A
adamhovey1988
Guest
The RSVCE actually mentions that (I would imagine the RSV does, too). I don’t know Hebrew, but I am here, and I read the Bible. I have it open to Genesis 2, right now.
- Status
G
gazelam
Guest
I doubt I’ll ever know Biblical Hebrew. For now, I just have to trust the scholars. Are you asking about creation ex-nihilo in the Genesis creation narrative?
G
GiftofMercy
Guest
No, I am telling you there are a couple of different interpretations of the first three verses in Ch 1 of the Old Testament Genesis. These have come about because of the way the Biblical Hebrew was translated. This is hotly debated in theological circles today. Why? because of its impact and what it would mean to ex-nihilo.
So for Early Church fathers and Martyrs , when you start to point out their writings on creation, you really need to be aware of these debates. Because someone who knows about these debates is wondering where you are going and why you are randomly taking these and placing them as proof s.
G
gazelam
Guest
Please point me to the debates you’re referring to.gazelam:
No, I am telling you there are a couple of different interpretations of the first three verses in Ch 1 of the Old Testament Genesis. These have come about because of the way the Biblical Hebrew was translated. This is hotly debated in theological circles today. Why? because of its impact and what it would mean to ex-nihilo.
So for Early Church fathers and Martyrs , when you start to point out their writings on creation, you really need to be aware of these debates. Because someone who knows about these debates is wondering where you are going and why you are randomly taking these and placing them as proof s.
As far as the meaning of “create”, I like what Stanley Jaki says:
The caution which is in order about taking the [Hebrew] verb bara in the sense of creation out of nothing is no less needed in reference to the [English] word creation. Nothing is more natural, and unadvised, at the same time, than to use the word as if it has always denoted creation out of nothing. In its basic etymological origin the word creation meant the purely natural process of growing or of making something to grow. This should be obvious by a mere recall of the [Latin] verb crescere. The crescent moon [derived from crescere] is not creating but merely growing. The expression ex nihilo or de nihilo had to be fastened, from around 200 A.D. on, by Christian theologians on the verb creare to convey unmistakably a process, strict creation, which only God can perform. Only through the long-standing use of those very Latin expressions, creare ex nihilo and creatio ex nihilo, could the English words to create and creation take on the meaning which excludes pre-existing matter. Stanley L. Jaki, Genesis 1 Through the Ages (Royal Oak, Mich.: Real View Books, 1998), 5-6.
G
GiftofMercy
Guest
That is for you to research. And to do so you would need to do extensive reading.
Quoting one man will not wipe away the translations, interpretation and ongoing argument over this. The word create is not the word or translation in question so your Stanley Jaki is not discussing what I am.
P
Prodigal1984
Guest
Are you referring to how ancient Jews including Saint Paul interpreted the different levels of heaven such as terrestrial, telestial, and celestial kingdoms, which in the sense of Mormons is absolutely nothing as they describe?
G
GiftofMercy
Guest
No, its directly related to the way the first few verses are written. Grammar, verbs, meaning and interpretation. I have not heard of the different levels of heaven, I must look them up. Thank you.
Last edited:
G
gazelam
Guest
I’m certainly not going to start a wild goose chase based on some phantom debates. Please have a blessed day!gazelam:
That is for you to research. And to do so you would need to do extensive reading.
Quoting one man will not wipe away the translations, interpretation and ongoing argument over this. The word create is not the word or translation in question so your Stanley Jaki is not discussing what I am.
R
RebeccaJ
Guest
Maybe try a non-Mormon goose chase for once? Phantom debates vs phantom civilizations? Why randomly prefer one over the other?
Last edited:
G
GiftofMercy
Guest
Your proofs are negated unless you yourself are well informed on what you pit up as proofs. Know all the argument and information first.
G
gazelam
Guest
Here’s an interesting article by Latter-day Saint author Jana Riess who notes that research shows only a small percentage of those who leave The Church of Jesus Christ do so because they become concerned about historical issues. Enjoy!
R
RebeccaJ
Guest
That is not the conclusion of that article, or even it’s purpose for being written. It sampled and reported on “social-media ex-Mormons” only, and self sampled at that. It says up front it can’t be used for quantitative research. Because…it’s not statistically valid. It’s anecdotal at best.
Last edited:
T
tafan2
Guest
For those of us who are lesser informed than you, could you please provide a synopsis of this debate, or the two positions and perhaps a reason or two justifying each side? Perhaps a reference to help us do some further research?
G
gazelam
Guest
You’re correct in that it’s not the point of the article, but it is a detail from the article pertinent to this thread.
Certainly in this forum it is common for non-Latter-day Saints to state that Latter-day Saint history is a driver for a large part of those leaving The Church of Jesus Christ. But this assumption is clearly not the case.
G
gazelam
Guest
Amen and Amen!
P
Prodigal1984
Guest
One of the funniest things I had Mormon missionaries tell me was that Joseph Smith is a prophet because he was the first person to speak negatively about the use of tobacco. I asked them, what year did he make this statement regarding it? They replied, sometime in the 1830s or before his death in 1844.
I told them then this is not a good argument to qualify him a prophet, as Pope Urban Vll in 1590 threatened to excommunicate anyone who “took tobacco in the porchway of or inside a church, whether it be by chewing it, smoking it with a pipe or sniffing it in powdered form through the nose”.
That argument ended pretty quick as to meriting him as a prophet because of that.
I told them then this is not a good argument to qualify him a prophet, as Pope Urban Vll in 1590 threatened to excommunicate anyone who “took tobacco in the porchway of or inside a church, whether it be by chewing it, smoking it with a pipe or sniffing it in powdered form through the nose”.
That argument ended pretty quick as to meriting him as a prophet because of that.
Last edited:
P
Prodigal1984
Guest
Also I would like to know, if Smith was translating from that language that doesn’t exist nor ever did, what is it called, reformed Egyptian? How in that case does he translate Christ from it when that is from Greek? The Book of Mormon states the people are literally going around six centuries before Christ, literally referring to him as Jesus Christ. They knew the word for Messiah in Greek when they never even encountered the Greeks somehow it appears.
Last edited:
R
RebeccaJ
Guest
Except the CES letter is relatively recent, and thousands left before it existed.
P
Prodigal1984
Guest
Yah. They always boast about their numbers. Even though in recent years it has remained stagnate. They only really are increasing in third world countries where people unfortunately don’t have the means or the education to know better. So in reality this is Satan working. It is sad. Whenever I see someone convert to Mormon, I just feel bad for them that they lacked fundamental intelligence to see how ridiculous the claims are.
Last edited:
R
RebeccaJ
Guest
Also,
I left around 35-40 years ago. The racist teachings of my youth and for how women and young girls are treated were what started me questioning. Then I read around 1985 about JS imprisonment for glass looking, and saw the court document, and I fully realized he was a conman!
After that, really has no relevance, as I wouldn’t trust a Mormon to tell me the color of the sky. I read of all the points in the CES letter around 2000. Which only confirmed what I already knew. Joseph Smith was a conman.
…this is just a bald assertion with no backing behind it. Certainly the rest of the article does not back this assertion up. It only says what you said. So?
I left around 35-40 years ago. The racist teachings of my youth and for how women and young girls are treated were what started me questioning. Then I read around 1985 about JS imprisonment for glass looking, and saw the court document, and I fully realized he was a conman!
After that, really has no relevance, as I wouldn’t trust a Mormon to tell me the color of the sky. I read of all the points in the CES letter around 2000. Which only confirmed what I already knew. Joseph Smith was a conman.
Last edited:
- Status