Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jun 27, 2007 18:38:59 GMT -4
Wow, Jason. What a fundamental misunderstanding of the depth of detail in the Bible! The book of Genesis spans at least three thousand years. The account in Genesis must of necessity outline only the barest bones of what was happening in the world during those three thousand years.
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Jun 27, 2007 22:34:46 GMT -4
If I knew it was that simple I wouldn't have left the church! If you don't believe God can accomplish miracles than I don't think you should be in a church. What is a miracle? A cell splitting is a miracle. The Big Bang is a miracle. My Garden growing is a miracle. My son being born is a miracle. ...well, unless I took Biology & Physics 101 and understood how it happens. (not that I really do, sometimes I think existence is a miracle, seriously) Now, some other things I don't believe are miracles because I don't believe they really happened: Fitting all the species of the world on an ark. Parting the Red Sea. Feeding the multitude with a few loaves of bread and some fish. God telling a virgin that she's been impregnated - that's another thing - exactly who impregnated her, like, whose seed was it. God's? Isn't Jesus God? etc. You know Jason, I think Jesus was one of the most glorious example of what a man can become, and one of the most inspiring individuals of all time. But I don't believe he was God. I think that diminishes what he was. Generally, when I read the Bible, I only read the words printed in red...
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jun 28, 2007 3:18:54 GMT -4
Genesis leaves out quite a lot, true. However, when it bothers telling us anything, it goes into detail. Just like any other book of the Bible.
And Ginnie, that's the way to read the Bible unless you're in it for the poetry.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jun 28, 2007 11:45:56 GMT -4
Now, some other things I don't believe are miracles because I don't believe they really happened: Fitting all the species of the world on an ark. Parting the Red Sea. Feeding the multitude with a few loaves of bread and some fish. I believe these things really did happen, at least in some form. Did Noah really fit every species of the world on an ark? Well I don't know about that, but I think he really built an ark, he really did put lots of animals on it, and there really was a flood that killed a lot of people. Parting the Red Sea and feeding multitudes with five loves and three fishes - yes, I think those things really happened pretty much as described in the Bible. I don't believe Jesus and God the Father are the same person. In LDS theology they are distinct individuals, and are unified in purpose and authority, not in person or substance. Jesus' mother was Mary and his father was God. That's why he is called the "only begotten". Because it would be easy for God to do what he did? It would somehow be cheating to be half divine? Jesus had no more special knowledge than any of the rest of us. He had forgotten his previous existence (as we have) and learned his special status and role during the thirty years of fairly unremarkable life before he began his ministry. He was subject to the same fears, pains, and temptations that we all are, and he was mortal - he could be killed and was. The miracles he worked were things any of us could have done with sufficient faith. Peter walked on the water to meet him, and only began to sink when his faith began to fail. Jesus' divine nature is what allowed him to take his life up again, and become the first resurrected person. It was necessary to his mission as savior to be half divine - to have this particular quality, but he was the greatest human being who ever lived as well.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jun 28, 2007 16:11:26 GMT -4
Jesus had no more special knowledge than any of the rest of us. He had forgotten his previous existence (as we have) and learned his special status and role during the thirty years of fairly unremarkable life before he began his ministry. Alternately, you know, he awed the priests in the temple with his knowledge of the law when he was twelve.
|
|
reynoldbot
Jupiter
A paper-white mask of evil.
Posts: 790
|
Post by reynoldbot on Jun 28, 2007 17:44:00 GMT -4
I believe Noah fit all the animals in the ark by the power of the fact that it is a myth used as a vehicle, like all the rest of the mythology in the bible, to provide an important moral lesson to the reader.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jun 28, 2007 18:19:27 GMT -4
Jesus had no more special knowledge than any of the rest of us. He had forgotten his previous existence (as we have) and learned his special status and role during the thirty years of fairly unremarkable life before he began his ministry. Alternately, you know, he awed the priests in the temple with his knowledge of the law when he was twelve. I was aware of that. Perhaps I should have said "Jesus didn't begin with any special knowledge, and he never had any special knowledge the rest of us couldn't have also obtained."
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Jun 28, 2007 20:44:48 GMT -4
Funny thing Jason, When you suggested that if I don't believe that God is capable of performing miracles then perhaps I don't belong in church, I was going to post a reply: Isn't a temple a church? Buddhists don't believe in God. (at least not in the same sense that we're discussing) Then I realized, no they don't - but they do believe in miracles!
So, I guess, they don't have to go hand in hand...
Now, the whole Jesus in God debate: This issue has been at the center of a lot of Christian infighting since the Resurrection. It took centuries before the Catholics could come up with a creed that expressed the trinity doctrine. Many christian sects have different beliefs in that area. Witness the split between the one 'universal' church (Roman Catholics) and the Greek Orthodox church. Some christian sects did not even believe Jesus was actually God. I don't think it has ever been said clearly in the New Testament. (being a Messiah doesn't mean the same as being God). 'Son of Man' and even 'Son of God' does not equate with actually being God. Is the Book of Mormon a little bit clearer on this issue?
|
|
|
Post by Bill Thompson on Jun 28, 2007 23:16:17 GMT -4
Is everyone here really serious about this?
|
|
|
Post by Bill Thompson on Jun 28, 2007 23:26:48 GMT -4
Let me see, just off the top of my head, let me see how many problems there are in the literal interpretation of the Noah Arc story. #1 Where did all the water come from and where did it all go? #2 Take your pick, either all the fresh water fish would be killed off or all the salt water fish. #3 A species cannot start from a single male/female pair. There are enzimes in nature to prevent this. In a few generations the animals would be too malformed to reproduce. #4 A wooden ship, regardless of the thinkness of size would exceed its critical mass and break apart if it were big enough to hold all species, or if it had been a select few species, there would not be enough time for them to speciate into individual species. #5 how did the polar bears and the penguins get from the poles and then return to the poles? #6 If the whole Earth was flooded, evidence of this would be EVERYwhere. Instead, there is NO evidence of it ANYwhere. #7 The story matches the much earlier Gangladesh stories of the mid east tribes. The Gangladesh story predates the biblical flood story but instead of one God there were many Gods. There is even the story of the dove going out to find land. It is logical that the Hebrews knew of this story and worked it into their oral traditions and logically it ended up in the Bible. If you give me some time, I think can come up with a lot more but this should be enough for you logical and critical thinking folks.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jun 29, 2007 6:01:00 GMT -4
Gilgamesh.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jun 29, 2007 11:55:46 GMT -4
Now, the whole Jesus in God debate: This issue has been at the center of a lot of Christian infighting since the Resurrection. It took centuries before the Catholics could come up with a creed that expressed the trinity doctrine. Which is one reason why I'm surprised that the LDS church gets regular criticism for having rejected that creed. If it didn't get written down until two hundred years after the last apostles died why should we consider it authoritative? I think the clearest section in the New Testament is when Jesus claims to be I AM (the name God gives as his name to Moses in Exodus 3:14) at the end of chapter 8 of the Gospel of John. The audience present (the scribes and Pharisees) picked up stones to stone him, because they recognized it as a claim to diety and therefore (in their eyes) blasphemy. Interestingly enough, that same chapter also has an argument by Jesus saying that the law says that the testamony of two men is true, and that he and his father are the two witnesses of his words. That wouldn't really work if they were the same person. It is a little clearer than the Bible, yes, but it's the Doctrine & Covenants that has the fullest explanation of the LDS view of God and the trinity. A brief explanation of the LDS view can be found at: scriptures.lds.org/en/bd/g/43 which is the on-line version of the Bible Dictionary printed with each LDS copy of the Bible.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jun 29, 2007 15:15:41 GMT -4
How do you know the Gilgamesh story pre-dates the Biblical account? Even if you can find versions of the Gilgamesh story older than any written version of the Biblical account, that doesn't prove Gilgamesh came first - only that you haven't been able to find any older Noah stories. And when a story was first written isn't necessarily an indication of how old it is either. If the Gilgamesh account was first written in 2300 BC and the Noah story in 1000 BC, the Noah story may still be older if it was transferred via oral histories for thousands of years before someone finally wrote it down.
|
|
|
Post by Bill Thompson on Jun 29, 2007 15:33:11 GMT -4
How do you know the Gilgamesh story pre-dates the Biblical account? Even if you can find versions of the Gilgamesh story older than any written version of the Biblical account, that doesn't prove Gilgamesh came first - only that you haven't been able to find any older Noah stories. And when a story was first written isn't necessarily an indication of how old it is either. If the Gilgamesh account was first written in 2300 BC and the Noah story in 1000 BC, the Noah story may still be older if it was transferred via oral histories for thousands of years before someone finally wrote it down. Attacking what you regard as the weakest of my points does not give your view any credability. In fact, it does the opposite. It shows that you are struggling to support a notion that is flatly untrue. If you are saying that the Gilgamesh story is a retelling of a real event then that is just as logical as saying that all of Gilgamesh stories are retellings of real events and that is just plainly absurd. You cannot make a case by struggling to find something in reality to support your fantasy. #7 Still stands as valid. So do the other six. To review: #1 Where did all the water come from and where did it all go? #2 Take your pick, either all the fresh water fish would be killed off or all the salt water fish. #3 A species cannot start from a single male/female pair. There are enzimes in nature to prevent this. In a few generations the animals would be too malformed to reproduce. #4 A wooden ship, regardless of the thinkness of size would exceed its critical mass and break apart if it were big enough to hold all species, or if it had been a select few species, there would not be enough time for them to speciate into individual species. #5 how did the polar bears and the penguins get from the poles and then return to the poles? #6 If the whole Earth was flooded, evidence of this would be EVERYwhere. Instead, there is NO evidence of it ANYwhere.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jun 29, 2007 15:37:19 GMT -4
Attacking what you regard as the weakest of my points does not give your view any credability. In fact, it does the opposite. It shows that you are struggling to support a notion that is flatly untrue. I'm not trying to give the Noah story credibility, I'm questioning your methodology. How can we know, thousands of years after they were first recorded, which of two similar stories actually preceded the other?
|
|