10 facts

[alanmolstad]

Originally Posted by TrueBlue?

No that is not what they taught. That is not what they believe. That is just the logical conclusion of there theory of how they state infinity works. They do not realize it because they did not think it through to the end of the logical conclusion of that line of thinking. They thought of a way to explain away the science of the Big Bang in order to promote a 6 day creationist line of thinking. It worked for his present argument but did not take time to see how it effected Christian notions of God.

Im a little mixed up who we are talking about now...?

perhaps you might back-up and tell me who is saying what , so I can understand the context of your posts

[alanmolstad]

Originally Posted by TrueBlue?

So if I am understanding you correctly, then at some point the picture was not painted?

once again we have to remember the type of point of view we have when talking about the topic.

god is not "in the grasp" of time p***ing.

So God looks at all of time as if its a finished painting....
What I mean by this is that God does not have to "think back"...or does not have to "glance ahead"
Its all just a finished "thing" to God.


But we are trapped within the grasp of time.
We have moments that age us....we get older...

so we look at the p***ing of time like we are reading a book...one page follows another/one moment of our lives follows another.


Now because we are talking about the nature of God...even my image of a painting breaks down because of the simple fact that god is unlike us so much that any effort to understand him will fail.
So when I say God kinda looks at the universe and time like we look at a painting, what Im dealing with is that fact that when we look at a painting there is no "implied time" to it like there is to a book.

With a book you clearly see where the start is, and where the end is.
But when you look at a painting there is no start....you don't have to start at one place, scan across, then drop down a line to see the "next" moment.

The painting is all at once, all the same.

God is kinda like that when he looks at time.
God is not here in my "now" any more than he is currently watching my mom being born....or watching the Big bang, or watching the 2nd Coming of Christ.
Its all the same to God because he is outside the grasp of time.

God has no personal past....no possible future....no next moment.

God does not get older, God was never any younger.

God is not connected or effected by this thing we call "time"

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by Billyray

Attachment 211
http://exhibits.lib.byu.edu/kingjame...church-kjb.php

Cooperstown Bible. (The Holy Bible: containing the Old and New Testaments).

Cooperstown, NY: H. & E. Phinney, 1828.

This Bible is a copy from the same edition that Joseph Smith revised and corrected between 1830 and 1833. Oliver Cowdery purchased Joseph's copy at E. B. Grandin's shop in Palmyra, New York, in October 1829, during the time Grandin was printing the first edition of the Book of Mormon.

Originally Posted by BigJulie

Billyray, you don't seem to realize that I don't feel the need to answer you as your own stance is hypocritical. If you look in the New Testament, you will often find Christ did the same. You can try to keep egging me on, but you have yet to resolve your own hypocrisy in the questions you ask.

I have already guided you through my position but it must of went right over your head. You asked me if I believed it was right to take out the inspired books from the Catholic Bible. So here is my position for you again for you in a nutshell. The "inspired" books in the Catholic Bible were added (canonized) by the Catholic church--they weren't taken out like you have falsely claimed. The apocryphal books that your mentioned are not in the Jewish canon, nor did Jerome--who translated the Latin Vulgate--consider these books to be inspired scripture.

So now that I have taken the time to refresh your memory about my position on this could you please (pretty please) address my question--the one you keep trying to avoid.


Joseph Smith's Bible contained the Apocrypha and this is the Bible that he "revised and corrected between 1830 and 1833". Why did Joseph Smith remove the Apocrypha from the LDS Bible?

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by BigJulie

And yet, Jerome left them in---correct? These books were not removed until years after Jerome.

But you should know by know--after all of this discussion--that Jerome did NOT consider them inspired scripture.

[BigJulie]

Originally Posted by Billyray

But you should know by know--after all of this discussion--that Jerome did NOT consider them inspired scripture.

But Augustine did and they were left in. Your point?

[BigJulie]

Originally Posted by alanmolstad

God has no personal past....no possible future....no next moment.

God does not get older, God was never any younger.

God is not connected or effected by this thing we call "time"

But you seem to miss that you believe that God existed with nothing and something. Which is it?

[BigJulie]

Originally Posted by Billyray

I have already guided you through my position but it must of went right over your head.

No, you seem to be unable to ask yourself why the books were left in if Jerome disagreed. You do not ask yourself why they were put in and by whom? Why were they taken out and by whom? What made one person's opinion on the matter override another's?

Before you can attack my beliefs, you need to look at your own. Without so doing, you are being hypocritical.

[RealFakeHair]

Originally Posted by BigJulie

No, you seem to be unable to ask yourself why the books were left in if Jerome disagreed. You do not ask yourself why they were put in and by whom? Why were they taken out and by whom? What made one person's opinion on the matter override another's?

Before you can attack my beliefs, you need to look at your own. Without so doing, you are being hypocritical.

Well maybe it is because he found the 116 pages that Joseph Smith jr. Lost and it override the others so to speak.
In other words, what?

[BigJulie]

Originally Posted by RealFakeHair

Well maybe it is because he found the 116 pages that Joseph Smith jr. Lost and it override the others so to speak.
In other words, what?

Sorry if the conversation lost you. Billyray is trying to make the point that there were books put in and removed from the Bible, but that Jerome didn't agree. And somehow that is supposed to convince me that attacks on how our canon is decided is not hypocritical. You take it from there.

[alanmolstad]

Originally Posted by BigJulie

But you seem to miss that you believe that God existed with nothing and something. Which is it?

Um....actually God is not said to once have "existed" like God had smething about himself change over time.

The correct thing is to say , "God exists before the big bang"

Or to put it a more Bible-like way, "Before time was created, God is"



God is not more "here" with us than he is also "here" before the big bang...
and if there is an ending to time, God is there too in the same way as he is watching us and with us here in our "now"

All of creation is just a "thing" God made....

He is not changed by it's creation.
When God created the heavens and the earth, God was not changed by it!
God did not suddenly start getting older when he made the creation.
God is the same now, as he has ever been, and will ever be.

So you cant say "God existed" like life was different for God at some point in the past, because the reason is - god does not have any past!...

You cant say that because it hints that God is connected to his creation and that he changed over time....
God cant change...God cant get older...God is the same now as he was before the creation.

God is just as much watching me now as he is watching the big bang.....and even before that to the way things were before god invented the concepts we call "before" and "after"



So we don't say, "God existed in the past before he created the heavens and the earth"....rather the correct thing to say is that "God exists before he made the heavens and the earth",



This is the same reason why the Jews also were going to kill Jesus one time.
Jesus tells him how he being God Almighty is not bound by time when he said, "Before Abraham came to be, I am"

Jesus was not saying that he had once been alive before Abraham...no!

What Jesus was saying is that right then at that same moment, he was alive before Abraham was born.
This means that Jesus was not bound by time and space.

[TrueBlue?]

Originally Posted by RealFakeHair

Okay, then help me out here, what is the one most unfair comparison we Christian do here that you as a Joseph Smith jr. Imaginary minder say we are guilty of?

Forgive me for how that sounded. It's unfair to you Christians, because there is little logic and a very convoluted ideas you put out just to prove Mormons wrong.

[TrueBlue?]

Originally Posted by alanmolstad

Im a little mixed up who we are talking about now...?

perhaps you might back-up and tell me who is saying what , so I can understand the context of your posts

I was referring to my post here. I was speaking of the professor of the cl*** I am taking.

[BigJulie]

Originally Posted by alanmolstad

So you cant say "God existed" like life was different for God at some point in the past, because the reason is - god does not have any past!...

And if he has no past, then he has no future. And if he has no past and no future then all things exist with Him. I am glad you are finally starting to see my point.

[alanmolstad]

Originally Posted by BigJulie

And if he has no past, then he has no future. And if he has no past and no future then all things exist with Him. I am glad you are finally starting to see my point.

God does not have a past...

God does not have a future...


But we sure do!
God created what we call "the past"
God created what we call "the future"

[alanmolstad]

Originally Posted by TrueBlue?

I was referring to my post here. I was speaking of the professor of the cl*** I am taking.

Ok....Im coming up to speed now...LOL
Ok, Im going to suggest something for you to consider........"Paragraphs"

I think I have a lot of trouble keeping track of longer posts because a lot of people just post this big wad of small text .
I suggest you try "paragraphs" to break up things a bit and provide a place for the eye to rest and understand that a new thought is being talked about...

In that line..(and here is where I got yelled at last time) Im going to post your old comment and break it up into little wads....and see if then I might catch what you are talking about....


QUOTE:
"I am attending Southwest Florida Bible College and working on my ABS(***ociate Bible Studies).
I am presently taking apologetics, last cl*** was about evolution and creation.
We were on the subject about the different theories of how the universe was created.


One of the theories was the oscillating universe where it expands to a point then shrinks back down to the singularity explodes and repeats itself for all time.

Now, his argument against that is that in order for this to be for an infinite amount of time, then because of the very definition of "infinite" we should never reach a beginning or ending.

The universe would never change or exist or not be all at the same time because there is no start and no end.

He does not realize that this obliterates the fact Christians believe that God did nothing for eternity.
If God did nothing for eternity then for it to be true eternity in the infinite realm then God would still be doing nothing.

The moment God moved, or did something, the infinite became finite.

Regardless if God is outside of time, the moments God went from doing nothing for all eternity, to creating, eternity was destroyed and was no longer eternal, and a new beginning came into play and God changed his mode of operation from doing nothing, being still, to doing something to moving


The error I see is that this argument ***umes that when god made "things' it ended up changing god...
It suggests that the moment God made "time" that he also started to change and get older, p***ing from one state is exsisting to a new different state.

that is wrong.

The exsistance god had before he made his first 'thing" is stull the current -constant state of exsistance for God....

This means that god is so far removed from being changed by the things He makes that he does not have to worry that he might become less "God-like" or less "eternal' by creating things...


things get old. God does not.

Things change only other things, never God who cant change at all.




So, from God's point of view, God is not more busy now.
God did not need to start doing stuff after he created the universe.
God is always the same 'busy"......never more and never less.

This means that god was totally unaffected by the creation.





BUT......BUT....
as for the idea that the universe ****s up, spreads out, stops spreading, falls back to itself and ****s up over and over?

I don't know.
I don't know if that is true or not.
That is a question we have to study a long time before we know the answer for sure....

I don't know....

at best right now its a guess...

Is it a good guess or a bad guess?....I don't know.

Your professor said that because the universe was ****ing up and falling in all the time forever and ever, it could never be in the first place...
My answer is that "Im not sure"

In the Bible we clearly have a answer in that the Bible sure thinks there was a "beginning"
So the bible tells us that the universe had a start...a very clear start.
The bible teaches that we went from a nothing to everything with a word spoken by god.

Yes, that's some very symbolic wording, but the heart of it is that the universe did 'start"


BUT.....from a scientific point of view I don't know if we truly know that answer yet.

[RealFakeHair]

Originally Posted by BigJulie

Sorry if the conversation lost you. Billyray is trying to make the point that there were books put in and removed from the Bible, but that Jerome didn't agree. And somehow that is supposed to convince me that attacks on how our canon is decided is not hypocritical. You take it from there.

Aint St Augustine in Florida? Anyways, we look to Jerome because he started the search for the early writings of the followers of Christ, St Paul, and the disciples, and or early scribes. If you want to debate what should have or should not have been placed in the Holy Bible, it is okay with me, but I am with Jerome on this one.

[BigJulie]

Originally Posted by RealFakeHair

Aint St Augustine in Florida? Anyways, we look to Jerome because he started the search for the early writings of the followers of Christ, St Paul, and the disciples, and or early scribes. If you want to debate what should have or should not have been placed in the Holy Bible, it is okay with me, but I am with Jerome on this one.

Okay, so you are a follower of Jerome. That is fine, but you have to at least recognize that there was someone (who do you even consider a prophet?) who you follow in terms of what you believe regarding your canon.

[BigJulie]

Originally Posted by alanmolstad

God does not have a past...

God does not have a future...


But we sure do!
God created what we call "the past"
God created what we call "the future"

Okay, so he created the future and the past to you. So to you, there was no future and no past until God created it. But to Him, do you recognize that all existed with him as there is no future or past to him---or do you think that once he created it, there became a past and a future to Him in which there existed things after, but not before? Or do you believe that since God has no future and no past, all things exist with Him? (Regardless of a past or future to you.)

[alanmolstad]

Originally Posted by BigJulie

Okay, so he created the future and the past to you. So to you, there was no future and no past until God created it. But to Him, do you recognize that all existed with him as there is no future or past to him---or do you think that once he created it, there became a past and a future to Him in which there existed things after, but not before? Or do you believe that since God has no future and no past, all things exist with Him? (Regardless of a past or future to you.)

ok,,,Im going to try to say this one more time....

God has no past.


God cant change......
God did not change when he created the universe.
God is the same now as he was before all things...

God created things....but because he is not a thing, he is just not able to be changed like things always change.

God does not change.

God is just as busy now in 2014, as he is also busy "now" at the beginning of time.....
And this is because creation is not connected in any way to God's nature.

[BigJulie]

Originally Posted by alanmolstad

ok,,,Im going to try to say this one more time....

God has no past.


God cant change......
God did not change when he created the universe.
God is the same now as he was before all things...

God created things....but because he is not a thing, he is just not able to be changed like things always change.

God does not change.

God is just as busy now in 2014, as he is also busy "now" at the beginning of time.....
And this is because creation is not connected in any way to God's nature.

You did not answer my question. Because you believe God has no past and no future and this only exists to us---do you believe that all things exist to God and that for Him, there is not a time we did not exist?

[alanmolstad]

Originally Posted by BigJulie

You did not answer my question. Because you believe God has no past and no future and this only exists to us---do you believe that all things exist to God and that for Him, there is not a time we did not exist?

I have given you that answer already.....

[BigJulie]

Originally Posted by alanmolstad

I have given you that answer already.....

And that is why I said that you agree with me on this point--that because to God, there is no past and no future, we exist with God eternally.

Or, as I stated earlier

And if he has no past, then he has no future. And if he has no past and no future then all things exist with Him. I am glad you are finally starting to see my point.

I do not see a place you disagree with me on this. So, here is the next question, if we exist eternally with God, because God is eternal with no past and no future, does He know us completely and what we would do "in time" before He "created" us in this "time"?

[alanmolstad]

Originally Posted by BigJulie

So, here is the next question, if we exist eternally with God, because God is eternal with no past and no future, does He know us completely and what we would do "in time" before He "created" us in this "time"?

We exist in time,,,God does not.
we have a birth, and a death....God does not.

We have a start.
There was a point in history when I began.
There was NOTHING to me before that moment.
I did not have a "life" before I was created.....my beginning was not the 2nd beginning.....or the 2nd first...LOL

So when i look at life I see it from the point of view of someone reading a book.

But when God looks at time, he kinda sees it the way i look at a painting.
(there is Alan's start, and there is Alan's ending)
It's a completed thing that is not connected to him...and He sees it fully, not one spot more deeply than others, but all at the same "moment"
and even this word "moment" is not true for god, as he does not even have "moments"

So I did not exist forever, but God is always present in all of time equally.

An Example: the moment of time that was that little moment when you first started reading this post, is now in our past and is forgotten.
but from God's point of view he is always present in the moment.

So I dont have to worry that Im spending forever reading the same first sentence of this post..(thank God!)
Im not stuck alive there.

Yet god is present there as much as he is present here in my ever-changing "now"


I dont know how else to teach you this.

[RealFakeHair]

Originally Posted by BigJulie

Okay, so you are a follower of Jerome. That is fine, but you have to at least recognize that there was someone (who do you even consider a prophet?) who you follow in terms of what you believe regarding your canon.

I don't not consider Jerome a prophet no more than I consider me a prophet. He just happened to be the guy who took it upon himself to get the *** done.
He didn't use a magic hat, or hide behind a curtain. All he did was work hard over years and come up with the best we could have. There is nothing more in the New Testament a lost soul needs to gain Salvation. There are no need for any new books even if it was written in Reformed Egyptian, and popped out of Joseph Smith jr. Hat.

[alanmolstad]

Originally Posted by RealFakeHair

. There is nothing more in the New Testament a lost soul needs to gain Salvation. .

This is correct.
The bible says the "Faith was once for all" given....there is nothing new to look for...Nothing new coming down from above.
All we have is all we needed...