snowflake Posted October 25, 2017 Author Posted October 25, 2017 2 hours ago, Jane_Doe said: LDS *do* believe Genesis 5 and other scriptures. Believing in it symbolically is still believing. Do you understand that? Sure, I understand that you believe it symbolically but think it is impossible to live 933 years, right?
Jane_Doe Posted October 25, 2017 Posted October 25, 2017 7 minutes ago, snowflake said: Sure, I understand that you believe it symbolically but think it is impossible to live 933 years, right? I never said that.
bluebell Posted October 25, 2017 Posted October 25, 2017 8 minutes ago, snowflake said: Sure, I understand that you believe it symbolically but think it is impossible to live 933 years, right? I personally think that it's very possible for God to cause someone to live to be 933 years old. I just doubt that the bible teaching on the subject is meant to be taken literally.
thesometimesaint Posted October 25, 2017 Posted October 25, 2017 7 minutes ago, snowflake said: Sure, I understand that you believe it symbolically but think it is impossible to live 933 years, right? I don't believe it is impossible. Just that we have no Empirical way to prove it. 1
JLHPROF Posted October 25, 2017 Posted October 25, 2017 29 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said: Science says no such things. God can do anything he wants. That is what is so good about being a God. Science by definition can not put God into a test tube. It isn't science if a mortal nonbeliever as well as a mortal believer can't do it. I agree. So if God wanted to flood the entire earth and science cannot find evidence of it, does that mean it didn't happen? Or if God wanted the first people to appear on earth 6000 years ago but science thinks there is evidence that people existed long before that does that mean God can't have done so? And back to the OP. If God wants a man to live to the age of 965 we can assume they did. Regardless of current scientific understanding.
JLHPROF Posted October 25, 2017 Posted October 25, 2017 3 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said: I don't believe it is impossible. Just that we have no Empirical way to prove it. Which leads to speculation as to what God meant in revelation rather than taking it to mean what it says.
thesometimesaint Posted October 25, 2017 Posted October 25, 2017 9 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: I agree. So if God wanted to flood the entire earth and science cannot find evidence of it, does that mean it didn't happen? Or if God wanted the first people to appear on earth 6000 years ago but science thinks there is evidence that people existed long before that does that mean God can't have done so? And back to the OP. If God wants a man to live to the age of 965 we can assume they did. Regardless of current scientific understanding. Despite ingenious efforts to lend a degree of plausibility to the tales, nothing can be salvaged without the direct and constant intervention of the deity. As we have already established science can not put God (any Deity) into a test tube.
clarkgoble Posted October 25, 2017 Posted October 25, 2017 (edited) 25 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: So if God wanted to flood the entire earth and science cannot find evidence of it, does that mean it didn't happen? If all we have are possibly corrupted records (see the Book of Mormon on the Bible) and it's not just not finding evidence but strong evidence it didn't happen (continuously occupied cities in multiple continents, no silt in caves, problem of all the species on the ark, Noah not dealing with problem of fish, etc.) then that's strong evidence it didn't happen the way some read Genesis suggesting. Ultimately the issue isn't "could God have done it" but the reasons why one thinks it happened that way. At a certain level of miracles (so God destroyed the world and then recreated it in a fashion that looked like it never happened including recreating all the life that would have perished) you end up with God making every effort to make it appear like it never happened. So why not just roll with what God clearly wanted everyone to believe? Edited October 25, 2017 by clarkgoble 1
snowflake Posted October 25, 2017 Author Posted October 25, 2017 27 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said: I don't believe it is impossible. Just that we have no Empirical way to prove it. I absolutely agree.
snowflake Posted October 25, 2017 Author Posted October 25, 2017 53 minutes ago, bluebell said: I personally think that it's very possible for God to cause someone to live to be 933 years old. I just doubt that the bible teaching on the subject is meant to be taken literally. Please explain. God's word said when Adam died he was 933 years old, what else is there to understand or glean from this passage? It is a very clear, concise statement.
thesometimesaint Posted October 25, 2017 Posted October 25, 2017 48 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: Which leads to speculation as to what God meant in revelation rather than taking it to mean what it says. There are a number of possibilities here. But it probably means that we mortals got it wrong.
bluebell Posted October 26, 2017 Posted October 26, 2017 5 hours ago, snowflake said: Please explain. God's word said when Adam died he was 933 years old, what else is there to understand or glean from this passage? It is a very clear, concise statement. It is very clearly and concisely stated, but not by God. It's stated by an imperfect and fallible man, who's stories were told and retold orally until they were copied over and over again by other imperfect and infallible men, who's copied words were eventually translated into other languages and cultures by other imperfect and infallible men. I believe that God preserved the bible and that it is sacred and His word, but I don't believe that means that the bible is the same as God: Perfect and without error. And believing that there are errors in the bible means that just because something is said concisely, it would not be reasonable or prudent to assume that that automatically make it literal truth. 1
carbon dioxide Posted October 26, 2017 Posted October 26, 2017 (edited) On 10/23/2017 at 7:40 AM, snowflake said: 11 And the days of Adam, after he had begotten Seth, were eight hundred years, and he begat many sons and daughters; 12 And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years, and he died. 13 Seth lived one hundred and five years, and begat Enos, and prophesied in all his days, and taught his son Enos in the ways of God; wherefore Enos prophesied also. 14 And Seth lived, after he begat Enos, eight hundred and seven years, and begat many sons and daughters. 15 And the children of men were numerous upon all the face of the land. And in those days Satan had great dominion among men, and raged in their hearts; and from thenceforth came wars and bloodshed; and a man’s hand was against his own brother, in administering death, because of secret works, seeking for power. 16 All the days of Seth were nine hundred and twelve years, and he died. How does the LDS church (and it's members) understand the long life spans and genealogies described in the Book of Moses? Are they to be taken as accurate and literal? As for me, I take the scriptures literal unless there is a compelling reason not to take it as such. Those place where it is not literal I isolate it and don't expand it to other areas unless the usage fits a clear pattern. Too many times I have seen people say "Well it is a metaphor here, and over here its a metaphor, therefore this place its a metaphor to." I say not to that. I believe one must show in each case it was meant to be a metaphor at the time being used. Edited October 26, 2017 by carbon dioxide 1
carbon dioxide Posted October 26, 2017 Posted October 26, 2017 LDS should not have problem with Adam living to be 930 years old. We believe in translated men who are still walking on the earth after 2000 years. The problem is people want to set the bounds regarding life and how things occur as we see them. Does life require water? Perhaps on this world but perhaps there are other worlds where water is not that essential. The D&C says the history of the earth is hidden from man. Most of the true history of the world will not be revealed until the Millennium. Things about the world and its history will be revealed that no man knew about. Even the best scholars would feel dumb after they are revealed. 3
thesometimesaint Posted October 26, 2017 Posted October 26, 2017 4 hours ago, carbon dioxide said: LDS should not have problem with Adam living to be 930 years old. We believe in translated men who are still walking on the earth after 2000 years. The problem is people want to set the bounds regarding life and how things occur as we see them. Does life require water? Perhaps on this world but perhaps there are other worlds where water is not that essential. The D&C says the history of the earth is hidden from man. Most of the true history of the world will not be revealed until the Millennium. Things about the world and its history will be revealed that no man knew about. Even the best scholars would feel dumb after they are revealed. all you have to do is show to believers and nonbelievers that men live to be 930 years old today. Anything else is an a appeal to ignorance. All you have to do is show to believers and nonbelievers that man still walking the earth after 2000 years. Life as w
snowflake Posted October 26, 2017 Author Posted October 26, 2017 12 hours ago, bluebell said: It is very clearly and concisely stated, but not by God. It's stated by an imperfect and fallible man, who's stories were told and retold orally until they were copied over and over again by other imperfect and infallible men, who's copied words were eventually translated into other languages and cultures by other imperfect and infallible men. I believe that God preserved the bible and that it is sacred and His word, but I don't believe that means that the bible is the same as God: Perfect and without error. And believing that there are errors in the bible means that just because something is said concisely, it would not be reasonable or prudent to assume that that automatically make it literal truth. Is this how you feel about the other books in the LDS canon too?
bluebell Posted October 26, 2017 Posted October 26, 2017 1 hour ago, snowflake said: Is this how you feel about the other books in the LDS canon too? Yes. The bible is unique in our LDS canon because of it's age (and all the problems that comes with being comprised of thousands of fragments that are thousands of years old and were compiled and translated over and over again by well meaning but imperfect men) but none of the LDS books of scripture are considered inerrant. 2
Jane_Doe Posted October 26, 2017 Posted October 26, 2017 4 hours ago, snowflake said: Is this how you feel about the other books in the LDS canon too? That's literally stated on the cover page: "And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; " All books of scripture are written down by men, and no book is an excuse to quit listening the the active guidance from God. 3
JLHPROF Posted October 26, 2017 Posted October 26, 2017 19 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said: That's literally stated on the cover page: "And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; " All books of scripture are written down by men, and no book is an excuse to quit listening the the active guidance from God. Agreed. Which is why I don't put canonized scripture above other prophetic teachings. There is nothing preventing a falsehood creeping into canon, and nothing preventing a revelation from God being excluded. Paul was as prone to make mistakes as Moses or Joseph Smith or Peter or Isaiah or anyone else claiming to be a prophet. Peter and Paul disagreed on doctrine. That meant a contradiction between Apostles until the Lord set one of them straight. Which also means that prior to being set straight one of the Apostles was teaching a false doctrine. 2
snowflake Posted October 26, 2017 Author Posted October 26, 2017 4 hours ago, bluebell said: Yes. The bible is unique in our LDS canon because of it's age (and all the problems that comes with being comprised of thousands of fragments that are thousands of years old and were compiled and translated over and over again by well meaning but imperfect men) but none of the LDS books of scripture are considered inerrant. Bluebell, I used to completely agree with your assessment of the Biblical fragments and their age, however your assumptions are wrong. Please do some investigating into the matter!
bluebell Posted October 26, 2017 Posted October 26, 2017 47 minutes ago, snowflake said: Bluebell, I used to completely agree with your assessment of the Biblical fragments and their age, however your assumptions are wrong. Please do some investigating into the matter! Why do you assume that i haven't? 1
snowflake Posted October 26, 2017 Author Posted October 26, 2017 22 minutes ago, bluebell said: Why do you assume that i haven't? "and all the problems that comes with being comprised of thousands of fragments that are thousands of years old and were compiled and translated over and over again by well meaning but imperfect men)" Because of this statement.
Jane_Doe Posted October 26, 2017 Posted October 26, 2017 31 minutes ago, snowflake said: "and all the problems that comes with being comprised of thousands of fragments that are thousands of years old and were compiled and translated over and over again by well meaning but imperfect men)" Because of this statement. The fact that imperfect men were the translators is simply a fact. That's not to say they weren't trying their hardest and with the best intentions, cause vast vast majority were, but men are inherently imperfect. 1
strappinglad Posted October 26, 2017 Posted October 26, 2017 4 hours ago, Jane_Doe said: That's literally stated on the cover page: "And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; " All books of scripture are written down by men, and no book is an excuse to quit listening the the active guidance from God. That's what we get guys for not letting the women do the recording, imperfections!!
bluebell Posted October 27, 2017 Posted October 27, 2017 19 hours ago, snowflake said: "and all the problems that comes with being comprised of thousands of fragments that are thousands of years old and were compiled and translated over and over again by well meaning but imperfect men)" Because of this statement. I'm talking about the entire bible, OT included, and not just the NT. Knowing that, what in my statement is false?
Recommended Posts