The earth is 13,000 years old and it is soon to be renewed when Christ comes

[SoyLeche]

Okay true, she knew she would be cast out of the Garden, but I don't think she knew how bad it would be outside the Garden in a mortal world, she herself then becoming mortal, being subject to affects of sin and death... \

She and Adam had a limited view/knowledge of what the consequences of transgressing the laws of God would be, just as we cannot comprehend the pains of hell, so we risk sinning to a certain degree, thinking ah maybe it's not that bad....

That's all I'm saying....

I've done enough endowments over the years to know Adam and Eve's understanding of the consequences, but I don't think they really knew the full consequenses until they experienced them...

And none of that means they jumped at the first chance they had to transgress.

 

[FFH]

And none of that means they jumped at the first chance they had to transgress.

We need to take into consideration that things happen faster when in the presence of the Lord, which Adam and Eve were.

In "one day" with the Lord, a lot can happen...

People who have had near death experiences tell of the accelerated pace of learning in which volumes upon volumes of information can be absorbed in minutes and seconds, which would take years on earth, if not a lifetime...

 

[SoyLeche]

We need to take into consideration that things happen faster when in the presence of the Lord, which Adam and Eve were.

In "one day" with the Lord, a lot can happen...

People who have had near death experiences tell of the accelerated pace of learning in which volumes upon volumes of information can be absorbed in minutes and seconds, which would take years on earth, if not a lifetime...

You just won't stop trying to justify what you have chosen to believe, will you?

 

[FFH]

You just won't stop trying to justify what you have chosen to believe, will you?

It's just a theory and this is just a forum...what else is there to do ??

Just sharing thoughts on this subject...

Okay LDS and many other Christian denominations share a view that the 7 days of creation were an unspecified amount of time, yet Abraham 3 says otherwise and that there is a time appointed to this earth that is in direct relation to the Lord's time...

I don't see Hugh addressing this issue in the portion of the article you just posted, he seems to conveniently skip over that, accept for the D&C scripture he referred to.

 

[SoyLeche]

It's just a theory and this is just a forum...what else is there to do ??

Just sharing thoughts on this subject...

Okay LDS and many other Christian denominations share a view that the 7 days of creation were an unspecified amount of time, yet Abraham 3 says otherwise and that there is a time appointed to this earth that is in direct relation to the Lord's time...

I don't see Hugh addressing this issue in the portion of the article you just posted, he seems to conveniently skip over that, accept for the D&C scripture he referred to.

Read the whole article.

And he does address it - by the way.

 

[FFH]

Doctrine and Covenants 130:4–5 explains that "the reckoning of God's time, angel's time, prophet's time, and man's time [is] according to the planet on which they reside." That implies different time schemes at least. In moving from one system to another one also changes one's timing. (FFH's thinks to himself, "of couse") "There are no angels who minister to this earth but those who do belong or have belonged to it. (FFH's thoughts: what does this have to do with his train of thought, absolutely nothing, not to mention he conveniently omitted the answer to the subject of the reckoning of the Lord's time, clearly written in this verse) (D&C 130:5.)

Again Hugh omits the direct answer given to Joseph Smith by the Lord concerning the reckoning of the Lord's time...

Let me repost the scripture in it's entirety, Hugh's omitted part in red.

Doctrine and Covenatns 130

4 In answer to the question—Is not the reckoning of God’s time, angel’s time, prophet’s time, and man’s time, according to the planet on which they reside?

5 I answer, Yes. (the rest of this verse is dealing with a different subject altogether, so no need to post it, but Hugh did, which distracts from the original question) But there are no angels who minister to this earth but those who do belong or have belonged to it.

 

[SoyLeche]

Again Hugh, misleadingly, omits the direct answer given to Josaph Smith by the Lord concerning the reckoning of the Lord's time...

Let me repost the scripture in it's entirety, the Hugh's omitted part in red.

Doctrine and Covenatns 130

4 In answer to the question—Is not the reckoning of God’s time, angel’s time, prophet’s time, and man’s time, according to the planet on which they reside?

5 I answer, Yes. (the rest of this verse is dealing with a different subject altogether, so no need to post it, but Hugh did, which is typical of someone trying to mislead away from the direct answer given by the Lord) But there are no angels who minister to this earth but those who do belong or have belonged to it.

He didn't omit any answer. He said that the statement is true. That doesn't mean that there is a proportional relationship though.

 

[DeepShadow]

It's just a theory and this is just a forum...what else is there to do ??

I can't believe this! There's a lot else to do! Starting with having discussions based on logic (if you lean that way) or testimonies based on feelings (if you lean that way). This 'debate' thread does neither. It asserts scientific proof that falls short of falsifiability--and is therefore unscientific--and then, when people point out the logical weakness of that position, switches to a scriptural backing that amounts to personal revelation rather than scripture.

Just sharing thoughts on this subject...

No, sharing thoughts takes place in the discussion areas. This is a debate thread. You've been here long enough to figure that out.

there is a time appointed to this earth that is in direct relation to the Lord's time...

Confirmation bias...again.

So, comes the dawn, this entire debate was just you killing time?

I'm done, folks. :run: FFH, thanks for the heads up. I'll be sure to stay out of any further threads that appear to be you killing time...which would appear to be all of them.

 

[FFH]

He didn't omit any answer. He said that the statement is true.
That doesn't mean that there is a proportional relationship though.

"Time only is measured unto man"

I believe the Lord was saying here in Alma 40: 8 that I personally don't measure time, but if one were to measure it, here's how It would be measured...and thereby we can know the approximate age of the earth, according to how our time is measured compared to the Lord's...

We measure time, according to the earth's revolutions, which the Lord says is 365,250 to 1, with respect to his planet/sphere of existence...meaning the Lord's planet spins 365,250 times slower than ours. Again refer to Abraham 3

To summarize:

This earth's life span can be measured.

According to the reckoning of the Lord's time, as compared to ours, we can know creation lasted 6,000 years, as we measure time with respect to the Lord's, with 1,000 years of rest, with Eve also being created during this period of rest and the fall happening, possibly and most likely during this period as well....

Because of the pattern set forth in scripture, it appears that we are in the second week or second 7,000 year period...being approximately the year 6,000, since the fall, and we are near or already in the 1,000 year period of rest..

I mean seriously we are in a day and age when a minimal amount of work done can sustain life..

Machines of all kinds do most of our grunt work now...

 

[SoyLeche]

"Time only is measured unto man"

I believe the Lord was saying here in Alma 40: 8 that I personally don't measure time, but if one were to measure it, here's how It would be measured...and thereby we can know the approximate age of the earth, according to how our time is measured compared to the Lord's...

We measure time, according to the earth's revolutions, which the Lord says is 1,000 to 1, with respect to his planet/sphere of existence...meaning the Lord's planet spins 1,000 times faster than ours. Again refer to Abraham 3

To summarize:

This earth's life span can be measured.

According to the reckoning of the Lord's time, as compared to ours, we can know creation lasted 6,000 years, as we measure time with respect to the Lord's, with 1,000 years of rest, with Eve also being created during this period of rest and the fall happening, possibly and most likely during this period as well....

Because of the pattern set forth in scripture, it appears that we are in the second week or second 7,000 year period...being approximately the year 6,000, since the fall, and we are near or already in the 1,000 year period of rest..

I mean seriously we are in a day and age when a minimal amount of work done can sustain life..

Machines of all kinds do most of our grunt work now...

Besides getting your math wrong (it wouldn't spin faster to have a longer day) - you continue to ignore the evidence offered in one of the scriptures you, yourself, have presented. Psalms 90:4 compares both "yesterday" and "a watch in the night" to 1000 years. It cannot be both if we are merely applying a factor - and it is probably neither given that it is figurative anyway.

I'm done with this thread too, BTW.

 

[FFH]

We measure time, according to the earth's revolutions, which the Lord says is 365,250 to 1, with respect to his planet/sphere of existence...meaning the Lord's planet spins 365,250 times slower than ours, or 1 revolution on the Lord's planet, and Kolob, would equal 365,250 revolutions on ours. Abraham 3

There ya go Soy...

you continue to ignore the evidence offered in one of the scriptures you, yourself, have presented. Psalms 90:4 compares both "yesterday" and "a watch in the night" to 1000 years. It cannot be both if we are merely applying a factor - and it is probably neither given that it is figurative anyway.

If you add yesterday and a watch in the night you come up with a full 24 hours.

It's a simple coded meassage, Soy. hehe

 

[FFH]

So basically the Lord is saying in Abraham 3, Kolob is "nigh unto me" and it spins one time for every 365,250 times the earth does, or one day on Kolob, which is closest to the Lord, equals 1,000 years on earth.

This seems pretty precise to me, no "like" "as" or "watch in the nights" here...

 

[FFH]

Psalms 90

4 For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night.

Simple coded message..

 

[SoyLeche]

Psalms 90

4 For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night.

Simple coded message..

I found another: And sin yes nit stand chin then. It all makes sense now

 

[FFH]

Here's a clue as to a possible age of our universe or possibly more specifically our galaxy.

If one day with God equals 1,000 years in our time, then one year with God equals 365,250 years in our time.

Is our universe or galaxy 365,250 years old, or at least, less than a million years old ??

Doctrine and Covenants 88
LDS scripture

42 And again, verily I say unto you, he hath given a law unto all things, by which they move in their times and their seasons;

43 And their courses are fixed, even the courses of the heavens and the earth, which comprehend the earth and all the planets.

44 And they give light to each other in their times and in their seasons, in their minutes, in their hours, in their days, in their weeks, in their months, in their years—all these are one year with God, but not with man.

45 The earth rolls upon her wings, and the sun giveth his light by day, and the moon giveth her light by night, and the stars also give their light, as they roll upon their wings in their glory, in the midst of the power of God.

46 Unto what shall I liken these kingdoms, that ye may understand?

47 Behold, all these are kingdoms, and any man who hath seen any or the least of these hath seen God moving in his majesty and power.

48 I say unto you, he hath seen him; nevertheless, he who came unto his own was not comprehended.

 

[FFH]

Psalms 90

4 For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night.

If there was an or in place of the and then I would think that this scripture was referring to eitheryesterday ora watch in the night...but since there is an and then you need to add them both together..

Yesterday and watch in the night.

So go back and read it in that context....

The other explanation is that David did not intend it to be a precise time ratio between God and man, just an imprecise example of the ratio...

 

[FFH]

Time also is not reckoned in absolutes but is limited to Abraham's system; "the reckoning of the Lord's time" is not reckoned absolutely but "according to the reckoning of Kolob"—an in-between element to gear Abraham's time to a larger but not necessarily the largest system. There is also reckoning by sun and moon, relative to "the earth upon which thou standest." (Abraham 3:4–5.)

Okay Soy, he has totally twisted this scripture, whch clearly states that Kolob is after the manner of the Lord's reckoning of time... What part of this does Hugh not understand, or is he just twisting this scripture to fit his beliefs? We all do this to a certain extent. We read into scripture what we want to read, in order to fit our particular beliefs...

Abraham 3:4

And the Lord said unto me, by the Urim and Thummim, that Kolob was after the manner of the Lord, according to its times and seasons in the revolutions thereof; that one revolution was a day unto the Lord, after his manner of reckoning, it being one thousand years according to the time appointed unto that whereon thou standest. This is the reckoning of the Lord’s time, according to the reckoning of Kolob

How can Hugh misinterprete that. It's written as plain as day...

Like I said before, one can get so bogged down with true and false facts and figures, that one loses sight of the overall picture...

The geography of the Book of Mormon comes to mind. I see so many so-called scholars try to map out the geography of the Book of Mormon confining it to one small mapped out area, when in actuality the geography of the Book of Mormon spans throughout North and South America...

 

[FFH]

It's just a theory and this is just a forum...what else is there to do ??

Just sharing thoughts on this subject...

Actually I shouldn't have trivialized my beliefs to this degree. The theory that the earth is just under two weeks old, or 13 days old, according to the Lord's time, and around 13,000 years old according to the way we measure time, is something that hit me like a ton of bricks while thumbing through, what seemed like a hundred pictures, given to us as LDS missionaries, while in the MTC (Missionary Training Center). I was at a point, on my mission, in Fuji City, Japan at the time, in which I wanted to thumb through these pictures and put together a few of them, no more than 20, to go along with the Japanese discussions we had with those investigating the church (LDS faith)...

One picture stood out, which was a timeline of Bible history, which spoke to my heart and mind loud and clear, that the Lord had designed this earth's time frame, precisely, and with a purpose in mind...

The Lord does not do things randomly.

All things he has done, and will do, are in perfect order, and follow a specific plan and a purpose...

As I have said in the beginning post the pattern is clear...

I was raised on the false notion that the earth is millions if not billions of years old...

I'm from the Carl Sagan era so anything brought up here to refute the earth being more than a few thousand years old is just old school science to me...

Sorry no offense, it just bores me, especially because I believe the theory, that the earth is old, to be utterly false...

 

[FFH]

Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed tuning into Carl Sagan's PBS series entitled "Cosmos: A Personal Voyage," as many of us did.

He seemed to popularize planetary science and the notion that the universe is millions if not billions of years old.

Couresy of Wiki

Carl Sagan was an avid user of marijuana, although he never admitted this publicly during his life.

Under the pseudonym "Mr. X", he wrote an essay concerning cannabis smoking in the 1971 book Marihuana Reconsidered, whose editor was Lester Grinspoon.[7]

In his essay, Sagan commented that marijuana encouraged some of his works and enhanced experiences. After Sagan's death, Grinspoon disclosed this to Sagan's biographer, Keay Davidson. When the biography, entitled Carl Sagan: A Life, was published in 1999, the marijuana exposure stirred some media attention.[8][9][10]

Were Carl Sagan's theories of an old earth based on hard facts or just speculation ???

Did his religious background, or lack thereof, pursuade him to believe the earth and our universe to be millions, if not billions, of years old ???


"We make our world significant by the courage of our questions and by the depth of our answers." —Carl Sagan

Born
November 9, 1934
Brooklyn, New York

Died
December 20, 1996
Seattle, Washington

Residence
USA

Nationality
American

Field
Astronomy and planetary science

Institution
Cornell University
Harvard University

Alma mater
University of Chicago

Known for
Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence (SETI)
Cosmos: A Personal Voyage
Voyager Golden Record
Pioneer plaque
Contact

Notable prizes
Oersted Medal (1990)
NASA Distinguished Public Service Medal (twice)
Pulitzer Prize for General Non-Fiction (1978)

Religion
Agnostic/Atheist

 

[painted wolf]

Carl Sagan was an avid user of marijuana,

so what?
At least he actually earned a scientific degree from a reputable source. He didn't buy it or just give it to himself.
Thus the problems with adhominim attacks.

You also run into a problem using scripture as scientific evidence. Scripture makes for nice mythology but it doesn't stand up as evidence in a scientific discussion.

Thus far all your scientific evidence is severely flawed at best, misrepresentation at worst.

I find it intresting that you will place so much faith in men who are willing to lie about their qualifications but then discount an honest man for his, frankly unrelated, addiction.

wa:do