What Is Earth'S Age? 6,000 Years Or 4.5 Billion Years?

[Stargazer]

So does this mean we only have to forgive someone 7 times 70 as I'm getting kind of close to that limit with one person that I know.....

Well, it appears that if Zerinus is correct, once you've reached 490 you can safely not forgive the person you're referring to.

But if the Lord was being figurative here in this case, well...

[zerinus]

So does this mean we only have to forgive someone 7 times 70 as I'm getting kind of close to that limit with one person that I know.....

Well I hope that is not me!

But then it is made very clear that what the Lord was really talking about was not actually 490 times as he states later in the chapter:

There are no formulas in mathematics that leave one with precisely 490=every last one no matter no matter how many.

The individual verse is very precise in count, the context OTOH demonstrates that this precision is figurative.

Not according to the D&C account. I don't think you looked at it, so I am going to quote it here for you. I will highlight the verses that are particularly relevant to this discussion; but I am going to quote the context as well because the highlighted bit needs to be understood in context:

23 Now, I speak unto you concerning your families—if men will smite you, or your families, once, and ye bear it patiently and revile not against them, neither seek revenge, ye shall be rewarded;

24 But if ye bear it not patiently, it shall be accounted unto you as being meted out as a just measure unto you.

25 And again, if your enemy shall smite you the second time, and you revile not against your enemy, and bear it patiently, your reward shall be an hundred fold.

26 And again, if he shall smite you the third time, and ye bear it patiently, your reward shall be doubled unto you four-fold;

27 And these three testimonies shall stand against your enemy if he repent not, and shall not be blotted out.

28 And now, verily I say unto you, if that enemy shall escape my vengeance, that he be not brought into judgment before me, then ye shall see to it that ye warn him in my name, that he come no more upon you, neither upon your family, even your children's children unto the third and fourth generation.

29 And then, if he shall come upon you or your children, or your children's children unto the third and fourth generation, I have delivered thine enemy into thine hands;

30 And then if thou wilt spare him, thou shalt be rewarded for thy righteousness; and also thy children and thy children's children unto the third and fourth generation.

31 Nevertheless, thine enemy is in thine hands; and if thou rewardest him according to his works thou art justified; if he has sought thy life, and thy life is endangered by him, thine enemy is in thine hands and thou art justified.

32 Behold, this is the law I gave unto my servant Nephi, and thy fathers, Joseph, and Jacob, and Isaac, and Abraham, and all mine ancient prophets and apostles.

33 And again, this is the law that I gave unto mine ancients, that they should not go out unto battle against any nation, kindred, tongue, or people, save I, the Lord, commanded them.

34 And if any nation, tongue, or people should proclaim war against them, they should first lift a standard of peace unto that people, nation, or tongue;

35 And if that people did not accept the offering of peace, neither the second nor the third time, they should bring these testimonies before the Lord;

36 Then I, the Lord, would give unto them a commandment, and justify them in going out to battle against that nation, tongue, or people.

37 And I, the Lord, would fight their battles, and their children's battles, and their children's children's, until they had avenged themselves on all their enemies, to the third and fourth generation.

38 Behold, this is an ensample unto all people, saith the Lord your God, for justification before me.

39 And again, verily I say unto you, if after thine enemy has come upon thee the first time, he repent and come unto thee praying thy forgiveness, thou shalt forgive him, and shalt hold it no more as a testimony against thine enemy—

40 And so on unto the second and third time; and as oft as thine enemy repenteth of the trespass wherewith he has trespassed against thee, thou shalt forgive him, until seventy times seven.

41 And if he trespass against thee and repent not the first time, nevertheless thou shalt forgive him.

42 And if he trespass against thee the second time, and repent not, nevertheless thou shalt forgive him.

43 And if he trespass against thee the third time, and repent not, thou shalt also forgive him.

44 But if he trespass against thee the fourth time thou shalt not forgive him, but shalt bring these testimonies before the Lord; and they shall not be blotted out until he repent and reward thee four-fold in all things wherewith he has trespassed against thee.

45 And if he do this, thou shalt forgive him with all thine heart; and if he do not this, I, the Lord, will avenge thee of thine enemy an hundred-fold;

46 And upon his children, and upon his children's children of all them that hate me, unto the third and fourth generation.

47 But if the children shall repent, or the children's children, and turn to the Lord their God, with all their hearts and with all their might, mind, and strength, and restore four-fold for all their trespasses wherewith they have trespassed, or wherewith their fathers have trespassed, or their fathers' fathers, then thine indignation shall be turned away;

48 And vengeance shall no more come upon them, saith the Lord thy God, and their trespasses shall never be brought any more as a testimony before the Lord against them. Amen.

According to the highlighted bit, the figure appears to be taken literally. But observe the context as well.

Well, it appears that if Zerinus is correct, once you've reached 490 you can safely not forgive the person you're referring to.

But if the Lord was being figurative here in this case, well...

See above. Also note that this relates to the persecutions that the early saints were experiencing. How well it applies to the personal animosities that one may experience in one's personal life may be a different matter.

[zerinus]

OK, I wish that, but I am familiar with all that you have said anyway. I just hold that there is numerology in that Bible, and as to whether or not the Bible is a reliable is a reliable text on astrophysics, I say that it isn't. And where God tells His prophets things that deal with cosmology, He does not try to give them a PhD course on the Universe. 7,000 years of the Earth's temporal existence does not mean that on December 31, 5999 BP there was an empty slot between the orbits of Venus and Mars, and early the next morning there was the earth, pretty much as it is now. It means something to the effect that Adam and Eve found themselves plunked down in the GofE that morning, and the Earth was as it is now. I believe that there were dinosaurs roaming the earth for millions of years and that there were lots and lots of trilobites in the oceans. But that was before A&E. Whether the 7,000 years of the earth's temporal is figurative in the sense that it means (as I said earlier), "immensely complete", or whether it means there were literally 6,000 years between A&E's arrival in the GofE and 12 years ago, is not important, although I lean towards the former.

I don't advocate taking scriptures too literally; but I do not have as much trust in science as you seem to do either. Some sciences are more exact than others. The sciences of physics and chemistry are more exact than the sciences of archaeology, geology, and anthropology. Science can also be biased. For many scientists working in the above fields, Evolution is a "given". Any evidence which might challenge that theory is consciously or unconsciously discarded. I will give you an example. I attended BYU in the '70s. I took one course in one of the earth sciences (I can't remember now which). As part of that course, the instructor showed us a documentary film made by a British producer for some UK broadcasting station (probably BBC), relating to the subject of the course. It showed archaeological excavations and other geological data relating to prehistory, such as dinosaur skeletons etc. One of the scenes they showed was an area some place in the Utah desert which showed footprints of dinosaurs frozen in time in geological formation. After the film was over, the BYU professor, who was familiar with the terrain, said that in the same place, not far form the dinosaur footprints, there was a man's footprint, frozen in time just like the dinosaur footprints. One of the students in the class exclaimed in astonishment, "Why didn't they sowed us that?" The professor replied, "Why do you think they didn't?" End of the conversation! So science is biased. It is not so reliable as you think it is.

I will give you another example. Many years ago I read most of the Journal of Discourses. In one of his sermons, Brigham young said that when he was crossing the plains, he found a piece of petrified bacon on the ground! That led him to question the scientific inferences the petrified organic matter would require billions of years geological change to be produced.

In the case of inexact sciences such as geology, archaeology, and anthropology, scientists do not try to put their own prejudices behind in the interest of scientific impartiality, and their conclusions are not as reliable and trustworthy as you seem to think. Do I believe that dinosaurs existed? Sure. Does that mean that they lived on earth billions of years ago, or they came about as a result of organic evolution? No. While it is true that some scientific deductions are near infallible, it doesn't mean that all of them are.

P.S. I did a search of JOD on Wikisource, and found the following, which does not appear to be the same as what I had mentioned above, but still proves the point. It may be that my memory has faded; or it could be that the search was not conclusive. It produced 500 results, and I didn't bother to look at all of them. There are other problems with the search as well. Anyways, here is the paragraph from the JOD that I was able to find. It is from a discourse by Brigham Young. Other clever guys with more patience than I may be able to find more information regarding the same:

"Since I parted company with Major Powell I have heard another story, which will furnish another problem for the geologists to solve. A short time since a piece of petrified bacon was found on the trail of Colonel Fremont, and there is no question but it was left where found by his party when exploring in the Rocky Mountains. It is petrified, having become perfect rock. We all know that it is not half a million years since Colonel Fremont and his party went through this region of country. It is impossible for man to tell the cause of certain freaks of nature unless it is revealed to him by divine wisdom unless his eyes are open to understand the invisible things of God; for the ways of God and His dealings are very different from the ways and dealings of the children of men. Yet there is nothing done only on the science of true philosophy if we did but understand the facts. If we cannot define the power by which these things are done it is not our prerogative to dispute the effects, for they are before us. These and kindred topics give rise to much speculation on the part of the scientific; but it is for me to wait until their causes are made known from the proper source. It is very sure that there is no such thing in existence as a piece of wood being turned to stone without the action of elements upon it; and though we do not understand the combination, nature, and action of those elements, we can see their results." Source.

As to your book, I am still reading it. I have gotten to page 21 and I have enjoyed it thus far. In fact I have learned lots that I wasn't aware of before. The book deserves being sat down with for some extended study, but I don't have the time at the moment. I will do it soon.

I bet you had not even tried to read it until you saw my last post. How disappointing!

Edited April 8, 2012 by zerinus

[Stargazer]

See above. Also note that this relates to the persecutions that the early saints were experiencing. How well it applies to the personal animosities that one may experience in one's personal life may be a different matter.

Whatever. I think I will simply forgive everyone. I don't enough time and energy to maintain grudges.

[Stargazer]

I bet you had not even tried to read it until you saw my last post. How disappointing!

You'd lose your stake if you were to make such a bet.

Besides, I did tell you that I had reached page 21. I read every page, too. I am wondering if you actually read my post, since I indicated that I had learned things I hadn't known already from your book. You'd have to assume I was lying rhough my teeth to make this statement, if, that is, you had read my post. Who hasn't been reading whose stuff, now?

[Stargazer]

I don't advocate taking scriptures too literally; but I do not have as much trust in science as you seem to do either. Some sciences are more exact than others. The sciences of physics and chemistry are more exact than the sciences of archaeology, geology, and anthropology. Science can also be biased. For many scientists working in the above fields, Evolution is a "given". Any evidence which might challenge that theory is consciously or unconsciously discarded. I will give you an example. I attended BYU in the '70s. I took one course in one of the earth sciences (I can't remember now which). As part of that course, the instructor showed us a documentary film made by a British producer for some UK broadcasting station (probably BBC), relating to the subject of the course. It showed archaeological excavations and other geological data relating to prehistory, such as dinosaur skeletons etc. One of the scenes they showed was an area some place in the Utah desert which showed footprints of dinosaurs frozen in time in geological formation. After the film was over, the BYU professor, who was familiar with the terrain, said that in the same place, not far form the dinosaur footprints, there was a man's footprint, frozen in time just like the dinosaur footprints. One of the students in the class exclaimed in astonishment, "Why didn't they sowed us that?" The professor replied, "Why do you think they didn't?" End of the conversation! So science is biased. It is not so reliable as you think it is.

Well, I hate to disappoint you, but I don't think it is as reliable as you seem to think I do.

As to trusting "science", I would like to point out that the word comes from the Latin word for "knowledge".

It wasn't until quite recently that plate tectonics was a "known" geological fact. Aristotle believed that earthquakes were caused by strong winds blowing through undergound caverns. It was once "known" that heat transference was a matter of the flow of a theorized substance dubbed "phlogiston". Astronomers once "knew" that all of those oddly shaped clouds they saw in their telescopes were simple collections of gas -- later they "knew" that many of them were incredibly huge collections of stars standing off at very large distances.

In short, what we "know", or what we think we "know" is very frequently a matter of incomplete information which will later be remedied, and then we will "know" better.

I've heard about that human footprint near the dinosaur's. It is a very amusing conundrum, and it makes you realize that what we think we "know" is all very fragile.

I will give you another example.

...

P.S. I did a search of JOD on Wikisource, and found the following, which does not appear to be the same as what I had mentioned above, but still proves the point. It may be that my memory has faded; or it could be that the search was not conclusive. It produced 500 results, and I didn't bother to look at all of them. There are other problems with the search as well. Anyways, here is the paragraph from the JOD that I was able to find. It is from a discourse by Brigham Young. Other clever guys with more patience than I may be able to find more information regarding the same:

"Since I parted company with Major Powell I have heard another story, which will furnish another problem for the geologists to solve. A short time since a piece of petrified bacon was found on the trail of Colonel Fremont, and there is no question but it was left where found by his party when exploring in the Rocky Mountains. It is petrified, having become perfect rock. We all know that it is not half a million years since Colonel Fremont and his party went through this region of country. It is impossible for man to tell the cause of certain freaks of nature unless it is revealed to him by divine wisdom unless his eyes are open to understand the invisible things of God; for the ways of God and His dealings are very different from the ways and dealings of the children of men. Yet there is nothing done only on the science of true philosophy if we did but understand the facts. If we cannot define the power by which these things are done it is not our prerogative to dispute the effects, for they are before us. These and kindred topics give rise to much speculation on the part of the scientific; but it is for me to wait until their causes are made known from the proper source. It is very sure that there is no such thing in existence as a piece of wood being turned to stone without the action of elements upon it; and though we do not understand the combination, nature, and action of those elements, we can see their results."

When I was young, it was "known" that diamonds were formed under high pressure, high temperature, and time. Lots of time. Now they make diamonds in great bulk quite quickly. They even make single-crystal surgical scalpels out of diamond. These are apparently VERY sharp.

What we know changes all the time. Some things are very well understood. Other things are not. Most things are not, and there are some things we will know eventually that we couldn't even have imagined earlier.

That's just the way it is.

[blackstrap]

In my files I have a picture of a petrified human foot,found inside a cowboy boot that was made in the 1950s(the boot that is). I love anomalies.

[Bond...James Bond]

Around 4.5 billion physical years. 6,000 physical years is total nonsense. Other than that you all can talk among yourselves about covenant years or spirit years or whatever.

[Stargazer]

Around 4.5 billion physical years. 6,000 physical years is total nonsense. Other than that you all can talk among yourselves about covenant years or spirit years or whatever.

Why, thankyou, James! We appreciate your indulgence.

Happy Easter.

[Bond...James Bond]

Why, thankyou, James! We appreciate your indulgence.

Happy Easter.

Happy Easter. During this miraculous time let's reflect on this image that was painted on a cave wall ten thousand years before the Earth was created 7,000 years ago. (Or was it painted 11,000 years before the earth was created 6,000 years ago? Quid stultus cura?)

http://en.wikipedia..../Lascaux

Edited April 8, 2012 by Bond...James Bond

[zerinus]

Well, I hate to disappoint you, but I don't think it is as reliable as you seem to think I do.

And biased. Don't forget the "bias" bit.

As to trusting "science", I would like to point out that the word comes from the Latin word for "knowledge".

I know, and in some contexts it still has that meaning. But today its meaning has somewhat changed, and by science is often understood to mean a certain discipline (better known as "experimental science") which supposedly yields infallible knowledge.

It wasn't until quite recently that plate tectonics was a "known" geological fact. Aristotle believed that earthquakes were caused by strong winds blowing through undergound caverns. It was once "known" that heat transference was a matter of the flow of a theorized substance dubbed "phlogiston". Astronomers once "knew" that all of those oddly shaped clouds they saw in their telescopes were simple collections of gas -- later they "knew" that many of them were incredibly huge collections of stars standing off at very large distances.

In short, what we "know", or what we think we "know" is very frequently a matter of incomplete information which will later be remedied, and then we will "know" better.

I've heard about that human footprint near the dinosaur's. It is a very amusing conundrum, and it makes you realize that what we think we "know" is all very fragile.

When I was young, it was "known" that diamonds were formed under high pressure, high temperature, and time. Lots of time. Now they make diamonds in great bulk quite quickly. They even make single-crystal surgical scalpels out of diamond. These are apparently VERY sharp.

What we know changes all the time. Some things are very well understood. Other things are not. Most things are not, and there are some things we will know eventually that we couldn't even have imagined earlier.

That's just the way it is.

So you agree that the earth might not be 4.5 billion years old, the Big Bang theory might not be true, and the Evolutionary theory might be false, after all! That is good to hear.

Edited April 8, 2012 by zerinus

[zerinus]

Whatever. I think I will simply forgive everyone. I don't enough time and energy to maintain grudges.

That was not the point. The point was what the scripture actually meant.

As far as "forgiving" people is concerned, perhaps you have not reached 490 figure yet. When you do, let me know if you still feel the same way about it--especially if your "enemy" is of the kind that likes burning down your home and murdering your wife and kids (the kind of enemy that the early Saints faced).

[BCSpace]

Happy Easter. During this miraculous time let's reflect on this image that was painted on a cave wall ten thousand years before the Earth was created 7,000 years ago. (Or was it painted 11,000 years before the earth was created 6,000 years ago? Quid stultus cura?)

We also have living organisms that are 60,000-70,000 years old and older. Ice cores that go back more than 6000 years. And we also have direct evidence that there was no Global Flood, at least in the time frame expected, such as coral reefs not showing the expecrted damage, 20,000+ years of standing trees in Yellowstone, and a host of other evidences.

Edited April 8, 2012 by BCSpace

[Stargazer]

So you agree that the earth might not be 4.5 billion years old, the Big Bang theory might not be true, and the Evolutionary theory might be false, after all! That is good to hear.

Hmmm. If we are actually in something like The Matrix, then this world may not actually exist as a physical manifestation and none of thse things would be true. Seems unlikely, but I do not think I know how to devise an experiment that could test it.

However, Occam's Razor would seem to require us to believe that what we see actually exists, and that our observations of the universe reveal an actual thing.

[thesometimesaint]

Scientific theory is just the best explanation we have for any given event so far. As such it is ALWAYS tentative. However I'd be very surprized if the earth is only 7,000 years old, or that the Big Bang didn't happen. IF God tells me otherwise I'll go with God, but that opens many more questions I'd like answers for.

Edited April 8, 2012 by thesometimesaint

[blackstrap]

Apparently there was no Bang in the Big Bang. It just would not be sexy enough to call it the Big phhhhhhhht.

[thesometimesaint]

The term Big Bang was first employed by Fred Hoyle a critic of the theory. While the term is not technically correct, much like the term Mormon is not the technically correct term for members of the Church, it is still a good discriptor of the processs. Phhhhhhhhh has a whole different connotation when applied to sexy.

[zerinus]

Hmmm. If we are actually in something like The Matrix, then this world may not actually exist as a physical manifestation and none of thse things would be true. Seems unlikely, but I do not think I know how to devise an experiment that could test it.

However, Occam's Razor would seem to require us to believe that what we see actually exists, and that our observations of the universe reveal an actual thing.

But the 4.5 billion years earth, the Big Bang theory, and Evolution are not "observable facts," but deductions from certain observations; like the deduction that dinosaurs became extinct millions of years ago before humans appeared on the scene, from the observation of their remains and "footprints," while turning a blind eye to the human "footprint" of similar description; and so forth.

Scripture told us that "the earth was divided" (Genesis 10:25; 1 Chronicles 1:19; D&C 133:24), long before "scientists" figured that it must have been, when you compare the shape of the continents, and see how snugly they fit together, like the pieces of a jigsaw puzzle. So why should I give greater credence to the "scientific" version of the events, when the scripture tells me a different story of how it happened?

.

Edited April 8, 2012 by zerinus

[Log]

"Why should I give credence to the 'scientific' version of events?" is a cogent question to ask. Physics works without any particular account of the past being true, as does chemistry. Why should we care?

[zerinus]

"Why should I give credence to the 'scientific' version of events?" is a cogent question to ask. Physics works without any particular account of the past being true, as does chemistry. Why should we care?

You are free to worship science; but I hope you will allow me the privilege of worshipping God.

[Cobalt-70]

That is interesting. What would fossil evidence of a 100% extinction event look like?

For an event to have caused the earth to "die," there would be no species on one side of the boundary in common with or related to species on the other side of the boundary. That has never happened.

[Log]

For an event to have caused the earth to "die," there would be no species on one side of the boundary in common with or related to species on the other side of the boundary.

I'm not seeing the chain of logic. Can you please expound upon how it necessarily follows that there would be no species on one side of the boundary in common with or related to species on the other side of the boundary?

[Log]

You are free to worship science; but I hope you will allow me the privilege of worshipping God.

What are you talking about? Are you even reading the posts you respond to?

[thesometimesaint]

Yes they are observable facts. What do you think they are unobservable? You want to disprove evolution? It is very simple to do. All you need is a shovel, a good back, and a means to accurately record what you see. Now go find a fully modern human skeleton in a previously undisturbed layer of Pre-Cambrian dirt.

BTW that old dinosaurs and human footprints is nothing but a fraud.

According to Scripture Pi is equal to exactly three. Who you gonna believe a pre science Bronze Age mystic or you own lying eyes?

[Log]

Yes they are observable facts. What do you think they are unobservable? You want to disprove evolution? It is very simple to do. All you need is a shovel, a good back, and a means to accurately record what you see. Now go find a fully modern human skeleton in a previously undisturbed layer of Pre-Cambrian dirt.

They have a principle in place just to answer such an occurrence. It's called "evolutionary convergence."

Edited April 8, 2012 by Log