zeezrom wrote:Holy Cow. People go through a ton of work simply to make the Bible seem true. They would rather suggest the speed of light changed and many other physical laws changed than consider the possibility that some guy made up a story, which later on became holy. It amazes me.
Why do people want so badly for it to be true?
A friend recently told me that he needs to stay Mormon because it is comfortable. Is that why people need it to be true?
ZEEZ, get thee to the Apocalrock. I will fix us some scones with honey butter. Or I know of a handy café that will. The Bible is true because God PRE-FIGURED it in stone for all the world to be convinced of the salvation of their God. It is the least he could do to manifest this before he burns all the proud as stubble that the earth may rest for a season from all the wickedness that denies the Creator of her. (the earth)
The Lord makes bare his holy arm in the eyes of all nations. See Isaiah 52:10
D&C 90: 10 10 And then cometh the day when the arm of the Lord shall be revealed in power in convincing the nations, the heathen nations, the house of Joseph, of the gospel of their salvation.
Makes me wonder what the "in power" is going to be. In The Apocalrock the arm of the Lord is conquering both death and hell. It is his holy arm, the arm that atoned for our sins. As blood came of every pore, (from the arm alone, not the entire body.) You can see the blood figured in the trees on The Apocalrock. D&C 29:1 1. Listen to the voice of Jesus Christ, your Redeemer, the Great I am, whose arm of mercy hath atoned for your sins;
Runtu wrote:If the Flood really was global, I have a couple of questions: ...
After the Ohio, Tennessee, Missouri and Mississippi river systems overflowed in a big way and Noah of Missouri had processed all ticket holding animals, he set sail till the waters subsided and then dropped each pair of animals off on the continents and islands with the ecosystem best suited for their survival. Once on the beach, the Koalas had to make a mad dash for the eucalyptus trees.
Look to the lower left section of the Apocalrock for more details.
Runtu wrote:If the Flood really was global, I have a couple of questions: ...
After the Ohio, Tennessee, Missouri and Mississippi river systems overflowed in a big way and Noah of Missouri had processed all ticket holding animals, he set sail till the waters subsided and then dropped each pair of animals off on the continents and islands with the ecosystem best suited for their survival. Once on the beach, the Koalas had to make a mad dash for the eucalyptus trees.
Look to the lower left section of the Apocalrock for more details.
Moksha Heavens to Antarctica a little less krill for you. You'll bust right out of your own avatar.
by the way. the biblical record indicates that Noah's flood was so violent that it changed earth's axis, thereby requiring that we use a different calendar.
Hoops wrote:by the way. the biblical record indicates that Noah's flood was so violent that it changed earth's axis, thereby requiring that we use a different calendar.
Just another thought to ponder.
Hoops what is the reference in the Bible that indicates this?
Would you expect that such an event would leave physical evidence that it happened and if so is there any?
"Any over-ritualized religion since the dawn of time can make its priests say yes, we know, it is rotten, and hard luck, but just do as we say, keep at the ritual, stick it out, give us your money and you'll end up with the angels in heaven for evermore."
Hoops wrote:by the way. the biblical record indicates that Noah's flood was so violent that it changed earth's axis, thereby requiring that we use a different calendar.
Just another thought to ponder.
Hoops what is the reference in the Bible that indicates this?
Would you expect that such an event would leave physical evidence that it happened and if so is there any?
I'll work on the reference. As I wrote early in this thread, I'm away and don't have my stuff with me. But might be able to find it.
Some would argue that the evidence is all around you. What kind of evidence do you want?
Hoops wrote:I'll work on the reference. As I wrote early in this thread, I'm away and don't have my stuff with me. But might be able to find it.
Some would argue that the evidence is all around you. What kind of evidence do you want?
I am not a scientist but I believe that a change in the axis of the earth would leave a lot physical evidence that would indicate such a change at a specific time. Assuming you believe the flood happened in a specific time period there should be this type of physical evidence to corroborate the change at the time of the flood.
Is there any that you know of?
"Any over-ritualized religion since the dawn of time can make its priests say yes, we know, it is rotten, and hard luck, but just do as we say, keep at the ritual, stick it out, give us your money and you'll end up with the angels in heaven for evermore."
Fence Sitter wrote: I am not a scientist but I believe that a change in the axis of the earth would leave a lot physical evidence that would indicate such a change at a specific time. Assuming you believe the flood happened in a specific time period there should be this type of physical evidence to corroborate the change at the time of the flood.
Is there any that you know of?
I am interested in this, too, as I know of no physical evidence for a massive, abrupt shift of the earth's axis. If the axis had shifted, the polarity would have, as well, and this would be reflected in the direction of magnetized crystals in the continental plates. That such evidence is not there is a good sign it probably didn't happen. But I'm open to new information, as always.
What there is evidence for is the fairly regular shift of magnetic polarity between the two poles. The geological record is pretty clear that the shifts have taken place over a long period of time, just one more confirmation that the earth really is very old.
Fence Sitter wrote: I am not a scientist but I believe that a change in the axis of the earth would leave a lot physical evidence that would indicate such a change at a specific time. Assuming you believe the flood happened in a specific time period there should be this type of physical evidence to corroborate the change at the time of the flood.
Is there any that you know of?
I am interested in this, too, as I know of no physical evidence for a massive, abrupt shift of the earth's axis. If the axis had shifted, the polarity would have, as well, and this would be reflected in the direction of magnetized crystals in the continental plates. That such evidence is not there is a good sign it probably didn't happen. But I'm open to new information, as always.
What there is evidence for is the fairly regular shift of magnetic polarity between the two poles. The geological record is pretty clear that the shifts have taken place over a long period of time, just one more confirmation that the earth really is very old.
I am not aware of any evidence of a sudden change, but the axis does vary between about 22-24 degrees over long periods of time. The polarity also moves over time, and north and south poles will disappear and reverse. These reversals have also been used to help date sea floors and using measurements of current continental drift match up fairly well for dating when continents began their separation from other continents.
