What Mormons Believe--according to a Former BYU Professor

[Grailhunter]

Not getting into your discussion of the lack of J's on the one hand and the abundance of them on the other, specifically, but generally. Your thoughts bring to mind the following event in the book of Judges:

"...when those Ephraimites which were escaped said, Let me go over; that the men of Gilead said unto him, Art thou an Ephraimite? If he said, Nay;
Then said they unto him, Say now Shibboleth: and he said Sibboleth: for he could not frame to pronounce it right. Then they took him, and slew him at the passages of Jordan: and there fell at that time of the Ephraimites forty and two thousand." Judges 12:5-6

This story in Judges of the problems people have in pronunciation reminded me also of a personal experience I observed when I first arrived in southern Germany as a student in 1969. I met a man from Puerto Rico who like me was trying to learn German. I already knew quite a bit of Spanish and soon realized his biggest trouble with conquering the German language was his native Spanish pronunciation in the Puerto Rican dialect. German is very dependent on word endings at times to determine what part of the sentence the word is, such as subject, predicate, nominative, accusative, dative, etc. My Puerto Rican friend, like those men of Ephraim, could not help but mispronounce words where the endings made a difference. Anyone having been around a native Spanish speaker speaking English will often hear for example the word "Spanish" pronounced "Espanish". This happens with many words and the person may never lose this way of speaking.

In another example my step-father, a native Portuguese speaker, spoke fluent English, but no native American would ever believe that English was his first language.

Similarly, the contention that there is always a right way to say the name of God with our human mouths of flesh for me stems from the human influence, that is in human frailties and shortcomings or limitations, both in speaking and in writing... as if man's speech and man's writing would really have a bearing on how God communicates with men. I do not believe God spoke in Hebrew to Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden and I would be surprised to hear that Adam and Eve spoke to each other in Hebrew.

Men have always had among themselves communication problems. God has never had such a problem. As we approach being like God, our communication problems with one another should also be on the decrease...:

"He must increase, but I must decrease" John 3:30

But... do not His sheep hear His voice? When we hear His voice, why would we fail to understand what He was saying. The problem of course is many of us too often have a mixture what we hear from God and what we hear from elsewhere. This is the root of those many thousands of denominations claiming to be followers of the Holy Spirit.

The problem of course is many of us too often have a mixture what we hear from God and what we hear from elsewhere.

That is my point, whether you intend to agree?
It is good to read God's Word...not man's.
It is not a religion of men.
I believe that God the Father and God the Son deserve to have their names in the Bible. I think it was a crime to take them out.
How many consider their chosen translation of the Bible as the certified Word of God. Whatever errors that are in that translation it is a matter of faith for them to trust that it was intended by God for those errors to be there. Thereby in effect, elevating the writers and translators to the level of God.

Still, all things in perspective and in motion...As is, nearly all translations of the Bible provide the information needed to be saved and lead a good Christian life....the details, put the transmission in drive and hit the accelerator. It is the transmission mechanic that worries about the integral parts. History and details save few....belief in Yeshua save many.

 

[Prayer Warrior]

While it is true many prophets heard the Word, their minds were not as clear as Moses'. Often they were shown "objects" that they themselves knew were "metaphors" so they say "like unto" or "as it were" to let the reader know not to take things literally.

Some prophets heard the message of God word-for-word, and some were seers. Some were hearers and seers. I don't think you can conclude that their minds were not as clear as Moses' mind.

As a personal note about having the gift of prophecy, I have both heard God speak to me (in my mind/spirit) and I have also seen a picture in my mind and have known what God was wanting me to convey through the picture. Sometimes, the Holy Spirit gives me the picture, and as I begin to describe it, He shows me what the picture means. This is what I speak to the person receiving the word.

Then there were people who could see or hear prophetically but misunderstood what they saw or heard to one extent or another. Hagar saw an angel and said she had seen God. She erred, of course; but the point was she got the message God wanted her to have even if her spiritual vision wasn't the best. The seventy elders who had the "vision" of God had a flawed vision. The scene should shock us.

I heard a teaching recently that "the angel of the Lord" was God. The promise that God gave to Abram--that God would multiply his descendants--was echoed to Hagar.

Gen 16:7-13--And the angel of the Lord found her by a fountain of water in the wilderness, by the fountain in the way to Shur. And he said, Hagar, Sarai's maid, whence camest thou? and whither wilt thou go? And she said, I flee from the face of my mistress Sarai. And the angel of the Lord said unto her, Return to thy mistress, and submit thyself under her hands. And the angel of the Lord said unto her, I will multiply thy seed exceedingly, that it shall not be numbered for multitude. And the angel of the Lord said unto her, Behold, thou art with child, and shalt bear a son, and shalt call his name Ishmael; because the Lord hath heard thy affliction. And he will be a wild man; his hand will be against every man, and every man's hand against him; and he shall dwell in the presence of all his brethren. And she called the name of the Lord that spake unto her, Thou God seest me: for she said, Have I also here looked after him that seeth me?

The "Word of God" does not arrive to prophets "word for word" the way many may think. Someone who says he's receiving messages word for word exactly is almost certainly deceived. Such messages almost always come from deceiving spirits or pranksters. Call it "channeling" if you like. I would say myself only Moses and Jesus could be trusted to receive that kind of prophecy. With other prophets, the "Word" comes to them in the form of an idea to their minds -- and sometimes it's translated into visual material, sometimes oral, sometimes both. Since each prophet's mind is unique, how they translate the message into human language will also vary. Thus all the prophets except for Micaiah were wrong.

I would say people who go into trances (or semi-trances) and say they are receiving exact words from Heaven are almost surely being deceived.

Again, I disagree with what you say about prophets not hearing God "word-for-word." I don't see you offering scriptural support for what you're saying. I already covered most of this above. Prophets don't have to translate what they see or hear. They are given the words or meaning to the picture they are given. The Spirit of God makes everything clear to them.

I don't believe that OT prophets usually went into a trance when the Spirit moved on them. I have never gone into a trance in order to receive a word from the Lord. There has been absolutely no altered consciousness involved.
.

 

[Prayer Warrior]

I ask again why you aren't a Catholic if you trust Catholics to pick the books you read. Why reject the Book of Enoch which Jesus also quoted more than once? Jude also quotes it. Me? I think most of it is legitimate; but I also think the last chapters of Enoch are later additions and forgeries. But still, if they quoted from it, I'd think most Christians would view it as legitimate. I did not adopt any list of some theologian -- I went through the Gospels to see what books Jesus quoted. I figured if he quoted a book, I'd consider it authentic.

I have heard some Protestants say that they accept the Book of Enoch. Bible publishers that stick with the 66 have their reasons. If you want to read the Apocrypha, it's widely available. I don't personally care to read it.

One thing that seems certain is that the early Church Fathers almost never cited any books of the New Testament when writing. They quoted almost exclusively from the Old Testament. That tells me they did consider them of equal authority.

This is human logic, pure and simple. I've already covered inspiration in a previous post. What early church Fathers are you talking about? The apostles all died before copies of the NT were widely available.

As far as being of equal authority, like I quoted earlier, the NT presents the New Covenant, which is better and greater than the Old Covenant, so surely, the NT is every bit as authoritative as the OT! The entire Bible was inspired by God from beginning to end.
.

 

[amadeus]

The problem of course is many of us too often have a mixture what we hear from God and what we hear from elsewhere.

That is my point, whether you intend to agree?
It is good to read God's Word...not man's

Yes, but can an atheist with no present calling from read the Bible with understanding in his own attitude or spirit? This is my point. When I read the Bible each day I try to always read it prayerfully, to open my heart up to God as I read. Sometimes I still fail because I have allowed myself to be preoccupied with other things. Fortunately for me God continues to be merciful understand better than me, my weaknesses...

It is not a religion of men.
I believe that God the Father and God the Son deserve to have their names in the Bible. I think it was a crime to take them out.

Men have undoubtedly committed many crimes in the eyes of God... but I really try to be slow to point them out uninvited... Who should extend such an invitation?

How many consider their chosen translation of the Bible as the certified Word of God. Whatever errors that are in that translation it is a matter of faith for them to trust that it was intended by God for those errors to be there. Thereby in effect, elevating the writers and translators to the level of God.

In answer to your first sentence/question, I do not. I read as you may know three Bibles regularly, but my preferences are due to my own habits and abilities rather than that those three Bible are the best ones men have available to them.

The way I look at it to understand it better is that the written Bible [any translation or version or language] is the dead body of Jesus on the cross after death but prior to resurrection. The Resurrection for us occurs when having eaten His flesh [read or heard the Bible] that flesh is quickened [brought to Life] within us by the Holy Spirit within us.
I may be in error on this, but I don't believe that I am. [If I believed I was in error, why would I be remaining there?]

As to any errors apparent or perceived by men in the written Bible, will the Holy Spirit not direct us to the correct interpretation if we are being led by the Holy Spirit and we need to know?

Still, all things in perspective and in motion...As is, nearly all translations of the Bible provide the information needed to be saved and lead a good Christian life....the details, put the transmission in drive and hit the accelerator. It is the transmission mechanic that worries about the integral parts. History and details save few....belief in Yeshua save many.

Some people seemingly only move as far into the Word of God as what others what others would still call milk. But milk or meat, for us to approach God more closely as I understand it, we must continue through surrender [humbling] to the lead of the Holy Spirit... whether we are brand new in the Lord or an old soldier in our walk with God. This continues until we have finished our course, that is until for us there is time no more.

 

[Grailhunter]

Yes, but can an atheist with no present calling from read the Bible with understanding in his own attitude or spirit? This is my point. When I read the Bible each day I try to always read it prayerfully, to open my heart up to God as I read. Sometimes I still fail because I have allowed myself to be preoccupied with other things. Fortunately for me God continues to be merciful understand better than me, my weaknesses...

Men have undoubtedly committed many crimes in the eyes of God... but I really try to be slow to point them out uninvited... Who should extend such an invitation?



In answer to your first sentence/question, I do not. I read as you may know three Bibles regularly, but my preferences are due to my own habits and abilities rather than that those three Bible are the best ones men have available to them.

The way I look at it to understand it better is that the written Bible [any translation or version or language] is the dead body of Jesus on the cross after death but prior to resurrection. The Resurrection for us occurs when having eaten His flesh [read or heard the Bible] that flesh is quickened [brought to Life] within us by the Holy Spirit within us.
I may be in error on this, but I don't believe that I am. [If I believed I was in error, why would I be remaining there?]

As to any errors apparent or perceived by men in the written Bible, will the Holy Spirit not direct us to the correct interpretation if we are being led by the Holy Spirit and we need to know?

Some people seemingly only move as far into the Word of God as what others what others would still call milk. But milk or meat, for us to approach God more closely as I understand it, we must continue through surrender [humbling] to the lead of the Holy Spirit... whether we are brand new in the Lord or an old soldier in our walk with God. This continues until we have finished our course, that is until for us there is time no more.

A lot of what you are saying is true...as usual.
You brought up atheists, how many atheists have I debated that I could tell they hoped I would win. Something inside of us....

with no present calling from read the Bible with understanding in his own attitude or spirit?
Now that is a topic....are souls desiring God? The possible circumstances are nearly endless.

What level of understand does a person want. What level and type of relationship does a person want to have with God? You know "works" has a bad name with some...My beliefs on salvation is different than many. I believe that faith alone saves, an instant in time that for all practical truths is permanent...Not so many Christians in hell.

But a person that runs his life as an on going ritual, God on his or her mind all the time, prayers and devotion to biblical and Christian study and doing good to others....you see, I believe they will receive a different reward. All saved the same, but different rewards commensurate with his or her character, behavior, and deeds. Much different than the couch potato Christians.

I do not expect everyone to believe that. I see it as the family of God with many sons and daughters, but the ones that work with the Father and take up His profession, just like in our earthly families, that close association, develops a closer relationship.

I see the saved, being an instant in time, salvation is a continued process, repentance, Baptism, communion, and the life long walk with Christ. The Holy Spirit, the guide, is so important, but how many people truly believe in the ministry of the Holy Spirit. Oh that is a topic. Oddly enough its like ghosts. Your beliefs in ghosts change, believing or not, your beliefs change once you see one.

 

[amadeus]

A lot of what you are saying is true...as usual.
You brought up atheists, how many atheists have I debated that I could tell they hoped I would win. Something inside of us....

Yes, something inside of us. Even to discuss this correctly I guess takes a bit of a leading from God. I know of at least one former atheist who reading and studying the Bible for what he thought were his purposes to disprove what "Christians" believed was converted in that reading. The Father draws them when they don't know they are being drawn.

with no present calling from read the Bible with understanding in his own attitude or spirit?
Now that is a topic....are souls desiring God? The possible circumstances are nearly endless.

Yes, but again what does it meant to desire God, really? Some [many?] supposed Christians in my experience appear to be very selfish. How much of that can go on for how long before God cuts them off? Milk is allowed and expected for a baby, but when an adult still lives on milk alone...?

What level of understand does a person want. What level and type of relationship does a person want to have with God? You know "works" has a bad name with some...My beliefs on salvation is different than many. I believe that faith alone saves, an instant in time that for all practical truths is permanent...Not so many Christians in hell.

Yes, while I see what you say and believe, but Jesus says that the gate is "wide". Do any entering that way stay always with Him?

But a person that runs his life as an on going ritual, God on his or her mind all the time, prayers and devotion to biblical and Christian study and doing good to others....you see, I believe they will receive a different reward. All saved the same, but different rewards commensurate with his or her character, behavior, and deeds. Much different than the couch potato Christians.

I do not expect everyone to believe that. I see it as the family of God with many sons and daughters, but the ones that work with the Father and take up His profession, just like in our earthly families, that close association, develops a closer relationship.

I need to revisit some of the local churches. It is difficult for me to encounter friends on the Internet. I am not sure that it is easier off the Internet... one must do what God says he must do. I love to talk with people about the Lord, but I don't enjoy arguments.

I see the saved, being an instant in time, salvation is a continued process, repentance, Baptism, communion, and the life long walk with Christ. The Holy Spirit, the guide, is so important, but how many people truly believe in the ministry of the Holy Spirit. Oh that is a topic. Oddly enough its like ghosts. Your beliefs in ghosts change, believing or not, your beliefs change once you see one.

Unfortunately in this there is almost continuous contention running here between the OSAS and those believing in salvation being a ongoing process to the end of their course, I see both sides. [I almost wish that I could not.] In a real sense both are correct, but I cannot explain that to most people so that they understand what I mean. I am not even sure that I can explain it to myself. Perhaps my own understanding of is also flawed. But... that's OK because I am simply believing God who is able in every situation.

 

[Grailhunter]

Yes, something inside of us. Even to discuss this correctly I guess takes a bit of a leading from God. I know of at least one former atheist who reading and studying the Bible for what he thought were his purposes to disprove what "Christians" believed was converted in that reading. The Father draws them when they don't know they are being drawn.

Yes, but again what does it meant to desire God, really? Some [many?] supposed Christians in my experience appear to be very selfish. How much of that can go on for how long before God cuts them off? Milk is allowed and expected for a baby, but when an adult still lives on milk alone...?



Yes, while I see what you say and believe, but Jesus says that the gate is "wide". Do any entering that way stay always with Him?
I need to revisit some of the local churches. It is difficult for me to encounter friends on the Internet. I am not sure that it is easier off the Internet... one must do what God says he must do. I love to talk with people about the Lord, but I don't enjoy arguments.


Unfortunately in this there is almost continuous contention running here between the OSAS and those believing in salvation being a ongoing process to the end of their course, I see both sides. [I almost wish that I could not.] In a real sense both are correct, but I cannot explain that to most people so that they understand what I mean. I am not even sure that I can explain it to myself. Perhaps my own understanding of is also flawed. But... that's OK because I am simply believing God who is able in every situation.

Going out on limb here. Not that all is known. I suppose there a reason that we do not have a clear description / understanding of heaven and hell. Christians have a tendency to forget about Shoal. The Jews even understood less than we do about the spiritual realm. They knew that they were gathered with their fathers in Shoal.

They fell into subjugation by the Persians, Greeks, and Romans. They were looking for a human warlord king that would rescue them from that. Something happened between the testaments that made it such that a human Messiah would not due. Something with Satan...something hell.

The physical reality of it was that all that was left of good was in Jerusalem and the surrounding area. Surrounded by the forces of Satan. When that small area was finally defeated, all that was good would be gone. God's people gone. So you can say that it was desperate times. Only a God would due, only God could turn the tables on Satan.

So a plan was made...you know it....God so loved the world....His Son would take on Satan and redeem us from that system of sin, from our sins and would tear down that barrier between us and God. He would open up the gates of heaven to humanity. But this plan meant that He would have to go through the passion. That was the end of many things, but it was the beginning of a whole new spiritual reality and this plan was not inclined to failure. Christ's death was a card that Satan did not see coming. Off that cross came a full fledged God. (Not that He wasn't before but Satan could not see it.)

So this plan certainly provided a means of be saved from Satan, being saved from hell. The only thing left to question is what happens after judgement. What level of reward. What level of heaven. I do not think that God would let His Son go through a plan that would require Him nailed on the cross if mankind only had a shot at being saved from hell. So there is judgment and what our reward will be, but saved from hell, i believe those that believe are safe.

You can bet that God had a plan for the Jews to, in Sheol and those that have continued...speculation, but I am certain that He has a plan for them too.

 

[amadeus]

Going out on limb here. Not that all is known. I suppose there a reason that we do not have a clear description / understanding of heaven and hell. Christians have a tendency to forget about Shoal. The Jews even understood less than we do about the spiritual realm. They knew that they were gathered with their fathers in Shoal.

Going out on a limb means you may expect or fear that it will break under your weight... or even that some person will cut it off next the trunk and down you go. I have cut people off like that but when it happened I did not know Jesus as I know him now. I still don't know him as well as I might, but the end is not yet.

They fell into subjugation by the Persians, Greeks, and Romans. They were looking for a human warlord king that would rescue them from that. Something happened between the testaments that made it such that a human Messiah would not due. Something with Satan...something hell.

I go slow on satan myself considering that man himself is responsible. Is man satan? Is satan a separate entity? I guess it usually won't matter as long as the danger is recognized...

As for hell, using which ever original word, just what is it? Simply death and the grave with nothingness or a place of never ending torment or the place where everything not of God burns up? Lots of questions for which many here will stand strong for their answers. But... what is God's answer to us? I am not trying to answer these or other questions I may raise. The correct answers as needed probably are contained in the scriptures, but who is able to understand them all? Who needs to understand them all? On many of these questions you will already have seen more than one discussion/argument/ debate on this forum. Will these exchanges edify anyone? Perhaps...!

The physical reality of it was that all that was left of good was in Jerusalem and the surrounding area. Surrounded by the forces of Satan. When that small area was finally defeated, all that was good would be gone. God's people gone. So you can say that it was desperate times. Only a God would due, only God could turn the tables on Satan.

And what has been left good in us... surrounded by the forces of satan? An inhabitable man or an uninhabitable man or some mixture of the two? Who can do it, that is... as you say, 'turn the tables on satan'? John the Baptist says:

"He must increase, but I must decrease." John 3:30

This is the overcoming, the approach to 'perfect' which Jesus called for.

So a plan was made...you know it....God so loved the world....His Son would take on Satan and redeem us from that system of sin, from our sins and would tear down that barrier between us and God. He would open up the gates of heaven to humanity. But this plan meant that He would have to go through the passion. That was the end of many things, but it was the beginning of a whole new spiritual reality and this plan was not inclined to failure. Christ's death was a card that Satan did not see coming. Off that cross came a full fledged God. (Not that He wasn't before but Satan could not see it.)

So this plan certainly provided a means of be saved from Satan, being saved from hell. The only thing left to question is what happens after judgement. What level of reward. What level of heaven. I do not think that God would let His Son go through a plan that would require Him nailed on the cross if mankind only had a shot at being saved from hell. So there is judgment and what our reward will be, but saved from hell, i believe those that believe are safe.

You can bet that God had a plan for the Jews to, in Sheol and those that have continued...speculation, but I am certain that He has a plan for them too.

Yes, God, the all knowing God, has always had a plan. His Word which was spoken before [?] He created it all covered each and every circumstance. He had an answer to every question and a solution to every problem, but only He knew when and how and where and why it would be provided. This is our vision, given to us by Him but only in part and/or as through a glass darkly. Can we see at all, or are we completely blind? There are a great many very dead and blind people all around us. Are we among them? How clear is our vision? How clear does it need to be?

 

[Giuliano]

Some prophets heard the message of God word-for-word, and some were seers. Some were hearers and seers. I don't think you can conclude that their minds were not as clear as Moses' mind.

I'll leave you to come up with your own explanations why there would be only one following Moses who could be compared to him.

As a personal note about having the gift of prophecy, I have both heard God speak to me (in my mind/spirit) and I have also seen a picture in my mind and have known what God was wanting me to convey through the picture. Sometimes, the Holy Spirit gives me the picture, and as I begin to describe it, He shows me what the picture means. This is what I speak to the person receiving the word.

If you know this, why are you arguing with me?

I heard a teaching recently that "the angel of the Lord" was God. The promise that God gave to Abram--that God would multiply his descendants--was echoed to Hagar.

Gen 16:7-13--And the angel of the Lord found her by a fountain of water in the wilderness, by the fountain in the way to Shur. And he said, Hagar, Sarai's maid, whence camest thou? and whither wilt thou go? And she said, I flee from the face of my mistress Sarai. And the angel of the Lord said unto her, Return to thy mistress, and submit thyself under her hands. And the angel of the Lord said unto her, I will multiply thy seed exceedingly, that it shall not be numbered for multitude. And the angel of the Lord said unto her, Behold, thou art with child, and shalt bear a son, and shalt call his name Ishmael; because the Lord hath heard thy affliction. And he will be a wild man; his hand will be against every man, and every man's hand against him; and he shall dwell in the presence of all his brethren. And she called the name of the Lord that spake unto her, Thou God seest me: for she said, Have I also here looked after him that seeth me?

An angel is a manifestation of God the way a flaming ember taken from a central fire can be described. It is not God Himself. It is a manifestation of God.

Again, I disagree with what you say about prophets not hearing God "word-for-word." I don't see you offering scriptural support for what you're saying. I already covered most of this above.

Prophets don't have to translate what they see or hear. They are given the words or meaning to the picture they are given. The Spirit of God makes everything clear to them.

I don't believe that OT prophets usually went into a trance when the Spirit moved on them. I have never gone into a trance in order to receive a word from the Lord. There has been absolutely no altered consciousness involved..

You can read how Jeremiah was trained. I also did discuss how all the prophets who repeated a message word-for-word were wrong.[/quote]

 

[Giuliano]

I have heard some Protestants say that they accept the Book of Enoch. Bible publishers that stick with the 66 have their reasons. If you want to read the Apocrypha, it's widely available. I don't personally care to read it.

The Book of Enoch is not part of the Apocrypha.

This is human logic, pure and simple.

I'd say it was a fact.

I've already covered inspiration in a previous post. What early church Fathers are you talking about? The apostles all died before copies of the NT were widely available.

People like Ignatius of Antioch and Polycarp. I don't agree with everything Justin Martyr wrote; but I also noticed he quoted almost exclusively the Old Testament. So it is with all the writers of the 1st and 2nd centuries.

As far as being of equal authority, like I quoted earlier, the NT presents the New Covenant, which is better and greater than the Old Covenant, so surely, the NT is every bit as authoritative as the OT! The entire Bible was inspired by God from beginning to end.
.

There's "human logic" for you. Paul even says at times not to take him too earnestly since he admits some things he wrote are his private opinions.

 

[Prayer Warrior]

If you know this, why are you arguing with me?

You know why. I just like to argue.

An angel is a manifestation of God the way a flaming ember taken from a central fire can be described. It is not God Himself. It is a manifestation of God.

Can you support this with scriptures? I think of a manifestation as something from God Himself.

There's "human logic" for you. Paul even says at times not to take him too earnestly since he admits some things he wrote are his private opinions.

Where does he say not to take him earnestly? He makes it clear when he's giving his opinion, but He also says to imitate him.
.

 

[Giuliano]

God spoke directly to the prophets, but this was not "the Word of God" spoken to them?? They heard His voice! Is it only "the Word of God" if God is seen? Before, you were splitting hairs about only the spoken words being "the Word of God." Now, you're saying only those who saw God received "the Word of God."

I am saying only Moses can be said to have written anything as a result of speaking with God face to face.

Moses was just a man, but Jesus IS God, so are not His words "the Word of God"??

Make up your mind. Was Jesus God? Was he "the Word of God" or did he speak "the Word of God?"

Here's an explanation of the verses concerning Moses:

We know from Scripture (e.g., John 4:24) that God is spirit. Spirits do not possess physicality. So, when Moses spoke “face to face” with God in Exodus 33:11, there are only two possible ways to understand it: either Moses was speaking to the pre-incarnate Son of God (a Christophany); or the passage is using a figure of speech called anthropomorphism, in which human qualities are applied to God. While a Christophany is certainly possible, it is probably better to view the chapter as using figures of speech. The terms face, hand, and back in Exodus 33 should not be taken literally, and face to face, being idiomatic, is also metaphorical.​

In verse 11 the idiom face to face can be simply understood to mean “intimately.” Moses spoke with God familiarly, as a man speaks to a friend. In verses 20 and 23, face and back are in reference to God’s “glory” and “goodness” (verses 18–19). Since God is spirit, and since glory and goodness are both intangibles, we can take face and back to signify varying “degrees” of glory. God’s hand (verse 22) is an obvious reference to God’s “protection.”

Source: If Moses met face to face with God, why, later, was he not allowed to see God's face? | GotQuestions.org
​

This is right, and only Moses and Jesus were "spiritual enough" to communicate with the highest degree of accuracy.​

 

[Giuliano]

David said that the law was "perfect." Paul said that the law was "good." The Mosaic law was perfect and good for its main intended purpose--as a tutor or guardian to lead people to Christ. (Gal 3:24)

If it was perfect, how can people say it failed?

I don't agree that the law is the Torah, the first 5 books of the Bible. How is Genesis the law?? The Mosaic law is outlined mostly in Leviticus, with some in Exodus and Deuteronomy, which are PART of the Torah.

That's how the Jews categorized these books; and you're the first Christian I met who didn't accept this category.

Matthew 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

In this verse, Jesus obviously isn't only talking about the law. He said that He fulfilled the law and the prophets as well. How do you explain this in light of your theory that only the Torah was "the Word of God"?

He told Satan what he planned to do, then he did it.

Matthew 4:4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

He not only heard the Voice of God perfectly, he was able to obey it perfectly too. In that way, we can say he "became" the "visible" manifestation of the Word. The Word goes forth, accomplishes it aim -- and does not return to God void. With most people, we hear a little and keep a little; but we hear imperfectly and also do not keep what we did hear. The Word accomplishes part of it aim; and in that case, it does not return to God but stays in the world until its purpose is achieved. When its purpose has been fully achieved, then heaven and earth will pass away and there will be a new heaven and a new earth.

DITTO for "Torah" not only meaning only the books of the law.

So, Paul was confused, eh?? You and I have been round and round this mountain about the law. Read Paul's epistles to the Romans and to the Galatians. He makes it crystal clear that believers are not under the Mosaic law--that we have died to that law and are now to live by "the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus" which "has set us free from the law of sin and death." (Romans 8:2)

Gentiles were never under the Law of Moses, so I don't know why Paul gave the impression they were. Jesus told Jews to obey the Sanhedrin; but he never once told a Gentile to do that or even to be circumcised or to convert. He was right too; and Jews today will tell you the same thing -- there was never any need for Gentiles to convert to Judaism and keep all the various laws of Moses.

Paul asked the Galatians who had "bewitched" them because they started the Christian walk by faith and were trying to live it out according to the law. He asked them, "Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?"

He must not have explained it that well to begin with, when he was with them, right? And he still didn't explain it that well in that book. You are still confused.

I don't believe that all of the prophets experienced this darkness you mention. And Paul did not say that he was "in the dark." HCSB says in 1 Cor 13:12, "For now we see indistinctly, as in a mirror,..." I believe that this is the meaning of seeing in a "mirror darkly."

Obscurely, indistinctly, darkly, I've not objection to how that word is translated in most translations. Why did you not cite the "face to face" part? There he is telling us he's not on a par with Moses. "For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face. . . ."
Why are we debating this? Because you want to see Paul as gifted a prophet as Moses?

Paul also said, "Now I know in part but then I will know fully as I am fully known." And yet Paul was taken to the third heaven. Do you not think that the "extraordinary revelations" given to him served as inspiration to write the epistles?

2 Cor 12:2-7--I know a man in Christ who was caught up into the third heaven 14 years ago. Whether he was in the body or out of the body, I don’t know, God knows. I know that this man — whether in the body or out of the body I don’t know, God knows — was caught up into paradise. He heard inexpressible words, which a man is not allowed to speak. I will boast about this person, but not about myself, except of my weaknesses. For if I want to boast, I will not be a fool, because I will be telling the truth. But I will spare you, so that no one can credit me with something beyond what he sees in me or hears from me, especially because of the extraordinary revelations.

Got that? Some things are "inexpressible." So you can believe somehow they're in the Bible?

I completely disagree that Paul's writings were not on par with the Torah! Moses sat in the tabernacle built by man and heard from God. Paul was taken to the third heaven and heard "inexpressible words, which man is not allowed to speak." I believe he was taken to the throne room of God. Surely, this is higher than the man-made tabernacle.

If you read it right, you find that the mountain Moses went up was more than a physical mountain. There was a spiritual mountain too. Israel was "under" the mountain -- not next to it, we could say they were next to a physical mountain -- but they were "under" the mountain. Was Paul gloried as Moses was, so that he had to wear a veil?

The Torah is an amazing revelation, to be sure, but it is not greater than the revelations given to Paul. The Torah represents the Old Covenant, but Paul's writings explain the New Covenant, which is a better covenant!
[/quote]

Hebrews 8:1-7--Now of the things which we have spoken this is the sum: We have such an high priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens; A minister of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man. For every high priest is ordained to offer gifts and sacrifices: wherefore it is of necessity that this man have somewhat also to offer. For if he were on earth, he should not be a priest, seeing that there are priests that offer gifts according to the law: Who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things, as Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the tabernacle: for, See, saith he, that thou make all things according to the pattern shewed to thee in the mount. But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises. For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.

It was Moses who served "unto the example and shadow of heavenly things." But the ministry and covenant of Jesus Christ is far superior. Jesus' is a "ministry of the...true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, not man."
.

You have really missed the point. The "new covenant" states that men do not need written words of other men, that Christians have things written on their hearts. Yet you want to void that idea and make the new covenant into a book.

 

[Grailhunter]

If it was perfect, how can people say it failed?

That's how the Jews categorized these books; and you're the first Christian I met who didn't accept this category. He told Satan what he planned to do, then he did it.

Matthew 4:4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

He not only heard the Voice of God perfectly, he was able to obey it perfectly too. In that way, we can say he "became" the "visible" manifestation of the Word. The Word goes forth, accomplishes it aim -- and does not return to God void. With most people, we hear a little and keep a little; but we hear imperfectly and also do not keep what we did hear. The Word accomplishes part of it aim; and in that case, it does not return to God but stays in the world until its purpose is achieved. When its purpose has been fully achieved, then heaven and earth will pass away and there will be a new heaven and a new earth.

Gentiles were never under the Law of Moses, so I don't know why Paul gave the impression they were. Jesus told Jews to obey the Sanhedrin; but he never once told a Gentile to do that or even to be circumcised or to convert. He was right too; and Jews today will tell you the same thing -- there was never any need for Gentiles to convert to Judaism and keep all the various laws of Moses.

He must not have explained it that well to begin with, when he was with them, right? And he still didn't explain it that well in that book. You are still confused.

Obscurely, indistinctly, darkly, I've not objection to how that word is translated in most translations. Why did you not cite the "face to face" part? There he is telling us he's not on a par with Moses. "For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face. . . ."
Why are we debating this? Because you want to see Paul as gifted a prophet as Moses?

Got that? Some things are "inexpressible." So you can believe somehow they're in the Bible?

If you read it right, you find that the mountain Moses went up was more than a physical mountain. There was a spiritual mountain too. Israel was "under" the mountain -- not next to it, we could say they were next to a physical mountain -- but they were "under" the mountain. Was Paul gloried as Moses was, so that he had to wear a veil?

The Torah is an amazing revelation, to be sure, but it is not greater than the revelations given to Paul. The Torah represents the Old Covenant, but Paul's writings explain the New Covenant, which is a better covenant!

You have really missed the point. The "new covenant" states that men do not need written words of other men, that Christians have things written on their hearts. Yet you want to void that idea and make the new covenant into a book.[/QUOTE]

have things written on their hearts....how about our hands.....Holy Spirits speaks to me.....God works in mysterious ways.....God speak to me.....God showed me!
She throws an apple and you throw a orange....You guys need to put things in context and quite talking in circles. Important topic but how about some straight talk?

 

[Prayer Warrior]

Was he "the Word of God" or did he speak "the Word of God?"

BOTH!

If it was perfect, how can people say it failed?

The law didn't fail to do what God intended it to do--show us our sin. Remember that Paul said he wouldn't have know that he was covetous apart from the law saying not to covet?

The law doesn't make anyone righteous because it wasn't intended to do that. Romans 1:17 says, "For the gospel reveals the righteousness of God that comes by faith from start to finish, just as it is written: 'The righteous will live by faith.'"

That's how the Jews categorized these books; and you're the first Christian I met who didn't accept this category.

So?? You didn't answer my question. How can Genesis be called "the Law"?

Gentiles were never under the Law of Moses, so I don't know why Paul gave the impression they were. Jesus told Jews to obey the Sanhedrin; but he never once told a Gentile to do that or even to be circumcised or to convert. He was right too; and Jews today will tell you the same thing -- there was never any need for Gentiles to convert to Judaism and keep all the various laws of Moses.

You never pointed out where Jesus said to obey the "Sanhedrin." Again, I repeat, He told the people to do what the scribes and Pharisees said, but not what they did. Scribes and Pharisees were not necessarily part of the Sanhedrin, which was mostly made up of priests and judges, according to several article I just looked at online.

As far as Gentiles being under the law, anyone can place himself under the law.

Romans 2:14-16-- So, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, instinctively do what the law demands, they are a law to themselves even though they do not have the law. They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts. Their consciences confirm this. Their competing thoughts will either accuse or excuse them on the day when God judges what people have kept secret, according to my gospel through Christ Jesus.

He must not have explained it that well to begin with, when he was with them, right? And he still didn't explain it that well in that book. You are still confused.

Got that? Some things are "inexpressible." So you can believe somehow they're in the Bible?

The things that were inexpressible aren't in the Bible. So, obviously, we don't need to know those things.

If you read it right, you find that the mountain Moses went up was more than a physical mountain. There was a spiritual mountain too. Israel was "under" the mountain -- not next to it, we could say they were next to a physical mountain -- but they were "under" the mountain. Was Paul gloried as Moses was, so that he had to wear a veil?

Was Moses caught up to the throne room of God in the third heaven and hear "inexpressible words, which a man is not allowed to speak"? Was Moses the mediator of the better covenant or the lesser covenant?

If you think that the Torah is the only perfect "Word of God," then why are you Christian and not Jewish?

I don't know about the mountain thing. Never heard of that.

You have really missed the point. The "new covenant" states that men do not need written words of other men, that Christians have things written on their hearts. Yet you want to void that idea and make the new covenant into a book.

What???

Paul told Timothy this: "Be diligent to present yourself approved to God, a worker who doesn't need to be ashamed, correctly teaching the word of truth." Why would Paul say this if what you're saying is true.

And I know you know this one: 2 Tim 3:16-- All Scripture is inspired by God and is profitable for teaching, for rebuking, for correcting, for training in righteousness,...

 

[Prayer Warrior]

You have really missed the point. The "new covenant" states that men do not need written words of other men, that Christians have things written on their hearts. Yet you want to void that idea and make the new covenant into a book.

The arbiter has arrived.

 

[Grailhunter]

The arbiter has arrived.

I am not doing the troll thing. But talk straight. You have to be fair....You say things and you know they are out of context....ECF's mostly quoted the OT...lol...what were they suppose to quote? You make it sound like they were talking about Judaism, instead of Christianity, and that is not true....what is rubbing me the wrong way is because I know, that you know that.

You can play on her belief that the manifestation of the Word of God. But she does not know that the Word of God as an entity is not Christian....In the beginning was the Word, and Word was with God, and Word was God....this and the Logos....are Greek metaphysical terms that occurred at least 6 centuries before Christ....It also occurs in Gnosticism. There were people in the period that objected to this.

You guys need to discuss this stuff. Talk straight.

 

[farouk]

After reading the statement I mentioned above, I felt like this topic was worth revisiting in this thread. Everything in blue was taken verbatim from the statement, but it is only an excerpt. I've provided a link to the entire statement at the bottom of this post.

The "Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy" was produced at an international Summit Conference of evangelical leaders, held at the Hyatt Regency O'Hare in Chicago in the fall of 1978. This congress was sponsored by the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy. The Chicago Statement was signed by nearly 300 noted evangelical scholars....​

A Short Statement

1. God, who is Himself Truth and speaks truth only, has inspired Holy Scripture in order thereby to reveal Himself to lost mankind through Jesus Christ as Creator and Lord, Redeemer and Judge. Holy Scripture is God’s witness to Himself.

2. Holy Scripture, being God’s own Word, written by men prepared and superintended by His Spirit, is of infallible divine authority in all matters upon which it touches: it is to be believed, as God’s instruction, in all that it affirms: obeyed, as God’s command, in all that it requires; embraced, as God’s pledge, in all that it promises.

3. The Holy Spirit, Scripture’s divine Author, both authenticates it to us by His inward witness and opens our minds to understand its meaning.

4. Being wholly and verbally God-given, Scripture is without error or fault in all its teaching, no less in what it states about God’s acts in creation, about the events of world history, and about its own literary origins under God, than in its witness to God’s saving grace in individual lives.

5. The authority of Scripture is inescapably impaired if this total divine inerrancy is in any way limited or disregarded, or made relative to a view of truth contrary to the Bible’s own; and such lapses bring serious loss to both the individual and the Church.

Infallibility, Inerrancy, Interpretation

Holy Scripture, as the inspired Word of God witnessing authoritatively to Jesus Christ, may properly be called infallible and inerrant. These negative terms have a special value, for they explicitly safeguard crucial positive truths.

lnfallible signifies the quality of neither misleading nor being misled and so safeguards in categorical terms the truth that Holy Scripture is a sure, safe, and reliable rule and guide in all matters.

Similarly, inerrant signifies the quality of being free from all falsehood or mistake and so safeguards the truth that Holy Scripture is entirely true and trustworthy in all its assertions.

We affirm that canonical Scripture should always be interpreted on the basis that it is infallible and inerrant. However, in determining what the God-taught writer is asserting in each passage, we must pay the most careful attention to its claims and character as a human production. In inspiration, God utilized the culture and conventions of His penman's milieu, a milieu that God controls in His sovereign providence; it is misinterpretation to imagine otherwise.

So history must be treated as history, poetry as poetry, hyperbole and metaphor as hyperbole and metaphor, generalization and approximation as what they are, and so forth. Differences between literary conventions in Bible times and in ours must also be observed: since, for instance, non-chronological narration and imprecise citation were conventional and acceptable and violated no expectations in those days, we must not regard these things as faults when we find them in Bible writers. When total precision of a particular kind was not expected nor aimed at, it is no error not to have achieved it. Scripture is inerrant, not in the sense of being absolutely precise by modern standards, but in the sense of making good its claims and achieving that measure of focused truth at which its authors aimed.

The truthfulness of Scripture is not negated by the appearance in it of irregularities of grammar or spelling, phenomenal descriptions of nature, reports of false statements (e.g., the lies of Satan), or seeming discrepancies between one passage and another. It is not right to set the so-called "phenomena" of Scripture against the teaching of Scripture about itself. Apparent inconsistencies should not be ignored. Solution of them, where this can be convincingly achieved, will encourage our faith, and where for the present no convincing solution is at hand we shall significantly honor God by trusting His assurance that His Word is true, despite these appearances, and by maintaining our confidence that one day they will be seen to have been illusions.

Inasmuch as all Scripture is the product of a single divine mind, interpretation must stay within the bounds of the analogy of Scripture and eschew hypotheses that would correct one Biblical passage by another, whether in the name of progressive revelation or of the imperfect enlightenment of the inspired writer's mind.

Although Holy Scripture is nowhere culture-bound in the sense that its teaching lacks universal validity, it is sometimes culturally conditioned by the customs and conventional views of a particular period, so that the application of its principles today calls for a different sort of action.

Source: Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy

​

A good statement...

 

[Prayer Warrior]

A good statement...

I agree. I did my heart good to read it.

 

[Prayer Warrior]

You say things and you know they are out of context.

This is absolutely false. I do no such thing!