posted
Ron and kmbboots, the Mormon concept of God, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost are very concrete and specific. There are things that cannot be understood for sure (How do you qualify and quantify Heavenly Glory for exmpl?), but there are other things about God for LDS that are not simply a matter of figurative speech. For instance "God can manifest Himself in any for that He wants" would be against LDS beliefs. He could present signs of Himself any way that he would like, but ultimately He could not change form. I don't have time to explain more at this time. Maybe I or someone else can do that later.
Not that this has anything to do with the topic of Age of Earth.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Again...only if you insist on it being literal. I don't think that is a reasonable or consistant assumtion, given my understanding (as incomplete as it must be) of God.
Ron, for what it is worth, you have answered my question as to why you (and other Seventh-Day Adventists) are concerned with details. That I consider such details as "missing the big picture" would make me a very bad Seventh-Day Adventist.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: The fall of man is about as basic a Bible doctrine as there can be. If man is not fallen, then man does not need a Savior, just a therapist.
Sure, but it must be possible to believe in a fallen mankind without a belief that the fall is due to an actual, literal apple, 8000 years ago!
quote:Of course there are questions. There are also answers.
To assert the existence of answers, without any hint of what they are, is extremely useless, except in mathematics; and even there, it is considered polite to prove that there are answers.
quote:I have seen in my life no evidence to either side of the debate that proves/disproves anything.
Is this supposed to be an argument? Your ability to wilfully ignore scientific evidence is a fine parlor trick, but not very useful.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: The fall of man is about as basic a Bible doctrine as there can be. If man is not fallen, then man does not need a Savior, just a therapist.
Sure, but it must be possible to believe in a fallen mankind without a belief that the fall is due to an actual, literal apple, 8000 years ago!
As I have said, it certainly is for me.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
God the Holy Spirit manifested Himself in the form of a dove at Christ's baptism. (Mat. 3:16; Mark 1:10; Luke 3:22; John 1:32)
Occasional, do you believe that God has the power of omnipresence? Jesus gave that up forever when He took human nature upon Himself; but omnipresence should still be powers of the Father and of the Holy Spirit. In what form does God exist everywhere? (Isn't that a fun question?)
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
King of Men, the Bible doesn't say anything about the forbidden fruit being an apple. Everybody picks on the poor, innocent apple! Even people who name the parts of human anatomy. Women should have an "Adam's Apple" too, since Eve ate the forbidden fruit first. Though I guess that would really be an "Eve's Apple."
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: kmbboots, yes I do keep the seventh-day Sabbath. I am a Seventh-day Adventist.
The fall of man is about as basic a Bible doctrine as there can be. If man is not fallen, then man does not need a Savior, just a therapist.
Um... no. It's not a "Bible" doctrine, Ron; it's a Christian doctrine. Man is not "fallen" (a strange concept if there ever was one), and we do not need a "Savior". We have God.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: kmbbots, rather than guess about what God does or does not "get bent out of shape over," I think it is more reasonable to simply believe what God says, because if He did not care about it, He would not say it.
A man might point to a lineup of seven women, and say "One of those seven women is my wife. But God is not too particular if I regard any one of the seven as my wife at any given time. Whatever is convenient for me."
God did not say the Sabbath is "a" seventh day, He said it is "the" seventh day of Creation Week.
He also said that He gave Shabbat to the Children of Israel. That's us, the Jews. You seem to pick and choose when it comes to "simply believing what God says".
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I know that you are asking Occasional, but just for the record, I don't think there is a "physical form" for God except on those occasions, such as the incarnation, where He/She (neither, really, since there isn't a physical form) takes one. Or as God is present in all of us as the Holy Spirit.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ron, LDS believe the Holy Ghost didn't manifest "himself" as a dove as much as manifest his Sign in the form of a dove.
Your second question is a yes and no. He has the Power of omnipresence , but that doesn't mean that He is omnipresence incarnate.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lisa, to those who believe the New Testament is part of the Bible, the fall of man and his need of a savior is a Bible doctrine. But even those who are Jewish regard Genesis as part of their Bible, and does not Genesis 3:15 promise a Messiah who would deliver mankind from the dominion and power of the serpent?
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, Ron, it does not. The very idea of a savior the way you're talking is purely a Christian idea. It has no source in the Hebrew Bible, Christological claims to the contrary.
Genesis 3:15: And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; they shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise their heel.
It's a freaking snake, Ron. Not "Satan". You start with a Christian interpretation (the serpent is the devil), and you wind up with a non-literal reading of the verse that you see as implying someone who will bruise the devil's head.
Start with good premises, and you have a much better chance of winding up with good conclusions.
Furthermore, calling a Christian interpretation "Bible doctrine" is offensive. You've co-opted the Bible in so many ways; recognize that the Christian Bible and the Bible are not synonymous.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lisa, I think we have been over this before. God created the Sabbath at the end of Creation Week, when Adam and Eve were the only humans in existence (no Jews yet). See Genesis 2:2, 3. And the fourth commandment specifically calls that day that God rested and set aside at the end of Creation week "the Sabbath." See Exodus 20:11. The very first thing that God did at the end of Creation Week was demonstrate to man what should be done on the Sabbath by divine example--He rested. If you wish to maintain that God created the world only for the Jews, then you can claim that the Sabbath was only for the Jews. Otherwise your claim is invalid.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lisa, a Bible is a Bible is a Bible. Your yelling to the contrary is NOT going to change anyone's mind. So . . . either show some respect and get used other people's beliefs or shut up! We get you have different ideas of religious things. That is pretty obvious. However, this is not the place to force your ideas of things on anyone (or mine either). In fact, I believe you are close to breaking the rules of Hatrack, but that is never my call.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by KarlEd: BlackBlade, aren't you LDS? (Sorry if I'm wrong about that.) Mormon doctrine is pretty much the above.* I'm not exactly sure where this is stated, but I think it is in either The Miracle of Forgiveness or in Jesus, the Christ, both of which are pretty much considered authoritative and are among the few books missionaries are allowed to read besides the "Standard Works" (i.e. the "Scriptures"). This was stated explicitly by the author (Either an LDS prophet or apostle) in response to the idea that the "fruit" was a euphemism and the sin was actually sexual.
Karl,
Thanks for clarifying many LDS theological points in this thread. However, you have this one backwards. Elder James E. Talmage (author of Jesus the Christ) emphatically rejects the rumor that their sin was sexual in nature. IIRC, he's argument on the matter was that upon Adam and Eve were married before the fall (Genesis 2:23-25), making a sexual transgression between them (as some suggest) impossible. He also gets pretty riled up at the suggestion
President Spencer W Kimball, author of Miracle of Forgiveness, doesn't make any claim that Adam's fall was due to sexual transgression, at least to my knowledge.
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lisa, you are the first person on earth of any religion I have ever encountered who actually tried to claim that the serpent in Eden was not Satan, or a tool possessed by Satan. Is it your contention then that the snake in Genesis three was nothing more than an ordinary snake? A snake that could talk? A snake that would imply that God is a liar, trying to keep from Eve something that is good?
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ron, I don't understand why we don't need to believe in a literal snake, but we have to believe in a literal day.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Lisa, I think we have been over this before. God created the Sabbath at the end of Creation Week, when Adam and Eve were the only humans in existence (no Jews yet). See Genesis 2:2, 3.
Correct. And He did not command them to observe Shabbat.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: And the fourth commandment specifically calls that day that God rested and set aside at the end of Creation week "the Sabbath." See Exodus 20:11.
The fourth commandment was given to us. Not to the entire world. Not to the descendents of Adam and Eve in their entirety, but to the subset that was there at Sinai.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: The very first thing that God did at the end of Creation Week was demonstrate to man what should be done on the Sabbath by divine example--He rested.
He didn't "demonstrate" any such thing. He rested. Period. And then He commanded the Jews to do the same in commemoration of His having rested.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: If you wish to maintain that God created the world only for the Jews,
I never said any such thing. Of course He didn't.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: then you can claim that the Sabbath was only for the Jews. Otherwise your claim is invalid.
No, it's not. He gave the Torah to the Jews. Complete with a requirement to keep Shabbat. He didn't give that commandment to anyone else.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: Lisa, a Bible is a Bible is a Bible.
Do tell. We don't count your books as part of the Bible. It doesn't mean just the Christian Bible. Maybe when you're in church or in your living room it can mean that, but if you use it that way here, I'll correct you.
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: Your yelling to the contrary is NOT going to change anyone's mind. So . . . either show some respect and get used other people's beliefs or shut up!
No. You're rude, and you're offensive, but most of all, you're wrong. Though coming from someone who wants to establish the US as a theocracy, I'm not too surprised.
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: We get you have different ideas of religious things. That is pretty obvious. However, this is not the place to force your ideas of things on anyone (or mine either).
If Ron calling original sin "Bible doctrine" isn't forcing something on me, then me complaining about it isn't forcing anything on you. Get off your high horse.
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: In fact, I believe you are close to breaking the rules of Hatrack, but that is never my call.
True enough. Because I think that you're the one who just broke them. You don't tell me to shut up.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
kmbboots, it was a literal snake, but possessed by Satan. When God addressed the serpent, it is obvious whom He was really addressing. Since part of the curse on the serpent later was that it would travel on its belly in the dust of the earth, apparently the serpent before the curse was somewhat different in form from snakes today. Many people believe that the serpent in Eden had wings. The winged serpent is a common motif in various ancient works of art and religious icons.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Lisa, you are the first person on earth of any religion I have ever encountered who actually tried to claim that the serpent in Eden was not Satan, or a tool possessed by Satan.
Ron, you need to get out more.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Is it your contention then that the snake in Genesis three was nothing more than an ordinary snake? A snake that could talk?
Yep. Do you have a problem with a donkey that can talk?
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: A snake that would imply that God is a liar,
Heh. You claiming that I think God is a liar is kind of ironic, don't you think? In any case, it doesn't follow.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: trying to keep from Eve something that is good?
The snake lied. Not God. And the snake was punished for it.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why would God punish the poor snake and its descendents for being possessed? Also not the act of a just God.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Incidentally, I have a training class for the next 4.5 hours, but I want to make something clear to Occasional. You want me to just ignore it when someone misuses the word Bible the way Ron did. Even though it offends me. So clearly, you think that ignoring something that offends you is a reasonable way of dealing with it. In that case, what you want to do is ignore me when I object. Because I don't consider that a reasonable way of dealing with something offensive. But you clearly do.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
And Ron, since this is something you seem not to realize, you should know that the concept of "Satan" as an adversary of God is also a Christian concept. We consider such a concept to be contrary to monotheism. The fact that you don't actually worship him doesn't mean he isn't part of the Christian pantheon.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lisa, be reasonable. Why did the omnipotent Creator "rest" on the seventh day of Creation Week, with Adam and Eve as His audience, unless he was demonstrating something to them? Does God do things that are pointless?
And for that matter, are Jews the only human beings that God regards as His children? The witness of the ENTIRE Bible is that God choose the Jews to serve Him as a means for reaching all humanity with His grace. That was the blessing God pronounced on Abraham: "and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed." (Genesis 26:4)
Lisa, if you try to keep any blessing of God to yourselves as Jews, then you are violating God's purpose for your people, and rejecting the blessing of Abraham. If I accept the blessing of Abraham, and you do not, then I am a better Jew than you are--a real Jew in a spiritual sense. The son who does the father's will is the truer son than the one who just pays lip service.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Except we don't (and some of us don't necessarily think of Satan as literal either) consider Satan a god. Or god-like. Satan would be a created being like an angel. I don't think angels are a problem with monotheism, are they?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ron, I am trying to ask and answer question without making attacks. I don't always succeed, but I do try. Could you try as well. Telling someone that you are a better adherent of their religion than they are strikes me as over the line.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Lisa, be reasonable. Why did the omnipotent Creator "rest" on the seventh day of Creation Week, with Adam and Eve as His audience, unless he was demonstrating something to them? Does God do things that are pointless?
He didn't it with Adam and Eve as His audience any more than He created Adam and Eve with dogs and cats as His audience.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: And for that matter, are Jews the only human beings that God regards as His children?
No, and again, I never said that. But He gave those laws to the Children of Israel; not to all of God's children.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: The witness of the ENTIRE Bible is that God choose the Jews to serve Him as a means for reaching all humanity with His grace. That was the blessing God pronounced on Abraham: "and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed." (Genesis 26:4)
Indeed. But that doesn't mean that the laws He commanded us are applicable to you.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Lisa, if you try to keep any blessing of God to yourselves as Jews,
You're mixing things, here. The laws are the laws. If you want to identify everything God gave us as a "blessing" in that way, fine, but God didn't. It's very simple. God commanded all people to observe certain laws. He gave us additional ones. Lots of them.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: then you are violating God's purpose for your people, and rejecting the blessing of Abraham.
Feh. You don't get to decide that; God does. And did.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: If I accept the blessing of Abraham, and you do not, then I am a better Jew than you are--a real Jew in a spiritual sense.
No, Ron. You aren't a Jew in any sense. You don't get to say what God intended; you have to listen to what He said. Seems to me I heard you saying that yourself at the top of this page. You should listen to yourself more.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: The son who does the father's will is the truer son than the one who just pays lip service.
We don't pay lip service. But the son who does what His father says is a truer son than the son who is jealous and tries to usurp his brother's perogatives.
I'm in the middle of rereading Journeyman Alvin right now, and I swear, the best analogy that I can come up with is us as Alvin and you (and Christians who think the way you do) as Calvin.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kate, I pretty much figured that you wouldn't think of him as literal in the way that Ron does. But would you say that's the establishment view?
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Revelation 12:9 explicitly tells us that the Serpent, also called the Dragon, is Satan, and that he was cast down to earth, and "his angels were cast down with him."
Satan is an angel. In speaking of the King of Tyre, God addresses Satan who was behind the king of Tyre: "Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone was thy covering, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold: the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created. Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so: thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire. Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee." (Ezekiel 28:13-15)
Note that Lucifer was originally one of the anointed covering cherubs. The Ark of the Covenant was made with two cherubim with wings outstretched, bowing reverently over what Martin Luther called "the mercy seat." This was a representation of the reality that exists in the temple of God in heaven. Originally, Lucifer and Michael were the covering cherubs, closest to the very glory of God. When Lucifer fell, his place was taken by Gabriel.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Except we don't (and some of us don't necessarily think of Satan as literal either) consider Satan a god. Or god-like. Satan would be a created being like an angel. I don't think angels are a problem with monotheism, are they?
I shouldn't think so. Though I do in fact believe in an entity named Lucifer who has the title of Satan as that is the role he has chosen to fill.
Bao: Thanks for clarifying that for Karl for me, I was just about to say the same thing.
I just feel like people can be quite foolish in regards to the Bible. People get so bent out of shape about discussions of evolution and creationism, but understanding those things to the letter are not required for salvation, and thats the goad of Christianity, to save everyone who would be saved.
My grandfather used to drive me nuts because I considered him to be a smart man and I would always ask him questions like this, "If Adam was the first man, how come there are fossils of men like creatures who are far older then Adam?" "What is the point of the other planets in our solar system? Nobody lives on them, nobody could live on them."
He would always respond with, "It has not bearing on my salvation so I don't worry about it."
Now I am one of the first to raise eyebrows when somebody says, "As long as you believe Jesus is your Lord and savior you will be saved."
Well yes while technically true, the sheer magnitude of that statement is lost on alot of people. Truly believing that statement obligates us to reach for an incredibly high ideal, "If ye love me, keep my commandments." "Be ye therefore perfect, even as your father who is in heaven is perfect."
I honestly doubt God will ever tell anybody, "What you had trouble understanding how the world could have been created in X amount of time? Off to hell with you!"
I am fine with people referring to Biblical passages as a means to give credence to their arguments but it annoys me when people say, "It must mean this, only a bad person would believe otherwise."
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
BQT, I don't think so, unless I'm misunderstanding you. My whole point was that they didn't think the sin was sexual and were emphasizing that it was a literal fruit. In fact, in the quote I'm remembering, (which may not be in the books I was thinking of as it's been over 10 years since I read either of them) the sin was likened to a Word of Wisdom violation rather than a sexual sin.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lisa, there is a difference between "I believe as a Jew" and "you are all WRONG you freeking Gentiles!" Might as well take out swords, bombs, and knives and start fighting each other. Same attitudes.
KarlE, I think you were ambiguous, but I do think Q misunderstood.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lisa, you are very exclusive. I get the picture of a group of us walking past a walled enclosure in heaven, and an angel telling us to walk softly and not say anything, because the Jews inside the wall think they are the only ones there in God's heaven.
Wait until you find out about God's children on other worlds!
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Bao: Thanks for clarifying that for Karl for me, I was just about to say the same thing.
What was clarified? From my point of view he said "you have it backwards" then reiterated my very point.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lisa, I think the traditional view for us is that Satan is created like an angel is created. We don't worry overmuch about the "bling".
BB, I think I would like your Grandfather. It reminds me of a story that one of my favorite theologians tells about a boy who lived in a poor village. One day a schoolteacher came to the village. Among the things he told his pupils was that the world was round rather than flat. This was astonishing and fearful news for the young students. Many of them refused to believe it – after all, they could see that the world was flat. Distraught, the young boy ran home to his grandmother. “Grandmother,” he said, “what are we going to do? Teacher says that the world is round!”
“Well,” said the unflappable grandmother, “Can you still love?”
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Lisa, be reasonable. Why did the omnipotent Creator "rest" on the seventh day of Creation Week, with Adam and Eve as His audience, unless he was demonstrating something to them? Does God do things that are pointless?
Yes, evidently it does. I would suggest that, to a reasonable person, this implies a made-up god.
Edit: In other news, I am extremely amused to see one fundie telling another fundie that "No, that's what it literally and exactly says!" This is, indeed, precisely the point that should tell all Creationists that their insistence on a literal interpretation is rather silly; when even people who agree on that premise can't agree on what the literal interpretation is, isn't it time to reconsider?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:KarlE, I think you were ambiguous, but I do think Q misunderstood.
Perhaps. It's happened before. But I think I was clear in context of the post to which I was responding. Of course, BlackBlade's agreement with BQT's "correction" is evidence to the contrary.
My ONLY point here, though, is that Mormons believe the fruit was literal. Adam ate something forbidden and thus brought about the fall.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thinking about rivka's assertion that American Christians don't read the Old Testament scriptures in their original language ringing truer and truer.
One of the best christian thinkers I ever met was well-versed in Hebrew and didn't believe that the serpent in the garden was Satan and, in fact, seriously doubts the existance of the person.
This is in serious conflict to modern American Christian teachings, but Christians in America are very tied to traditional interpretations of the scriptures- even if they protest otherwise. It's the ever-present problem of applying what you THINK the scripture is saying rather than trying to figure out what the original author meant in the context of history and culture.
I've found that reading Lisa's posts in this thread have really made me think about what it is I read in the bible and what it means. It definitely also makes me want to start learning Ancient Hebrew so I have a clue as to what the original author meant.
Blah blah blah. I'm not very good at these kinds of discussions, but that was my observation, so I thought I'd share.
Posts: 4753 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ron, I have a legitimate question for you. Not baiting, because clearly you have thought out your beliefs extensively.
Am I correct in assuming that your "days" of the "creation week" aren't 24-hour days as we know them? If not, then wasn't God's resting day also a very long time? Isn't there then no longer a direct correlation between God's "long period" of rest and the specific Sabbath? It seems like there is a world of room to believe the text written by the finger of God is metaphorical rather than literal. Otherwise, why don't we only observe the Sabbath every 6000 years and for 1000 years at a time?
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hey, Primal, be careful about lumping all American Christians together. "American Christian Teachings" are so varied that the term has very little meaning. Not believing the serpent in the garden is hardly a problem for this particular American Christian - as has already been demonstrated in this thread.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
PC - "This is in serious conflict to modern American Christian teachings, but Christians in America are very tied to traditional interpretations of the scriptures- even if they protest otherwise."
I would agree with you, to a point. First, the way Lisa argues is far less even-tempered than what you have said. She doesn't make me think. She makes me angry. As for the "traditional interpretation," you have to understand that Christians get their ideas of Old Testament from the New Testament. From their vantage point, they are both Scripture and therefore equally as relevant to the questions. Now there are traditional interpretations that are still outside both Testaments, but that is a whole different discussion than what is going on here.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
I am absolutely positive that General Authorities have said explicitly that "partaking the fruit" is a metaphor, and no fruit was consumed. But that it was certainly NOT a euphanism for sex as God himself had married Adam to Eve as well as commanded them to be fruitful and multiply.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Occasional, I would also ask you to refrain from making generalizations about how Christians view Scripture.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: kmbboots, what is that in reference to?
quote:As for the "traditional interpretation," you have to understand that Christians get their ideas of Old Testament from the New Testament. From their vantage point, they are both Scripture and therefore equally as relevant to the questions.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
