Noah's Flood And "mental Gymanstics" - Local Flooders Wanted!

[LinuxGal]

 

Whether Noah's flood happened or it didn't matters absolutely zero in terms of our salvation and exaltation.

 

But the Garden story, there's the rub.  Why would we need a savior if we never fell?  And if the Noah story doesn't stand scrutiny, why would the Eden story remain?

[thesometimesaint]

 as far as they are translated correctly; -- that's the rough part, isn't it? How are we to know? Especially when you have oral histories passed down for a thousand or more years prior to being written down. Each new oral historian being considered a "new translation"

 

The nice thing about the Church is that its still true even if you don't believe the Bible is historical. 

 

Whether Noah's flood happened or it didn't matters absolutely zero in terms of our salvation and exaltation.

 

What we have is what we have. So until God tell us differently they are always open to interpretation.

 

I believe the Bible is historical, but not in the infallible literalist sense of the word. So Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses were real living people doing their best to follow the dictates of God.

 

Agreed.

[thesometimesaint]

You don't know the Eighth Article of Faith very well.

 

Here is what the Articles of Faith actually says on the subject,

 

"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".

 

Here is what the Book of Mormon says about itself.

 

"And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God, that ye may be found spotless at the judgment-seat of Christ".

 

I would suggest in the future you refrain from telling me what I do and/or don't know.

Edited November 29, 2014 by thesometimesaint

[Pinecone]

Here is what the Articles of Faith actually says on the subject,

 

"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".

 

Here is what the Book of Mormon says about itself.

 

"And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God, that ye may be found spotless at the judgment-seat of Christ".

 

I would suggest in the future you refrain from telling me what I do and/or don't know.

 

You are condemning the things of God.

And if you knew the Book of Mormon - which was translated by the Power of God - you would know a record of the creation of the earth was had among the Jaredites who lived long before Moses.

 

As for Moses, the Lord appeared to him and showed him the Earth every particle and every soul who lived on it and likely how it was created. So Moses did not get his "information" from an oral history.

He received it directly from the Creator of the Universe. 

 

So yes, I cant tell you what you do and do not know, because you don't know what the scriptures contain, while millions of LDS members do.

[Pinecone]

So yes, I CAN tell you what you do and do not know - and so can the Prophets and Apostles - who know more than you.

 

[ Doesn't this site allow editing? ]

[thesometimesaint]

You are condemning the things of God.

And if you knew the Book of Mormon - which was translated by the Power of God - you would know a record of the creation of the earth was had among the Jaredites who lived long before Moses.

 

As for Moses, the Lord appeared to him and showed him the Earth every particle and every soul who lived on it and likely how it was created. So Moses did not get his "information" from an oral history.

He received it directly from the Creator of the Universe. 

 

So yes, I cant tell you what you do and do not know, because you don't know what the scriptures contain, while millions of LDS members do.

 

Just the mistakes of men.

 

Already knew that. How does that invalidate the Scriptures?

 

So? How does that invalidate the Bible or any other works of men?

 

Ad Hominem

[Freedom]

There is a difference believing the bible to be the word of God, and having a clear understanding of what it means. If I were to ask someone to go prepare the horses, most would assume we are going for a ride. If I were to say to prepare the chickens, most would presume we are having something to eat. A society that eats horses and has chickens as pets would a very different interpretation. The language which was used to produce the bible had a very limited vocabulary. They had no word for atmosphere, space, solar system or a host of other words we enjoy today. They had figures of speech that we know not of. 

 

We do not know the question they were trying to answer, nor the context of the story being told. What we do know is that scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness. In other words, scripture does contain material that is profitable for making us better people. It is not profitable for teaching science or history. The events that are recorded are there to teach us how to return to God, they are not recorded for their historical accuracy. 

[mnn727]

But the Garden story, there's the rub.  Why would we need a savior if we never fell?  And if the Noah story doesn't stand scrutiny, why would the Eden story remain?

 

It can somewhat stand, I doubt the story happened exactly as portrayed in Genesis or even (gasp) in the Temple portrayal.

[LinuxGal]

It can somewhat stand, I doubt the story happened exactly as portrayed in Genesis or even (gasp) in the Temple portrayal.

 

Evolution is 100% incompatible with a "fall" of man, for reasons too plain to elucidate.   Even a compromise position such as put forward by the Pope, that God had a hand in the game, doesn't work when the story postulates that nothing died until Adam sinned and brought death into the world.  For it is a corollary of survival-of-the-fittest that you must have non-survival of the non-fittest.  If one acknowledges that death preceded the fall, and allows that the fall was just a spiritual alienation from God, that absolutely undermines the symbology of having Christ die to set things aright, because death is no longer a penalty for sin, just alienation from God. And that alienation, for most humans through most of our history, has become the background default, rather than a "penalty".  

[Freedom]

Evolution is 100% incompatible with a "fall" of man, for reasons too plain to elucidate.   Even a compromise position such as put forward by the Pope, that God had a hand in the game, doesn't work when the story postulates that nothing died until Adam sinned and brought death into the world.  For it is a corollary of survival-of-the-fittest that you must have non-survival of the non-fittest.  If one acknowledges that death preceded the fall, and allows that the fall was just a spiritual alienation from God, that absolutely undermines the symbology of having Christ die to set things aright, because death is no longer a penalty for sin, just alienation from God. And that alienation, for most humans through most of our history, has become the background default, rather than a "penalty".  

But physical death is not the penalty for sin, only spiritual death is. Physical death is the consequence of being mortal. There are two deaths and jesus overcame both of them. Spiritual death and physical death. 

[LinuxGal]

But physical death is not the penalty for sin, only spiritual death is. Physical death is the consequence of being mortal. There are two deaths and jesus overcame both of them. Spiritual death and physical death. 

 

I can't speak to his victory over spiritual death, but there certainly was no victory over physical death, which remains entirely in force.

[Freedom]

I can't speak to his victory over spiritual death, but there certainly was no victory over physical death, which remains entirely in force.

I am not clear what you mean by this. Jesus came back a resurrected being and the scriptures mention many saints being resurrected. 

[Freedom]

It can somewhat stand, I doubt the story happened exactly as portrayed in Genesis or even (gasp) in the Temple portrayal.

I would suggest that the story in Genesis IS the temple version. The temple did not borrow from genesis, but rather, the passage in Genesis is the temple ceremony. a highly symbolic rendering of Gods covenant relationship with his children, culminating in the sealing ordinance. It uses similar language to the construction of the temple, comparing the cosmos to a grand celestial temple. Anybody who has gone to the temple must accept that the story is symbolic and not to be taken literally.. 

[mnn727]

Evolution is 100% incompatible with a "fall" of man, for reasons too plain to elucidate.   Even a compromise position such as put forward by the Pope, that God had a hand in the game, doesn't work when the story postulates that nothing died until Adam sinned and brought death into the world.  For it is a corollary of survival-of-the-fittest that you must have non-survival of the non-fittest.  If one acknowledges that death preceded the fall, and allows that the fall was just a spiritual alienation from God, that absolutely undermines the symbology of having Christ die to set things aright, because death is no longer a penalty for sin, just alienation from God. And that alienation, for most humans through most of our history, has become the background default, rather than a "penalty".  

Actually I could give you a scenario where evolution would fit 100% without going against the basics of the story (2 people, with their spirit put into them by God, tempted by Satan and disobeys Gods, gets kicked out of Paradise).

As far as nothing dying I flat out reject that - ever hear of the dinosaurs? 

Spiritual alienation? that's exactly what it was and would 100% require a sacrifice for sin (or a Savior) Physical death never was the penalty for sin - Satan and events following proved that. Spiritual death was always the issue - although it does tend to get lost in the child like story we have today..

Edited November 29, 2014 by mnn727

[LinuxGal]

Spiritual alienation? that's exactly what it was and would 100% require a sacrifice for sin (or a Savior) Physical death never was the penalty for sin - Satan and events following proved that.

 

Paul seems to disagree.

 

Romans 5:12 "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men..."

[Freedom]

Paul seems to disagree.

 

Romans 5:12 "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men..."

You are confusing the actions of Adam (he transgressed the law by eating the fruit and therefore brought physical death into play) and the actions of us (sin causing spiritual death)

[MormonFreeThinker]

Paul seems to disagree.

 

Are you sure you interpreting it correctly?

You seem to be 100% certain. 

[LinuxGal]

Are you sure you interpreting it correctly?

You seem to be 100% certain. 

 

100% certain?  Is that why I said "seems" ?

[LinuxGal]

You are confusing the actions of Adam (he transgressed the law by eating the fruit and therefore brought physical death into play) and the actions of us (sin causing spiritual death)

 

You are confusing the point that death is the penalty for sin, specifically Adam's sin, and Christ may have reversed the penalty of spiritual death, but that is something we'll encounter after our physical death, which is not remedied.

Edited November 30, 2014 by LinuxGal

[Freedom]

You are confusing the point that death is the penalty for sin, specifically Adam's sin, and Christ may have reversed the penalty of spiritual death, but that is something we'll encounter after our physical death, which is not remedied.

Death was not a penalty, it was a consequence. A necessary consequence. In fact, in LDS doctrine, Adam did not sin. In fact, after they left the garden, they rejoiced They celebrated their transgression. Death was a blessing, not a curse. We receive redemption from spiritual death when we repent, we receive remption from physical death when we are resurrected. 

[LinuxGal]

Death was not a penalty, it was a consequence. A necessary consequence. In fact, in LDS doctrine, Adam did not sin. In fact, after they left the garden, they rejoiced They celebrated their transgression. Death was a blessing, not a curse. We receive redemption from spiritual death when we repent, we receive remption from physical death when we are resurrected. 

 

I'm sort of with Woody Allen on this one, I want to receive redemption from physical death by not dying.

[Freedom]

I want a university degree without completing any course work and taking a final exam. 

[danielwoods]

But yet you accept the the numerous 'miracles' that would have had to have happened to cause a world wide flood (listed in other posts on this thread)and reject the geological records. You turn God into both a magician and a liar.

Of course this is based on faulty assumptions.

 

First, everything about the Universe and our existence is a miracle. Based on the laws of physics alone, we shouldn't be here, yet we are. 

Second, the cause of the world wide flood followed the laws of physics as we know them today. There wasn't a miracle that caused it, I would agree that all who were saved in the ark, was a miracle, but that's God he does that.

Third, I don't reject any of the geological records, I just interpret them in light of more reliable information.

[LinuxGal]

Second, the cause of the world wide flood followed the laws of physics as we know them today.

 

The atmosphere can only hold one inch of water suspended in vapor form.  If it happens to rain more than one inch at a time, there must be some transport of air masses involved, and this can only be in a small area, not global.  If you talk about a water canopy, this doesn't follow physical laws as we know it (the aforementioned one inch maximum), a canopy sufficient to dump miles of water would be opaque and black.  Even a thunderhead borders on being black.

[danielwoods]

Death was not a penalty, it was a consequence. A necessary consequence. In fact, in LDS doctrine, Adam did not sin. In fact, after they left the garden, they rejoiced They celebrated their transgression. Death was a blessing, not a curse. We receive redemption from spiritual death when we repent, we receive remption from physical death when we are resurrected. 

 

I'm curious how physical death wasn't a judgement, yet you use the same word "redemption from" to describe both, yet one ins't a punishment, and one is? How can one be redeemed (forgiven) from something that isn't a punishment?