Does Lds Doctrine Contradict The Bible?

[Vance]

Looks past tense to me. All except one interlinear translate as a past tense. Why does it matter?

A little deceptive on your part. The tense is "Aorist" not "past tense" The Voice is "active" and the Mood is "indicative". http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Eph&c=4&t=KJV#conc/11 BTW that one interlinear translation is your favorite. . . . . . . . . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aorist_tense

In the grammar of Ancient Greek, including Koine, the aorist /ˈeɪ.ərɨst/ is a class of verb forms that generally portray a situation as simple or undivided, that is, as having perfective aspect. . . . . . . .In traditional grammatical terminology, the aorist is a "tense", a section of the verb paradigm formed with the same stem across all moods. By contrast, in theoretical linguistics, tense refers to a form that specifies a point in time (past, present, or future). . . . . . . . . . The aorist usually implies a past event in the indicative, but it does not assert pastness, and can be used of present or future events .

[Vance]

LOL!!!!

Go ahead and examine the Bible text (Greek) and tell me whether John the Baptist was an angel or not. (See Matt 11:10, Mark 1:2, Luke 7:27)

Bump for Daniel.

[danielwoods]

A little deceptive on your part. The tense is "Aorist" not "past tense" The Voice is "active" and the Mood is "indicative". http://www.bluelette...4&t=KJV#conc/11 BTW that one interlinear translation is your favorite. . . . . . . . . http://en.wikipedia....ki/Aorist_tense

And it matters because?

Bump for Daniel.

Same?

[cdowis]

And it matters because?

Read what is in the quote box in his post. If you want to use the grammar textbook, you really need to learn how to use it.

Pretty important for someone who bases his salvation on interpreting the bible using lexicons and grammar textbooks. If you don't carefully study those grammar issues, based on your views, that you are building on a sandy foundation. You gotta get that grammar down.

Edited July 16, 2013 by cdowis

[danielwoods]

Read what is in the quote box in his post. If you want to use the grammar textbook, you really need to learn how to use it.

Pretty important for someone who bases his salvation on interpreting the bible using lexicons and grammar textbooks. If you don't carefully study those grammar issues, based on your views, that you are building on a sandy foundation. You gotta get that grammar down.

You make a lot of assumptions about my salvation.

I know enough about Greek to get me into trouble. Which is why, when I noticed that all the translations translated as past tense, I wondered why. Not having the time to investigate why, I was really curious why it mattered? Does it really change the meaning of that passage that much? Because, if it doesn't, then it doesn't really matter. Christ gave/gives us all these gifts. Done.

[cdowis]

You make a lot of assumptions about my salvation.

Not at all. I am pointing out the logical conclusions on YOUR statements. I have no assumption at all, but merely observing what you yourself are telling us. When we discuss doctrines, you are the one who pulls out your lexicon and grammar textbook.

I know enough about Greek to get me into trouble. Which is why, when I noticed that all the translations translated as past tense, I wondered why. Not having the time to investigate why, I was really curious why it mattered? Does it really change the meaning of that passage that much? Because, if it doesn't, then it doesn't really matter. Christ gave/gives us all these gifts. Done.

You win. You are all over the place, going in six different directions at the same time. It's impossible for me to continue such a discussion.

Nothing personal, and I wish you all the best. You can have the last word.

Edited July 16, 2013 by cdowis

[danielwoods]

You make a lot of assumptions about my salvation.

Not at all. I am pointing out the logical conclusions on YOUR statements. I have no assumption at all, but merely observing what you yourself are telling us. When we discuss doctrines, you are the one who pulls out your lexicon and grammar textbook.

I know enough about Greek to get me into trouble. Which is why, when I noticed that all the translations translated as past tense, I wondered why. Not having the time to investigate why, I was really curious why it mattered? Does it really change the meaning of that passage that much? Because, if it doesn't, then it doesn't really matter. Christ gave/gives us all these gifts. Done.

You win. You are all over the place, going in six different directions at the same time. It's impossible for me to continue such a discussion.

Nothing personal, and I wish you all the best. You can have the last word.

The nature of online discussions is limiting. All of what I believe isn't in all of what I write, nor could it be I suppose, unless I wrote a boring book each time I posted.

[Ahab]

I know enough about Greek to get me into trouble. Which is why, when I noticed that all the translations translated as past tense, I wondered why. Not having the time to investigate why, I was really curious why it mattered? Does it really change the meaning of that passage that much? Because, if it doesn't, then it doesn't really matter. Christ gave/gives us all these gifts. Done.

Using the word "gave" can give the impression that the giving is over, as if it was a one time gift that was given in the past and is not being given any more. To say that he "gives us" a gift conveys a different idea, though, as if he is still giving that gift.

Both are true, because he gave us the gift and he still gives us the gift, but it helps to know what he gave and is still giving us.

[Vance]

And it matters because?

It is NOT past tense.

Same?

Angels are men. Angels and men are the same "species". John the Baptist, a human man, was/is an angel.

[Ahab]

The nature of online discussions is limiting. All of what I believe isn't in all of what I write, nor could it be I suppose, unless I wrote a boring book each time I posted.

Not that it would be boring, necessarily, but most of us do seem to have a short attention span when we are reading.

I like that you try to be brief.

[danielwoods]

Using the word "gave" can give the impression that the giving is over, as if it was a one time gift that was given in the past and is not being given any more. To say that he "gives us" a gift conveys a different idea, though, as if he is still giving that gift.

Both are true, because he gave us the gift and he still gives us the gift, but it helps to know what he gave and is still giving us.

I agree, and in this case it doesn't seem to make a whole lot of difference.

[danielwoods]

It is NOT past tense.

Angels are men. Angels and men are the same "species". John the Baptist, a human man, was/is an angel.

The fact that you think it's not past tense is clear. Why it's important to you isn't.

If men and angels are the same "species" that certainly isn't in the text.

Calling someone an "angel" doesn't necessarily indicate that's what they are. Depends on the context. Just as if someone is called a wolf in sheep's clothing. Does that indicate they are the same species as wolves or sheep?

[Ahab]

I agree, and in this case it doesn't seem to make a whole lot of difference.

Tell that to the crowd who believes there are no apostles living as mortals today because they believe that gift is no longer being given. How they interpret that scripture makes a lot of difference to them. Edited July 16, 2013 by Ahab

[danielwoods]

Tell that to the crowd who believes there are no apostles living as mortals today because they believe that gift is no longer being given. How they interpret that scripture makes a lot of difference to them.

There's a difference between, "there's no apostles living today" and "There can be no apostles living today." I agree with first statement, but not the second.

It depends what the requirements for being an apostle are.

[Ahab]

There's a difference between, "there's no apostles living today" and "There can be no apostles living today." I agree with first statement, but not the second.

And I suspect your position is based at least partially on how how you interpret that scripture.

Our Lord gives us that gift, and because he gives them to us we have them. He gave the gift in the past, and he also gives it today.

The fact that you don't acknowledge them as apostles of Jesus Christ doesn't negate the fact that he still gives them to us.

It depends what the requirements for being an apostle are.

Right, and it boils down to whether or not they are appointed by Jesus Christ into that particular office in the priesthood of God.

[danielwoods]

And I suspect your position is based at least partially on how how you interpret that scripture.

Our Lord gives us that gift, and because he gives them to us we have them. He gave the gift in the past, and he also gives it today.

The fact that you don't acknowledge them as apostles of Jesus Christ doesn't negate the fact that he still gives them to us.

Right, and it boils down to whether or not they are appointed by Jesus Christ into that particular office in the priesthood of God.

Well, everything hinges on how we differ in our principles of interpretation of scripture.

For example, when a replacement was sought for Judas, they said, "(Acts 1:²¹⁾ Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us,

²² Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection.

Which from this passage it appears that apostles were only those who fit this criteria.

Now, Paul doesn't exactly fit this criteria, and says, "(1 Cor. 15: 8 ^)"And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.

⁹ For I am the least of the apostles, that am not meet to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God."

So, Paul appears to say that because of Christ's direct interaction with him, made him an apostle, but the least of all apostles.

Now, your contention is, "whether or not they are appointed by Jesus Christ into that particular office in the priesthood of God." Which I would agree with to a point (because the "priesthood" part is based on a mistranslation). But, ultimately yes, it comes down to did Christ appoint them to be an apostle?

And as has been mentioned in other places, there's been no apostles appointed since Paul. Which on the face of it indicates that the foundation was laid, and apostles aren't needed to do that apostolic work at this time.

Edited July 16, 2013 by danielwoods

[Ahab]

Well, everything hinges on how we differ in our principles of interpretation of scripture.

No, that's more a symptom than the cause. What everything hinges on is whose voice we are guided by, and we should both be guided by direct revelation from our Father though Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost who will guide us into all truth while helping us to know what scripture is and how it should be interpreted.

For example, when a replacement was sought for Judas, they said, "(Acts 1:²¹⁾ Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us,

²² Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection.

Which from this passage it appears that apostles were only those who fit this criteria.

It was Peter, an apostle and the one who had the keys, who made that the criteria at the time, and while that was a good standard to follow for his time and place it wouldn't work out for anyone in this day and age because nobody living now could meet that criteria. Our Lord could still appoint another person to be his apostle, though, even though it wouldn't fit within the criteria Peter established at that time, so you should take some time to ponder and maybe ask God about what he would do if he wanted to appoint someone else to be an apostle today.

Surely you can acknwledge that our Lord wouldn't have to be limited by the criteria Peter established long ago, even though our Lord approved of that criteria then. In this day and age he would need to have some other criteria, and if you're familiar with our Church history you are already aware of what he did.

Now, Paul doesn't exactly fit this criteria, and says, "(1 Cor. 15: 8 ^)"And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.

⁹ For I am the least of the apostles, that am not meet to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God."

So, Paul appears to say that because of Christ's direct interaction with him, made him an apostle, but the least of all apostles.

Paul was saying that it was because he had persecuted the church that he felt he was the least of the apostles. He knew he was appointed, but he still remembered his past, and his memory of that was keeping him humble.

Now, your contention is, "whether or not they are appointed by Jesus Christ into that particular office in the priesthood of God." Which I would agree with to a point (because the "priesthood" part is based on a mistranslation). But, ultimately yes, it comes down to did Christ appoint them to be an apostle?

You think it's a mistranslation, but that's just because of what someone else has told you, and you still need to learn more about what is true.

And as has been mentioned in other places, there's been no apostles appointed since Paul. Which on the face of it indicates that the foundation was laid, and apostles aren't needed to do that apostolic work at this time.

See how much trouble you can get yourself into by not correctly understanding the scriptures, or knowing the voice of God when you hear it? Think back to who told you there's been no apostles appointed since Paul, and then you'll know who has steered you in the wrong direction.

[Vance]

The fact that you think it's not past tense is clear. Why it's important to you isn't.

Having apostles and prophets to guide the church was not just an ancient thing.

If men and angels are the same "species" that certainly isn't in the text.

John the Baptist was an angel according to the (Greek) Bible. That IS in the text. So, angels and men are the same species. Unless you want to argue, 1) the text doesn't mean what it says, 2) John the Baptist wasn't a man.

Calling someone an "angel" doesn't necessarily indicate that's what they are.

Ok, So an Old Testament prophesy of an angel preparing the way for the Lord is declared fulfilled in the New Testament by the declaration that John the Baptist was THE angel that prepared the way for the Lord, "doesn't necessarily indicate that's what they are????

Depends on the context.

And just what about the context would indicate that it doesn't mean what it says??

Just as if someone is called a wolf in sheep's clothing. Does that indicate they are the same species as wolves or sheep?

Ok, so show me where it says that men and angels are NOT the same species.

[Vance]

Well, everything hinges on how we differ in our principles of interpretation of scripture.

For example, when a replacement was sought for Judas, they said, "(Acts 1:²¹⁾ Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us,

²² Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection.

Which from this passage it appears that apostles were only those who fit this criteria.

The criterion is that "must one be ordained", nothing more, and a good thing to, otherwise Paul could not have been an apostle.

And as has been mentioned in other places, there's been no apostles appointed since Paul.

What other places??

Which on the face of it indicates that the foundation was laid, and apostles aren't needed to do that apostolic work at this time.

Or that the apostasy foretold came to past.

[danielwoods]

No, that's more a symptom than the cause. What everything hinges on is whose voice we are guided by, and we should both be guided by direct revelation from our Father though Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost who will guide us into all truth while helping us to know what scripture is and how it should be interpreted.

I appreciate you articulating this as you did. We are pin pointing the very difference between us.

You believe that "everything hinges on is whose voice we are guided by..."

I believe that "everything hinges on the principles of interpretation we use..."

You believe that how we interpret the text is a symptom not the cause of this difference.

Let's analyze this for a second. Consider what was Jesus' response to the three temptations from Satan?

1) “It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.”

2) "it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.

And then third Satan said, "For it is written, He shall give his angels charge over thee, to keep thee:

¹¹ And in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone.

¹² And Jesus answering said unto him, It is said, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God."

Notice the basis of his responses were scripture. And even when Satan miss-used scripture, Jesus answered with a correct interpretation of scripture. Not once did Jesus rest on "Hey I'm guided by the Spirit to say no..." rather, he said, "it is written..." and that was what everything hinged on.

The reason I bring this up to consider, is because of your contention that everything hinges on "whose voice we are guided by..." While I agree with this idea to a degree, it can't ever be the primary foundation of our guidance because there's no objective verification of that truth or voice we are hearing, unless we trust in the scriptures first.

Let's look at it a different way by asking a question. In your view, how does one learn to hear the voice of God?

You think it's a mistranslation, but that's just because of what someone else has told you, and you still need to learn more about what is true.

See how much trouble you can get yourself into by not correctly understanding the scriptures, or knowing the voice of God when you hear it? Think back to who told you there's been no apostles appointed since Paul, and then you'll know who has steered you in the wrong direction.

What is correctly understanding the scriptures, but understanding it exactly how the original author intended it to be understood?

[danielwoods]

Having apostles and prophets to guide the church was not just an ancient thing.

John the Baptist was an angel according to the (Greek) Bible. That IS in the text. So, angels and men are the same species. Unless you want to argue, 1) the text doesn't mean what it says, 2) John the Baptist wasn't a man.

Ok, So an Old Testament prophesy of an angel preparing the way for the Lord is declared fulfilled in the New Testament by the declaration that John the Baptist was THE angel that prepared the way for the Lord, "doesn't necessarily indicate that's what they are???? And just what about the context would indicate that it doesn't mean what it says?? Ok, so show me where it says that men and angels are NOT the same species.

It doesn't say that Apostles and prophets "guide" the church, but are gifts, given to the church for edification.

The Bible doesn't say that Angels have DNA or blood or flesh for that matter, so it's only speculative to say the are the same species or not. The fact that John acted like a Angel or messenger, doesn't mean all Angels are exactly like John. No more than saying all bad people are like wolves.

[Vance]

It doesn't say that Apostles and prophets "guide" the church, but are gifts, given to the church for edification.

Oh, so, "the work of the ministry" isn't about guiding? And "That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive" has nothing to do with guidance either?

The Bible doesn't say that Angels have DNA or blood or flesh for that matter,

Neither does it say that they don't.

so it's only speculative to say the are the same species or not.

So, it gives no indication that they are not the same species and it clearly declares several men to be angels, but we can not logically infer that they are the same species?

he fact that John acted like a Angel or messenger,

it doesn't say John "acted like" an angel, it clearly declares him to be a specific angel.

doesn't mean all Angels are exactly like John.

And neither are all men exactly like John. So, what is your point? Oh, and I suppose that you can make up some, almost credible, excuse why the angel in Rev 22 who describes himself as John's "fellowservant, and of thy (John's) brethren the prophets and of them which keep the sayings of this book", is not a human.

[cdowis]

Neither does it say that they don't. So, it gives no indication that they are not the same species and it clearly declares several men to be angels, but we can not logically infer that they are the same species?

You still talking with this guy?

The Bible doen't say that angels have DNA. This is a serious argument???

[danielwoods]

Oh, so, "the work of the ministry" isn't about guiding? And "That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive" has nothing to do with guidance either?

The point is that at the time it was written, there were apostles guiding, sure. At this time there isn't. They have laid the foundation, that now others build on.

Neither does it say that they don't. So, it gives no indication that they are not the same species and it clearly declares several men to be angels, but we can not logically infer that they are the same species? it doesn't say John "acted like" an angel, it clearly declares him to be a specific angel. And neither are all men exactly like John. So, what is your point? Oh, and I suppose that you can make up some, almost credible, excuse why the angel in Rev 22 who describes himself as John's "fellowservant, and of thy (John's) brethren the prophets and of them which keep the sayings of this book", is not a human.

This is why I didn't respond initially. Instead of stating what you believe and why from the outset, you ask loaded question. Then set the trap. Thanks. It appears that instead of a dialogue, you're interested in making me look bad. I really have no interest or time in playing this game of yours.

Here's the situation. If you want to speculate that Angels are humans, that Humans and Angels have the same DNA, be my guest. I don't really think it matters that much. And I don't see it plainly stated in scripture so I'm not going to speculate beyond that.

[Vance]

The point is that at the time it was written, there were apostles guiding, sure. At this time there isn't. They have laid the foundation, that now others build on.

That isn't what it says. The apostles and prophets ARE the foundation, and without the foundation the true church fell into apostasy.

This is why I didn't respond initially. Instead of stating what you believe and why from the outset, you ask loaded question. Then set the trap. Thanks. It appears that instead of a dialogue, you're interested in making me look bad. I really have no interest or time in playing this game of yours.

The game is yours. You are the one that seems uninterested in "dialogue".

Here's the situation. If you want to speculate that Angels are humans, that Humans and Angels have the same DNA, be my guest.

No need to speculate, we have modern revelation through living Apostles and prophets to clarify.

I don't really think it matters that much. And I don't see it plainly stated in scripture so I'm not going to speculate beyond that.

Humm, neither does it plainly state, in the scriptures, a prohibition on polygamy or that there is no eternal marriage or several of the other things you have claimed.