Age of The Bible

[WillowTheWhisp]

We also need to be careful about discussing things which are unscriptural.

[Snow]

So are you saying that what we are taught in the Temple is untrue?

Do you have a legitimate question to ask or are you going to stick with that one?

[Snow]

We also need to be careful about discussing things which are unscriptural.

That's a pretty silly idea.

That Einstein was a patent clerk is unscriptural. Why do you think we should exercise caution in discussing it?

[JohnnyRudick]

. . .You mean when the Bible describes a flat earth? Turns out the author the scriptures didn't understand the science very well, huh.

Oh, come on now.

We use the term today "the four cornersof the earth just as over 2000 years ago they used the term "circle of the Earth"

Could mean round.

Maybe not.

I am sure that the "experts say" that it in no way could.

Isaiah 40:22 It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the

earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that

stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out

as a tent to dwell in:

But I am sure that the "experts all agree" that they believed that the heavens was a big tent covering the "circle of the earth".

Right?

We make of it as we will just as some in 2000 years from now no doubt say we thought the Earth was square.

Oh, encase you lost track?

I write so erratic. (four corners)

Bro. Rudick

[Jamie123]

That's a pretty silly idea.

That Einstein was a patent clerk is unscriptural. Why do you think we should exercise caution in discussing it?

I think Willo meant we should be careful not to discuss unscriptural things as though they were scriptural. (Which is easier trap to fall into than you might think.)

[JohnnyRudick]

1. I have never heard that Adam ate of a grape tree.

2. Grapes don't grow on trees.

You know much of the knowledge of man but you know little of the Scriptures.

I guess a whale is not a fish either.

Numbers 6:4 All the days of his separation shall he eat nothing

that is made of the vine tree, from the kernels even to the husk.

Bro. Rudick.

[JohnnyRudick]

May be true? Newsflash: People don't live on the sun.

I do't think so either and I cannot find any hint in the scriptures that say that they do.

Yet Brigham Young thought that maybe they do.

That they were of a finer more purer form of flesh then ours.

I do not believe so but who knows for sure.

I am still waiting for the Scripture.

As far as GA's being fooled or intimidated into making hasty statements, well. . .

And I am talking fairly recent. . .cost us a lot of money also.

There is a difference between Scripture and statements.

Nuff said on that subject there.

Bro. Rudick

[WillowTheWhisp]

I think Willo meant we should be careful not to discuss unscriptural things as though they were scriptural. (Which is easier trap to fall into than you might think.)

I think Snow realises that. Snow is far too intelligent not to realise that. However, it seems that when Snow doesn't have a legitimate valid argument to back up personal unscriptural opinions Snow resort to petty sarcasm instead such as:

Do you have a legitimate question to ask or are you going to stick with that one?

It was a perfectly legitimate question in response to a statement about having a testimony of the existence of pre-Adamic men. If the moderators will permit me I would like to validate my question regarding the Temple. If we are taught there about Adam and Eve being our first parents, being the first humans on earth, Eve being 'the mother of all living' then I think we are on very dangerous ground indeed by putting forth doctrine about pre-Adamic men.

[JohnnyRudick]

I think Snow realises that. Snow is far too intelligent not to realise that. However, it seems that when Snow doesn't have a legitimate valid argument to back up personal unscriptural opinions Snow resort to petty sarcasm instead such as:

It was a perfectly legitimate question in response to a statement about having a testimony of the existence of pre-Adamic men. If the moderators will permit me I would like to validate my question regarding the Temple. If we are taught there about Adam and Eve being our first parents, being the first humans on earth, Eve being 'the mother of all living' then I think we are on very dangerous ground indeed by putting forth doctrine about pre-Adamic men.

:)

[Snow]

I think Snow realises that. Snow is far too intelligent not to realise that. However, it seems that when Snow doesn't have a legitimate valid argument to back up personal unscriptural opinions Snow resort to petty sarcasm instead such as:

Wrong - your concern about being "unscriptural" could mean three very different things. It could mean:

1. Things that are correct but are not discussed in scripture.

2. Things that are contrary to scripture.

3. As Jamie suggested - holding something up as scriptural when in fact it is not found in the scriptures.

Unscriptural is not a word found in most dictionaries - I found it, without definition in the unabridged Websters dictionary but all it says is that the prefix "un" is a singular negation of the word that it proceeds. I have no way of know what you meant the word to convey.

I challenge you to demonstrate your claim that I have no valid argument - which I know you can't and won't do but you can refer to my post where I demonstrated that my position re evolution is congruent with the Church's position.

It was a perfectly legitimate question in response to a statement about having a testimony of the existence of pre-Adamic men. If the moderators will permit me I would like to validate my question regarding the Temple. If we are taught there about Adam and Eve being our first parents, being the first humans on earth, Eve being 'the mother of all living' then I think we are on very dangerous ground indeed by putting forth doctrine about pre-Adamic men.

Then how is it that my position is congruent with the Church's position and yet - you claim - contrary to temple teachings? Do you think that the Church (the Brethren) do not understand that temple teachings?

[Snow]

Oh, come on now.

We use the term today "the four cornersof the earth just as over 2000 years ago they used the term "circle of the Earth"

Could mean round.

Maybe not.

I am sure that the "experts say" that it in no way could.

The reason that we use the term "corners of the earth" is because it is an Old Testament term from the author of Isaiah. It may be that the author of Isaiah thought there were corners or it may have been used to denote extremities of the earth - although on a sphere, there technically aren't extremeties.

Isaiah 40:22 It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the

earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that

stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out

as a tent to dwell in:

But I am sure that the "experts all agree" that they believed that the heavens was a big tent covering the "circle of the earth".

Right?

We make of it as we will just as some in 2000 years from now no doubt say we thought the Earth was square.

Oh, encase you lost track?

I write so erratic. (four corners)

Bro. Rudick

I don't understand your point.

Most scholars believe that some of the OT authors understood the earth in flat terms placed on columns with the heavens draped above in a dome shape. The scholars may or may not be correct but believing that the Bible is a good source of scientific information is a relic of the pre-Enlightenment.

We know much better today.

[Snow]

You know much of the knowledge of man but you know little of the Scriptures.

I guess a whale is not a fish either.

Numbers 6:4 All the days of his separation shall he eat nothing

that is made of the vine tree, from the kernels even to the husk.

Bro. Rudick.

I acknowledge that although grapes grow on vines, not trees, it is possible to train grape vines to grow like a tree - but it is still not a tree, it is a vine.

However, you claimed that Adam ate of the grape tree. I challenged you and you posted a scripture that has nothing to do with Adam. Are you going to address your mistake or not?

You guess correctly - a whale is not a fish but I don't know what point you are driving at.

[Snow]

I do't think so either and I cannot find any hint in the scriptures that say that they do.

Yet Brigham Young thought that maybe they do.

That they were of a finer more purer form of flesh then ours.

I do not believe so but who knows for sure.

I am still waiting for the Scripture.

As far as GA's being fooled or intimidated into making hasty statements, well. . .

And I am talking fairly recent. . .cost us a lot of money also.

There is a difference between Scripture and statements.

Nuff said on that subject there.

Bro. Rudick

Oh for heaven's sake - give us a break. You don't know if man lives on the sun or not - your waiting on scripture????? REALLY????

How bout this:

Man needs food and water and oxygen to live. There is none on the sun.

Man can survive in tempatures up to one hundred degree give or take. The temperature on the sun is 7000 degrees.

Man needs gravity more or less at the pull of the earth's gravity. Gravity on the sun is about 28x that. The average person would weigh over 3000 pounds and would soon die of that alone.

You ought to take the Church's advice and leave science to the scientists.

[Snow]

JohnnyRudick,

Could you respond to the my post #46?

This was kind of a set-up. I knew you would say that and I also know what the Church has said on the matter of evolution. Mostly the Church avoids the topic and says of evolution, the age of the earth, the advent of the human species, etc, that it is non-essential for salvation and should be left to the sciences - that is, the Church instructs that such topics are not doctrinal and are to be left to the fields of "geology, biology, archaeology, and anthropology."

However, the Church has made a handful of official statements on the matter, some (one) has had a negative tone towards evolution but none have ruled it out. The Church did officially sponsor a pro-evolution or pre-adamic man tabernacle address involving the apostles BH Roberts and James Talmage.

The Church sponsored the pro-science address to balance out a talk that Elder Joseph Fielding Smith gave at a genealogical conference - note: in his talk, Elder JF Smith admitted that the belief that there were NOT pre-adamic men was NOT a doctrine of the Church and that God had not revealed the method of man's creation.

In a 1910 official Church publication the Church offered three possibilities for the origin of Adam: "1) evolution via a natural process as directed by the

power of God; 2) transplantation from another sphere; 3) birth in mortal-

ity by other mortals." [improvement Era, April 1910, 570. Although there was no author’s name attached to this statement, a number of scholars have suggested that Joseph F. Smith was responsible for the material since he and Edward H. Anderson were the editors]

You will note that your opinion of how Adam was created does not match any of the options enumerated by the Church.

[JohnnyRudick]

...I challenge you to demonstrate your claim that I have no valid argument - which I know you can't and won't do but you can refer to my post where I demonstrated that my position re evolution is congruent with the Church's position.

Then how is it that my position is congruent with the Church's position and yet - you claim - contrary to temple teachings? Do you think that the Church (the Brethren) do not understand that temple teachings?

That is quite a claim right there,

The church merely stated that it will not comment on it. (leaving science to science and all)

That is a loong way from "congruent" with the theory of evolution.

Anyway, the Statement by the Church on creation can be found in

Gen 1, 2&3,

Moses 1, 2,3&4,

Abraham 3,4&5,

2 Nephi 2:14 - 2 Nephi 2:27 (he assumes this part of the record to be true no reason to doubt that he believes the earlier part of the record to also be true.)

Jacob 4:9, Mosiah 2:25, Mormon 9:12&17, D&C 20:17-20, 29:33-42,

These scriptures and many others tell us that the story of Adam in the garden actually happened.

That it was Adam and Eve that were responsible for the fall of man.

It that is true how could there be other men living before Adam if Sin and Death came by Adam?

It is always assumed in Scripture that the creation story actually happened.

It may be that fallen angels may have taken possession of Earth before the Garden of Eden episode but God washed them out perhaps between Gen 1.1 and 1:2.

But that is just speculation on my part like the grape thing.

Anyway, my point is that your use of the word "congruent" is also speculation.

Bro. Rudick

[JohnnyRudick]

The reason that we use the term "corners of the earth" is because it is an Old Testament term from the author of Isaiah. It may be that the author of Isaiah thought there were corners or it may have been used to denote extremities of the earth - although on a sphere, there technically aren't extremeties.

I don't understand your point.

Most scholars believe that some of the OT authors understood the earth in flat terms placed on columns with the heavens draped above in a dome shape. The scholars may or may not be correct but believing that the Bible is a good source of scientific information is a relic of the pre-Enlightenment.

We know much better today.

Isaiah 40:22. . .

Exactly.

That is my point.

It could be that Isaiah actually believed along with Moses, Noah, Enoch, Seth, and others that the earth was round.

But you choose to go to the "Most scholars believe" institute.

It seems that every time something like this comes up you run to the bible correctors league to get the final word.

I would rather stick to the Scriptures except where the Scriptures are silent.

Bro. Rudick

l

[JohnnyRudick]

I acknowledge that although grapes grow on vines, not trees, it is possible to train grape vines to grow like a tree - but it is still not a tree, it is a vine.

However, you claimed that Adam ate of the grape tree. I challenged you and you posted a scripture that has nothing to do with Adam. Are you going to address your mistake or not?

You guess correctly - a whale is not a fish but I don't know what point you are driving at.

My point is no matter what you and your friends in the Bible Correctors League want to classify on their own ignoring the use of terms in the Scripture that is just their opinion.

The Scriptures call the vine even the bramble, a "tree" and call the "Whale" a "fish".

I still stick to the Scriptures and leave you to the "Most scholars believe" league.

Bro. Rudick

[JohnnyRudick]

Oh for heaven's sake - give us a break. You don't know if man lives on the sun or not - your waiting on scripture????? REALLY????

How bout this:

Man needs food and water and oxygen to live. There is none on the sun.

Man can survive in tempatures up to one hundred degree give or take. The temperature on the sun is 7000 degrees.

Man needs gravity more or less at the pull of the earth's gravity. Gravity on the sun is about 28x that. The average person would weigh over 3000 pounds and would soon die of that alone.

You ought to take the Church's advice and leave science to the scientists.

Exactly!!!

That is my point.

The GA, where they speak outside of scripture is pure speculative and may be helpful.

But you have to be very careful as they are human and subject to being deceived by cunning speculators.

Back to that comment you made.

I know you are smarter then that.

Perhaps you are playing with me.

it seems so at times.

If so, that's OK. I'll keep playing along for a while.

Bro. Rudick

[JohnnyRudick]

JohnnyRudick,

Could you respond to the my post #46?

I Have.

Bro. Rudick

[Snow]

That is quite a claim right there,

The church merely stated that it will not comment on it. (leaving science to science and all)

That is a loong way from "congruent" with the theory of evolution.

Do you recall when I thrice asked you to be honest in your posts with me?

I now ask a forth time.

We both know that what you said is not true. Specifically - the Church did not simple say that it would comment on evolution - it:

1. Said that such things should be left to the scientists

2. Sponsored a pro-evolution address (BH Roberts - Talmage - 2 of the Church's greatest and most influential theologians).

3. In an official Church publication, edited by Joseph Fielding Smith, gave three options on Adam's advent, or which evolution was one.

Moreover, Joseph Fielding Smith, no fan of evolution, said that God had not revealed the method of man's creation.

My position - that such matters as science and evolution belong to the purview of scientists, not dogmatic wishful thinking. The evidence from of the sciences of evolution is overwhelming.

Anyway, the Statement by the Church on creation can be found in

Gen 1, 2&3,

Moses 1, 2,3&4,

Abraham 3,4&5,

2 Nephi 2:14 - 2 Nephi 2:27 (he assumes this part of the record to be true no reason to doubt that he believes the earlier part of the record to also be true.)

Jacob 4:9, Mosiah 2:25, Mormon 9:12&17, D&C 20:17-20, 29:33-42,

These scriptures and many others tell us that the story of Adam in the garden actually happened.

That it was Adam and Eve that were responsible for the fall of man.

It that is true how could there be other men living before Adam if Sin and Death came by Adam?

Oh please - why even bother with this elementary stuff. It is not the scriptures I dispute - it is your uninformed interpretation of the scriptures that is at issue.

And by the way - why won't you address my post 46?

[Snow]

Isaiah 40:22. . .

Exactly.

That is my point.

It could be that Isaiah actually believed along with Moses, Noah, Enoch, Seth, and others that the earth was round.

But you choose to go to the "Most scholars believe" institute.

It seems that every time something like this comes up you run to the bible correctors league to get the final word.

I would rather stick to the Scriptures except where the Scriptures are silent.

Bro. Rudick

l

Better to turn to the most knowledgeable experts on a subject matter than the uneducated,

And... by the way, the scriptures are not silent. They describe a flat earth.

[Snow]

I Have.

Bro. Rudick

No - I am still waiting. What do you say about your version of how creation of man occurred contradicts the options that Church offered in it's article from the Improvement Era?

Could you also please offer some substantiation of your claim that Adam ate from a grape "tree?"

[JohnnyRudick]

No - I am still waiting. What do you say about your version of how creation of man occurred contradicts the options that Church offered in it's article from the Improvement Era?

Could you also please offer some substantiation of your claim that Adam ate from a grape "tree?"

I stated that the Grape thing was my speculation.

This speculation as well as my speculation on the knowledge of the early fathers (more then 2500 years ago and further back then that) of the science concerning the earth are also from studying the Scriptures.

The studies that gave me this conclusion you would not believe anyway as you seem to consider Scripture as only secondary to the opinions of man.

The fact that the Church sponsered a pro-evolution address is of interest to me but of a scholarly intrest only.

I am sure that this is the spirit of the presentation as far as I can tell.

The fact that BH Roberts, Talmage and Joseph Fielding Smith were intimidated into giving Evolution a nod is also of interest but only to add to my database for own use of all the inroads that Satan has tried to get his disinformation to the Saints.

I still notice that no new Revelation was given from the Lord as a result of these addresses concerning the subject other then that already given which leads me to believe that the Lord says for now, what He has already said on the subject is sufficient for us to try our faith in Him and what He has said.

Bro. Rudick

[Snow]

The studies that gave me this conclusion you would not believe anyway as you seem to consider Scripture as only secondary to the opinions of man.

Try as I might, I cannot get you to post honestly - what is it with you anyway?

I don't consider scripture as secondary to man's opinion:

1. Scriptures are written by men - ergo, they are men's opinion too.

2. Where scriptures are silent - the specifics of creation and evolution, there is no conflict.

3. YOUR interpretation of scripture vs the overwhelming evidence for evolution is not much of a battle.

The fact that the Church sponsered a pro-evolution address is of interest to me but of a scholarly intrest only.

I am sure that this is the spirit of the presentation as far as I can tell.

The fact that BH Roberts, Talmage and Joseph Fielding Smith were intimidated into giving Evolution a nod is also of interest but only to add to my database for own use of all the inroads that Satan has tried to get his disinformation to the Saints.

Tsk, tsk, tsk - there's that honesty problem. Now you are making stuff up out of thin air.

Joseph Fielding Smith was intimidated into giving evolution a nod, he disbelieved evolution and gave it no nod. Roberts and Talmage, far from being intimidated, understood and appreciated science and solicited the opportunity to make a presentation

I still notice that no new Revelation was given from the Lord as a result of these addresses concerning the subject other then that already given which leads me to believe that the Lord says for now, what He has already said on the subject is sufficient for us to try our faith in Him and what He has said.

Bro. Rudick

Since God hasn't addressed the subject - you have nothing to base your dogma on, except superstition - in stark contrast to science. It doesn't bother me much when non-Mormons are so backwards but when one of our own is so blindly steeped in superstition, it is, frankly, disturbing, and sets a poor example for the rest of us.

[JohnnyRudick]

Try as I might, I cannot get you to post honestly - what is it with you anyway?

I don't consider scripture as secondary to man's opinion:

1. Scriptures are written by men - ergo, they are men's opinion too.

2. Where scriptures are silent - the specifics of creation and evolution, there is no conflict.

3. YOUR interpretation of scripture vs the overwhelming evidence for evolution is not much of a battle.

Tsk, tsk, tsk - there's that honesty problem. Now you are making stuff up out of thin air.

Joseph Fielding Smith was intimidated into giving evolution a nod, he disbelieved evolution and gave it no nod. Roberts and Talmage, far from being intimidated, understood and appreciated science and solicited the opportunity to make a presentation

Since God hasn't addressed the subject - you have nothing to base your dogma on, except superstition - in stark contrast to science. It doesn't bother me much when non-Mormons are so backwards but when one of our own is so blindly steeped in superstition, it is, frankly, disturbing, and sets a poor example for the rest of us.

I mentioned Joseph Fielding Smith only in context to the supposed association to the fiasco.

Weather He had his name on it or not if he opposed the Church promoting this speculation against the revealed words of God he should have spoken up (which in my humble opinion I will admit isn't worth a whole lot).

I suppose you will want to try to run me around one more time as to Gods revealed words on Creation. Right?

You have every right to believe the way you do.

My only problem with it is the same problem you have with my belief except that unbelievers look in and see those of us who do not even believe our own scriptures calling those who do believe them "those who rely on superstition".

They might think you believe our Scripture to be "superstition".

Bro. Rudick