World Wide Flood Of Noah

[shalamabobbi]

You do not mention whether your friend already believes in Christ. If she does, then at the very least her interpretation of the findings of science has persuaded her to not even desire to learn the beliefs of the LDS Church. She holds so strongly to the secular world, that she has determined she cannot go to a church that does not support her in her temporal beliefs. She appears to be more concerned with the worldly truth a church may have to teach her, than any spiritual truth they may have to offer. Your story supports my position.

How charitable of you. Yes she believes in Christ and she believes in facts that are observable or that can at the very least be explained with some/any self-consistent model.

Is there a YEC model? No one has created it anywhere. What I see is any convenient excuse thrown out from immediate necessity to cast doubt on the particular point being raised only to be abandoned later rather than retained in any model.

For example all lifeforms turned into fossils by the flood gets abandoned moments later when it is declared that the dead bodies provided a food source for the carnivores after being released from the ark.

Evolution is denied, even declared impossible within the very long time frame allowed by current geology, but replaced with super-evolution to explain the variety of animals currently extent since release from the ark.

And there are no DNA bottlenecks observable in human DNA or animals with the exception of the cheetah. Dolphins can breed with orcas, lions with tigers, llamas with camels, etc.

Here are a couple more facts. If you have another explanation for them I'm all ears..

Every nuclide with a half-life over 80 million years can be found naturally occurring on earth.

All Nuclides with a half-life under 80 million years do not exist naturally at detectable levels.

Yet we see that these shorter nuclides are created within stars. We can observe their spectral lines.

The conclusion is that the earth has been around long enough that the shorter lived isotopes have all decayed away.

Because of tides, the rotation of the earth is gradually slowing, by about 1 second every 50,000 years. About 380 million years ago, each day would have about 20 hours long! There would have been about 398 days in the year. Studies of rings on rugose coral fossils that were independently estimated to be 370 million years old revealed that when they were alive, there were about 400 days in the year. This relationship has been confirmed with other coral fossils. This is rather good evidence that the world was in existence a third of a billion years ago.

And here is a list. Note the necessary refuge of those who would deny these facts resides in the argument that the Creator was deceptive in that He MUST have created the world as though it came about in some other fashion than by His creative enterprise only a short while ago:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/oldearth.htm

Even in B R McConkies talk posted by Calmoriah he contradicts himself. Note he states that the earth is placed in relation to the sun on day one and states that again it happened on day four. He ascribes the creation of plant life to one day and animal life to a separate day. And for those concerned with the age of the earth decides days can be very long periods of time.

How long do you think it would take for a planet covered with vegetation without animal life to poison itself with the waste product of oxygen and use up all the CO2??

And if we really understand how it all went down according to McConkie what is left to be revealed when the Lord returns??

[Ron Beron]

Well I am simply assuming that what we are taught in the temple is doctrine..

It is probably more akin to symbolic teachings. Some things are absolutely real while others are shadows or parables of real events. It is not an "how to do" manual.

[shalamabobbi]

Flat earth? Is that the best you can come up with?

Job 26:7 He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing.

If one follows the axis of the earth northward it does point to an area of space with little stars. And if one does view the earth from space it does appear to hang on nothing.

Yes, kind of like your argument..

[Ron Beron]

'jo1952' writes...

James Talmadge and Joseph Fielding Smith were not given the responsibility by God to write Genesis; Moses was. And certainly, God is not going to take away anyone's free agency for them to choose to believe what they want to believe.

Nor did Moses, unless you can explain how he wrote in detail about his own death and conquering of lands he was forbidden to enter.

God HAS given us the guidelines, however, on how to decide what is of God and what is of the Devil. We use our brains to collect knowledge; we should be using the guidelines God gave us to determine if that knowledge came from God or not. We have been given those guidelines because we are fallible, regardless of how educated we become concerning secular knowledge. We have our agency to decide to use those guidelines or not.

And what are those guidelines? Just look in the Articles of Faith which teach, "9 We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God." and "If there is anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy, we seek after these things." Try also the DC where it teaches in 93:36, " “The glory of God is intelligence.” or in a most beautiful passage in 88:40 "For intelligence cleaveth unto intelligence; wisdom receiveth wisdom; truth embraceth truth; virtue loveth virtue; light cleaveth unto light; mercy hath compassion on mercy and claimeth her own; justice continueth its course and claimeth its own; judgment goeth before the face of him who sitteth upon the throne and governeth and executeth all things." and later on in verse 118 "And as all have not faith, seek ye diligently and teach one another words of wisdom; yea, seek ye out of the best books words of wisdom; seek learning, even by study and also by faith." This should sum it up. We are led by blind faith, but by wisdom led by spirit.

I try never to forget that Satan is the god of the earth; thus any information we may gather from the physical earth, even though we know it was Created by Christ, is STILL absolutely subject to the influence of what the adversary will encourage us to believe about what we have discovered.

I don't know where you learned this, but is not accurate nor truthful. While we are subjected to temptation knowledge and wisdom as guided by the light of intelligence is still under God's discretion. Don't give too much authority to the devils.

[Calm]

It is probably more akin to symbolic teachings. Some things are absolutely real while others are shadows or parables of real events. It is not an "how to do" manual.

The scriptures are most definitely not "how to do, make or build [fill in the blank]" tech manuals, they are about "how to come closer to God" by showing how God has come close to man and man to God, sometimes the examples are literal, sometimes symbolic so that we will learn and seek on all levels, not just one.

Edited August 30, 2011 by calmoriah

[Calm]

We are led by blind faith, but by wisdom led by spirit.

We are NOT led by blind faith, I suspect you meant....

[Ron Beron]

We are NOT led by blind faith, I suspect you meant....

Ooops...what you said...

[shalamabobbi]

I'm not sure what this has to do with my post. It appears to be more of an effort to take this opportunity to present some of the wealth of your secular knowledge. The information you have supplied is still subject to speculation and interpretation. We do NOT know how old our earth is.

We DO know how old it isn't..

Well I don't know why, but I was beginning to get the impression that you were a young earth creationist. If not for your benefit then, perhaps for Hughes' some more "secular" knowledge, invented no doubt by the devil himself:

According to the Bible the sun was created after the earth. It takes light about 8 minutes 20 seconds to reach the earth from the surface of the sun. But that light leaving the surface of the sun did not originate there. It is the result of nuclear fusion in the interior of the sun. That light is absorbed and re-emitted as it moves in a "random walk" and eventually reaches the surface of the sun. Most of this light takes 10,000 years on the low end and 170,000 years on the high end to do this. So on day one of the earth "6,000 years ago" the light striking the earth was already at least 10,000 years older even though the sun was created after the earth..

The core is the only location in the Sun that produces an appreciable amount of heat through fusion; inside 24% of the Sun's radius, 99% of the power has been generated, and by 30% of the radius, fusion has stopped nearly entirely. The rest of the star is heated by energy that is transferred outward from the core and the layers just outside. The energy produced by fusion in the core must then travel through many successive layers to the solar photosphere before it escapes into space as sunlight or kinetic energy of particles.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun

The gamma rays (high-energy photons) released in fusion reactions are absorbed in only a few millimeters of solar plasma and then re-emitted again in random direction (and at slightly lower energy)—so it takes a long time for radiation to reach the Sun's surface. Estimates of the "photon travel time" range between 10,000 and 170,000 years.

http://sunearthday.nasa.gov/2007/locations/ttt_sunlight.php

source: my post on another forum.

[jo1952]

Interpreting the scriptures differently is not "throwing more scripture under the bus". It is unkind of you to say this.

Sincere believers can have different understandings of scripture.

Perhaps I should clarify that he has "thrown more scripture under the bus" with respect to how this action would appear to someone who does not yet believe in Christ. In so doing, if this interpretation (which is a result of how he has chosen to see the findings of science), persuades the non-believer to NOT believe in Christ, then that interpretation cannot be of God. It is evident to me that the amount of scripture which he believes is not correct is adding up. For someone who does not yet believe in Christ, who has not yet exercised faith, this questioning of the accuracy of scripture by someone who DOES believe in Christ, can only add confusion and cause that person to question the veracity of the rest of scripture. The non-believer does not yet have the benefit of the witness of the Holy Ghost. They do not even have a milk understanding upon which to build their faith so that their faith can withstand the onslaught of whatever the adversary is going to throw his way in order to thwart the Plan of Salvation. Satan will do all that he can in order to stop the Holy Ghost from being able to give that first crucial witness to a person.

Satan is the father of all lies. He makes lies appear to be true to depths we cannot even begin to comprehend. This is why I believe Moroni's teaching has special significance when dealing with how man interprets the findings of science. The truth of all things has not yet been revealed to us; and you have appropriately shown us through various teachings of latter-day Prophets and Church leaders, these truths will not be revealed until Jesus returns. Since He has not yet returned, it is obvious those things which some men of science report as being unquestionably true, is a false statement since we don't know all truth yet. The unbelieving novice is not going to be able to discern what is true and what is not. Again, if the interpretations of the findings of science do not persuade a person to believe in Christ, then, according to the teachings of Moroni, they are not of God.

Best regards,

jo

Edited August 30, 2011 by jo1952

[Calm]

Perhaps I should clarify that he has "thrown more scripture under the bus" with respect to how this action would appear to someone who does not yet believe in Christ.

Only someone locked into seeing the scriptures as literal all the time would look on it this way and should consider that they might be wrong about the way that person actually feels about the scriptures.

Again it is unkind to suggest this. Trying to get out of taking responsibility for it by saying "this is how it might appear" doesn't change a thing.

Edited August 30, 2011 by calmoriah

[Calm]

In so doing, if this interpretation (which is a result of how he has chosen to see the findings of science), persuades the non-believer to NOT believe in Christ, then that interpretation cannot be of God.

The only nonbelievers who I know that discuss interpretations of biblical creation are convinced to NOT believe in Christ if they must also accept a literal Genesis creation such as you describe. OTOH, those nonbelievers who I've seen discussed with believers figurative readings of the creation accounts express themselves quite often to the possibility that this might be true, thus bringing them closer to believing in Christ than not.

Only those who were already believers have no issues with accepting the literal interpretation in my personal experience.

So at least my experience would demonstrate that your interpretation is not of God if I bought into your paradigm (which I don't).

Edited August 30, 2011 by calmoriah

[jo1952]

Only someone locked into seeing the scriptures as literal all the time would look on it this way and should consider that they might be wrong about the way that person actually feels about the scriptures.

Again it is unkind to suggest this. Trying to get out of taking responsibility for it by saying "this is how it might appear" doesn't change a thing.

I have seen with my very own eyes, and heard with my very own ears, how when a Christian willingly changes or dismisses parts of scripture concerning these major events, that this is the very reason non-believers will then also throw out ALL of scripture. To these non-believers, when a Christian throws out major events, they lose confidence in everything else that is taught in scripture.

Regards,

jo

Edited August 30, 2011 by jo1952

[Calm]

I have seen with my very own eyes, and heard with my very own ears, how when a Christian willingly changes or dismisses parts of scripture, that this is the very reason non-believers will then also throw out ALL of scripture.

Regards,

jo

And I have seen the reverse.....

And since LDS leaders are quite clear it is perfectly okay to take scripture figuratively at times (think Eve and Adam's rib) and do not place limitations on what and when except in a few places (resurrection of Christ, for example), I am quite comfortable in allowing people to take scripture figuratively or literally if that is what it takes to bring them closer to God. My only problem is with those that create creeds that draw a line keeping the seeker outside based on a personal interpretation.

Edited August 30, 2011 by calmoriah

[jo1952]

The only nonbelievers who I know that discuss interpretations of biblical creation are convinced to NOT believe in Christ if they must also accept a literal Genesis creation such as you describe. OTOH, those nonbelievers who I've seen discussed with believers figurative readings of the creation accounts express themselves quite often to the possibility that this might be true, thus bringing them closer to believing in Christ than not.

Only those who were already believers have no issues with accepting the literal interpretation in my personal experience.

So at least my experience would demonstrate that your interpretation is not of God if I bought into your paradigm (which I don't).

My experience has been that it is not only the Creation which comes into question. The non-believers I have had experience with also then look at the Flood and the parting of the Red Sea. They see that believers don't believe those events. Then many of the discussions have gone on to many other interpretations in the Bible which believers have also changed from literal to allegorical "only" - it becomes a dominoes effect. The non-believer winds up thinking that the Bible is one huge fairy-tale and that there couldn't possibly be a God, let alone a Christ.

Regards,

jo

Edited August 30, 2011 by jo1952

[Calm]

They see that believers don't believe those events.

Let me help make it a bit more accurate about what happens in actual dialogue (and not where someone else is there insisting they are wrong and wresting the scriptures etc): "They see that believers don't believe in those events literally so then they are curious as to what they do mean to the believers, thus allowing the believers to teach how the scriptures have touched them personally and helped them grow closer to God."

"Figurative" does not equal "fairy tale" anymore than someone telling you your eyes sparkle like diamonds is lying to you.

I am not denying the reality of your experience, only its claimed universal nature. It would be kind of you to do the same for mine...except of course you don't even had to deny a claimed universal nature because that's not what I am claiming here.

Edited August 30, 2011 by calmoriah

[jo1952]

And I have seen the reverse.....

And since LDS leaders are quite clear it is perfectly okay to take scripture figuratively at times (think Eve and Adam's rib) and do not place limitations on what and when except in a few places (resurrection of Christ, for example), I am quite comfortable in allowing people to take scripture figuratively or literally if that is what it takes to bring them closer to God. My only problem is with those that create creeds that draw a line keeping the seeker outside based on a personal interpretation.

I am also comfortable with people who ALREADY believe with taking scripture however they will - because God takes them where they need to be. They will receive whatever Father deems them able to bear and understand through the Holy Ghost. But that is a personal journey. We are each at our own point in that journey. God does NOT create lies to get a person to believe. However if something that is not an absolute truth is what a person grabbed onto to start his path with Christ, such as I have described, God will still help lead that person through the power of the Holy Ghost. However, this does not CHANGE the lie into a truth. That same lie is still being used by Satan to persuade man to not come to Christ. Satan doesn't have success using the same lie with each person in persuading a man to not believe in Christ. He uses whatever means he can to do that. Then, AFTER someone believes, he continues and is relentless in his efforts to cause us to stray.

Moroni's teaching has to do with those who do not yet believe in Christ. I am not going to throw away Moroni's teaching and pretend it doesn't say what it does say just so that I can gain any points with my peers. If Satan is successful in using a lie which persuades only one person to not believe in Christ, it is still a lie and is of Satan and not of God.

Regards,

jo

Edited August 30, 2011 by jo1952

[Calm]

However if something that is not an absolute truth is what a person grabbed onto to start his path with Christ, such as you have described, God will still help lead that person through the power of the Holy Ghost. However, this does not CHANGE the lie into a truth.

Figurative readings of scripture are not lies....unless you believe that LDS leaders such as Pres. Kimball are lying.

[jo1952]

'jo1952' writes...

Nor did Moses, unless you can explain how he wrote in detail about his own death and conquering of lands he was forbidden to enter.

And what are those guidelines? Just look in the Articles of Faith which teach, "9 We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God." and "If there is anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy, we seek after these things." Try also the DC where it teaches in 93:36, " “The glory of God is intelligence.” or in a most beautiful passage in 88:40 "For intelligence cleaveth unto intelligence; wisdom receiveth wisdom; truth embraceth truth; virtue loveth virtue; light cleaveth unto light; mercy hath compassion on mercy and claimeth her own; justice continueth its course and claimeth its own; judgment goeth before the face of him who sitteth upon the throne and governeth and executeth all things." and later on in verse 118 "And as all have not faith, seek ye diligently and teach one another words of wisdom; yea, seek ye out of the best books words of wisdom; seek learning, even by study and also by faith." This should sum it up. We are led by blind faith, but by wisdom led by spirit.

I don't know where you learned this, but is not accurate nor truthful. While we are subjected to temptation knowledge and wisdom as guided by the light of intelligence is still under God's discretion. Don't give too much authority to the devils.

I fear you are not giving Satan enough credit for his powers. He is the father of lies. When is it possible for man to be subject to lies? He is subject moment to moment! Jesus had just finished telling Peter that it was the Spirit of God who had revealed Jesus' true identity to him. Just a few verses later Jesus turned to Peter and said "Get thee behind me Satan". How do you suppose the Apostasy was able to take place? Do you not think the ECF were not seeking truth? Yet they strayed.

Part of the Light of Intelligence we have received is to use scripture as a guide for us to be able to tell if something is of God or if it is of Satan. Why would we be given these guidelines if they were not necessary for us to have? It is not the knowledge that is in question; it is HOW WE INTERPRET that knowledge where Satan uses his powers to lie to us.

Do you not believe that satan is now the god of the earth? Jesus is waiting in Heaven, standing at the right side of Father, until such time as He is allowed to return to the earth. The only member of the Godhead who stays on the earth is the Holy Ghost - and He is here to witness that Jesus is the Christ; and also to reveal to us whatever Father tells Him to reveal to us. The Holy Ghost does not even have dominion over Satan. WHEN Jesus returns to the earth, He will receive the deed to the earth (the scroll with the seven seals) and THEN will be recognized as King of Kings and Lord of Lords; Satan will be thrown into outer darkness. But right now, Satan has dominion and power and principalities of darkness over the earth. Do you recall these verses?

Matthew 4:8-10

8 Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;

9 And saith unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me.

10 Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.

Jesus doesn't deny that Satan can give Him "all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them." Jesus rebukes Satan because Satan wants Jesus to worship Satan! This is the same problem that got Satan thrown out of the presence of Father to begin with!! Now, if he could have tempted Jesus in His physical weakness from His fasting into receiving the kingdoms of the world ahead of time, then Satan would been successful in destroying the very Plan of Salvation. This is further clarified by Paul when he teaches that Satan is the god of this age! At this time in the existence of the earth, it is Satan who is its god.

Edited to add: There are false teachers and false prophets on the earth today, just like there were when Jesus and the Apostles walked the earth. They were even IN the ancient church. I have no doubt they are also in the LDS Church as well as all over the earth. What do false teachers and false prophets do???? They teach things that are false!!! This includes false interpretation of knowledge!!!

Regards,

jo

Edited August 30, 2011 by jo1952

[shalamabobbi]

It is not the knowledge that is in question; it is HOW WE INTERPRET that knowledge where Satan uses his powers to lie to us.

Which is a result of how he has chosen to see the findings of science.

I didn't know I had a choice. Alright I'll play along.

What other possible interpretations are there Jo? With varves we are simply counting the layers.

Will you say that they formed multiple layers per annum?

Then why does the carbon 14 content agree with tree ring analysis??

If they did not form at the same time they COULD NOT have the same C14 content profile.

If they do not mean what they obviously DO mean then it could ONLY be due to them being set up that way by God to look as if they meant something other than what they actually DO mean.

Change the decay rate if you like - same problem. Let the earth fall from a higher plane with different physical laws than here in mortality. Same problem.

Please tell me your super secret interpretation! I'm dying to know what other way I can view the findings of science here.

The non-believer does not yet have the benefit of the witness of the Holy Ghost.

That is the starting point Jo. Not blind belief in the authenticity of a particular literalist interpretation of scripture..

Edit to add: And the throwing under the bus of the scripture about Jacob and the rods affecting the gendering of cattle came from the church institute program.

Edited August 30, 2011 by shalamabobbi

[jo1952]

Let me help make it a bit more accurate about what happens in actual dialogue (and not where someone else is there insisting they are wrong and wresting the scriptures etc): "They see that believers don't believe in those events literally so then they are curious as to what they do mean to the believers, thus allowing the believers to teach how the scriptures have touched them personally and helped them grow closer to God."

"Figurative" does not equal "fairy tale" anymore than someone telling you your eyes sparkle like diamonds is lying to you.

I am not denying the reality of your experience, only its claimed universal nature. It would be kind of you to do the same for mine...except of course you don't even had to deny a claimed universal nature because that's not what I am claiming here.

I think post #391 (which was being written while you were posting the one I now responding to) addresses the concerns you have commented on above.

Regards,

jo

[Calm]

I think post #391 (which was being written while you were posting the one I now responding to) addresses the concerns you have commented on above.

Regards,

jo

I don't, but am willing to let be if you also agree to quit making comments about those who "throw scripture away" or anything such similar thing about other believers. Edited August 30, 2011 by calmoriah

[jo1952]

Figurative readings of scripture are not lies....unless you believe that LDS leaders such as Pres. Kimball are lying.

Sorry, I just saw my typo and have corrected it. I meant to say as "I" have described; not, as "you" have described. My bad.

Regards,

jo

[Calm]

Sorry, I just saw my typo and have corrected it. I meant to say as "I" have described; not, as "you" have described. My bad.

Regards,

jo

And this makes a difference to my response how?

[jo1952]

I didn't know I had a choice. Alright I'll play along.

What other possible interpretations are there Jo? With varves we are simply counting the layers.

Will you say that they formed multiple layers per annum?

Then why does the carbon 14 content agree with tree ring analysis??

If they did not form at the same time they COULD NOT have the same C14 content profile.

If they do not mean what they obviously DO mean then it could ONLY be due to them being set up that way by God to look as if they meant something other than what they actually DO mean.

Change the decay rate if you like - same problem. Let the earth fall from a higher plane with different physical laws than here in mortality. Same problem.

Please tell me your super secret interpretation! I'm dying to know what other way I can view the findings of science here.

That is the starting point Jo. Not blind belief in the authenticity of a particular literalist interpretation of scripture..

Edit to add: And the throwing under the bus of the scripture about Jacob and the rods affecting the gendering of cattle came from the church institute program.

We are just going around and around here on the very same point. There are scientists who have come to different interpretations of the very same evidence you are using. You are just going to have to accept that they don't all agree with you.

I do not have "blind" belief in scripture. That is merely your perception. When did it become a bad thing to use scripture to help interpret scripture? When did it become a bad thing to use the prescriptions supplied in scripture to help us to determine what is true in the knowledge man acquires?

I would be interested in seeing the material used in the Church's Institute program concerning Jacob and the rods.

Regards,

jo

[Franktalk]

As man's ideas about the universe increase are we becoming a people more or less devoted to God? With the rise of naturalism in the 1700's man adopted the idea that to understand nature could result in us controlling nature. Man was no longer held to beliefs that some all powerful God was responsible for events in the world. Man developed a cause and effect picture of nature and God was squeezed out. Wave after wave of spiritual pressure was placed on man because of his acquired knowledge. It was man who did not see knowledge as knowledge but used that knowledge to now examine God. Man placed the Bible under a microscope and started to find cracks in the verses. God placed those cracks in there as a stumbling block thousands of years ago so man would have to decide whether to believe and walk in the spirit or walk in the earth. Many say they can do both. To them I think Peter described them well.

2Pe 3:3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,

Step back and see what is used against the Church.

Where is the evidence of the cites and People?

JS was no prophet and to believe otherwise is foolish.

Scripture is our witness we can't trust any spirits to lead us.

Much of the Bible is false because science says so.