Catholic and Mormon Theodicy

[soren1]

ParkerD recently claimed that Mormonism has the only good theistic explanation of evil, and that there is no reasonable way to explain evil’s existence if God created all things in the absolute sense maintained by Catholicism: it would lead to a strong form of divine determinism, making God accountable for evil. Mormonism, however, doesn’t have this problem.

I was planning to write a response to ParkerD, but then the thread was closed, so I am starting this new one to revive his important question, which would probably have taken us away from the topic of that thread anyway. Some of you who already know me from MADB know how I deal with this issue, but OP’s are for raising questions, not answering them, so for my first post I will make no comment except to provide the texts of the two most relevant LDS Scriptures for those unfamiliar with Mormon teaching on this point along with a link to a non-doctrinal philosophical essay on the topic by two Mormon scholars:

Theoretical Basis of Mormon Theodicy: Law of Opposition
The basic metaphysical claim on which the LDS explanation of good and evil is founded is this teaching found in 2 Nephi 2:11, which occurs in a context dealing with the sacrifice of Jesus and the free moral agency of humanity:

For it must needs be, that there is an opposition in all things. If not so, my first-born in the wilderness, righteousness could not be brought to pass, neither wickedness, neither holiness nor misery, neither good nor bad. Wherefore, all things must needs be a compound in one; wherefore, if it should be one body it must needs remain as dead, having no life neither death, nor corruption nor incorruption, happiness nor misery, neither sense nor insensibility.

Historical Basis of Mormon Theodicy: Jesus and Satan
Moses 5:1-3 explains how man’s free will, and thus the power to sin, are protected in the plan of salvation:

*And I, the Lord God, spake unto Moses, saying: That Satan, whom thou hast commanded in the name of mine Only Begotten, is the same which was from the beginning, and he came before me, saying—Behold, here am I, send me, I will be thy son, and I will redeem all mankind, that one soul shall not be lost, and surely I will do it; wherefore give me thine honor. But, behold, my Beloved Son, which was my Beloved and Chosen from the beginning, said unto me—Father, thy will be done, and the glory be thine forever. Wherefore, because that Satan rebelled against me, and sought to destroy the agency of man, which I, the Lord God, had given him, and also, that I should give unto him mine own power; by the power of mine Only Begotten, I caused that he should be cast down; And he became Satan, yea, even the devil, the father of all lies, to deceive and to blind men, and to lead them captive at his will, even as many as would not hearken unto my voice. And now the serpent was more subtle than any beast of the field which I, the Lord God, had made. *

Philosophical Essay
See Blake T. Ostler and David L. Paulson’s piece, Sin, Suffering, and Soul-Making: Joseph Smith on the Problem of Evil.

 

[Returning_Home]

Part of the problem is that Mormonism completely revises Jesus’ role in salvation; whereas we Christians need a savior to overcome our sinful nature, they need a savior to help them attain exhaltation (or in Mormon speak, godhood).

The original version of the BOM was basically Protestant in concept but Smith’s opinions about God began changing as early as 1835 with the “lectures on faith,” and the change in 1 Nephi 14:30 occurring in the second edition (1837) that separated God and Jesus into distinct individuals. You can also see this evolution in the different versions of the Furst Vision because the currently accepted version didn’t come about until 1838, some 18 years after it supposedly happened, and was preceded by at least four other versions (not including Brigham Young’s clear statements on three occasions that he saw ‘angels,’ with no mention of God or Jesus).

What Christians need to be careful of is the language barrier that separates us from them. They use the same terminology that just gets the uninitiated confused and turned around, something that an experienced apologist can use to his advantage.

 

[SirThomasMore]

Good stuff…and it shows another reason why we claim that the Jesus they worship is not the Jesus of the Bible

 

[Tmaque]

The reason I left Mormonism and became an atheist is because of nonsensical doctrine like this. After 15 years in the spiritual desert I found the union of faith and reason in the Catholic church. Coming here reminds me of how blessed I am to be Catholic.

 

[campeador]

soren1,
Are you saying that the LDS is more closely related to Taoism?

 

[ParkerD]

Soren1,
Here is the part of my post #59 from the thread that was closed, that I assume you are referring to in the OP for this thread:

"It could just as well be that the LDS view of God could be stated that since He originated before this universe and this “eternity” where all we know is that earth had a beginning and Adam and Eve were placed into the garden of Eden, then He is transcendent within the description of this universe.

The profound difference is that there is not a reasonable way to deal with the “problem of evil” if one truly believes that God is the original cause of everything in the universe, and is omnipotent and omniscient. Dawkins points that out in his books, of course. It is not a new argument against the “first cause” doctrine and philosophy. But the LDS view answers the argument far more soundly than does a philosophy that says God is the original, first cause of everything and thus everything that follows was caused, ultimately, by His first cause coming into fruition through successive events. It would always mean He knew originally exactly what was going to happen, when it was going to happen, who was going to do what, and He as the first cause Creator “caused” all of the subsequent events (albeit indirectly)."

I don’t participate on the MADB website, and actually have pretty much departed from looking at this one much as well, but thought I should at least let whomever might be interested, see what I had written that you had alluded to. This is a very complex subject, and although I am comfortable writing about it and especially with considering Biblical passages dealing with the subject, I don’t know that there is much to be gained by having a conversation about it since usually those interested in the subject have formed very deeply held opinions and drawn conclusions they are totally comfortable with, so it seems that it would be best to just read about the subject, and go on.

Peace to all. Thanks to all who have written their views and exchanged ideas with respect, compassion, and the good-natured tone that has been so welcome from time to time. I have enjoyed the learning experience in several ways.

 

[soren1]

Soren1,
Here is the part of my post #59 from the thread that was closed, that I assume you are referring to in the OP for this thread:

"It could just as well be that the LDS view of God could be stated that since He originated before this universe and this “eternity” where all we know is that earth had a beginning and Adam and Eve were placed into the garden of Eden, then He is transcendent within the description of this universe.

The profound difference is that there is not a reasonable way to deal with the “problem of evil” if one truly believes that God is the original cause of everything in the universe, and is omnipotent and omniscient. Dawkins points that out in his books, of course. It is not a new argument against the “first cause” doctrine and philosophy. But the LDS view answers the argument far more soundly than does a philosophy that says God is the original, first cause of everything and thus everything that follows was caused, ultimately, by His first cause coming into fruition through successive events. It would always mean He knew originally exactly what was going to happen, when it was going to happen, who was going to do what, and He as the first cause Creator “caused” all of the subsequent events (albeit indirectly)."

ParkerD,

I suspect from your post that before discussing the problem of determinism, which underlies much of the discussion of evil, I must first justify the first cause doctrine as a Christian teaching. Because the way you use “philosophy” in your posts suggests you accept the usual Mormon view that Greek philosophy is responsible for the forms that various apostate doctrines have taken. This criticism stand on two suppositions: revelation opposes the apostate teaching; Greek philosophy supports the apostate teaching. The first part of the answer to this charge is to show that Biblical exegesis is the real grounds for the Catholic teaching. To show this in a general way, it is sufficient to note that many texts say that God is the creator of all things. Even if alternative interpretations can be proposed, like adding extra qualifiers like “all things except matter,” it is still reasonable prima facie to read those passages in a literal sense, so that “all” means “all.” As soon as this is admitted, then “first cause” is not simply a matter of philosophy. Upon close examination, the Biblical texts support the Catholic view.

LDS scholars often point out that Smith’s denial of creation ex nihilo in Gen 1:1 enjoys the support of many modern scholars. Yet the reasons for this are quite different from what Smith argued. The usual reason is that modern translators render Gen 1:1 as “When God set about the create the heavens and the earth….” What this reading of the text implies that that the “beginning” is not a pure beginning: it signals the beginning of the ages of the heavens and the earth, but not of the preceding time, when matter existed unformed. This translation follows a rabbinical tradition that originated in a 12th century commentary on Genesis by Rabbi Rashi, who noted that the Hebrew word for “in the beginning,” bereshith, appears to be a contracted form of the word barishonah, “at first.” On this basis, Rashi argued that “in the beginning” is a construct, a type of grammatical subordination in Hebrew that normally indicates that a subject is possessed by the following term. In effect, it would mean “in the beginning of.” The effect this would have on the sentence would be “In the beginning of God’s creating the heavens and the earth.” Modern commentaries often favor this view because other Ancient Near Eastern creation accounts appear to begin in similar ways.

The case for the modern view is good, but the case for the old view is better. In the first place, Rashi’s interpretation is a late novelty, unsupported anywhere in the body of earlier Hebrew literature passed down to us. The LXX translation reads simply, “in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth,” period. Because this translation is quoted with approval in John 1:1, revelation itself gives us reason to accept it. Moreover, Rashi overlooks that fact that bereshith does occurs elsewhere in the Bible in a non-construct from, as in Is 46:10. And further, the argument from other Near Eastern creation stories has been turned on its head, because the parallels to such stories do not pertain to v. 1:1, but only apply to v. 1:2-3 and 2:4-6. As a result, it makes more sense to tread Gen 1:1 as an independent sentence indicating a distinct, absolute beginning, even prior to the seven days. (The arguments for this last point are technical, but can be found in a very concise and clear form in Claus Westermann’s Commentary on Gen 1-11, pp. 95-98.)

I have given this outline of part of the Biblical case, which is not directly in response to LDS theology, which argues on different lines, but to give an example of how a Biblical case for the doctrine of Creation can be made, and can withstand an even harder level of scrutiny than LDS theology provides (as Smith’s reading of Gen 1:1 is a far less challenging argument than the modern one I have responded to).

Of the two presuppositions underlying the philosophy-did-it thesis, I have just given some of the evidence that the first is in error. Since I have already written at length, I will leave off the second until later. Suffice it to say that if necessary I will show that the Christian concept of creation is a complete novum unknown to any Greek philosophy, sharply at odds with the Platonist and Stoic schools, and that the ancient Christians and pagans themselves recognized this fact.

 

[KathleenGee]

Tmaque

Praise God you have come to the light of truth in the Church…the Vatican has the greatest library in the world, documents are open to the public. There will never be completed the words that can be written about Jesus Christ.

 

[ParkerD]

ParkerD,

I suspect from your post that before discussing the problem of determinism, which underlies much of the discussion of evil, I must first justify the first cause doctrine as a Christian teaching. Because the way you use “philosophy” in your posts suggests you accept the usual Mormon view that Greek philosophy is responsible for the forms that various apostate doctrines have taken. This criticism stand on two suppositions: revelation opposes the apostate teaching; Greek philosophy supports the apostate teaching. The first part of the answer to this charge is to show that Biblical exegesis is the real grounds for the Catholic teaching. To show this in a general way, it is sufficient to note that many texts say that God is the creator of all things. Even if alternative interpretations can be proposed, like adding extra qualifiers like “all things except matter,” it is still reasonable prima facie to read those passages in a literal sense, so that “all” means “all.” As soon as this is admitted, then “first cause” is not simply a matter of philosophy. Upon close examination, the Biblical texts support the Catholic view.

LDS scholars often point out that Smith’s denial of creation ex nihilo in Gen 1:1 enjoys the support of many modern scholars. Yet the reasons for this are quite different from what Smith argued. The usual reason is that modern translators render Gen 1:1 as “When God set about the create the heavens and the earth….” What this reading of the text implies that that the “beginning” is not a pure beginning: it signals the beginning of the ages of the heavens and the earth, but not of the preceding time, when matter existed unformed. This translation follows a rabbinical tradition that originated in a 12th century commentary on Genesis by Rabbi Rashi, who noted that the Hebrew word for “in the beginning,” bereshith, appears to be a contracted form of the word barishonah, “at first.” On this basis, Rashi argued that “in the beginning” is a construct, a type of grammatical subordination in Hebrew that normally indicates that a subject is possessed by the following term. In effect, it would mean “in the beginning of.” The effect this would have on the sentence would be “In the beginning of God’s creating the heavens and the earth.” Modern commentaries often favor this view because other Ancient Near Eastern creation accounts appear to begin in similar ways.

The case for the modern view is good, but the case for the old view is better. In the first place, Rashi’s interpretation is a late novelty, unsupported anywhere in the body of earlier Hebrew literature passed down to us. The LXX translation reads simply, “in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth,” period. Because this translation is quoted with approval in John 1:1, revelation itself gives us reason to accept it. Moreover, Rashi overlooks that fact that bereshith does occurs elsewhere in the Bible in a non-construct from, as in Is 46:10. And further, the argument from other Near Eastern creation stories has been turned on its head, because the parallels to such stories do not pertain to v. 1:1, but only apply to v. 1:2-3 and 2:4-6. …
I have given this outline of part of the Biblical case, which is not directly in response to LDS theology, which argues on different lines, but to give an example of how a Biblical case for the doctrine of Creation can be made, and can withstand an even harder level of scrutiny than LDS theology provides (as Smith’s reading of Gen 1:1 is a far less challenging argument than the modern one I have responded to).

Of the two presuppositions underlying the philosophy-did-it thesis, I have just given some of the evidence that the first is in error. …

Soren1,
I had realized when I used the word “philosophy” that it might be misunderstood, so perhaps that was a poor word choice but it seemed to fit my meaning in the following definitions of the word “philosophy”:

“pursuit of wisdom”
“the most general beliefs, concepts, and attitudes of an individual or group”

Often, the words “philosophy of life” are joined together and there is a separate definition for that: “an overall vision of or attitude toward life and the purpose of life.”

The above definitions are what I meant when I used the word “philosophy”. I was not referring to Greek philosophy, or to doctrinal changes or belief changes per se, but instead to the underlying “philosophy” that undergirds and suffuses (or leavens) the entire system of beliefs when beginning with the concept of “first cause” creation.

Taking Genesis 1:1,2 as follows (KJV)

1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

You are probably not going to like that I don’t consider it to have been a completely perfect process as translators gleaned the English translation (and its interpretation, since a sculptor “creates” but does not “create from nothing”) from the Hebrew in terms of trying to bring the meaning into our language, but I am content that the word “organized” is probably a better English capturing of the meaning intended, than the word “created” if that word is taken to mean “made out of nothing.” Verse 2 makes far more sense to me if the word “organized” is understood from the context in lieu of the words “created from nothing” in verse 1.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

You are probably not going to like that I don’t consider it to have been a completely perfect process as translators gleaned the English translation (and its interpretation, since a sculptor “creates” but does not “create from nothing”) from the Hebrew in terms of trying to bring the meaning into our language, but I am content that the word “organized” is probably a better English capturing of the meaning intended, than the word “created” if that word is taken to mean “made out of nothing.” Verse 2 makes far more sense to me if the word “organized” is understood from the context in lieu of the words “created from nothing” in verse 1.

What is your basis for this? Do you have any translations from the original greek or greek linguists who say that the word would better be translated as organised? Becasue I’m almost 100% sure you’re wrong but I’ll listen to any arguements you can give.

 

[ParkerD]

What is your basis for this? Do you have any translations from the original greek or greek linguists who say that the word would better be translated as organised? Becasue I’m almost 100% sure you’re wrong but I’ll listen to any arguements you can give.

Marc Anthony,
First may I respond that I am sincerely appreciative for this question, since it has led me to find through a Google search, the following text from an “Ancient Hebrew Research Center” link as follows
ancient-hebrew.org/23_genesis_1.html

The Poetry of Genesis Chapter One
By Jeff A. Benner​

When we read Genesis chapter one we usually see only one story there, but there are actually many stories. Why don’t we see these multiple stories? Because we read the Hebrew Bible from a Modern Western thinkers point of view and not from an Ancient Eastern thinkers such as the Hebrews who wrote it. The Hebrews style of writing is prolific with a style of poetry unfamiliar to most readers of the Bible. This poetry is nothing like the poetry we are used to reading today and therefore it is invisible to us.

The most common form of Hebrew poetry is called parallelism. Parallelism is when the writer says one thing in two or more different ways…

Often we overlook what the Bible is telling us because we are not recognizing what the poetry of a passage is attempting to convey. For example look at Psalms 40:8; “I desire to do your will, O my God; your Torah is within my heart” Here we see that doing the will of God is the same thing as having the Torah within your heart.

Now let us look at the Creation story Parallels of Genesis chapter one.

Creation Story Number 1

The first story is found in Genesis 1.1 “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” The Hebrew word “bara” is a verb and is usually translated as “create”. To really understand what this word means let us look at another passage where this word is used.

1 Samuel 2.29 - Why do you scorn my sacrifice and offering that I prescribed for my dwelling? Why do you honor your sons more than me by fattening yourselves on the choice parts of every offering made by my people Israel?’ The word “fattening” in the passage above is the Hebrew word “bara”. The noun form of this verb is “beriya” and can be found in Genesis 41.4 - “And the cows that were ugly and gaunt ate up the seven sleek, fat cows.” The word “fat” is the Hebrew word “beriya”.

The word “bara” does not mean, “create” (Hebrew actually has no word that meaning “create” in the sense of something out of nothing) but “to fatten”. If we take the literal definition of “bara” in Genesis 1.1 we have - In the beginning God fattened the heavens and the earth. What does this fattening of the heavens and earth mean? This verse is not showing the creation of the heaven and earth, but rather the fattening or filling up of it. Therefore, Genesis 1.1 is a condensed version of the whole creation story.

Creation Story Number 2

The second creation story paralleling Genesis 1.1 is Genesis 1.2 - “and the earth was unfilled and empty and darkness was over the face of the deep, and the Wind of God was hovering over the waters.” In this passage we see that the earth was formless and empty before it was filled up, then the Wind of God hovers over the waters of the earth. This hovering would be the action of the Wind of god filling up the earth.

(Note: the copyright note for this says it can be copied but only for non-profit educational purposes).

So perhaps the best literal translation from the Hebrew (the original language of the Torah) would be the word “fattened”. I like that. I also like the idea of parallelism as noted, to find the meaning through what the writer notes as follows:

CONCLUSION

It must be remembered that modern western thinkers view events in step logic. This is the idea that each event comes after the previous forming a series of events in a linear timeline. But, the Hebrews did not think in step logic but in block logic. This is the grouping together of similar ideas together and not in chronological order. Most people read Genesis chapter one from a step logic perspective or chronological, rather than from the block logic so prevalent in Hebrew poetry.

Thanks again for asking, and have a good day.

 

[MelanieAnne]

The reason I left Mormonism and became an atheist is because of nonsensical doctrine like this. After 15 years in the spiritual desert I found the union of faith and reason in the Catholic church. Coming here reminds me of how blessed I am to be Catholic.

This is probably WAY OFF the topic of this thread, but I felt the need to say that it is absolutely dreadful that your experience with Mormonism did not lead you, at least iniitally, to the truth, but instead to years of confusion. I am so sorry for that!

I’m glad you came home!

 

[ParkerD]

Marc Anthony,
First may I respond that I am sincerely appreciative for this question, since it has led me to find through a Google search, the following text from an “Ancient Hebrew Research Center” link as follows
ancient-hebrew.org/23_genesis_1.html

(Note: the copyright note for this says it can be copied but only for non-profit educational purposes).

So perhaps the best literal translation from the Hebrew (the original language of the Torah) would be the word “fattened”. I like that. I also like the idea of parallelism as noted, to find the meaning through what the writer notes as follows:

Thanks again for asking, and have a good day.

Tmaque wrote a comment about the “union of faith and reason,” yet here I have cited an explanation about the word “created” using a scholarly approach to understanding the word and the context using the Hebrew language and literary style, but the deep-down finding seems to be that really “reason” is not the approach taken–the approach I most often see is “the ECF thought thus, so it must be right.”

Readers might explore the possibility that there is something they can learn about Hebrew that will help them understand Biblical Old Testament passages in a new way.

Peace, all.

 

[Returning_Home]

Taking Genesis 1:1,2 as follows (KJV)

1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

Hmmm, that sounds strangely familiar.

"And it came to pass that teh Lord spake unto Moses, saying: Behold, I reveal unto you concerning this heaven, and this earth: write the words which I speak. I am the Beginning and the End, the Almighty God; by mine Only Begotten I created these things; yea, in the beginning I created the heaven, and the earth upon which thou standest.

“And the earth was without form, and void; and I caused darkness to come upon the face of the deep; and my Spirit moved upon the face of the water; for I am God.” (Book of Moses, 2:1-2, Pearl of Great Price)

And since we now know that the BOA is a sham, everything else that Smith “translated” falls under suspicion.

 

[ParkerD]

Hmmm, that sounds strangely familiar.

"And it came to pass that the Lord spake unto Moses, saying: Behold, I reveal unto you concerning this heaven, and this earth: write the words which I speak. I am the Beginning and the End, the Almighty God; by mine Only Begotten I created these things; yea, in the beginning I created the heaven, and the earth upon which thou standest.

“And the earth was without form, and void; and I caused darkness to come upon the face of the deep; and my Spirit moved upon the face of the water; for I am God.” (Book of Moses, 2:1-2, Pearl of Great Price)

And since we now know that the BOA is a sham, everything else that Smith “translated” falls under suspicion.

Are you saying that Genesis 1:1-2 “falls under suspicion”?

Obviously, for Catholics everything that Joseph Smith said that he translated “falls under suspicion”, but I was unaware that Catholics think Genesis 1:1-2 (KJV) “falls under suspicion.”

?

 

[catholic-rcia]

Hmmm, that sounds strangely familiar.

"And it came to pass that teh Lord spake unto Moses, saying: Behold, I reveal unto you concerning this heaven, and this earth: write the words which I speak. I am the Beginning and the End, the Almighty God; by mine Only Begotten I created these things; yea, in the beginning I created the heaven, and the earth upon which thou standest.

“And the earth was without form, and void; and I caused darkness to come upon the face of the deep; and my Spirit moved upon the face of the water; for I am God.” (Book of Moses, 2:1-2, Pearl of Great Price)

And since we now know that the BOA is a sham, everything else that Smith “translated” falls under suspicion.

I know that our God said I AM the lord your God and you shall have no other gods before me. Something close to that.

But here: and my Spirit moved upon the face of the water; for I am God

Is this found anywhere in the Holy Scriptures? It does not sound right, does not sound like it is coming from God.

we have this but it is different: Isaiah: Turn to me and be saved, all who live at the ends of the earth, because I am … all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is no other

 

[ParkerD]

I know that our God said I AM the lord your God and you shall have no other gods before me. Something close to that.

But here: and my Spirit moved upon the face of the water; for I am God

Is this found anywhere in the Holy Scriptures? It does not sound right, does not sound like it is coming from God.

we have this but it is different: Isaiah: Turn to me and be saved, all who live at the ends of the earth, because I am … all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is no other

So if you say that sentence structure “does not sound right, does not sound like it is coming from God”, then I would have to suppose that you also think the following verses do not “sound right” although they are from Genesis in the KJV:

Genesis 6:3 And the Lord said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.

Genesis 3:22 And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:
23 Therefore the Lord God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.
24 So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.

I might as well give you folks something else to think about and worry over, if something as simple as these concepts are head scratchers for you, and since I noted Genesis 3:22 and 23 wherein the words “the Lord God” and the word “us” are used.

In Hebrew, the words that were translated into the expression “the Lord God” could just have rightly and (more) correctly been translated into the expression, “the Lord and God” or in a more literal Hebraic expression, “Jehovah and Elohim”. They are the reason the word “us” becomes the correct translation in Genesis 3:22 “become as one of us”.

You won’t like that, either, but it’s correct, and it can be figured out using a brief understanding of Hebrew translation.

Have a good day, all.

 

[catholic-rcia]

Genesis 6
The heroes of old, the legendary ancients spoken of here. Why the great flood is necessary.

As to the scriptures you give (Trinity) not a head scratcher
“us”

But I am not commenting on this, that would be another post.

This particular LDS Scripture does not read right to me.

“But here*: and my Spirit moved upon the face of the water; for I am God”*

---

This scripture reads a bit different in my Bible. You can see it.
Then the LORD said: “My spirit shall not remain in man forever, since he is but flesh. His days shall comprise one hundred and twenty years.”

 

[ParkerD]

Genesis 6

This scripture reads a bit different in my Bible. You can see it.
Then the LORD said: “My spirit shall not remain in man forever, since he is but flesh. His days shall comprise one hundred and twenty years.”

Catholic-RCIA,
Good example of going right to the details of a translation, and seeing how the context and the connotation can change through one or two word changes.

A Hebrew-English on-line translation of Genesis 6:3 is as follows:

ג וַיֹּאמֶר יְהוָה, לֹא-יָדוֹן רוּחִי בָאָדָם לְעֹלָם, בְּשַׁגַּם, הוּא בָשָׂר; וְהָיוּ יָמָיו, מֵאָה וְעֶשְׂרִים שָׁנָה. 3 And the LORD said: ‘My spirit shall not abide in man for ever, for that he also is flesh; therefore shall his days be a hundred and twenty years.’

The translation you have chosen to use inserts the word “but” before the word “flesh”–and that simple change impacts the whole meaning in a significant way–so of course the KJV Bible is not going to match what you’re used to reading or what you like, since those kinds of subtle but significant changes are going to come up throughout the translation you have chosen as yours. Choose as you wish, but as for me, I think the KJV more closely matches the original Hebrew and also has the poetic form that is reflective of the Hebrew.

Note also that the words “abide in man” as shown in the above translation, are translated differently to “strive with man” in the KJV. This may confuse someone not used to thinking of the Holy Spirit as being “with man” or “in man” and yet those expressions have to do with the Holy Spirit being lost by those who had chosen to marry the “daughters of men” rather than find women to marry who were the “daughters of God” meaning that they had lost the Spirit by the choices that they made. (See verse 2.)

The major point here is that using the different translation brings significantly different connotations and reinforce the beliefs you have chosen for yourself–which is fine if that is what you want. There is available a level of insight that some are just not going to like or agree with. That is how free will choice works. Even the translation processes yielding different translations of the Bible, reflect God’s allowance for humankind (by allowing men to come up with their own differing translations) to choose precisely the kinds of beliefs and the kinds of knowledge and insights that match their desires.

 

[Returning_Home]

Are you saying that Genesis 1:1-2 “falls under suspicion”?

Obviously, for Catholics everything that Joseph Smith said that he translated “falls under suspicion”, but I was unaware that Catholics think Genesis 1:1-2 (KJV) “falls under suspicion.”

?

Of course not, silly; it’s just one of the passages that Joseph Smith plagiarized when he wrote the BOM. It otherwise doesn’t make any sense that your god your be quoting the Bible not yet compiled, conprised of books not yet written, and in a regional dialect not yet evolved.