It is true that there is development in the universe. I agree with at least that remark you make. The LDS view is in perfect keeping with the idea of development in the universe. Each world with an atmosphere has its own siderial heavens that are a part of the greater whole. The angels dwelt in the greater whole during the creation of the earth and its heavens.

I would agree "Heavens of the heavens" is phrase to indicate the whole of the universe, but for me this phrase indicates a more developed heaven than is spoken of in Genesis 1:1.

Your statement "The angels dwelt in the greater whole during the creation of the earth and its heavens" still does not make sense to me when Genesis 1 is viewed as a development. For me angels are a later development that come AFTER their abode called heaven. Just like for men are a later development that come AFTER their abode called earth.

It does when we speak of the creation of the heavens that are attached to this earth. The angels were then in the heavens of the heavens and were watching the creation of this earth and its siderial heaven.

I would agree their are different levels of heaven. I believe these levels are a subset of the original created heaven, this subset comes AFTER.

Why do you believe that "the heavens of the heavens" comes BEFORE heaven?

Your Official Catholic Bible says otherwise

The key to understanding those verses is the analogy of fire. When something is "dissoved by fire" the item melts away but traces are still present. Like I said earlier it is transformed.

That may or may not be true from the rewritten Bible that now exists. However, we are not talking about Adam's body, only his spirit is the offspring of God in official LDS beliefs. This also is upheld by our scripture. Latter-day revelation adds the element of a Heavenly Mother. And, as has been pointed out, if I were you I would not fault LDS for adding things to the Bible when you by tradition do the very same thing.

My understanding of the Mormon process of Adam is as such:

- Adam/Michael intelligence is eternal

- the angel Michael is born of heavenly parents

- the angel Michael becomes the man Adam

Could you explain the Mormon process of Adam and how it fits in with Genesis 2:7, especially in terms of Adam's soul. Gen 2:7 says.

Gen.2

[7] And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

[Lachoneus]

Could you explain the Mormon process of Adam and how it fits in with Genesis 2:7, especially in terms of Adam's soul. Gen 2:7 says.

Gen.2

[7] And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground (God begat Adam's physical body - Luke 3:38), and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; (God placed Adam's spirit into his physical body - TPJS p.301) and man became a living soul (with the uniting of his body and spirit Adam became a living being - D&C 88:15).