Now, in response to the OP, there are two different creation stories. This would be a problem except, as Walker Boh pointed out, all things existed spiritually before they existed physically.
How does that solve the problem of two different creation stories?
One source for this idea (the one I'm familiar with) is in Joseph Smith's translation of Genesis, which states, "And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew. For I, the Lord God, created all things, of which I have spoken, spiritually, before they were naturally upon the face of the earth. For I, the Lord God, had not caused it to rain upon the face of the earth. And I, the Lord God, had created all the children of men; and not yet a man to till the ground; for in heaven created I them; and there was not yet flesh upon the earth, neither in the water, neither in the air" (Moses 3:5; this is analogous to Genesis 2:5; italics indicate additions).
If Joseph Smith added verses to Genesis, then how would that constitute a translation of Genesis? That is a rewriting of Genesis.
Not that I care that someone deviated from Scripture in his take on God, but Joseph Smith adding his own verses to Genesis is not a way of resolving the issues of Genesis.
This is why the two creation stories are different but similar, and both present. God essentially worked out the blueprints first (Genesis 1), then made it happen in a different order (Genesis 2).
Nope. This is nothing more than a handwave, a denial of there being obvious contraditions in the Bible when there are. Saying God both did X and did not do X does not logically make sense.
Not to mention what you're saying is absurd. Saying, "Well God made things spiritually but not physically" clearly does not work here because this these are stories of God creating physical things.
Now the OP also claims that these stories are at odds with scientific understanding, with the biggest offense being that the creation claims to have occurred in a matter of days. It has also been brought up that "days" might not refer to the 24-hour periods we call days, but then why shouldn't it? You may notice from the above quote that in Joseph Smith's translation, the story is told from God's perspective to His prophet, Moses. Thus I conclude: God was not referring to our 24 hour days, but a "day" from His planet. Sure, He was over here building the earth, but He was still referring to a different amount of time than what He assigned here. How long is a day on God's planet? A thousand of our years? A billion? Nobody knows. Time is also irrelevant to God, He being an Eternal Being, but He condescends to our need to know times.
Ok, two things:
A. A day is described in Genesis as a Hebrew day, that is to say, from the time of sundown to the next sundown. On Earth.
B. Why would God be living on another planet? Is this that Mormon space alien God nonsense?
It has also been claimed that the creation story is a metaphor instead of a literal, historical account. I do believe it to be an essentially historical account, but it is simultaneously a metaphor.
It means I don't think the Bible is infallible, but I believe its teachings to be morally correct and its history helpful to understanding.
Now, in response to the OP, there are two different creation stories. This would be a problem except, as Walker Boh pointed out, all things existed spiritually before they existed physically.
How does that solve the problem of two different creation stories?
"God essentially worked out the blueprints first (Genesis 1), then made it happen in a different order (Genesis 2)."
One source for this idea (the one I'm familiar with) is in Joseph Smith's translation of Genesis, which states, "And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew. For I, the Lord God, created all things, of which I have spoken, spiritually, before they were naturally upon the face of the earth. For I, the Lord God, had not caused it to rain upon the face of the earth. And I, the Lord God, had created all the children of men; and not yet a man to till the ground; for in heaven created I them; and there was not yet flesh upon the earth, neither in the water, neither in the air" (Moses 3:5; this is analogous to Genesis 2:5; italics indicate additions).
If Joseph Smith added verses to Genesis, then how would that constitute a translation of Genesis? That is a rewriting of Genesis.
Not that I care that someone deviated from Scripture in his take on God, but Joseph Smith adding his own verses to Genesis is not a way of resolving the issues of Genesis.
Joseph Smith's "translating" was different from scholarly translations. He did so by first studying the relevant text (Genesis, in this case), then asking God what He originally meant. God inspired Joseph's additions. This only worked for him because he was a prophet with whom God spoke, but that's a completely different topic.
This is why the two creation stories are different but similar, and both present. God essentially worked out the blueprints first (Genesis 1), then made it happen in a different order (Genesis 2).
Nope. This is nothing more than a handwave, a denial of there being obvious contraditions in the Bible when there are. Saying God both did X and did not do X does not logically make sense.
Not to mention what you're saying is absurd. Saying, "Well God made things spiritually but not physically" clearly does not work here because this these are stories of God creating physical things.
Not at all. Have you ever done anything without thinking about it or planning it first? Have you ever created something physically without creating it in your mind beforehand? Does research get funded that has not been thoroughly thought through and presented to the grant committee? Has a house ever been built that did not first have complete blueprints? I tried to build a bridge for physics class once without planning it out. It didn't hold much weight before falling apart. If you want to create something that will last for 7000 or 7 billion years, you're going to plan it out first, and God did. This is what I mean when I say He created things spiritually before physically. He planned each detail, of where earth would need to be to orbit the sun just right, of the interactions between land and sea, of plant life and animal life.
Now the OP also claims that these stories are at odds with scientific understanding, with the biggest offense being that the creation claims to have occurred in a matter of days. It has also been brought up that "days" might not refer to the 24-hour periods we call days, but then why shouldn't it? You may notice from the above quote that in Joseph Smith's translation, the story is told from God's perspective to His prophet, Moses. Thus I conclude: God was not referring to our 24 hour days, but a "day" from His planet. Sure, He was over here building the earth, but He was still referring to a different amount of time than what He assigned here. How long is a day on God's planet? A thousand of our years? A billion? Nobody knows. Time is also irrelevant to God, He being an Eternal Being, but He condescends to our need to know times.
Ok, two things:
A. A day is described in Genesis as a Hebrew day, that is to say, from the time of sundown to the next sundown. On Earth.
B. Why would God be living on another planet? Is this that Mormon space alien God nonsense?
A. Who says it was on earth? Hebrews got their reckoning of time (if the Bible is to be believed) from God. Who would have used it from His source.
B. Yes, you could say it's "Mormon space alien God nonsense." And yet, why would God be living on this planet? It didn't even exist until He created it. Assuming He came from somewhere, why not another planet?
It has also been claimed that the creation story is a metaphor instead of a literal, historical account. I do believe it to be an essentially historical account, but it is simultaneously a metaphor.
That makes no sense.
Many good stories have a moral. Why would those stories have to come from the imagination? A true story can teach a principle as easily as a made up one.
It means I don't think the Bible is infallible, but I believe its teachings to be morally correct and its history helpful to understanding.
The problem is you also believe the Bible to be fallible. This means you believe that the Bible contains false things, right? So saying, "The Bible is true" as a blanket statement becomes problematic.
"God essentially worked out the blueprints first (Genesis 1), then made it happen in a different order (Genesis 2)."
No, Genesis 1 does not describe the plans for creation. It describes how God created the universe. Actually created.
Joseph Smith's "translating" was different from scholarly translations.
Correct, because it's not a translation at all.
He did so by first studying the relevant text (Genesis, in this case), then asking God what He originally meant. God inspired Joseph's additions. This only worked for him because he was a prophet with whom God spoke, but that's a completely different topic.
Joseph Smith was a false prophet.
However, even if we were in doubt about this, how do you know that God inspired Smith's additions? How do you know he didn't just make them up?
This is what I mean when I say He created things spiritually before physically. He planned each detail, of where earth would need to be to orbit the sun just right, of the interactions between land and sea, of plant life and animal life.
No. Genesis 1 is a story of how God created the Heaven and the Earth. Genesis 2 is a separate story of how God created the Heaven and the Earth.
That Joseph Smith claims they're the same story does not mean that they are.
A. Who says it was on earth?
Because the only things described in existence were the Earth, light, and darkness.
Also, the Hebrews didn't know about other planets.
B. Yes, you could say it's "Mormon space alien God nonsense." And yet, why would God be living on this planet?
Why would God be living on any planet?
Many good stories have a moral. Why would those stories have to come from the imagination? A true story can teach a principle as easily as a made up one.
The problem is you also believe the Bible to be fallible. This means you believe that the Bible contains false things, right? So saying, "The Bible is true" as a blanket statement becomes problematic.
Yeah, I can see why you'd have a problem with that. I used the term "true" as a way to state that I'm in a different mindset: I don't think the Bible is perfect, but I don't think it should be ignored except to pick apart, either. It should be studied and treasured, but what God says today is more important than what He said then.
No, Genesis 1 does not describe the plans for creation. It describes how God created the universe. Actually created.
Genesis 1 describes the actual creation in God's mind (and perhaps on paper). Genesis 2 describes the actual creation by God's hands. To take a page from Dumbledore, why would it happening in his mind make it any less real?
Joseph Smith was a false prophet.
However, even if we were in doubt about this, how do you know that God inspired Smith's additions? How do you know he didn't just make them up?
Joseph Smith was definitely not clever enough to create a whole religion from hand waving. He had less education than a middle schooler, yet the religion he started is still going strong nearly 200 years later. I trust his version of Genesis because of his work in other areas (the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the founding of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, to name a few).
Because the only things described in existence were the Earth, light, and darkness.
Just because the Bible doesn't describe something, doesn't mean it wasn't there. As I mentioned in my first post, "The Bible is the work of faithful men to encourage us to come closer to God." If those men didn't know something, they couldn't write about it at all.
Also, the Hebrews didn't know about other planets.
Many good stories have a moral. Why would those stories have to come from the imagination? A true story can teach a principle as easily as a made up one.
Except it's not a true story.
Then all the better for teaching a lesson. And yet, how do you know it's not true? You weren't there. God was. Ask Him.
Genesis 1 describes the actual creation in God's mind (and perhaps on paper). Genesis 2 describes the actual creation by God's hands. To take a page from Dumbledore, why would it happening in his mind make it any less real?
Again, you are parroting Joseph Smith's interpretation of Genesis 1 and 2. But why should we accept this interpretation as valid?
Joseph Smith was definitely not clever enough to create a whole religion from hand waving.
Why not? People do it all the time.
You believe all religions to be false except for Mormonism, right? So that means you believe every single other religion, every other claim of divine revelation, is false, right? So clearly, people have absolutely no problems making up religions. What makes Joseph Smith any different?
So why do you believe Joseph Smith could not possibly have made his religion up? What separates him?
He had less education than a middle schooler,
Meaningless. Countless religious movements have been formed and led by people with minimal to no formal education.
yet the religion he started is still going strong nearly 200 years later.
Hindu has been around ages longer than a scant 200 years. Why not be Hindu?
I trust his version of Genesis because of his work in other areas (the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the founding of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, to name a few).
Joseph Smith claimed he received the Book of Mormon from an ancient civilization of Hebrews that lived in America and wrote in a language called "Reformed Egyptian." Except, we don't have the tablets, there is no archaeological evidence of any such civilization, there is no archaeological evidence to support that the Hebrews ever reached America in such a time period, there is no linguistic evidence of any such language as "Reformed Egyptian," there is no DNA evidence to suggest a connection of ancestry between any Native American group to the ancient Near East, and the texts Joseph Smith allegedly composed by them contain anachronisms to things that no evidence suggests existed during pre-Colombian America.
So yes, all available evidence suggests that Smith made the Book of Mormon up.
So what reason do you have to claim Mormonism is the correct religion?
Just because the Bible doesn't describe something, doesn't mean it wasn't there. As I mentioned in my first post, "The Bible is the work of faithful men to encourage us to come closer to God." If those men didn't know something, they couldn't write about it at all.
If they didn't know about other planets, then Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 cannot possibly be referring to other planets, because the people who composed the narrative in the first place did not know about other planets.
And yet, how do you know it's not true?
Because the actual creation of the world did not happen as described in either Genesis 1 or in Genesis 2.
How does that solve the problem of two different creation stories?
If Joseph Smith added verses to Genesis, then how would that constitute a translation of Genesis? That is a rewriting of Genesis.
Not that I care that someone deviated from Scripture in his take on God, but Joseph Smith adding his own verses to Genesis is not a way of resolving the issues of Genesis.
Nope. This is nothing more than a handwave, a denial of there being obvious contraditions in the Bible when there are. Saying God both did X and did not do X does not logically make sense.
Not to mention what you're saying is absurd. Saying, "Well God made things spiritually but not physically" clearly does not work here because this these are stories of God creating physical things.
Ok, two things:
A. A day is described in Genesis as a Hebrew day, that is to say, from the time of sundown to the next sundown. On Earth.
B. Why would God be living on another planet? Is this that Mormon space alien God nonsense?
That makes no sense.
It means I don't think the Bible is infallible, but I believe its teachings to be morally correct and its history helpful to understanding.
"God essentially worked out the blueprints first (Genesis 1), then made it happen in a different order (Genesis 2)."
Joseph Smith's "translating" was different from scholarly translations. He did so by first studying the relevant text (Genesis, in this case), then asking God what He originally meant. God inspired Joseph's additions. This only worked for him because he was a prophet with whom God spoke, but that's a completely different topic.
Not at all. Have you ever done anything without thinking about it or planning it first? Have you ever created something physically without creating it in your mind beforehand? Does research get funded that has not been thoroughly thought through and presented to the grant committee? Has a house ever been built that did not first have complete blueprints? I tried to build a bridge for physics class once without planning it out. It didn't hold much weight before falling apart. If you want to create something that will last for 7000 or 7 billion years, you're going to plan it out first, and God did. This is what I mean when I say He created things spiritually before physically. He planned each detail, of where earth would need to be to orbit the sun just right, of the interactions between land and sea, of plant life and animal life.
A. Who says it was on earth? Hebrews got their reckoning of time (if the Bible is to be believed) from God. Who would have used it from His source.
B. Yes, you could say it's "Mormon space alien God nonsense." And yet, why would God be living on this planet? It didn't even exist until He created it. Assuming He came from somewhere, why not another planet?
Many good stories have a moral. Why would those stories have to come from the imagination? A true story can teach a principle as easily as a made up one.
Standard: UGB Hardened Skulker
Commander:
GWU Jenara, Asura of War
WUBRG Progenitus / Allies
UBR Scry / Mill
WUB Dakkon Landfall
No, Genesis 1 does not describe the plans for creation. It describes how God created the universe. Actually created.
Correct, because it's not a translation at all.
Joseph Smith was a false prophet.
However, even if we were in doubt about this, how do you know that God inspired Smith's additions? How do you know he didn't just make them up?
No. Genesis 1 is a story of how God created the Heaven and the Earth. Genesis 2 is a separate story of how God created the Heaven and the Earth.
That Joseph Smith claims they're the same story does not mean that they are.
Because the only things described in existence were the Earth, light, and darkness.
Also, the Hebrews didn't know about other planets.
Why would God be living on any planet?
Except it's not a true story.
Genesis 1 describes the actual creation in God's mind (and perhaps on paper). Genesis 2 describes the actual creation by God's hands. To take a page from Dumbledore, why would it happening in his mind make it any less real?
Joseph Smith was definitely not clever enough to create a whole religion from hand waving. He had less education than a middle schooler, yet the religion he started is still going strong nearly 200 years later. I trust his version of Genesis because of his work in other areas (the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the founding of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, to name a few).
Just because the Bible doesn't describe something, doesn't mean it wasn't there. As I mentioned in my first post, "The Bible is the work of faithful men to encourage us to come closer to God." If those men didn't know something, they couldn't write about it at all.
They did if God told them, as in this chapter.
Then all the better for teaching a lesson. And yet, how do you know it's not true? You weren't there. God was. Ask Him.
Standard: UGB Hardened Skulker
Commander:
GWU Jenara, Asura of War
WUBRG Progenitus / Allies
UBR Scry / Mill
WUB Dakkon Landfall
Why not? People do it all the time.
You believe all religions to be false except for Mormonism, right? So that means you believe every single other religion, every other claim of divine revelation, is false, right? So clearly, people have absolutely no problems making up religions. What makes Joseph Smith any different?
So why do you believe Joseph Smith could not possibly have made his religion up? What separates him?
Meaningless. Countless religious movements have been formed and led by people with minimal to no formal education.
Hindu has been around ages longer than a scant 200 years. Why not be Hindu?
Joseph Smith claimed he received the Book of Mormon from an ancient civilization of Hebrews that lived in America and wrote in a language called "Reformed Egyptian." Except, we don't have the tablets, there is no archaeological evidence of any such civilization, there is no archaeological evidence to support that the Hebrews ever reached America in such a time period, there is no linguistic evidence of any such language as "Reformed Egyptian," there is no DNA evidence to suggest a connection of ancestry between any Native American group to the ancient Near East, and the texts Joseph Smith allegedly composed by them contain anachronisms to things that no evidence suggests existed during pre-Colombian America.
So yes, all available evidence suggests that Smith made the Book of Mormon up.
So what reason do you have to claim Mormonism is the correct religion?
If they didn't know about other planets, then Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 cannot possibly be referring to other planets, because the people who composed the narrative in the first place did not know about other planets.
Because the actual creation of the world did not happen as described in either Genesis 1 or in Genesis 2.