There we have what? I've always been perfectly open about that. Why is this a revelation for you?
Not for me, for the people who mistakenly think you believe the Bible to be about real people and actual events.
That said, with the Book of Mormon, we are not dealing with a civilization with no written record. What we are dealing with is a written record with no civilization. (Runtu, Feb 2015)
Bazooka wrote:Not for me, for the people who mistakenly think you believe the Bible to be about real people and actual events.
It is. It's not unilaterally about real people, but there are plenty of real people and real events in the Bible.
But not Noah and the flood, right?
Adam & Eve and the Garden of Eden - real people, actual place, actual events?
That said, with the Book of Mormon, we are not dealing with a civilization with no written record. What we are dealing with is a written record with no civilization. (Runtu, Feb 2015)
from the reference, "A global Flood may provide the framework for a more credible depositional model. During the Flood, sediment-choked waters deposited 1,200 meters of flat-lying "Grand Canyon strata" and around 4,000 meters of Mesozoic strata (seen today atop Utah's Grand Staircase to the north, and Arizona's Black Mesa to the east). The unique vertical movements in the earth's crust during the Flood's retreat4 uplifted the region, and an enormous quantity of soft sediment was removed from its top--a volume far greater than that excavated from Grand Canyon proper.5 Red Butte is a tiny remnant from this vast erosion. When the strata gained sufficient internal strength to stand as near-vertical walls, Grand Canyon itself was incised into the plateau." ///////// my observations in reaction to this site, An enormous quantity of sediment removed by no stated process because it was soft while all the sediment below, created at the same time by the same flood according to this theory became hard by unknown processes and was quickly eroded into the grand canyon, n No explanation how. Sure the Colorado river could cut down through soft stuff quickly(is this supposed to be talking about mud or rocks?) but the Grand canyon is grand because it is to broad as well as deep. what caused the breadth? what caused the mud to turn to rock? why only some turn to rock while vast amounts just disappeared?
That is a lot of important unexplained fundamentals in an area which is most congenial to flood theory because there is a lot of sedimentary rock.
I am still wondering about the canyon I have hiked for years which has been cut by a small stream through thousand of feet of layered basalt rock. It has many little side canyons cut by spring trickles. they have had time to cut paths hundreds of feet deep through basalt,(basalt is very hard and does not go through a semi hard stage , it does not erode quickly) following flood theory all of the thee thousand feet of basalt erupted after the flood which leaves some 4500 years to cut the canyon. that is nearly a foot a year. Nothing remotely like that is happening.
I am familiar with specific spots where bedrock is being eroded over the past fifty years. The erosion has been a small fraction of an inch. That makes a fast estimate of 2000 years a foot. This little canyon is some millions of years in the cutting of it.
I do find myself wondering if it makes any sense to talk of these details. The basic idea of flood geology is problematic. Even if you assume a flood, broken up crust, great world wide tidal waves, earthquakes and volcanoes, how does all this settle out into hundreds of nice seperated layers? On east Eagle creek north eastern Oregon. brown mudstone white limestone and light gray limestone alternate in narrow bands for miles. They are all sitting at a 45 degree angle so as one goes up the canyon one is passing a very deep pile. How is it all so very neat?
Major problems come when man imagines that long periods of time are required for everything to get to the stage they are presently.
Nipper, what are these major problems? All I see is a better view of the majesty power and love of God.
Does it make Jesus less divine? his atonement less effective or necessary? Does it make humans less trapped in sin and needing of Gods will and action to save and renew them? I cannot see how the age of the world changes any of those things.
Well, first off --- much of the so called "Global Warming" hysteria is the result that scientists imagining that they now see major changes happening very quickly and so they assume man is the culprit and must actually reverse or prevent such quick changes. The Flood would have changed the original biblical environment over night. Another point is that if God created through the survival of the fittest, then that means that death and destruction were already the "norm" ---- Adam's Fall didn't originate death and destruction and Jesus would not know what He was talking about. The Bible could not be trusted, Jesus could not be believed, and God becomes petty.
from the reference, "A global Flood may provide the framework for a more credible depositional model. During the Flood, sediment-choked waters deposited 1,200 meters of flat-lying "Grand Canyon strata" and around 4,000 meters of Mesozoic strata (seen today atop Utah's Grand Staircase to the north, and Arizona's Black Mesa to the east). The unique vertical movements in the earth's crust during the Flood's retreat4 uplifted the region, and an enormous quantity of soft sediment was removed from its top--a volume far greater than that excavated from Grand Canyon proper.5 Red Butte is a tiny remnant from this vast erosion. When the strata gained sufficient internal strength to stand as near-vertical walls, Grand Canyon itself was incised into the plateau." ///////// my observations in reaction to this site, An enormous quantity of sediment removed by no stated process because it was soft while all the sediment below, created at the same time by the same flood according to this theory became hard by unknown processes and was quickly eroded into the grand canyon, n No explanation how. Sure the Colorado river could cut down through soft stuff quickly(is this supposed to be talking about mud or rocks?) but the Grand canyon is grand because it is to broad as well as deep. what caused the breadth? what caused the mud to turn to rock? why only some turn to rock while vast amounts just disappeared?
That is a lot of important unexplained fundamentals in an area which is most congenial to flood theory because there is a lot of sedimentary rock.
I am still wondering about the canyon I have hiked for years which has been cut by a small stream through thousand of feet of layered basalt rock. It has many little side canyons cut by spring trickles. they have had time to cut paths hundreds of feet deep through basalt,(basalt is very hard and does not go through a semi hard stage , it does not erode quickly) following flood theory all of the thee thousand feet of basalt erupted after the flood which leaves some 4500 years to cut the canyon. that is nearly a foot a year. Nothing remotely like that is happening.
I am familiar with specific spots where bedrock is being eroded over the past fifty years. The erosion has been a small fraction of an inch. That makes a fast estimate of 2000 years a foot. This little canyon is some millions of years in the cutting of it.
I do find myself wondering if it makes any sense to talk of these details. The basic idea of flood geology is problematic. Even if you assume a flood, broken up crust, great world wide tidal waves, earthquakes and volcanoes, how does all this settle out into hundreds of nice seperated layers? On east Eagle creek north eastern Oregon. brown mudstone white limestone and light gray limestone alternate in narrow bands for miles. They are all sitting at a 45 degree angle so as one goes up the canyon one is passing a very deep pile. How is it all so very neat?
You must realize that much of the canyon was formed either as a direct result of The Flood or as the waters violently and quickly draining away just after The Flood. Sediment is compacted and hardens over time. In the early stages of that rock formation, the material would have been still rather pliable and soft. As the centuries past, the materials would have interacted (much as cement) and as it dried out and was pressurized under the weight of the upper layers it would harden and be less affected by erosion. Anyway, this is my reasoning. I've worked with concrete. Until it set, it is very vulnerable. If it gets too much water, it become crumbly --- not enough water, it's weak.
LittleNipper wrote:You must realize that much of the canyon was formed either as a direct result of The Flood or as the waters violently and quickly draining away just after The Flood. Sediment is compacted and hardens over time. In the early stages of that rock formation, the material would have been still rather pliable and soft. As the centuries past, the materials would have interacted (much as cement) and as it dried out and was pressurized under the weight of the upper layers it would harden and be less affected by erosion. Anyway, this is my reasoning. I've worked with concrete. Until it set, it is very vulnerable. If it gets too much water, it become crumbly --- not enough water, it's weak.
That's a great theory but unfortunately we know the canyon is much older than when the flood happened (which was around 2,300BCE according to the teaching programmes of the Church and its published chronology).
That said, with the Book of Mormon, we are not dealing with a civilization with no written record. What we are dealing with is a written record with no civilization. (Runtu, Feb 2015)
LittleNipper wrote:You must realize that much of the canyon was formed either as a direct result of The Flood or as the waters violently and quickly draining away just after The Flood. Sediment is compacted and hardens over time. In the early stages of that rock formation, the material would have been still rather pliable and soft. As the centuries past, the materials would have interacted (much as cement) and as it dried out and was pressurized under the weight of the upper layers it would harden and be less affected by erosion. Anyway, this is my reasoning. I've worked with concrete. Until it set, it is very vulnerable. If it gets too much water, it become crumbly --- not enough water, it's weak.
That's a great theory but unfortunately we know the canyon is much older than when the flood happened (which was around 2,300BCE according to the teaching programs of the Church and its published chronology).
And how do we actually know this given the fact that God Created the entire Universe in 6 days per His revelation? God would have created a fully functioning universe. He would not need gravity, erosion, time or even material things to fabricate a Universe. So we cannot possibly know that the canyon is older. It is an assumption, based on materialistic bound logic, and present day events having little to do with creation but more to do with destruction. Tell me how old God is and I will tell you how old God made the Universe look. I mean that the Universe declares God. How old is 2 Billion years really? Can anyone really measure it, or does it just fill a void? First-century Jewish historian Flavius Josephus used manuscripts available during day to calculate that Noah's Flood occurred 1556 years after the creation of Adam. By adding the ages of the patriarchs listed in the Bible, other scholars have come up with roughly similar dates. However, we do not know for certain how long Adam existed on the planet before he sinned. Adam's AGE may only reflect the time he lived AFTER the Fall. It is possible that Adam existed for some time even before Eve was created. Age generally requires the passing of something; however, prior to the Fall of Adam, nothing died and there was really nothing to measure (very much like heaven). God did give us the day and the week, but if one lives forever, what would be the point of counting years... Such would be meaningless.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Nov 12, 2014 4:12 pm, edited 2 times in total.
2 Chronicles 26:1-23 The people of Judah chose Uzziah to be king. Amaziah was Uzziah’s father. Uzziah was then 16 years old. Uzziah rebuilt the town of Elath and gave it back to Judah. He did this after Amaziah died and was buried with his ancestors. He ruled 52 years in Jerusalem. His mother’s name was Jecoliah who was from Jerusalem. Uzziah did what the Lord wanted him to do. He obeyed God the same as his father Amaziah had done. Zechariah taught Uzziah how to respect and obey God. While Uzziah obeyed the Lord, God gave him success.
Uzziah fought a war against the Philistines. He tore down the walls around the towns of Gath, Jabneh, and Ashdod. Uzziah built towns near the town of Ashdod and in other areas among the Philistines. God helped Uzziah fight the Philistines, the Arabs living in the town of Gur Baal, and the Meunites. The Ammonites paid tribute to Uzziah. His name became famous all the way to the border of Egypt ---being very powerful.
Uzziah built towers in Jerusalem at the Corner Gate, at the Valley Gate, and at the place where the wall turned making them strong. He built towers in the desert, and dug many wells. He had many cattle in the hill country and in the flat lands. He had farmers in the mountains and in the lands where growth was good. He also had men who took care of vineyards. He enjoyed farming.
Uzziah had an army of trained soldiers. They were put in groups by Jeiel the secretary and Maaseiah the officer. Hananiah was their leader --- one of the king’s officers. Jeiel and Maaseiah numbered the soldiers and put them into groups. There were 2600 leaders over the soldiers. These family leaders were in charge of an army of 307,500 men who fought with great power. Uzziah gave the army shields, spears, helmets, armor, bows, and stones for the slings. In Jerusalem, Uzziah made machines that were invented by clever men. These machines were put on the towers and corner walls. They shot arrows and large rocks. Uzziah became famous.
But when Uzziah became strong, his pride caused him to be destroyed. He was not faithful to the Lord his God. He went into the Lord’s Temple to burn incense on the altar for burning incense. Azariah the priest and 80 brave priests who served the Lord followed Uzziah into the Temple. They told Uzziah he was wrong, that it was not his job to burn incense to the Lord. That is for the priests, Aaron’s descendants, to do.
Uzziah was angry. He had a bowl in his hand for burning incense. While Uzziah was very angry with the priests, a leprosy broke out on his forehead. This happened in front of the priests in the Lord’s Temple by the altar for burning incense. Azariah the leading priest and all the priests looked at Uzziah. They could see the leprosy on his forehead. The priests quickly forced him out from the Temple. Uzziah himself hurried out because the Lord had punished him. So Uzziah the king was a leper. He could not enter the Lord’s Temple. His son Jotham controlled the king’s palace and became governor for the people. Everything else Uzziah did was recorded by the prophet Isaiah son of Amoz. Uzziah died and was buried near his ancestors in the field near the king’s burial places. This was because the people said, “Uzziah has leprosy.” Uzziah’s son Jotham became the new king.
Young's Literal Translation (YLT)
1 And all the people of Judah take Uzziah (and he [is] a son of sixteen years), and cause him to reign instead of his father Amaziah.
2 He hath built Eloth, and restoreth it to Judah after the king's lying with his fathers.
3 A son of sixteen years [is] Uzziah in his reigning, and fifty and two years he hath reigned in Jerusalem, and the name of his mother [is] Jecholiah of Jerusalem.
4 And he doth that which is right in the eyes of Jehovah, according to all that Amaziah his father did,
5 and he is as one seeking God in the days of Zechariah who hath understanding in visions of God: and in the days of his seeking Jehovah, God hath caused him to prosper.
6 And he goeth forth, and fighteth with the Philistines, and breaketh down the wall of Gath, and the wall of Jabneh, and the wall of Ashdod, and buildeth cities about Ashdod, and among the Philistines.
7 And God helpeth him against the Philistines, and against the Arabians who are dwelling in Gur-Baal and the Mehunim.
8 And the Ammonites give a present to Uzziah, and his name goeth unto the entering in of Egypt, for he strengthened himself greatly.
9 And Uzziah buildeth towers in Jerusalem, by the gate of the corner, and by the gate of the valley, and by the angle, and strengtheneth them;
10 and he buildeth towers in the wilderness, and diggeth many wells, for he had much cattle, both in the low country and in the plain, husbandmen and vine-dressers in the mountains, and in Carmel; for he was a lover of the ground.
11 And Uzziah hath a force, making war, going forth to the host, by troops, in the number of their reckoning by the hand of Jeiel the scribe and Masseiah the officer, by the hand of Hananiah [one] of the heads of the king.
12 The whole number of heads of the fathers of the mighty ones of valour [is] two thousand and six hundred;
13 and by their hand [is] the force of the host, three hundred thousand, and seven thousand, and five hundred warriors, with mighty power to give help to the king against the enemy.
14 And Uzziah prepareth for them, for all the host, shields, and spears, and helmets, and coats of mail, and bows, even to stones of the slings.
15 And he maketh in Jerusalem inventions -- a device of an inventor -- to be on the towers, and on the corners, to shoot with arrows and with great stones, and his name goeth out unto a distance, for he hath been wonderfully helped till that he hath been strong.
16 And at his being strong his heart hath been high unto destruction, and he trespasseth against Jehovah his God, and goeth in unto the temple of Jehovah to make perfume upon the altar of perfume.
17 And Azariah the priest goeth in after him, and with him priests of Jehovah eighty, sons of valour,
18 and they stand up against Uzziah the king, and say to him, `Not for thee, O Uzziah, to make perfume to Jehovah, but for priests, sons of Aaron, who are sanctified to make perfume; go forth from the sanctuary, for thou hast trespassed, and [it is] not to thee for honour from Jehovah God.'
19 And Uzziah is wroth, and in his hand [is] a censer to make perfume, and in his being wroth with the priests -- the leprosy hath risen in his forehead, before the priests, in the house of Jehovah, from beside the altar of perfume.
20 And Azariah the head priest looketh unto him, and all the priests, and lo, he [is] leprous in his forehead, and they hasten him thence, and also he himself hath hastened to go out, for Jehovah hath plagued him.
21 And Uzziah the king is a leper unto the day of his death, and inhabiteth a separate house -- a leper, for he hath been cut off from the house of Jehovah, and Jotham his son [is] over the house of the king, judging the people of the land.
22 And the rest of the matters of Uzziah, the first and the last, hath Isaiah son of Amoz the prophet written;
23 and Uzziah lieth with his fathers, and they bury him with his fathers, in the field of the burying-place that the kings have, for they said, `He [is] a leper;' and reign doth Jotham his son in his stead.
LittleNipper wrote: point is that if God created through the survival of the fittest, then that means that death and destruction were already the "norm" ---- Adam's Fall didn't originate death and destruction and Jesus would not know what He was talking about. The Bible could not be trusted, Jesus could not be believed, and God becomes petty.
Biblically speaking Adams fall introduced death to the human family. That is what the Bible reports. There could have been all sorts of death of other creature who are not descendents of Adam if one reads what the Bible says instead of reading your own imagination into it.
It is not all bad to apply some imagination to fill out the story beyond what it say as you are doing but I think it ill advised to demand God jump through the hoops you set up for God. If God choose to have thousand of centuries of animals living and dying before Adam that is his business. The Bible does not say that did not happen. The Bible does not say that that did happened. Dinosaurs are simple not discussed in Genesis.
Faith in Jesus is much to important to me to allow your conclusion that God becomes petty.(based upon its failure to give a complete accounting of natural history.)