I prefer to take things one subject at a time and Mjr29 is focused on the God/man question.
What Mormons Believe--according to a Former BYU Professor
- Thread starter Prayer Warrior
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Grailhunter
Well-Known Member
GH, I wish you made more sense to me.
I would guess that 99.9% of Christians would say that it was the devil who tempted Eve in the Garden. You and Giuliano are the only exceptions I know of, lol.
The Bible contains one creation account. What debate did the Jews start about the creation account??
Jane is welcome to share the Mormon creation story. Lynn Wilder testified to the Mormon creation story. I quoted her at the beginning of this thread for anyone who's interested in knowing what Mormon's believe about the creation.
.
This one you should be able to sink your teeth into....it is in the Bible....read the creations story again and note Genesis 2:4.
Point of Interest: In this first creation story.......(Genesis 1:1--2:3) as the second creation story. Note: That the first two created beings are created at the same time and are not named. Note: That God does not breath into them the breath of life....which is a soul. Note: That they are created in God’s image where as in the second creation story the same is not said of Adam and Eve. Note: That they are not created from the elements of the Earth. Note: That they are not said to be naked. Note: That they are not placed in “the Garden” Note: Their dominion is not limited to an area like the Garden, it is the entire surface of the Earth. Note: That the rivers mentioned in the Garden are not mentioned. Note: That the fruit of all the trees and plants on Earth were made for food for them. Note: That the tree of the knowledge of good and evil is not mentioned nor the restriction thereof. Note: That the serpent nor temptation thereof is not mentioned. Note: That in the second creation story things are created in a different order, which would be the creation of what is called the Garden of Eden ie the Paradise of Delights. But most importantly Note: In the first creation story, that God intended for these beings to dominate and rule over all on Earth, as well as to reproduce in such numbers as to fill the Earth. In the KJV the words subdue and replenish are used. Note: That in the second creation story (Genesis 2:4-25) domination of the world is not mentioned and they live in the Garden, and they do not leave until they get kicked out. At this point God’s plan is for His creation to cover the Earth and transform the whole Earth. One last thing, God's first commandment, the only one He repeats over and over and is included in all His covenants is....Be fruitful and multiply.
I don't believe that these are 2 accounts of creation in Genesis. This article from GotQuestion.org explains.
Question: "Why are there two different Creation accounts in Genesis chapters 1-2?"
Answer: Genesis 1:1 says, “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.” Later, in Genesis 2:4, it seems that a second, different story of creation begins. The idea of two differing creation accounts is a common misinterpretation of these two passages which, in fact, describe the same creation event. They do not disagree as to the order in which things were created and do not contradict one another. Genesis 1describes the “six days of creation” (and a seventh day of rest), Genesis 2 covers only one day of that creation week—the sixth day—and there is no contradiction.
In Genesis 2, the author steps back in the temporal sequence to the sixth day, when God made man. In the first chapter, the author of Genesis presents the creation of man on the sixth day as the culmination or high point of creation. Then, in the second chapter, the author gives greater detail regarding the creation of man.
There are two primary claims of contradictions between Genesis chapters 1-2. The first is in regard to plant life. Genesis 1:11 records God creating vegetation on the third day. Genesis 2:5 states that prior to the creation of man “no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth and no plant of the field had yet sprung up, for the LORD God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no man to work the ground.” So, which is it? Did God create vegetation on the third day before He created man (Genesis 1), or after He created man (Genesis 2)? The Hebrew words for “vegetation” are different in the two passages. Genesis 1:11uses a term that refers to vegetation in general. Genesis 2:5 uses a more specific term that refers to vegetation that requires agriculture, i.e., a person to tend it, a gardener. The passages do not contradict. Genesis 1:11 speaks of God creating vegetation, and Genesis 2:5 speaks of God not causing “farmable” vegetation to grow until after He created man.
The second claimed contradiction is in regard to animal life. Genesis 1:24-25 records God creating animal life on the sixth day, before He created man. Genesis 2:19, in some translations, seems to record God creating the animals after He had created man. However, a good and plausible translation of Genesis 2:19-20reads, “Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them, and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds of the air and all the beasts of the field.” The text does not say that God created man, then created the animals, and then brought the animals to the man. Rather, the text says, “Now the LORD God had [already] created all the animals.” There is no contradiction. On the sixth day, God created the animals, then created man, and then brought the animals to the man, allowing the man to name the animals.
By considering the two creation accounts individually and then reconciling them, we see that God describes the sequence of creation in Genesis 1, then clarifies its most important details, especially of the sixth day, in Genesis 2. There is no contradiction here, merely a common literary device describing an event from the general to the specific.
Source: Why are there two different Creation accounts in Genesis chapters 1-2? | GotQuestions.org
Answer: Genesis 1:1 says, “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.” Later, in Genesis 2:4, it seems that a second, different story of creation begins. The idea of two differing creation accounts is a common misinterpretation of these two passages which, in fact, describe the same creation event. They do not disagree as to the order in which things were created and do not contradict one another. Genesis 1describes the “six days of creation” (and a seventh day of rest), Genesis 2 covers only one day of that creation week—the sixth day—and there is no contradiction.
In Genesis 2, the author steps back in the temporal sequence to the sixth day, when God made man. In the first chapter, the author of Genesis presents the creation of man on the sixth day as the culmination or high point of creation. Then, in the second chapter, the author gives greater detail regarding the creation of man.
There are two primary claims of contradictions between Genesis chapters 1-2. The first is in regard to plant life. Genesis 1:11 records God creating vegetation on the third day. Genesis 2:5 states that prior to the creation of man “no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth and no plant of the field had yet sprung up, for the LORD God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no man to work the ground.” So, which is it? Did God create vegetation on the third day before He created man (Genesis 1), or after He created man (Genesis 2)? The Hebrew words for “vegetation” are different in the two passages. Genesis 1:11uses a term that refers to vegetation in general. Genesis 2:5 uses a more specific term that refers to vegetation that requires agriculture, i.e., a person to tend it, a gardener. The passages do not contradict. Genesis 1:11 speaks of God creating vegetation, and Genesis 2:5 speaks of God not causing “farmable” vegetation to grow until after He created man.
The second claimed contradiction is in regard to animal life. Genesis 1:24-25 records God creating animal life on the sixth day, before He created man. Genesis 2:19, in some translations, seems to record God creating the animals after He had created man. However, a good and plausible translation of Genesis 2:19-20reads, “Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them, and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds of the air and all the beasts of the field.” The text does not say that God created man, then created the animals, and then brought the animals to the man. Rather, the text says, “Now the LORD God had [already] created all the animals.” There is no contradiction. On the sixth day, God created the animals, then created man, and then brought the animals to the man, allowing the man to name the animals.
By considering the two creation accounts individually and then reconciling them, we see that God describes the sequence of creation in Genesis 1, then clarifies its most important details, especially of the sixth day, in Genesis 2. There is no contradiction here, merely a common literary device describing an event from the general to the specific.
Source: Why are there two different Creation accounts in Genesis chapters 1-2? | GotQuestions.org
Grailhunter
Well-Known Member
GH, I wish you made more sense to me.
I would guess that 99.9% of Christians would say that it was the devil who tempted Eve in the Garden. You and Giuliano are the only exceptions I know of, lol.
The Bible contains one creation account. What debate did the Jews start about the creation account??
Jane is welcome to share the Mormon creation story. Lynn Wilder testified to the Mormon creation story. I quoted her at the beginning of this thread for anyone who's interested in knowing what Mormon's believe about the creation.
.
The devil in the Paradise of Delights. The Christians did some work to Christianize the Old Testament scriptures. If you check the Hebrews / Israelites religion they did not have a male devil, they did have a female demon, that was of the first creation story. Her name was Lilith. The Jews interpret the book of Job where Satan enters the Holy Court of God, tells of a time when Satan was still God's right hand angel and they both decide to test Job.
Grailhunter
Well-Known Member
I know they have tried to explain it away, but scholars still see two creation stories and the Jews recognized it as such.
The "Hebrews" use the same OT Christians use! They also use commentaries on the Torah called the Talmud. I don't see these commentaries as having equal authority as the Bible. Show me in the Bible where the devil is called a "she."
Grailhunter
Well-Known Member
The Christians and Moslems both have reinterpreted the Old Testament to suite their religious beliefs. For the Jews, the Old Testament has been there religion for thousands of years. You might want to check and see what they believed before Christianity came along and changed things. Besides taking the names of God the Father and God the Son out of the entire Bible there were many alterations.
Grailhunter
Well-Known Member
Did not say that the devil is called a she. The Jews believe in a female demon called Lilith. Now we can get into the fiasco of the word Lucifer....Lucifer is a Latin female name....Venus....the morning star.
Grailhunter
Well-Known Member
Do the Jews believe in Satan?
Jewish Virtual Library
Learning Religions
Satan appears as a proper being only twice in the whole of the Hebrew Bible, in the Book of Job and in the book of Zechariah (3:1–2). In both of these instances, the term that appears is ha'satan, with ha being the definite article "the." This is meant to show that the terminology is referring to a being. However, this being differs greatly from the character found in Christian or Islamic thought known as Satan or the Devil.
Jews in the City
The Jewish view of the Devil? That’s easy: there’s no such thing. Now, if you had asked me about Satan, it would be another story. You see, Judaism does have a concept of Satan but he’s no Devil. He’s an angel – and not a “fallen” one, either! I guess at this point it makes as much sense as any to point out that, while many of you have probably been reading that as “Satan” (pronounced “say-tin”), that’s not the Jewish way of saying it. We actually call this concept “the Satan” (pronounced “sah-tahn,” with a “the” in front of it). The Satan is “the accuser.” He is not a demon, a fallen angel, or the ruler of Hell. He doesn’t want your soul, nor would he have any use for it. Rather, the Satan is an angel like any other, a servant of God with an assigned job to do. His job is something like District Attorney – he prosecutes our sins in the Heavenly courtroom. That doesn’t make him evil, at least no more so than the prosecutors on Law and Order and, generally speaking, we root for them to get a conviction.
Jewish Virtual Library
Learning Religions
Satan appears as a proper being only twice in the whole of the Hebrew Bible, in the Book of Job and in the book of Zechariah (3:1–2). In both of these instances, the term that appears is ha'satan, with ha being the definite article "the." This is meant to show that the terminology is referring to a being. However, this being differs greatly from the character found in Christian or Islamic thought known as Satan or the Devil.
Jews in the City
The Jewish view of the Devil? That’s easy: there’s no such thing. Now, if you had asked me about Satan, it would be another story. You see, Judaism does have a concept of Satan but he’s no Devil. He’s an angel – and not a “fallen” one, either! I guess at this point it makes as much sense as any to point out that, while many of you have probably been reading that as “Satan” (pronounced “say-tin”), that’s not the Jewish way of saying it. We actually call this concept “the Satan” (pronounced “sah-tahn,” with a “the” in front of it). The Satan is “the accuser.” He is not a demon, a fallen angel, or the ruler of Hell. He doesn’t want your soul, nor would he have any use for it. Rather, the Satan is an angel like any other, a servant of God with an assigned job to do. His job is something like District Attorney – he prosecutes our sins in the Heavenly courtroom. That doesn’t make him evil, at least no more so than the prosecutors on Law and Order and, generally speaking, we root for them to get a conviction.
Grailhunter
Well-Known Member
Either way, for Christians, if we want to know the truth, we have to dig through the layers of changes and doctrinal insertions. If you do not, your fundamentalism is a religion of men....So why did Joseph Smith think there needed to be a change? The answer is obvious.
Grailhunter
Well-Known Member
For me any denomination that says, Here, believe this way." It is a red flag for me. If the doctrine was developed with a slogan like the Trinity or Original Sin and was enforced by pain of death. Then I know it was a lie. Don't believe what people tell you to believe. I do not say, believe me. I say take it back as close as you can to the original scriptures and look yourself. It is about your soul, you should be concerned. Do I have an intent to deceive if I say, Take it back to the actual scriptures?
And before you ask, I do believe in the Trinity, just not the blender formula.
And before you ask, I do believe in the Trinity, just not the blender formula.
Well, I love it when you say others are ignorant while betraying your own ignorance. "Before" still doesn't mean "in" and the Ark of the Covenant was constructed later, after the manna was collected in a pot.
Your logic confounds me. It's also called the "Ark of the Covenant." Does that mean the Ark is the covenant? No? Then why would you suppose the "Ark of the Testimony" is equated to the "testimony"? Again you ignore words -- like "of."
What's next? If the "rod of Aaron" was put in the Ark, should we think "Aaron" was put in too? The word "of" means something. It denotes a relationship; it doesn't mean the two things are the same.
If Genesis said "the devil" was in Eden, I'd believe it. You can lol all you want, but I think you repeat a vain tradition of men. You pretend to know something that isn't said in Genesis.
How can you compare the two. What religion are you, anyway???
Answer this question. Could the Jews have misinterpreted the Old Testament in their extra-biblical commentaries??? Of course they could, and they did.
Yes, one is the E-text (for Elohim) and the other is the J-text (for Jehovah).
Ha, ha, the Talmud contains a variety of viewpoints. Of course, some are wrong. The question for the reader is which rabbi is probably right.
Then the question is if Jesus ever quoted the Talmud or did any other of the New Testament authors? Ha, the answer is yes.
Go check it for yourself. Genesis 1 uses Elohim translated as God. The next account used Jehovah.
My understanding is that the Talmud contains Bible quotes from he OT. Are you saying that Jesus quoted a non-biblical portion and gave it the weight of God's Word??
