pogi Posted December 4, 2014 Posted December 4, 2014 I'm not going to bother. I have better things to do. Ohhh c'mon...I don't! 2
pogi Posted December 4, 2014 Posted December 4, 2014 (edited) 6 Q. What are we to understand by the book which John saw, which was sealed on the back with seven seals?A. We are to understand that it contains the revealed will, mysteries, and the works of God; the hidden things of his economy concerning this earth during the seven thousand years of its continuance, or its temporal existence. (D&C 77:6) Nice. Although, i didnt see where they talked of their time machine to observe such. Edited December 4, 2014 by pogi
Robert F. Smith Posted December 4, 2014 Posted December 4, 2014 Funny thing is...we have scriptures which contain the entire history of this earth from when it was organized and life placed upon it. Those same scriptures tell us that there was no death on the earth before the fall of Adam and Eve roughly 6 thousand years ago. But you dismiss this right off dont you?There are plenty of evangelical interpreters of Holy Writ who make that claim, but the actual text does not support it. They assume that each day of creation is a 24-hour day, and that time begins at Genesis 1:1, of which there is no indication in the Hebrew text. The actual text gives us a series of events in creation, of indeterminate length, told in poetic and ritual fashion. The Bible is not a science textbook. Indeed, much earlier ritual creation texts have the same basic sequence of events, such as Babylonian Enuma elish. That a portion of that period, after the Fall (when humans became subject to death), can indeed be relegated to a six-thousand year dispensational sequence, but that does not condition the period before the Fall and outside the Garden. We have no timeline on that indeterminate period. Of course you can forcefully impose one, as the evangelicals do. 1
Rob Osborn Posted December 4, 2014 Posted December 4, 2014 (edited) There are plenty of evangelical interpreters of Holy Writ who make that claim, but the actual text does not support it. They assume that each day of creation is a 24-hour day, and that time begins at Genesis 1:1, of which there is no indication in the Hebrew text. The actual text gives us a series of events in creation, of indeterminate length, told in poetic and ritual fashion. The Bible is not a science textbook. Indeed, much earlier ritual creation texts have the same basic sequence of events, such as Babylonian Enuma elish. That a portion of that period, after the Fall (when humans became subject to death), can indeed be relegated to a six-thousand year dispensational sequence, but that does not condition the period before the Fall and outside the Garden. We have no timeline on that indeterminate period. Of course you can forcefully impose one, as the evangelicals do. There was no death before the fall of all the creations. The temporal age of the earth(since it fell and death became a part of the creation) is 7,000 years. Not really sure how one could be more precise. Edited December 4, 2014 by Rob Osborn
Teancum Posted December 4, 2014 Posted December 4, 2014 I have never read any of your peer reviewed material that supports the Book of Mormon. Does this mean the book is false? It is a high possibility that it is false. Have you considered that option?
Teancum Posted December 4, 2014 Posted December 4, 2014 Yes. I read it soon after it was originally published. Then how in the world can you think it helps the BoM?
Teancum Posted December 4, 2014 Posted December 4, 2014 Well, I dont agree with Sorensons claims either. Thats my whole point of relying on the pitfalls of modern science that dictates or trys to dictate how things are. For instance- if we are bound to let science dictate when elephants went extinct in the Americas, then we have already lost. So you rely scripture which is contradictory can changing over time, on men who claim to speak for God but also have been shown incredibly inconsistent and claims to supernatural intervention that cannot be tested or verified. And that is better than the scientific method?
Teancum Posted December 4, 2014 Posted December 4, 2014 10,000 years ago? Where did they live? In heaven...there were not yet people on the earth 10,000 years ago. Uh no....
Teancum Posted December 4, 2014 Posted December 4, 2014 Nope, no people. No since in discussion with someone clearly steeped in dogma.....
Teancum Posted December 4, 2014 Posted December 4, 2014 Funny thing is...we have scriptures which contain the entire history of this earth from when it was organized and life placed upon it. Those same scriptures tell us that there was no death on the earth before the fall of Adam and Eve roughly 6 thousand years ago. But you dismiss this right off dont you? The scriptures are full of myths, cultural prejudice inconsistencies, reflective of the time they were written, cleary were changed to meet agendas, likely not written in many cases by the claimed author of the book and make claims that cannot be verified. If you want to live your life based on things written by men who live thousands of years ago and were camel herders essentially with no idea of what science has revealed more power to you. And yes I dismiss it. The OVERWHELMING TESTABLE AND VERIFIABLE evidence is the earth is very old and humans have been around for hundreds of thousands of year. No Adam, no Eve, they are myths.
Teancum Posted December 4, 2014 Posted December 4, 2014 (edited) 6 Q. What are we to understand by the book which John saw, which was sealed on the back with seven seals?A. We are to understand that it contains the revealed will, mysteries, and the works of God; the hidden things of his economy concerning this earth during the seven thousand years of its continuance, or its temporal existence. (D&C 77:6) Yes this is evidence that JS revelation was wrong and not from God but from his own a priori dogma. Edited December 4, 2014 by Teancum
pogi Posted December 4, 2014 Posted December 4, 2014 (edited) No since in discussion with someone clearly steeped in dogma..... "Dogma", as in a principle laid down as incontrovertibly true? Aren't you taking the same dogmatic approach? All you have is your beliefs, just like the rest of us. Edited December 4, 2014 by pogi 1
pogi Posted December 4, 2014 Posted December 4, 2014 No Adam, no Eve, they are myths. Dogma...cough, cough. 2
Teancum Posted December 5, 2014 Posted December 5, 2014 "Dogma", as in a principle laid down as incontrovertibly true? Aren't you taking the same dogmatic approach? All you have is your beliefs, just like the rest of us.No. I look for evidence and am open to be proven wrong, are you? I don't claim special knowledge, testimony or special channel to God. if Rob has evidence that the earth is only 7000 years old other than his dogma let him provide it.
Teancum Posted December 5, 2014 Posted December 5, 2014 Dogma...cough, cough.Evidence other than biblical myth will convince me. I don't have dogma, religions do, show me the evidence.
Teancum Posted December 5, 2014 Posted December 5, 2014 Teancum, are you atheist?No. I am a skeptic but I have hope that God is real, the evidence however seems to speak other wise. My history up to five years ago was as TBM as yours, and as dogmatic.
Rob Osborn Posted December 5, 2014 Posted December 5, 2014 No. I am a skeptic but I have hope that God is real, the evidence however seems to speak other wise. My history up to five years ago was as TBM as yours, and as dogmatic. Im sorry.
Rob Osborn Posted December 5, 2014 Posted December 5, 2014 No. I look for evidence and am open to be proven wrong, are you? I don't claim special knowledge, testimony or special channel to God. if Rob has evidence that the earth is only 7000 years old other than his dogma let him provide it. How do you even have conversations with people?
Teancum Posted December 5, 2014 Posted December 5, 2014 Im sorry.Why? I am not. Oh sure there is a sadness for the loss of faith but the world for me has become a more beautiful fascinating faith without the dogma that colored everything before.
Teancum Posted December 5, 2014 Posted December 5, 2014 How do you even have conversations with people?How do you when your approach is the Bible, BoM and JS says so.....?How is that a conversation starter? I have more intersting, intellectually honest conversations many fold with human beings than I ever had before, Conversations with dogmatic Mornons though are rather limited, in their minds they are right and everyone else is not. So I don't typically discuss such things with my believing Mormon friends. They really don't want to and I have no desire to persuade them. If they are happy I am happy for them.
Teancum Posted December 5, 2014 Posted December 5, 2014 How do you even have conversations with people?So Rob a conversation on this would start with you providing evidence for your position rather than "just because the scriptures say so..."
Rob Osborn Posted December 5, 2014 Posted December 5, 2014 So Rob a conversation on this would start with you providing evidence for your position rather than "just because the scriptures say so..." Lets just cut to the chase- I will contend using scriptures and you will counter with typical secular jargon. Whats the point? You obviously have a bad attitude to start with.
Guest Posted December 5, 2014 Posted December 5, 2014 That is "just in?" I read this last year. It means that before one of the groups crossed the Bering Strait, their ggggggg+grandparents' people from further west met and married in to a group of East Asian people.There is in fact that those who crosses the land bridge where not of one uninterrupted bloodline. Also the "Lost tribes", were lost as they moved further into the North, and they were the Northern Kingdom were they not? Now this not mean that the BoM states that this is how Lehi's linage were the only ones who came to the America's. Something to note as well is that critics speak often of Jewish linage and make their case there alone. However in Israel the primary occupants were made up of the three tribes to quote from the OT...(maybe this is a paraphrase from 1 or 2 Kings), the "Jews and the more righteous members of Ephraim and Manasseh". Something you will never see in a thread by those who oppose every doctrine or teaching of the Church. But that seems to be and "innocent truth".
Teancum Posted December 5, 2014 Posted December 5, 2014 Lets just cut to the chase- I will contend using scriptures and you will counter with typical secular jargon. Whats the point? You obviously have a bad attitude to start with.Huh? I have a bad attitude because I note your arguments are steeped in dogma? How so? My attitude is fantastic. I am open to being persuaded by evidence. But "because I think God says so" is not evidence. Even believers here think your fundamentalist literalism is extreme though at least based on what the LDS scriptures say you are perhaps more honest.I don't just use secular jargon. I read books and articles by reputable scientists. Based on the best evidence it is clear the earth is very old and humans have been here a longtime as well. It seems difficult for a position towards a literal Adam and Eve. The bad attitude is yours....one that refuses to look at the evidence rationally.
Recommended Posts