Since Jesus Christ is the God of this world, I think that a logical interpretation for this couplet would be that Christ is the God being referred to. This allows for God the Father to have always existed.
That would suggest a plurailty of God's then right? Joseph taught about that, and I still think that notion is still taught, but correct me if I'm wrong. The doctrines of the church seem to keep evolving. I guess by that school of thought you can conclude that Jesus is not the 'ONE' God but 'A' God out of many governing different worlds.
Whats has God said about this?Isaiah 43:10
"...before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me."Isaiah 44:6
"...I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God."Isaiah 44:8
"...ye are even my witnesses. Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any."
it should be noted that the Hebrew "formed" is a specific reference to idol making not god making. This is further reinforced by the context of this scripture (43:8-13)
See also Revelations 1:17 or 22:13, where Christ also refers to Himself as the "first and the last", this is because it is a reference of "eternity" not as some sort of limited edition as you would infer. These references in no way confirm the singularity of God, in the manner you are proposing, these scriptures are "about" something else.
For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man - (Romans 1:20-23)
Again, context. These scriptures being addressed to the a specific audience with specific culture.
The Romans' idolatry and superstitions are being called out here, as well as there willingness to degrade themselves. This scripture is about reverence for God and how the Romans have forgotten to give credit where credit is due....your characterization is incorrect.
Romans 1 describes man's rejection of the true God and his fabrication of false Gods. One of the fabrications is described as "an image made like corruptible man." This is the God of Joseph Smith.
As the prophet Joseph Smith said, "God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens! That is the great secret!" (TPJS, p. 345). Thus, the Father became the Father at some time before "the beginning" as humans know it, by experiencing a mortality similar to that experienced on earth. (Encyclopedia of Mormonism, Vol. 2, p. 549,Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith)
Here Mormons have "changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man" (Romans 1:23). The Father never became the Father. He has always been the Father. As it is written of our "One God, the Father, of whom are all things" (1 Corinthians 8:6),
Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever You had formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, You are God. (Psalm 90:2)
Wow, i am not sure if you think this "planet" is the source of God or if you think something else....but that might be an important distinction.
let us read in Genesis 1:26
And God said, Let us make man in our image
, after our likeness
...... (emphasis mine)
or Psalms 82:6
I have said, You are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.
or John 10:34
Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, You are gods?
And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was
I ascend unto my Father, and your Father
...(emphasis mine) see also Ephesians 3:14-15
How do you explain the translation of bənê hā-ʾĕlōhîm
"sons of God" as used in Genesis and Job or in Psalms kōl-ʾĕlōhîm "all ye gods"?
Yet we see this curious "El" give way to Jehovah (see Exodus 6:2-3)...why is that?
Is not a more relevant (and more interesting) argument for "who came first?" one that asks if the Law or God came first?