You give an interesting arguement but there’s nothing there that supports the Mormon interpretation of Genesis. All that tells me is that, possibly, the word could be translated differently from “created”. It doesn’t tell me that the word SHOULD be translated differently from “created”.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.
It’s almost a word-for-word theft of Genesis 1:1-2 because that’s most of the Book of Moses and the Book of Abraham are: plagiarized from the KJV. When Smith ran out of ideas, he simply stole his scriptures, the same way he stole parts of the Masonic ceremonies when he needed “god” to restore those, too.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
The problem is in dating the Book of Abraham, the only way to make it work is to claim that since it predates Genesis, our account must be taken from it, right? That doesn’t actually make sense, though, because the translation of the BOA shows that Smith couldn’t translate anything accurately; he was 100% wrong every time, the same way he was with his prophecies and revelations.You give an interesting arguement but there’s nothing there that supports the Mormon interpretation of Genesis. All that tells me is that, possibly, the word could be translated differently from “created”. It doesn’t tell me that the word SHOULD be translated differently from “created”.
You’re right. Even the word “created” has different connotations, as I already noted, but keep your beliefs–it’s just fine with me.You give an interesting arguement but there’s nothing there that supports the Mormon interpretation of Genesis. All that tells me is that, possibly, the word could be translated differently from “created”. It doesn’t tell me that the word SHOULD be translated differently from “created”.
You’re being catty, again, Parker.You’re right. Even the word “created” has different connotations, as I already noted, but keep your beliefs–it’s just fine with me.
One of my points was that God allows humankind to believe what they want to believe, even about the Creation and about whether it was out of nothing. I love the way He has done that–by allowing men to come up with translations and interpretations that suit their fancy.
Call it what you want to call it. Free will choice means there are not going to be heavenly constraints, no bells and whistles, no voice from heaven clarifying the Hebrew that was translated into the word “created” and then the people who wanted that to mean “creation from nothing” placed that into their teachings.You’re being catty, again, Parker.
But lo you are absolutely unable to see that you do the same thing. Among the LDS here only Dianaiad seems to be able to grasp this.Call it what you want to call it. Free will choice means there are not going to be heavenly constraints, no bells and whistles, no voice from heaven clarifying the Hebrew that was translated into the word “created” and then the people who wanted that to mean “creation from nothing” placed that into their teachings.
The word “created” very rarely implies “created from nothing” yet a foundation theological belief for a whole lot of people takes that word and does just that. Why? It looks to me like preserving the mystery was the compelling reason. There is no reasonable basis from the Bible for doing so. So I wrote that he can believe as he wishes, and no one will “prove” him wrong in this life because word meanings with multiple connotations are not absolute, particularly in translation.
And notice how he keeps ignoring the clear issues that I’m bringing up. It’s almost like he has his head in his hat or something, hoping the facts will go away.You’re being catty, again, Parker.
Now this is an odd point, given the fact that translation is the basis of Mormonism: the translation of the BOM, of the BOA, and of the Bible. And now you retreat to a lack of absolutes when it serves your purposes? How very mercurial of you.Call it what you want to call it. Free will choice means there are not going to be heavenly constraints, no bells and whistles, no voice from heaven clarifying the Hebrew that was translated into the word “created” and then the people who wanted that to mean “creation from nothing” placed that into their teachings.
The word “created” very rarely implies “created from nothing” yet a foundation theological belief for a whole lot of people takes that word and does just that. Why? It looks to me like preserving the mystery was the compelling reason. There is no reasonable basis from the Bible for doing so. So I wrote that he can believe as he wishes, and no one will “prove” him wrong in this life because word meanings with multiple connotations are not absolute, particularly in translation.
The correct context in which to understand “bara” is not just its place in the narrative, but its usage in the Israelite Temple cult, although it can be argued from either standpoint. In terms of immediate context, my whole point in explaining why Gen 1:1 is not grammatically subordinate to 1:2 was to show from context that the creation spoken of in Gen 1:1 is not the work of the seven days, but a prior act. This points to ex nihilo because the heavens and the earth are created in v 1:1 and yet are still unformed in v.1:2. Hence, this creation is something prior to forming. You response seems to presuppose the contrary, although without interacting with the evidence I gave in support of my position.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.
I pretty much agree with you here, but keep in mind that in Mormonism, Jesus is a created, finite being. That’s an important distinction.According to St. Augustine, everything God created was/is good. It is only by turning away from God that evil exists. Since man has free-will, he is able to turn toward good higher things (God) or lower things (evil). At least that’s how I see it in a nutshell.
How does Mormon theology explain the existence of good and evil, (in spite of believing that God didn’t create the universe out of nothing, and that Jesus and God are material beings?)I pretty much agree with you here, but keep in mind that in Mormonism, Jesus is a created, finite being. That’s an important distinction.
God is totally good. Al that He does is good. Evil comes when men (or angels, or devils) disobey God and choose or act contrary to what He has ordained. Agency or freewill (the ability to choose to obey or disobey God), has always existed; which is how Satan and his angels were able to disobey God in the preexistence, and become what they are. Evil comes from exercising one’s God given freewill to go contrary to the will of God.How does Mormon theology explain the existence of good and evil, (in spite of believing that God didn’t create the universe out of nothing, and that Jesus and God are material beings?)
The Catholics regard that scripture; but not everyone does.I’ve read through this entire thread and find it very interesting. Understandably, Genesis has been the focus since it contains the creation account, but the Catechism led me to a verse in the Second book of Maccabees:
“Look at the heaven and the earth and see everything that is in them, and recognize that God did not make them out of things that existed. Thus also mankind comes into being” (2 Macc 7:28)
While this won’t be found in the KJV, it is scripture nonetheless.
They also cut out the book of Wisdom:They did until Martin Luther decided to be God’s editor. Of course, he was not hired by God, but what Martin wanted, Martin got.
Yes, but since Catholicism and Mormonism both consider it scripture, your point is moot.The Catholics regard that scripture; but not everyone does.
Yes, Mormonism relies heavily on their concept of free angency while ignoring the fact that both Joseph and Brigham used theirs to promote another gospel. Ironic, isn’t it?God is totally good. Al that He does is good. Evil comes when men (or angels, or devils) disobey God and choose or act contrary to what He has ordained. Agency or freewill (the ability to choose to obey or disobey God), has always existed; which is how Satan and his angels were able to disobey God in the preexistence, and become what they are. Evil comes from exercising one’s God given freewill to go contrary to the will of God.