FFH
Veteran Member
Yes...So you believe in the symbol of a two winged angel that the two wings represent the ability of an angel to travel to and fro?
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Yes...So you believe in the symbol of a two winged angel that the two wings represent the ability of an angel to travel to and fro?
Wow, an insult, that the best ya got ???You are in my thoughts, FFH. I hope you get better soon.
Wait a minute. Stars were created only 12,000 years ago and yet we can see stars billions of light years away? How do you figure this?First 1,000 year period of creation starts 11,000 BC/13,000 years ago
Earth was without form and void
Water was upon the whole face of the earth
Light created
Second 1,000 year period starts 10,000 BC/12,000 years ago
Firmament/heavens/skies created
Waters divided between earth and the firmament/heavens/skies
Yes...
Wait a minute. Stars were created only 12,000 years ago and yet we can see stars billions of light years away? How do you figure this?
Good point...Wait a minute. Stars were created only 12,000 years ago and yet we can see stars billions of light years away? How do you figure this?
Holy crap, you actually believe this? Frankly I am at a loss for words. Just please do not tell others that all Mormons believe as you.Good point...
Besides the sun, in our universe, stars are distant planets, reflecting the sun's light.
According to the Pearl of Great Price (LDS scripture) a star is a planet, not a sun giving off light.
The moon reflects the sun's light and from a distance it would look like a star, as we see Jupiter and the other planets appear as, with the naked eye, dead planets, reflecting the sun's light.
According to Genesis, the "firmaments" were created on the second day, which would include the sun, moon and stars.
Why should we assume the stars we can see with the naked eye are more than just a distant moon, for example, or a distant planet like jupiter or mars, etc., with the sun's light reflecting off them and hitting the earth in a shorter time than we have been fraudulently led to believe.
Admit yourselves into mental institutions, I'm more sane than anyone you'll ever meet.
Angels are people, not birds, the wings are just symbols of who they are.So the fact that scripture states that cherubs have 4 wings and seraphim have 6 doesn't matter to you? The fact that the only two winged anything that is a part of any belief is of the pagan beliefs and not that which was promulgated to Moshe’ by Yah through one of the cherubs. Just wondering.
Admit yourselves into mental institutions, I'm more sane than anyone you'll ever meet.
Stars are planets, the Lord uses those terms interchangeably, it's all there in the Pearl of Great Price, read it.Holy crap, you actually believe this? Frankly I am at a loss for words. Just please do not tell others that all Mormons believe as you.
Do you understand the concept of parallax?Why should we assume the stars we can see with the naked eye are more than just a distant moon, for example, or a distant planet like jupiter or mars, etc., with the sun's light reflecting off them and hitting the earth in a shorter time than we have been fraudulently led to believe.
Have you heard of the Pearl of Great PriceDo you understand the concept of parallax?
By that same reasoning then, there doesn't need to be a witness, or witnesses, to prove God's existance as fact either, even though we do have witnesses of God's existance, but scientists to do not have witnesses that the earth is millions or billions of years old, not even one written record, but we do have written records of many men who have seen God, including Joseph Smith.
Yes, it would be theory, as that's how science works. We're going by the established definition, not but what some random anonymous dumdum says on the internet.Then it would no longer be a theory, but fact or proof of an "X" year old earth, but since we have no witness, all theories of a million or billion year old earth are just that, theories.
So your book trumps basic geometry too?
Doesn't take millions of years to erode sandstone.
I'm not disputing the age of the stars, only the age of the earth. One has nothing to do with the other. The age of the stars does not determine/prove the age of the earth.
Fossils are no more proof of the age of the earth than a rock.
You still haven't given me any proof that the age of the earth is more than 13,000 years old.
Try again.
Ah, yeah, great point, so trees did survive the flood. So maybe I'll add that 9550 year old tree to my list.
If I am to accept the Genesis account, that the earth was created along with the firmament (sun moon and stars in the heavens), which I happen to believe happened no more than 13,000 years ago, according to the time line I've clearly laid out,...then I should accept that the stars (dead planets) were also created no more than 13,000 years ago, since that is part of the creation account in Genesis....you actually believe this? Frankly I am at a loss for words. Just please do not tell others that all Mormons believe as you.
Trees did survive the flood because there never was a flood to begin with. Otherwise there would've been obvious geological evidence. There isn't enough water on the planet to cover the entire surface. Plus there would've been mass extinction due to the lack of genetic diversity due to inbreeding. Not to mention it's impossible to fit two of each of the millions upon millions of different animal species along with enough food for all of them to sustain them for 40 days onto a single boat. Even a child is smart enough to understand why that silly fable shouldn't be taken as literal, historical fact. Any historian will tell you that the whole thing was blatantly ripped off from an older Sumerian flood fable. To to mention the Chinese were recording their own history during this period, and interestingly enough they made no mention of a global flood.
Stars are planets, the Lord uses those terms interchangeably, it's all there in the Pearl of Great Price, read it.
There is life on other planets/stars, not all though of course, I'm not that idiotic. According to the Pearl of Great Price, there is an order of planets/stars, until you come to Kolob, the highest planet, governing all the others, just below the planet or place where God lives/dwells.
It's not wacked out, it's scripture, stuff we get harassed for all the time.
I'm merely mirroring what you're doing to me, which is you're giving me a link and then giving me no thoughts of your own.So your book trumps basic geometry too?