Ain't nobody else around here

[nrajeff]

God is not the "creator-deity" of only Earth and it's inhabitants, He's the "creator-deity" of all creation.

One could argue that back when the pertinent verses were written by those ancient men, the terms "creation" and "beginning" did not mean what they mean to you today.

[Cow Poke]

One could argue that back when the pertinent verses were written by those ancient men, the terms "creation" and "beginning" did not mean what they mean to you today.

One can argue that, if a cat crawled into an oven and gave birth to kittens, you could call them muffins.

[Cow Poke]

Well, there you go, then! : )

Aren't I getting better? I'm allowing you your beliefs!!!

[nrajeff]

One can argue that, if a cat crawled into an oven and gave birth to kittens, you could call them muffins.

To make sure there aren't any 'misunderstandings' of what you mean, do you mean that it's your contention that the terms "creation" and "beginning" DID mean the same to the ancient authors as they mean to Chrawnus today?

[Cow Poke]

To make sure there aren't any 'misunderstandings' of what you mean, do you mean that it's your contention that the terms "creation" and "beginning" DID mean the same to the ancient authors as they mean to Chrawnus today?

I have no way of knowing, Jeff ... it was an excuse to use my "muffin" line.

[Chrawnus]

I have no way of knowing, Jeff ... it was an excuse to use my "muffin" line.

Well, to clear up any confusion, atleast I believe that I have, for the most part, the same understanding of the words "beginning" and "creation" (atleast when it comes to the creation story in Genesis) as the ancient authors had, just as any LDS would believe that they're understanding these words in the same way as aforementioned authors. I mean, if I believed that my understanding of these words differed radically from how the ancient authors understood them I would hardly have the interpretation of the creation story that I do.

[Cow Poke]

Well, to clear up any confusion, atleast I believe that I have, for the most part, the same understanding of the words "beginning" and "creation" (atleast when it comes to the creation story in Genesis) as the ancient authors had, just as any LDS would believe that they're understanding these words in the same way as aforementioned authors. I mean, if I believed that my understanding of these words differed radically from how the ancient authors understood them I would hardly have the interpretation of the creation story that I do.

Yeah, I pretty much agree --- just was trying not to be antagonizing.
It would be more accurate for me to say I don't know of any reason the "ancient authors" would NOT have the same meanings. I have no reason to believe there's more than one God ANYWHERE, and I have no reason to believe that EVERYTHING that was created was not created by Him.

How's that, Chraw?

[Chrawnus]

Yeah, I pretty much agree --- just was trying not to be antagonizing.
It would be more accurate for me to say I don't know of any reason the "ancient authors" would NOT have the same meanings. I have no reason to believe there's more than one God ANYWHERE, and I have no reason to believe that EVERYTHING that was created was not created by Him.

How's that, Chraw?

That's pretty much how I understand it.

[nrajeff]

Take, for example, the term "the gates of hell." From what I have seen, it's commonly understood by today's "average American who hasn't studied its original meaning" to refer to "the powers of the devil" or something similar. But Nibley cites ancient sources indicating that to ancient Christians and Jews--the people contemporaneous with the NT references to the term--it was understood to refer to whatever was keeping the spirits of the dead trapped in the prison in hades that they were in, keeping them from getting out into a better place. Ancient Christians taught that Jesus, at some point shortly after His death, freed (or arranged for the freedom of) the penitent prisoners ("captives").

But to the average 21st-century American lay person, the meaning of "the gates of hell" seems to be something else.

So I was wondering whether other terms that are mentioned in ancient scripture (such as "in the beginning" meant one thing to the ancients, but another thing to the average modern American.

If English can change, in 300 years, to the point that "to let" no longer means "to prevent" but instead now means "to allow" (its antonym), then would it be a shock if complex terms such as "creation" and "in the beginning" have changed, over the span of 2000 years and Middle-Eastern to New World culture, into something different?

[Cow Poke]

Take, for example, the term "the gates of hell." From what I have seen, it's commonly understood by today's "average American who hasn't studied its original meaning" to refer to "the powers of the devil" or something similar. But Nibley cites ancient sources indicating that to ancient Christians and Jews--the people contemporaneous with the NT references to the term--it was understood to refer to whatever was keeping the spirits of the dead trapped in the prison in hades that they were in, keeping them from getting out into a better place. Ancient Christians taught that Jesus, at some point shortly after His death, freed (or arranged for the freedom of) the penitent prisoners ("captives").

But to the average 21st-century American lay person, the meaning of "the gates of hell" seems to be something else.

So I was wondering whether other terms that are mentioned in ancient scripture (such as "in the beginning" meant one thing to the ancients, but another thing to the average modern American.

If English can change, in 300 years, to the point that "to let" no longer means "to prevent" but instead now means "to allow" (its antonym), then would it be a shock if complex terms such as "creation" and "in the beginning" have changed, over the span of 2000 years and Middle-Eastern to New World culture, into something different?

That's one of the reasons context is really important.

[saladfingers]

Popcorn. Couch. Theologyweb.

[saladfingers]

Take, for example, the term "the gates of hell." From what I have seen, it's commonly understood by today's "average American who hasn't studied its original meaning" to refer to "the powers of the devil" or something similar. But Nibley cites ancient sources indicating that to ancient Christians and Jews--the people contemporaneous with the NT references to the term--it was understood to refer to whatever was keeping the spirits of the dead trapped in the prison in hades that they were in, keeping them from getting out into a better place. Ancient Christians taught that Jesus, at some point shortly after His death, freed (or arranged for the freedom of) the penitent prisoners ("captives").

But to the average 21st-century American lay person, the meaning of "the gates of hell" seems to be something else.

So I was wondering whether other terms that are mentioned in ancient scripture (such as "in the beginning" meant one thing to the ancients, but another thing to the average modern American.

If English can change, in 300 years, to the point that "to let" no longer means "to prevent" but instead now means "to allow" (its antonym), then would it be a shock if complex terms such as "creation" and "in the beginning" have changed, over the span of 2000 years and Middle-Eastern to New World culture, into something different?

What does "creation" mean? What does "beginning" mean?. Do they mean the same? If they are different, how so?

[nrajeff]

That's one of the reasons context is really important.

Another example was noticed by me as my family did our nightly Bible reading:

2 Chronicles 16:13

And Asa slept with his fathers, and died in the one and fortieth year of his reign.

That phrase might mean, to modern American readers, something different than it meant to readers in former times.

[Cow Poke]

Another example was noticed by me as my family did our nightly Bible reading:

2 Chronicles 16:13

And Asa slept with his fathers, and died in the one and fortieth year of his reign.

That phrase might mean, to modern American readers, something different than it meant to readers in former times.

We have that same situation when Jesus tells the disciples that Lazarus "sleeps" - and the disciples assume that means Lazarus must be getting better, because he's able to sleep... but Jesus .... well...

(John 11:14 KJV) Then said Jesus unto them plainly, Lazarus is dead.

I love when it's "plainly".

[nrajeff]

What does "creation" mean? What does "beginning" mean?. Do they mean the same? If they are different, how so?

I have seen it argued that the Genesis phrase "In the beginning" was intended to refer to the beginning of Earth's creation, but not necessarily to the beginning of the universe as understood by us today. The authors of the Bible wrote in the context of their beliefs about the Earth and about their universe. If they believed that the Earth is the same age or older than the shiny objects in space, that would be a different belief than many of us have today. If the authors believed that none of the shiny objects in space were actually huge, incredibly hot suns--or were planets as big as or bigger than Earth--that would be a different belief than many of us have today.
And if the authors believed that Earth is the only inhabitable piece of land in their known universe, then it would be a mistake for us to pour our different--and probably more accurate--understanding of space and what it contains, into the authors' intended meaning.