Jude2 Posted July 6, 2013 Posted July 6, 2013 Daniel,Please carefully consider my multipoint answer to the following question:What state or condition did Adam and Eve exist in while in the Garden of Eden?a) They lived in the immediate presence of God, communing closely with Him.b) They were immortal, having full access to the tree of life.c) They were in a state of sinless innocence before God.d) They possessed glorious bodies of flesh and bone.e) God first having said it was not good that the man, Adam, be alone, He created the woman, Eve, to be the female counterpart to Adam, in order to be his consort and helpmeet.f) Adam and Eve were married by God, becoming one flesh through the ordinance of marriage.g) While yet in the Garden, prior to the fall, God commanded Adam and his wife Eve to multiply through divinely ordained sexual relations.H) Adam and Eve were meant to be married forever, bone of each other's bone, flesh of flesh of each other's flesh (what God hath joined together, let no man put asunder), the fall only bringing what otherwise would have been their eternal marriage to an end.To utilize one of your frequently used phrases, 'what I find fascinating is that' non LDS Christians believe Christ came to redeem men from the fall, to return man to the paradisiacal state he lost as a consequence of the fall. So a non-LDS Christian might say Christ came to:a) Bring mankind back into the immediate presence of God to commune with Him for ever.b) Restoring to man immortality and full access to the tree of life.c) Make man innocent before God, to dwell forever in eternity without sin.d) Change man's vile fallen body to glorious resurrected spiritual bodies of flesh and bone.All well, correct and good. But why do the non-LDS Christians not believe in restoring fallen man to the other glorious divine blessings man enjoyed prior to the fall? Namely...e) God restoring to man the blessing of a special, intimate companion of the opposite sex with which to enjoy the glories of eternity.f) God restoring to man that the intimate companion of the opposite sex would be consummated in the eternal marriage union, just as originally intended for Adam and Eve.g) Restore to man the blessings eternal family life, divine intimacy and continuation of seeds just as promised to Adam and Eve before the fall.h) Restoring to mankind the blessing of being bone of bone and flesh of flesh with a glorious eternal companion of the opposite sex.Like it or not, this is the way it was for Adam and Eve before the fall. Nevertheless, we Latter-day Saints are ridiculed when we say we believe in returning to God's original model and plan of happiness. What say you?Good points everyone of them!
teddyaware Posted July 6, 2013 Posted July 6, 2013 Good points everyone of them!Thanks Jude. From the very beginning, God has made it clear that the higher order of His creation (intelligent, reproducing beings) is predicated and perpetuated upon the principle of male and female association. In Genesis 1 we learn "God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them." So from this we can see that the very image of God is both male and female
danielwoods Posted July 6, 2013 Posted July 6, 2013 Daniel,Please carefully consider my multipoint answer to the following question:What state or condition did Adam and Eve exist in while in the Garden of Eden?All well, correct and good. But why do the non-LDS Christians not believe in restoring fallen man to the other glorious divine blessings man enjoyed prior to the fall? Namely...e) God restoring to man the blessing of a special, intimate companion of the opposite sex with which to enjoy the glories of eternity.f) God restoring to man that the intimate companion of the opposite sex would be consummated in the eternal marriage union, just as originally intended for Adam and Eve.g) Restore to man the blessings eternal family life, divine intimacy and continuation of seeds just as promised to Adam and Eve before the fall.h) Restoring to mankind the blessing of being bone of bone and flesh of flesh with a glorious eternal companion of the opposite sex.Like it or not, this is the way it was for Adam and Eve before the fall. Nevertheless, we Latter-day Saints are ridiculed when we say we believe in returning to God's original model and plan of happiness. What say you?I have a lot of sympathy for this argument. I love my wife, and my life with my wife. However, the question is what does God have planned for us? I would say that Adam and Eve were created in a perfect environment and the question is, was God's plan to return to the original model he created in the beginning? First, as I've observed, there is but one marriage mentioned in Heaven. Next, let's look and see a glimpse of Heaven. Revelation 21:1 And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.22 And I saw no temple therein: for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it.23 And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof.24 And the nations of them which are saved shall walk in the light of it: and the kings of the earth do bring their glory and honour into it.25 And the gates of it shall not be shut at all by day: for there shall be no night there.22:5 And there shall be no night there; and they need no candle, neither light of the sun; for the Lord God giveth them light: and they shall reign for ever and ever.Just a few verses that indicate that the old order of things will change. He doesn't appear to be planning to be returning to the original model, rather it appears that our marriages on earth is but an analogy of our relationship with God. Notice a couple of keys, there is no temple, there is no night, no sun or moon, the old order of things has passed away.
Jude2 Posted July 6, 2013 Posted July 6, 2013 2) The power to "bind in Heaven" from Matt. 16 and 18 are a mistranslation of that passage.I went to Bible Hub and found what you are trying to express herehttp://biblehub.com/matthew/16-19.htmThis is from the Holman Christian Standard Bible (©2009)“I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth is already bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth is already loosed in heaven."I had to chuckle a little because it validates the theme behind the Mormon play Saturday’s Warrior, (oh am I dating myself or what) Both my husband and I feel like we knew each other in heaven and like Jeremiah was ordained to be a prophet before he was born our marriage was preordained to be. But we are not robots if we choose to sin that sealing will be annulled in heaven. The earthly excommunication is only a formality.
Jude2 Posted July 6, 2013 Posted July 6, 2013 Notice a couple of keys, there is no temple, there is no night, no sun or moon, the old order of things has passed away.I love Rev 21 it teaches so much Mormon doctrine. First tho Jesus referred to his body as a temple;“Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up….he spake of the temple of his body” John 2:19 Now Rev 21And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, ….And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God. And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes…And I saw no temple therein: for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it.”So there will be no need for temple buildings which God visits from time to time because the earth itself becomes a temple and the actual physical body or tabernacle of God will dwell with us.God has a body with hands to wipe away our tears.
Vance Posted July 6, 2013 Posted July 6, 2013 I went to Bible Hub and found what you are trying to express herehttp://biblehub.com/matthew/16-19.htmThis is from the Holman Christian Standard Bible (©2009)“I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth is already bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth is already loosed in heaven."The problem Daniel has is that is a "mistranslation". It is missing the future tense that the Greek demands.So, a better translation would be “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be or shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be or shall be loosed in heaven."Daniel keeps neglecting/ignoring this future tense. He can NOT explain it away so he just ignores/neglects it. Does he not think we will notice?
Vance Posted July 6, 2013 Posted July 6, 2013 I do appreciate your attention to detail. Yes. I made a mistake. I'm not a greek scholar.I said, "The word "Shall be" is incorrect, it isn't in the phrase. It should be "Having been""You stated, "Notice "shall be" G2071, http://www.bluelette...ngs=G2071&t=KJV is the FUTURE OF e'-so-mi (G1510)" And you are correct. However, where I made a mistake, you also didn't point out that the following word (either Bind or Loose) is in the Perfect Past tense (a completed action). The problem as I have pointed out, is that there is a future tense (shall be) followed by a perfect past tense (having been bound). The mistake I made is saying that there isn't a "shall be" in the phrase. You are correct, there is. However, this doesn't change the problem I raised with translating it as most people do.What is interesting is that the problem doesn't show up in Strong's interlinear, but it does in others. Strongs appears to use a KJV translation for their english portion.This interlinear uses a more literal english version, which shows the problem I've identified:http://www.scripture...NTpdf/mat16.pdfThat is my favorite interlinear sources. And EVEN IT presents the same problem for Daniel. It also has the FUTURE TENSE "SHALL BE" in it. Which, we noticed that Daniel failed to mention.
teddyaware Posted July 6, 2013 Posted July 6, 2013 (edited) I have a lot of sympathy for this argument. I love my wife, and my life with my wife. However, the question is what does God have planned for us?I would say that Adam and Eve were created in a perfect environment and the question is, was God's plan to return to the original model he created in the beginning?First, as I've observed, there is but one marriage mentioned in Heaven. Next, let's look and see a glimpse of Heaven.Revelation 21:1 And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.22 And I saw no temple therein: for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it.23 And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof.24 And the nations of them which are saved shall walk in the light of it: and the kings of the earth do bring their glory and honour into it.25 And the gates of it shall not be shut at all by day: for there shall be no night there.22:5 And there shall be no night there; and they need no candle, neither light of the sun; for the Lord God giveth them light: and they shall reign for ever and ever.Just a few verses that indicate that the old order of things will change. He doesn't appear to be planning to be returning to the original model, rather it appears that our marriages on earth is but an analogy of our relationship with God.Notice a couple of keys, there is no temple, there is no night, no sun or moon, the old order of things has passed away.Daniel, From a testimony bearing Latter-day Saint's point of view, your approaching this subject from an "it appears" line of argumentation is unconvincing. The point I attempted to make in my previous post is that any fair-minded person would have to admit the Latter-day Saint concept of eternal marriage has a good and logical Biblical footing. I don't expect to convince you by my line of argumentation on Celestial Marriage (only the Spirit can do that), but I do hope you can now see the concept isn't totally outlandish in light of the Bible. By the way, I have an interesting question for you: If you believe in the literal resurrection of the body (which I presume you do), do you believe men and women will be resurrected anatomically correct, or do you believe we are going to be resurrected anatomically incorrect -- like Ken and Barbie dolls? Edited July 6, 2013 by teddyaware
Tacenda Posted July 6, 2013 Posted July 6, 2013 Okay, I was listening to a podcast recently with a group of former LDS missionaries turned Evangelical. They mentioned how much time we as LDS spend studying the bible in church. Once every four years for the New Testament. And once every four years for the Old Testament. Someone mentioned that they could spend a year on Romans alone in their church. And we're often told to read the BoM even when it's the year for the OT or NT of the bible.
Bikeemikey Posted July 6, 2013 Posted July 6, 2013 Okay, I was listening to a podcast recently with a group of former LDS missionaries turned Evangelical. They mentioned how much time we as LDS spend studying the bible in church. Once every four years for the New Testament. And once every four years for the Old Testament. Someone mentioned that they could spend a year on Romans alone in their church. And we're often told to read the BoM even when it's the year for the OT or NT of the bible.That is all true... But then the bible is only partially true right? :-)
teddyaware Posted July 6, 2013 Posted July 6, 2013 (edited) Duplicate. Disregard Edited July 6, 2013 by teddyaware
Jude2 Posted July 6, 2013 Posted July 6, 2013 Okay, I was listening to a podcast recently with a group of former LDS missionaries turned Evangelical. They mentioned how much time we as LDS spend studying the bible in church. Once every four years for the New Testament. And once every four years for the Old Testament. Someone mentioned that they could spend a year on Romans alone in their church. And we're often told to read the BoM even when it's the year for the OT or NT of the bible.If these exmormons only read their scriptures that much no wonder they left the church. There is the study we do at during Sunday School and I do wish we would take a little longer going through each book. Then every family is suppose to do their own daily reading plus our own personal study. I took four years of seminary in high school and then I took some collage classes at what is call Institute. There is also in our Stake an on going class offered on the different scriptures which meets once a week. There is plenty of scripture reading going on!
teddyaware Posted July 6, 2013 Posted July 6, 2013 (edited) Okay, I was listening to a podcast recently with a group of former LDS missionaries turned Evangelical. They mentioned how much time we as LDS spend studying the bible in church. Once every four years for the New Testament. And once every four years for the Old Testament. Someone mentioned that they could spend a year on Romans alone in their church. And we're often told to read the BoM even when it's the year for the OT or NT of the bible.Hi there Tacenda, Got a question for you that I ask with all due respect and genuine consideration for your feelings: Considering where you are now on your journey to spiritual understanding, I'm wondering which Christian religion, Mormonism or Evangelicalism, is most likely in your estimation going to turn out to be true. Edited July 6, 2013 by teddyaware
Tacenda Posted July 6, 2013 Posted July 6, 2013 Hi there Tacenda, Got a question for you that I ask with all due respect and genuine consideration for your feelings: Considering where you are now on your journey to spiritual understanding, I'm wondering which Christian religion, Mormonism or Evangelicalism, is most likely in your estimation going to turn out to be true.Whichever one is the most Christian in the end. The LDS are what I know and love. And the non LDS are wonderful, but don't believe they're trying to achieve Godhood, therefore they show more sinning outwardly, and show a bigger need for a Saviour too. There are definitely a lot of LDS that could be transfigured IMO, there so righteous. But are they in a relationship with God? Is that the ultimate? Or not, doesn't born again mean that? It's easy to be baptized, the hard part is before & after.
Vance Posted July 6, 2013 Posted July 6, 2013 Okay, I was listening to a podcast recently with a group of former LDS missionaries turned Evangelical. They mentioned how much time we as LDS spend studying the bible in church. Once every four years for the New Testament. And once every four years for the Old Testament. Someone mentioned that they could spend a year on Romans alone in their church. And we're often told to read the BoM even when it's the year for the OT or NT of the bible.They can study those few verses in Romans and those few verses in Galations, and those few verses in Eph ALL THEY WANT, but until they place the words of Jesus in preeminence to (their misunderstanding of ) the words of Paul they will never come to the knowledge of the truth.
Calm Posted July 6, 2013 Posted July 6, 2013 Whichever one is the most Christian in the end. The LDS are what I know and love. And the non LDS are wonderful, but don't believe they're trying to achieve Godhood, therefore they show more sinning outwardly, and show a bigger need for a Saviour too. There are definitely a lot of LDS that could be transfigured IMO, there so righteous. But are they in a relationship with God? Is that the ultimate? Or not, doesn't born again mean that? It's easy to be baptized, the hard part is before & after.How can someone be righteous and not in a relationship with God? All good comes from the Lord.
Vance Posted July 7, 2013 Posted July 7, 2013 (edited) Given my short amount of time right now, I hope you don't mind if I copy and paste from a web site that explains the verse:"Let’s look at these two verses in other translations.The Amplified Bible translates Matthew 16:19 this way: “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind (declare to be improper and unlawful) on earth must be what is already bound in heaven; and whatever you loose (declare lawful) on earth must be what is already loosed in heaven.” A footnote refers to “Charles B. Williams, [author of] The New Testament: A Translation [who said]: ‘The perfect passive participle, here referring to a state of having been already forbidden [or permitted].’” Matthew 18:18 is worded the same way as 16:19, and refers back to the same footnote.The Interlinear New Testament, edited by Jay P. Green Sr., quotes Matthew 16:19 in the English as: “And I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of Heaven. And whatever you bind on earth shall occur, having already been bound in Heaven. And whatever you may loose on the earth shall be, having been already loosed in Heaven.” In the interlinear column it states: “And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of the heavens, and whatever you bind on the earth shall be, having been bound in the heavens, and whatever you loose on the earth shall be, having been loosed in the heavens.”When we understand the sense of the verse, and see what the context is, it becomes plain that Messiah is telling His disciples to judge righteous judgment (John 7:24), know God’s law and how to administer it, and to conduct the ekklesia with overflowing love of God and love of the brethren, rather than a bunch of legal do’s and don’ts or carnal ordinances."From: http://livingtheway.org/binding.htmlI hope that makes it clear where I'm coming from. The common usage of that passage ignores the fact that the phrase is in the "perfect passive", meaning it was already loosed or already decided.My goal is to know the truth. If it doesn't bring comfort, I'd rather that, than a false sense of comfort built on sand.I understand that when Christ used those words (vine, door, bread, water, a lamb etc.), they are illustrative. However, in the Revelation passage it states, "the marriage of the Lamb has come..." indicating a real marriage. Do Lambs marry? no. Does "The Lamb" have a specific reference to someone? Of course it does. So, who is he going to marry? It seems to me that it is describing a real event, where the real Christ, who is also almightly God, will marry the church. In essence the whole purpose of our existence, why he created us in the first place will be fulfilled.There is a big problem with this analysis. “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind (declare to be improper and unlawful) on earth must be what is already bound in heaven; and whatever you loose (declare lawful) on earth must be what is already loosed in heaven.”And the problem is that the Greek word that is translated into the English "bind" (G1210 "deo") and "already bound"( G1210 "deo") is the same word (G1210 "deo"). And the Greek word that is translated into the English "loose" (G3089 "lyo") and "already loosed"(G3089 "lyo") is the same word (G3089 "lyo"). So, the same Greek word that Daniel insists is "perfect passive" is used to describe what Peter could do IN THE FUTURE (that is "bind" or "loose") and what Daniel insists is "already bound" or "already lossed".http://www.bluelette...6&t=KJV#conc/19 Edited July 7, 2013 by Vance
danielwoods Posted July 7, 2013 Posted July 7, 2013 I went to Bible Hub and found what you are trying to express herehttp://biblehub.com/matthew/16-19.htmThis is from the Holman Christian Standard Bible (©2009)“I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth is already bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth is already loosed in heaven."I had to chuckle a little because it validates the theme behind the Mormon play Saturday’s Warrior, (oh am I dating myself or what) Both my husband and I feel like we knew each other in heaven and like Jeremiah was ordained to be a prophet before he was born our marriage was preordained to be. But we are not robots if we choose to sin that sealing will be annulled in heaven. The earthly excommunication is only a formality.Right, or, "already has been bound..." doesn't mean that Peter was given the power to bind things in Heaven. Only that he was given the power to know what already has been bound in Heaven. The other point, related to sealings and marriage, is that these passages don't mention them. They have nothing to do with eternal marriage. In essence, there isn't anything in the Bible that mentioned an eternal marriage between a man and a woman.
Nevo Posted July 7, 2013 Posted July 7, 2013 (edited) There is a big problem with this analysis. And the problem is that the Greek word that is translated into the English "bind" (G1210 "deo") and "already bound"( G1210 "deo") is the same word (G1210 "deo"). And the Greek word that is translated into the English "loose" (G3089 "lyo") and "already loosed"(G3089 "lyo") is the same word (G3089 "lyo"). So, the same Greek word that Daniel insists is "perfect passive" is used to describe what Peter could do IN THE FUTURE (that is "bind" or "loose") and what Daniel insists is "already bound" or "already lossed".http://www.bluelette...6&t=KJV#conc/19Actually, Daniel is right, as your link plainly shows. Dedemenon is the perfect passive participle form of deo.Add-on: That said, I don't necessarily agree with Daniel's interpretation of the passage, although it finds support among some commentators (see, e.g., R.T. France, The Gospel of Matthew [NICNT, Eerdmans, 2007], 626-27.) Edited July 7, 2013 by Nevo 1
danielwoods Posted July 7, 2013 Posted July 7, 2013 I love Rev 21 it teaches so much Mormon doctrine.First tho Jesus referred to his body as a temple;“Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up….he spake of the temple of his body” John 2:19 Now Rev 21And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, ….And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God. And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes…And I saw no temple therein: for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it.”So there will be no need for temple buildings which God visits from time to time because the earth itself becomes a temple and the actual physical body or tabernacle of God will dwell with us.God has a body with hands to wipe away our tears.It doesn't say he has hands, or that he wipes away tears with them. There's no need for temples now, because our bodies are the temples he dwells in.
danielwoods Posted July 7, 2013 Posted July 7, 2013 The problem Daniel has is that is a "mistranslation". It is missing the future tense that the Greek demands.So, a better translation would be “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be or shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be or shall be loosed in heaven."Daniel keeps neglecting/ignoring this future tense. He can NOT explain it away so he just ignores/neglects it. Does he not think we will notice?I haven't ignored anything. Thanks. As I have said repeatedly, there is a future tense, followed by perfect past tense (Completed).
danielwoods Posted July 7, 2013 Posted July 7, 2013 That is my favorite interlinear sources. And EVEN IT presents the same problem for Daniel. It also has the FUTURE TENSE "SHALL BE" in it. Which, we noticed that Daniel failed to mention.What problem exactly? I have stated all along that there is a future tense followed by a past tense. Your interpretation of it ignores the past tense portion.
danielwoods Posted July 7, 2013 Posted July 7, 2013 Daniel, From a testimony bearing Latter-day Saint's point of view, your approaching this subject from an "it appears" line of argumentation is unconvincing. The point I attempted to make in my previous post is that any fair-minded person would have to admit the Latter-day Saint concept of eternal marriage has a good and logical Biblical footing. I don't expect to convince you by my line of argumentation on Celestial Marriage (only the Spirit can do that), but I do hope you can now see the concept isn't totally outlandish in light of the Bible. By the way, I have an interesting question for you: If you believe in the literal resurrection of the body (which I presume you do), do you believe men and women will be resurrected anatomically correct, or do you believe we are going to be resurrected anatomically incorrect -- like Ken and Barbie dolls?I think the minimal evidence in the biblical text to support the concept of the eternal marriage is mitigated by the revelation from Jesus and the Apostles. I think that the LDS read the biblical text that way because of the influence of Joseph Smith. Hence the difference in interpretation on many things. Are we going to be resurrected anatomically correct? I have no idea. Jesus stated that there is no marriage, and no one is given in marriage, in Heaven. So, it's likely that there's no need for it. But I have no idea. It's pure speculation.
danielwoods Posted July 7, 2013 Posted July 7, 2013 How can someone be righteous and not in a relationship with God? All good comes from the Lord.What does "being righteous" on the outside have to do with a direct relationship with the lord? Even an Atheist can appear righteous on the outside.
danielwoods Posted July 7, 2013 Posted July 7, 2013 There is a big problem with this analysis.And the problem is that the Greek word that is translated into the English "bind" (G1210 "deo") and "already bound"( G1210 "deo") is the same word (G1210 "deo"). And the Greek word that is translated into the English "loose" (G3089 "lyo") and "already loosed"(G3089 "lyo") is the same word (G3089 "lyo"). So, the same Greek word that Daniel insists is "perfect passive" is used to describe what Peter could do IN THE FUTURE (that is "bind" or "loose") and what Daniel insists is "already bound" or "already lossed".http://www.bluelette...6&t=KJV#conc/19Just because it's the same word doesn't mean it is in the same tense. http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/NTpdf/mat16.pdfNotice verse 19 the literal portion in english below the Greek, It states literally: "Shall be - Having Been bound"By the way, I'm just pointing out what is there. I didn't write it.
Recommended Posts