How do mormons get around galatians 1 verse 8

[SayWhat???]

Here's a true contradiction.....

http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=16543899&postcount=1

<><

I see where the BoM contradicts John Gill, but not the Bible. Where exactly is the contradiction?

 

[Peterson]

8But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned..

How do they get around this verse??? My brother said that when he talked to some LDS members they just said that it was incorrectly translated???

Thx

It strikes me that the historic, traditional, trinitarian churches have the same problem. 1 John 2:22-23 and 2 John 9-10, clearly state that the doctrine of Christ involves the Father and the Son only, and not a trinity. Why do you assume that you are the one that has it right, and Mormons have it wrong?

 

[A New Dawn]

That changes the gospel from what Christ has done for us to what He does in us! It makes good works the gospel.

You've piqued my curiosity. What are you saying. (detail please)

Justification is the legal declaration of God that the demands of the law as the condition of our mortal existence have been fully satisfied because of the atonement that our Savior made upon the cross. It is something that is done to us, and for us, but not within us.

Sanctification is the process whereby we become holy. We, ourselves, are wrought upon by the Holy Spirit so that our thoughts and actions fall in line with what God's will is for us. It is something that is done inside of us to change us.

According to Romans 8:30 KJV (etc.), glorification is based on justification, but in the JST, glorification is based on sanctification.

(Am I right? )

Joseph Smith, Jr. Changed nothing of the Bible to suit his theology. He retranslated parts of it as God instructed him to.

When you say "retranslated", .......... what exactly do you mean?

 

[gort]

I see where the BoM contradicts John Gill, but not the Bible. Where exactly is the contradiction?

John Gill merely expounds upon what the Bible has to say. The contradictions are outlined in that thread.

<><

 

[gort]

Paul G quote:

If your conclusions are correct, why did Adam and Eve, while still in their imortal state, not have children while they were in the garden?

That's besides the point. What the Bible shows is that they did have the ability to have chilren.

Gen 3:16 To the woman He said, I will greatly increase your sorrow and your conception. In pain you shall bear sons, and your desire shall be toward your husband, and he shall rule over you.

How can something be "greatly increased", if it had not before been possible?

<><

 

[SayWhat???]

John Gill merely expounds upon what the Bible has to say. The contradictions are outlined in that thread.

<><

John Gill does nothing more that expound HIS interpretation of Bible passages. Where in the Bible does it say that Adam and Eve could in fact have children before the fall? We see the instruction, but the only thing I see is the fact that they didn't even know they were naked before they ate the fruit (see Gen 3:8-11). They only figured out that they were naked after eating the fruit. It's got to be pretty hard to have babies if you don't even know you're naked.

 

[Wrigley]

John Gill does nothing more that expound HIS interpretation of Bible passages. Where in the Bible does it say that Adam and Eve could in fact have children before the fall? We see the instruction, but the only thing I see is the fact that they didn't even know they were naked before they ate the fruit (see Gen 3:8-11). They only figured out that they were naked after eating the fruit. It's got to be pretty hard to have babies if you don't even know you're naked.

You're seriously nuts.

 

[Paul G]

Because they were getting to know one another. Not every woman becomes pregnant on her honeymoon! I sure didn't!

We were not so lucky, nine months later, taa daa.

 

[gort]

John Gill does nothing more that expound HIS interpretation of Bible passages.

It seems plain enough to read. Literal is literal. I quoted John Gill as he is much more eloquent than I.

Where in the Bible does it say that Adam and Eve could in fact have children before the fall?

You've answered your own question here:

We see the instruction,

.... but the only thing I see is the fact that they didn't even know they were naked before they ate the fruit (see Gen 3:8-11). They only figured out that they were naked after eating the fruit. It's got to be pretty hard to have babies if you don't even know you're naked.

They were certainly nekkid before eating.

Irregardless, the BofM says they could'nt have chilren, and I thank you for admitting that God gave them instruction to multiply, therefore showing they did have the potential to pr0create chilren.

<><

 

[Swart]

John Gill merely expounds upon what the Bible has to say. The contradictions are outlined in that thread.

<><

Quickly browsed through it. Of course if you are going to read one scripture, extrapolate an interpretation from that scripture, and then find a scripture that disagrees with your interpretation, all that proves is that the interpretation is incorrect.

To establish a contridiction, you must find scriptures that don't agree because of a failure of the internal logic behind them. What I looked at doesn't even establish a contra-indication. It merely suggests to me that John Gill's interpretation is incorrect.

Showing that the BoM contradicts OC interpretation of the Bible is not going to impress anyone who is a LDS. It will only re-inforce that your beliefs are incorrect because they don't agree with revealed scripture.

Taking it slowly:

A) Looking at a set of scriptures from one source leads to (say) five possible interpretations.
B) Looking at a set of scriptures from another source leads in conjunction to (say) two possible interpretations.

If you accept A but not B and adhere to interpretation 4. I accept A & B and am limited to interpretation 1 or 2. Your adherence to interpretation 4 is not evidence of a contradiction between A & B.

 

[Rescued One]

We were not so lucky, nine months later, taa daa.

What does luck have to do with it?

 

[Rescued One]

John Gill does nothing more that expound HIS interpretation of Bible passages. Where in the Bible does it say that Adam and Eve could in fact have children before the fall? We see the instruction, but the only thing I see is the fact that they didn't even know they were naked before they ate the fruit (see Gen 3:8-11). They only figured out that they were naked after eating the fruit. It's got to be pretty hard to have babies if you don't even know you're naked.

Do dogs and cattle and ducks know they are naked?

 

[A New Dawn]

What does luck have to do with it?

Must've been before birth control evolved into the fine science it is now.

 

[gort]

Swart quote:

If you accept A but not B and adhere to interpretation 4. I accept A & B and am limited to interpretation 1 or 2. Your adherence to interpretation 4 is not evidence of a contradiction between A & B.

But I do accept B, but not A. I do adhere to interpretation no. 3 only. I accept part of A sometimes, and B most all the time. Only if interpretation 2 comes into effect, could there ever be a contradiction between not only A and B, but C might show up into the scenario too......

Quickly browsed through it.

I'm sure you could do better.

<><


Oh.there's that turnip I lost....

 

[Paul G]

What does luck have to do with it?

Sorry, apparently it was a failed attempt at humour.

 

[Paul G]

How can something be "greatly increased", if it had not before been possible?
<><

It well may have been physically possible for them, we are not given many details, but by being “in innocence” they did not have that knowledge. I can only infer that Heavenly Father did not require them at that time to procreate. It was only after the fall that they received that kind of information.

 

[gort]

Paul G quote:

It well may have been physically possible for them, we are not given many details, but by being “in innocence” they did not have that knowledge. I can only infer that Heavenly Father did not require them at that time to procreate. It was only after the fall that they received that kind of information.

I'll stick with the "physically possible for them" part. Above that, I consider it true when God told them to "Be fruitful and multiply", even better.

And while we don't "have that many details", and meaning no disrespect here, I'll toss out this:

I can only infer that Heavenly Father did not require them at that time to procreate. It was only after the fall that they received that kind of information.

...because this would be perhaps "your opinion". Or, info from another source, of which still contradicts what the Bible teaches, regarding the pr0creation of chilren .



<><

 

[Paul G]

And while we don't "have that many details", and meaning no disrespect here, I'll toss out this:

<><

None taken. Of coarse this is my personal opinion, however it does find some support by the facts which shows that there was no procreation until after the fall, and is explicitly scriptural, both in the Bible and the BoM.

 

[gort]

None taken. Of coarse this is my personal opinion, however it does find some support by the facts which shows that there was no procreation until after the fall, and is explicitly scriptural, both in the Bible and the BoM.

Good.

However, by Scripture in the Bible, we do know that they could "multiply" and be fruitful.

The BofM states they could have no children.

As to why they did'nt have chilren in the Garden is open to speculation.



<><

 

[Swart]

I'm sure you could do better.

Given time, I'm operating on a fairly tight signal-to-noise ratio at the moment.

Oh.there's that turnip I lost....