Rob Osborn Posted May 12, 2014 Posted May 12, 2014 "Of course you may not." -Comic Book Guy This proves to the world that your interpretation is not church doctrine. Thanks for the clarification.
Rob Osborn Posted May 12, 2014 Posted May 12, 2014 We don't believe in the infallibility of any mortal production. SEE Articles of Faith #8 We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God. We're not Bibolulterers either. SEE http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Scientific_errors_in_the_Bible So, when all else fails and you cant back up your interpretation you resort back to the old atheist claims. Gotcha.
The Nehor Posted May 12, 2014 Posted May 12, 2014 And round and round we go...If it was just local floods then God has broken his promise thousands of times since then-50 And it came to pass that Enoch continued his cry unto the Lord, saying: I ask thee, O Lord, in the name of thine Only Begotten, even Jesus Christ, that thou wilt have mercy upon Noah and his seed, that the earth might never more be covered by the floods.51 And the Lord could not withhold; and he covenanted with Enoch, and sware unto him with an oath, that he would stay the floods; that he would call upon the children of Noah;52 And he sent forth an unalterable decree, that a remnant of his seed should always be found among all nations, while the earth should stand; (Moses 7:50-52)God has never sent floods of that magnitude since so promise kept.More problematic to your thesis is that it was promised that Enoch's seed would always be found amongst the nations as long as the earth should stand. If the flood was global then such a promise is meaningless. Of course they would. Everyone would be descended from Noah. Same thing with Melchizedek talking about how his seed should always continue. If the flood wiped out all human life then why that emphasis and why say "found among all nations" instead of everyone being his seed.Modern revelation makes your thesis problematic.
The Nehor Posted May 12, 2014 Posted May 12, 2014 This proves to the world that your interpretation is not church doctrine. Thanks for the clarification.Hey world!!!! Does it actually do that????
thesometimesaint Posted May 12, 2014 Posted May 12, 2014 This proves to the world that your interpretation is not church doctrine. Thanks for the clarification. Partially correct. NO interpretation is accepted Church doctrine. We all eagerly await God to tell us how he did it. In the mean time history has shown it best to let science do its thing while religion does its thing.
thesometimesaint Posted May 12, 2014 Posted May 12, 2014 when all else fails and you cant back up your interpretation you resort back to the old atheist claims. Gotcha. So the Bible was written by Atheists. That's interesting.
The Nehor Posted May 12, 2014 Posted May 12, 2014 So the Bible was written by Atheists. That's interesting.The Bible must be one of those long cons.
Rob Osborn Posted May 12, 2014 Posted May 12, 2014 God has never sent floods of that magnitude since so promise kept. More problematic to your thesis is that it was promised that Enoch's seed would always be found amongst the nations as long as the earth should stand. If the flood was global then such a promise is meaningless. Of course they would. Everyone would be descended from Noah. Same thing with Melchizedek talking about how his seed should always continue. If the flood wiped out all human life then why that emphasis and why say "found among all nations" instead of everyone being his seed. Modern revelation makes your thesis problematic. Not this poorly thought argument again. The promise given to Enoch was that after the global flood God would stay the floods to never again become a flood to destroy all life on the earth. The promise that a remnant of his sedd should be found among all nations means that everyone who is alive can trace their lineage back to Enoch. Methuselah bragged about his seed being preserved while everyone else would stop. This only makes sense if there is a global flood and through Methuselah comes Noah who from him sprang all the nations of the earth after the flood.
The Nehor Posted May 12, 2014 Posted May 12, 2014 Not this poorly thought argument again.Considering you believe scientific data supports a global flood you are in a glass stones and rock throwing situation if you persist in accusing others of thinking poorly.
Rob Osborn Posted May 12, 2014 Posted May 12, 2014 Partially correct. NO interpretation is accepted Church doctrine. We all eagerly await God to tell us how he did it. In the mean time history has shown it best to let science do its thing while religion does its thing. Theres nothing to interpret concerning the extent of the flood- it was a global event, the church readily acknowledges and professes this belief- its simple easy to understand doctrine. Its only when you guys come along and question everything from the fallibility of prophets to questioning wording and definitions giving them your own special meanings that there is an issue. But, its only you guys that have to question, the rest of us already know what the official position of the church is and we teach it on Sunday with the spirit.
thesometimesaint Posted May 12, 2014 Posted May 12, 2014 The Bible must be one of those long cons. It is the absolutists positions that frighten me the most. It is like the last 1200 years didn't happen
Rob Osborn Posted May 12, 2014 Posted May 12, 2014 Considering you believe scientific data supports a global flood you are in a glass stones and rock throwing situation if you persist in accusing others of thinking poorly. The thinking poorly part is the poorly thought interpretation you gave of the promise given to Enoch.
Rob Osborn Posted May 12, 2014 Posted May 12, 2014 So the Bible was written by Atheists. That's interesting. Is that your belief- that it was? Or do you just like to use atheist attacks on the bible constantly?
The Nehor Posted May 12, 2014 Posted May 12, 2014 The thinking poorly part is the poorly thought interpretation you gave of the promise given to Enoch.No, if you are correct God thought it out poorly. Why not just say everyone will be of your seed rather then this coy talk of the seed being found amongst all nations.I think you should repent of calling God an idiot.
Anijen Posted May 12, 2014 Posted May 12, 2014 So Rob you state the Bible "theres nothing to interpret." So why do you get to pick and choose what and how it gets to be interpreted? Why do you throw out interpretations that go against your opinions.
longview Posted May 12, 2014 Posted May 12, 2014 So, do you think the inspired book of Moses is translated correctly? It speaks of the global deluge there. Just admit that the church doctrine believes the flood was global and lets move on. You can choose to disagree with church doctrine but at least admit it.I do believe in the Global Deluge and that all land had to be simultaneously "immersed" some way or the other. But we simply don't have all the details. I do believe the Book of Moses is inspired but I recall an Ensign article a while ago that Joseph Smith's work was still ongoing in translating this book. In fact he was making several passes through it refining and still correcting the book. He had two copies for this work. The latest version ended up with Emma Smith and eventually passed to the RLDS. Apparently the main church ended up with the older version. The new version has details that our current Book of Moses do not have, such as the lifespan of Adam and Methuselah, both of whom lived to be 999 years and 6 months. If Joseph Smith had not be assassinated so soon or if he had not been harried so much by mobbers, we would have a lot more accurate and complete version of the Book of Moses. In any case, the argument in this thread is pointless. The scriptures cannot be exhaustive in describing all that transpired in earth history. Neither can science account for conditions throughout history. Its methods for estimating ages are not 100% foolproof. It is very dependent on making a whole raft of assumptions and conjectures. Even the very "facts" are subject to interpretations and evaluations. Isaac Newton certainly did not have the "last word" when he developed his gravitation formulas. Neither did Einstein have the "last word" with his earth shaking theories. Even today we expect further revisions and alternatives.
Rob Osborn Posted May 12, 2014 Posted May 12, 2014 No, if you are correct God thought it out poorly. Why not just say everyone will be of your seed rather then this coy talk of the seed being found amongst all nations. I think you should repent of calling God an idiot. Its well and plainly laid out. Read it again. The promise is given to Enoch that through his seed would come Methuselah and through Methuselah would come Noah. It was prophesied that through Noah (which was the seed of Enoch) would come all the new inhabitants of the earth after the deluge. It is precisely this reason as to why Methuselah was so proud and bragged- 2 And it came to pass that Methuselah, the son of Enoch, was not taken, that the covenants of the Lord might be fulfilled, which he made to Enoch; for he truly covenanted with Enoch that Noah should be of the fruit of his loins. 3 And it came to pass that Methuselah prophesied that from his loins should spring all the kingdoms of the earth (through Noah), and he took glory unto himself. (Moses 8:2-3)
The Nehor Posted May 12, 2014 Posted May 12, 2014 Its well and plainly laid out. Read it again. The promise is given to Enoch that through his seed would come Methuselah and through Methuselah would come Noah. It was prophesied that through Noah (which was the seed of Enoch) would come all the new inhabitants of the earth after the deluge. It is precisely this reason as to why Methuselah was so proud and bragged-2 And it came to pass that Methuselah, the son of Enoch, was not taken, that the covenants of the Lord might be fulfilled, which he made to Enoch; for he truly covenanted with Enoch that Noah should be of the fruit of his loins.3 And it came to pass that Methuselah prophesied that from his loins should spring all the kingdoms of the earth (through Noah), and he took glory unto himself. (Moses 8:2-3)If you are just going to make up your own interpretation of the text and supplant the plain meaning then I think we are done here.
thesometimesaint Posted May 12, 2014 Posted May 12, 2014 The thinking poorly part is the poorly thought interpretation you gave of the promise given to Enoch. http://www.byui.edu/Documents/instructional_development/Perspective/V4n2/v4n2_ott_s.pdf
Rob Osborn Posted May 12, 2014 Posted May 12, 2014 So Rob you state the Bible "theres nothing to interpret." So why do you get to pick and choose what and how it gets to be interpreted? Why do you throw out interpretations that go against your opinions. Theres nothing to interpret here regarding where the church stands on the matter. It is plain and simple- the church believes and states the flood was a global event. There is no need for interpreting that- its simple- the church official doctrine on the matter is that it was a complete covering of the earth with water.
The Nehor Posted May 12, 2014 Posted May 12, 2014 Theres nothing to interpret here regarding where the church stands on the matter. It is plain and simple- the church believes and states the flood was a global event. There is no need for interpreting that- its simple- the church official doctrine on the matter is that it was a complete covering of the earth with water.I disrespectfully disagree.
Rob Osborn Posted May 12, 2014 Posted May 12, 2014 If you are just going to make up your own interpretation of the text and supplant the plain meaning then I think we are done here. Whats there to interpret? Verse 2-3 lay out exactly the reason why Methuselah wasnt taken up to Enoch in the heavens so that from his loins could come Noah from the which would spring all the nations of the earth after the flood. Its that simple.
seed Posted May 12, 2014 Posted May 12, 2014 Theres nothing to interpret here regarding where the church stands on the matter. It is plain and simple- the church believes and states the flood was a global event. There is no need for interpreting that- its simple- the church official doctrine on the matter is that it was a complete covering of the earth with water. It seems like the flood has to be not global, because of the post flood existence of giants. so is there some possibility that the church is not correct ?
Rob Osborn Posted May 12, 2014 Posted May 12, 2014 I disrespectfully disagree. Then you do so entirely with the church and not just me. You disrespectfully disagree with the church doctrine. Okay, we both agree with that, lets move on.
longview Posted May 12, 2014 Posted May 12, 2014 If you are just going to make up your own interpretation of the text and supplant the plain meaning then I think we are done here.It appears you are arguing for the sake of arguing and not coming to grips with the plain language of the scriptures provided by Rob Osborn.
Recommended Posts