An Example

[James Banta]

here is one more example of the poor Biblical interpretation of the LDS

Gen 6:2
That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.

Almost to a person the LDS will say "Angels came to earth and fathered a race of super human, giants." But the first LAW of Christian Biblical interpretation is to always interpret the OT in the light of the NT.. And what does Jesus say about angel taking wives?

Matthew 22:30
For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.

Why is is that a prophet would make an error as HUGE as this? Why would a people lead by a prophet look to the people that rejected the clear prophesies of Jesus is their own books instead of looking to what Jesus teaches in the matter? In Gen 6 it is said that these "sons of God took the daughters of men as wives". Either these "Sons of God" are NOT angels as many of the LDS believe or Jesus lied.. Seems that most LDS would rather accept the teaching of the Jewish teachers on the interpretation of the OT than trust what Jesus clearly taught about at least this issue.. This gives reason to be concern that any of their interpretation have any authority from the Holy Spirit in any way.. IHS jim

[Snow Patrol]

Your first error is that the LDS believe that Gen. 6:2 is referring to angels. I certainly don't.

[James Banta]

Originally Posted by Snow Patrol

Your first error is that the LDS believe that Gen. 6:2 is referring to angels. I certainly don't.

I showed my source.. All you have done is give a personal belief which means nothing.. IHS jim

[Snow Patrol]

Sources? What LDS sources have your provided? All you have done is shown two scriptures and then given us YOUR personal interpretation of our beliefs which in your words "mean nothing."

[Snow Patrol]

Here, I'll provide you with LDS sources....

Moses 8
12 And Noah was four hundred and fifty years old, and begat Japheth; and forty-two years afterward he begat Shem of her who was the mother of Japheth, and when he was five hundred years old he begat Ham.
13 And Noah and his sons hearkened unto the Lord, and gave heed, and they were called the sons of God.
14 And when these men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, the sons of men saw that those daughters were fair, and they took them wives, even as they chose.

Oh, darn it. I just proved your first post was in error. Sorry, not sorry.

[Sir]

Originally Posted by Snow Patrol

Sources? What LDS sources have your provided? All you have done is shown two scriptures and then given us YOUR personal interpretation of our beliefs which in your words "mean nothing."

LOL....man, this is a perfect example of why I quit coming here on any regular basis. It doesn't take much to debunk James' posts, especially in this case where he debunks his own post!

Dude, the apologetics of the critics is so bad around here that even Jill hasn't logged-in here since October 4th!!!

[Snow Patrol]

Originally Posted by Sir

LOL....man, this is a perfect example of why I quit coming here on any regular basis. It doesn't take much to debunk James' posts, especially in this case where he debunks his own post!

Dude, the apologetics of the critics is so bad around here that even Jill hasn't logged-in here since October 4th!!!

It is pretty bad. I rarely poke my head in the door but I've cleared a couple things off my plate so I thought I'd come take a look. I don't like well established threads so I picked this thread and was immediately surprised at the errors in it. Then, when I post that most LDS don't believe that I'm hit with "my opinion means nothing". But oh the HYPOCRISY. Interpretation of our beliefs (opinion) was all that was in the OP.

[Snow Patrol]

This place isn't very active. I just checked and it looks like out of all the different areas of WM only 4 have had posts in the month of November. There's no need for her to log in.

[Sir]

Originally Posted by Snow Patrol

It is pretty bad. I rarely poke my head in the door but I've cleared a couple things off my plate so I thought I'd come take a look. I don't like well established threads so I picked this thread and was immediately surprised at the errors in it. Then, when I post that most LDS don't believe that I'm hit with "my opinion means nothing". But oh the HYPOCRISY. Interpretation of our beliefs (opinion) was all that was in the OP.

Yep. I rarely come here too.

And obviously the couple of LDS-critical posters remaining don't change at all.

[TheSword99]

Originally Posted by Sir

Yep. I rarely come here too.

And obviously the couple of LDS-critical posters remaining don't change at all.

Looks like you're talking to yourself.

[TheSword99]

Originally Posted by Snow Patrol

Here, I'll provide you with LDS sources....

Moses 8
12 And Noah was four hundred and fifty years old, and begat Japheth; and forty-two years afterward he begat Shem of her who was the mother of Japheth, and when he was five hundred years old he begat Ham.
13 And Noah and his sons hearkened unto the Lord, and gave heed, and they were called the sons of God.
14 And when these men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, the sons of men saw that those daughters were fair, and they took them wives, even as they chose.

Oh, darn it. I just proved your first post was in error. Sorry, not sorry.

Sorry, but the book of Moses is not inspired scripture. Do you think you can stick with God's Word, the Holy Bible? Otherwise, it's like a Jehovah's Witness using the NWT.

[theway]

Originally Posted by TheSword99

Sorry, but the book of Moses is not inspired scripture. Do you think you can stick with God's Word, the Holy Bible? Otherwise, it's like a Jehovah's Witness using the NWT.

You've got to be kidding... How could you have missed the obvious point of Snow Patrol's post?

Let me give you a hint.... The fact that you do not believe in the scriptures posted and we do, actually prove that James was wrong.

What's funny is that you miss such easy points, yet you want us to belive in YOUR interpretation of scriptures.

[theway]

Originally Posted by TheSword99

Looks like you're talking to yourself.

LOL... talk about missing the obvious.

Who is it that is finally left talking to themselves on this forum?

[TheSword99]

Originally Posted by theway

You've got to be kidding... How could you have missed the obvious point of Snow Patrol's post?

Let me give you a hint.... The fact that you do not believe in the scriptures posted and we do, actually prove that James was wrong.

What's funny is that you miss such easy points, yet you want us to belive in YOUR interpretation of scriptures.

When you use uninspired writings to try and make a point, your whole point becomes moot. It's like always going to Wikipedia for spiritual Truth.

[TheSword99]

If a JW comes to my door and starts sprouting stuff from the NWT and claims "new revelations" do you really think a born again Christian is gonna believe any of it? It's no different with the lds who knock on our door and tries to use the BoM. The fact is, the lds on here have not been able to defend their faith. All you have left is this pitiful ridiculing that you do to those who can and do defend their faith and use God's Word to do it. This makes it look like some of you lds posters are really the same person.

[Snow Patrol]

Do you have a comprehension problem? James TRIED to present the LDS position as that we believe Genesis 6:2 says that "sons of God" means angels. I clearly showed that James' opinion of our beliefs is clearly in error by using LDS sources not opinion.

[TheSword99]

Originally Posted by Snow Patrol

Do you have a comprehension problem? James TRIED to present the LDS position as that we believe Genesis 6:2 says that "sons of God" means angels. I clearly showed that James' opinion of our beliefs is clearly in error by using LDS sources not opinion.

I am not talking about Jim. I am talking about YOU and all the other lds on here using uninspired writings in an attempt to provide Truth. You tried to make a point by using the book of Moses, a book that neither Christ, His apostles or any of the 1st century Christians ever made note of.

Can you please try to defend your faith by using the Holy Scriptures?? If Jim is wrong in your view, then please use the Holy Scriptures to show where you believe he is in error.

[TheSword99]

Originally Posted by Snow Patrol

I clearly showed that James' opinion of our beliefs is clearly in error by using LDS sources not opinion.

That's the problem right there when lds sources are not the word of God.

[Snow Patrol]

Originally Posted by TheSword99

I am not talking about Jim.

Well, I am. James made a claim about LDS beliefs. I challenged him on it with my own personal beliefs. He said that my personal beliefs "mean nothing." Since he believes my beliefs "mean nothing" as to what the LDS believe then I showed him from LDS sources what the LDS believe. If you can't understand that then it is no use conversing with you.

You tried to make a point by using the book of Moses, a book that neither Christ, His apostles or any of the 1st century Christians ever made note of.

Again, the use of the Book of Moses was to PROVE that James' ***ertion was in error. Nothing more, nothing less.

Can you please try to defend your faith by using the Holy Scriptures?? If Jim is wrong in your view, then please use the Holy Scriptures to show where you believe he is in error.

Can you please wake up to the object of a discussion board and understand that if someone makes a false claim about the others beliefs it is completely relevant to use official sources to prove their claim is false.

[theway]

Originally Posted by Snow Patrol

Well, I am. James made a claim about LDS beliefs. I challenged him on it with my own personal beliefs. He said that my personal beliefs "mean nothing." Since he believes my beliefs "mean nothing" as to what the LDS believe then I showed him from LDS sources what the LDS believe. If you can't understand that then it is no use conversing with you.


Again, the use of the Book of Moses was to PROVE that James' ***ertion was in error. Nothing more, nothing less.

Can you please wake up to the object of a discussion board and understand that if someone makes a false claim about the others beliefs it is completely relevant to use official sources to prove their claim is false.

LOL... Like I said, the sad thing is that these are the people who plan on schooling us on Bible interpretation.

[James Banta]

Originally Posted by Snow Patrol

Here, I'll provide you with LDS sources....

Moses 8
12 And Noah was four hundred and fifty years old, and begat Japheth; and forty-two years afterward he begat Shem of her who was the mother of Japheth, and when he was five hundred years old he begat Ham.
13 And Noah and his sons hearkened unto the Lord, and gave heed, and they were called the sons of God.
14 And when these men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, the sons of men saw that those daughters were fair, and they took them wives, even as they chose.

Oh, darn it. I just proved your first post was in error. Sorry, not sorry.

All this shows is that their offspring were considered to be men.. It doesn't show the false teaching that the sons of God in Genesis aren't believed to be angelic beings.. As a young man I was taught that these were angelic beings. That idea is widely help by the LDS.. I am glad you reject it, shows you have some correct thoughts in your interpretations..IHS jim

[James Banta]

Originally Posted by Snow Patrol

Well, I am. James made a claim about LDS beliefs. I challenged him on it with my own personal beliefs. He said that my personal beliefs "mean nothing." Since he believes my beliefs "mean nothing" as to what the LDS believe then I showed him from LDS sources what the LDS believe. If you can't understand that then it is no use conversing with you.






Again, the use of the Book of Moses was to PROVE that James' ***ertion was in error. Nothing more, nothing less.




Can you please wake up to the object of a discussion board and understand that if someone makes a false claim about the others beliefs it is completely relevant to use official sources to prove their claim is false.

Let me lead you to another point on this subject.. The idea that angelic being were the subject of this verse is the same concept of believing that there are many real Gods based on psalm 82.. Both doctrines are held by many LDS.. was I wrong is bring this up? Yes, and no.. It's not you I see that but there are still many who hold a position that it does reflect.. I know, I was there.. IHS jim

[theway]

Originally Posted by James Banta

All this shows is that their offspring were considered to be men.. It doesn't show the false teaching that the sons of God in Genesis aren't believed to be angelic beings.. As a young man I was taught that these were angelic beings. That idea is widely help by the LDS.. I am glad you reject it, shows you have some correct thoughts in your interpretations..IHS jim

Please... now it's just apparent that you can't bring yourself to admit that you were wrong.
This is not a widely held belief amoung Mormons; in fact, every time I've heard it talked about in Church they go out of their way to make the point that it was not angels. The irony is that this is a widely help belief that they were angels amoung modern Christians. Just 2 months ago I got in an argument with an Evangelical that "Sons of God" only meant that they were righteous men, or God's choosen people. James, I think you need to spend time cleaning house first.

[James Banta]

Originally Posted by theway

LOL... Like I said, the sad thing is that these are the people who plan on schooling us on Bible interpretation.

Only when you are so far out of the Biblical meaning that you build new and false teachings.. IHS jim

[theway]

Originally Posted by James Banta

Only when you are so far out of the Biblical meaning that you build new and false teachings.. IHS jim

Sorry... not a clue as to what you are saying.