thesometimesaint Posted March 22, 2014 Posted March 22, 2014 Just admit for a change that your interpretation of them does not line up with the scriptures nor the churches official doctrine. Could you do that please? As I don't accept your interpretation of them. I've repeatedly shown you where you are wrong not only on the science, and the Church but my beliefs as well. Please desist from your unappreciated badgering.
Rob Osborn Posted March 22, 2014 Posted March 22, 2014 As I don't accept your interpretation of them. I've repeatedly shown you where you are wrong not only on the science, and the Church but my beliefs as well. Please desist from your unappreciated badgering. Let me kindly point out that it is you who disagrees with the church doctrine on the matter.
omni Posted March 22, 2014 Posted March 22, 2014 (edited) Yep, a lot has changed since then until now.Yep, we now know that birth defects aren't caused by the sins of the child's parents, that natural disasters aren't a result of God's wrath, that the world wasn't created in seven days, that God doesn't command righteous armies to commit genocide, that the sun doesn't revolve around the Earth... Edited March 22, 2014 by omni 1
thesometimesaint Posted March 22, 2014 Posted March 22, 2014 Let me kindly point out that it is you who disagrees with the church doctrine on the matter. Let me kindly point out that it is you who disagrees with the church doctrine on the matter. Don't you find it interesting that BYU, the Church's flagship school, has a paleontology department second to none. While all you have is the so called Creationist Museum?SEE http://cpms.byu.edu/MP/research.html 2
thesometimesaint Posted March 22, 2014 Posted March 22, 2014 Yep, we now know that birth defects aren't caused by the sins of the child's parents, that natural disasters aren't a result of God's wrath, that the world wasn't created in seven days, that God doesn't command righteous armies to commit genocide, that the sun doesn't revolve around the Earth... You left out the cockatrice. Basically a lizard born from the egg of a male chicken. http://warhammeronline.wikia.com/wiki/File:Cockatrice_concept.jpg
JAHS Posted March 22, 2014 Posted March 22, 2014 Skouson, as I remember, proposed the theory that it had to do with the weather. Prior to the great flood, the earth was covered with a mantle of clouds and moisture, and the flood was a result of a change in this pattern. This cause also a decrease in longevity. It's been decades since I read him, so I don't remember the details. It is interesting to note that after the flood, the lifespan of people started to decline rapidly, as if the flood caused some alteration in the atmosphere that had an effect on the aging process. The theory goes that the rains that came during the flood destroyed the "canopy" or inversion layer of the atmosphere, permanently changing the earth's climate. This canopy had until this time caused a nearly uniform, warm climate over all the earth and had prevented moist air from rising and condensing to form rain: " . . . the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth. . . ." (Genesis 2:5.). Rather, plants were watered by dew that formed "in the cool of the day." (Genesis 3:8.) Destruction of the canopy also allowed small amounts of ozone, formed from oxygen in the upper atmosphere by ultraviolet light from the sun, to reach the earth's surface, greatly shortening the lifespans of people born after the time of Noah. More ozone = shorter lifespans.
cdowis Posted March 22, 2014 Posted March 22, 2014 (edited) Thanks for showing that my memory is not completely muddled. I have all kinds of things stuffed away in that memory. There is a painting of Christ in the church office bldg that represents his actual image, according to Orson F. Whitney (not just a rumor, but I heard this from a general authority. I saw this painting on the cover of a priesthood manual back in the 70's. It was interesting to compare that image with the one on the Shroud of Turin. Edited March 22, 2014 by cdowis
VideoGameJunkie Posted March 22, 2014 Author Posted March 22, 2014 I'll be shocked if I even make it to 90 years old.
ERayR Posted March 22, 2014 Posted March 22, 2014 I can't believe people are trying to use science to explain lifespans in the OT.... facepalm Perhaps you would prefer an Ouija board?
Tiki Posted March 22, 2014 Posted March 22, 2014 Yep, we now know that birth defects aren't caused by the sins of the child's parents, that natural disasters aren't a result of God's wrath, that the world wasn't created in seven days, that God doesn't command righteous armies to commit genocide, that the sun doesn't revolve around the Earth...But He gave you a Volkswagen Beatle. That's pretty cool.
Rob Osborn Posted March 23, 2014 Posted March 23, 2014 Let me kindly point out that it is you who disagrees with the church doctrine on the matter. Don't you find it interesting that BYU, the Church's flagship school, has a paleontology department second to none. While all you have is the so called Creationist Museum? SEE http://cpms.byu.edu/MP/research.html BYU does not represent the churches official arm of doctrine. They too, like other universities teach the doctrines of men.
Rob Osborn Posted March 23, 2014 Posted March 23, 2014 Let me kindly point out that it is you who disagrees with the church doctrine on the matter. Don't you find it interesting that BYU, the Church's flagship school, has a paleontology department second to none. While all you have is the so called Creationist Museum? SEE http://cpms.byu.edu/MP/research.html I don't disagree BTW, I am in agreement with the long ages of man back then. I am with the church on this matter. Hope that clears things up.
ksfisher Posted March 23, 2014 Posted March 23, 2014 (edited) BYU does not represent the churches official arm of doctrine. They too, like other universities teach the doctrines of men.Deleted. It's too late to write a coherent sentence. Edited March 23, 2014 by ksfisher
omni Posted March 23, 2014 Posted March 23, 2014 But He gave you a Volkswagen Beatle. That's pretty cool.Actually it's a Fiat 500, but pretty cool none the less.
cinepro Posted March 23, 2014 Posted March 23, 2014 (edited) Let me kindly point out that it is you who disagrees with the church doctrine on the matter. Don't you find it interesting that BYU, the Church's flagship school, has a paleontology department second to none. While all you have is the so called Creationist Museum?SEE http://cpms.byu.edu/MP/research.html I suspect students and professors at BYU study a lot of things that the Church doesn't agree with. For example, a history professor could focus on Russian communism during the cold war. That wouldn't make it something that the Church agrees with or endorses. Edited March 23, 2014 by cinepro
Rob Osborn Posted March 23, 2014 Posted March 23, 2014 The document (linked to at the bottom of the link provided by thesometimessaint)was approved by the BYU Board of Trustees, members of which include the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve. The church has never taken a view on organic evolution according to the document. http://eyring.hplx.net/Eyring/faq/evolution/trustees1992.html If you want we can debate evolution also but this thread is about the long age of man of which the church official position is that they really did live to the long ages given in scripture/
thesometimesaint Posted March 23, 2014 Posted March 23, 2014 Perhaps you would prefer an Ouija board? A Ouija board is more accurate. 1
thesometimesaint Posted March 23, 2014 Posted March 23, 2014 BYU does not represent the churches official arm of doctrine. They too, like other universities teach the doctrines of men. Whom do think are the directors of BYU?
thesometimesaint Posted March 23, 2014 Posted March 23, 2014 If you want we can debate evolution also but this thread is about the long age of man of which the church official position is that they really did live to the long ages given in scripture/ Ever hear of circular reasoning? "A is true because B is true; B is true because A is true."
Ahab Posted March 23, 2014 Posted March 23, 2014 Ever hear of circular reasoning? "A is true because B is true; B is true because A is true."And like some people say science has nothing to do with religion because some people say science has nothing to do with religion. I expect better reasoning skills from some people. 1
thesometimesaint Posted March 23, 2014 Posted March 23, 2014 I suspect students and professors at BYU study a lot of things that the Church doesn't agree with. For example, a history professor could focus on Russian communism during the cold war. That wouldn't make it something that the Church agrees with or endorses. I think the Church agrees with the study of Russian Communism. It probably doesn't argue it never happened. 1
thesometimesaint Posted March 23, 2014 Posted March 23, 2014 And like some people say science has nothing to do with religion because some people say science has nothing to do with religion. I expect better reasoning skills from some people. I never said that either. In the creationism v evolution debate I see just different ways of looking at the same subject. The difference between why God does something, and how he does the same thing. I do agree there needs to be better reasoning skills on both sides. I live comfortably in both worlds. God gives me my life meaning to me, and science gives me the tools to enjoy that meaning more fully.
katherine the great Posted March 23, 2014 Posted March 23, 2014 Well we have found the gene responsible for diabetes in Neanderthal so I don't think it can be argued that there was no disease pre 6000 bp. 1
ksfisher Posted March 23, 2014 Posted March 23, 2014 You're not kidding! Methuselah had nothing on these guys.“In an interesting analysis of Genesis 5 and the Sumerian King List, John Walton has shown that the passage of time in each are identical, even though the biblical list of patriarchs relied upon a different numerical system than the Sumerians. If the total of years connected with the names in Genesis 5 are calculated, the list covers a span of 6,695 years. Then, if we convert this number to a sexagesimal number (the form used by the Sumerians), the result is 241,200—the exact total of the Sumerian King List.42 This provides further evidence that the basic narrative of long lasting life spans occurring before the great flood and the beginning of the historical era is a literary pattern adopted by the biblical authors from this ancient Sumerian text.”Excerpt From: Bokovoy, David. “Authoring the Old Testament: Genesis–Deuteronomy.” iBooks. This material may be protected by copyright.Check out this book on the iBooks Store: https://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewBook?id=819372884 2
Recommended Posts