Leaderboard

Blessings EVERYONE.. What a beautiful Sunday it is ...indeed,this is the day the Lord has made ,we shall rejoice & be glad in it!!!!!!! This bickering over how the descriptions of these creatures paint a picture in each of our minds actually hurts my heart.......for Spock,he envisions an elephant & a crocodile(or even considers it to be a metaphor)......for Shiloh & I ,we see prehistoric creatures......and whats the difference?As Argosy has already stated,we are not going to persuade one another to see what we see or believe what we believe but my beloved brothers,it is not something to bring any of us to the point of name calling "are you not man enough"....that statement brought me to tears.......the enemy is having a field day & we should all quickly recognize those fiery darts and show him who we are!!!!!We are Brothers & Sisters in Christ Jesus & no weapon formed against us shall prosper,in Jesus Mighty Name!!! I love you all,God bless us all ....shall we rejoice together & be glad in this,the Lords Day?Lets reason together,love one another & speak to one another as images of Christ,Who loves us dearly.......Glory to God in the Highest! With love,in Christ-Kwik

So often we project modern understanding and modern settings to times and places that neither apply. I have heard the pooh pooh arguments against this (surprisingly one of the arguments against the canopy theory is ICR {the Institute for Creation Research} ) the upper canopy / vapor canopy theory. If the earth was enveloped by a vapor canopy (the way Venus, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune are with gas canopies) then conditions here on earth would have been drastically different. The 900+ year longevity of people and animal for example. So dinosaurs could simply have been 900+ year old reptiles some of the species we have with us today though much smaller with much shorter life spans. Interesting every ancient culture has a dragon legend... a rose by any other name... The drastic change was the collapse of the canopy on earth (Noah's Flood) contributing some of the water to that flood along with burst subterranean vaults of water causing upthrusts of mountain ranges and continental splitting (if not hyper speed tectonic plate gliding) and ocean bottoms collapsing to modern depths.

Thank you for agreeing levitation in Isaiah is probably alluding to satan and not some sea creature. I didn't think you would concede that, but to your credit, you did, wisely I may add. Now, leviathan in Job is very descriptive and it says NOTHING of being a sea creature. Read it carefully here below. Isaiah's passage has nothing to do with Jobs leviathan. Shiloh, for you to see a dinosaur as leviathan is comical and I have never seen any older commentaries that agree with you. Maybe today's AiG commentaries do. First You can't possibly see an elephant as behemoth, and for some reason you can't see a crocodile in this passage. YOU SEE ONLY DINOSAURS. Is it possible this is referencing a crocodile or alligator? Fish hook does not infer sea Shiloh. 1“Can you pull in Leviathan with a fishhook or tie down its tongue with a rope? 2Can you put a cord through its nose or pierce its jaw with a hook? 3Will it keep begging you for mercy? Will it speak to you with gentle words? 4Will it make an agreement with you for you to take it as your slave for life? 5Can you make a pet of it like a bird or put it on a leash for the young women in your house? 6Will traders barter for it? Will they divide it up among the merchants? 7Can you fill its hide with harpoons or its head with fishing spears? 8If you lay a hand on it, you will remember the struggle and never do it again! 9Any hope of subduing it is false; the mere sight of it is overpowering. 10No one is fierce enough to rouse it. Who then is able to stand against me? 11Who has a claim against me that I must pay? Everything under heaven belongs to me. 12“I will not fail to speak of Leviathan’s limbs, its strength and its graceful form. 13Who can strip off its outer coat? Who can penetrate its double coat of armora ? 14Who dares open the doors of its mouth, ringed about with fearsome teeth? 15Its back hasb rows of shields tightly sealed together; 16each is so close to the next that no air can pass between. 17They are joined fast to one another; they cling together and cannot be parted. 18Its snorting throws out flashes of light; its eyes are like the rays of dawn. 19Flames stream from its mouth; sparks of fire shoot out. 20Smoke pours from its nostrils as from a boiling pot over burning reeds. 21Its breath sets coals ablaze, and flames dart from its mouth. 22Strength resides in its neck; dismay goes before it. 23The folds of its flesh are tightly joined; they are firm and immovable. 24Its chest is hard as rock, hard as a lower millstone. 25When it rises up, the mighty are terrified; they retreat before its thrashing. 26The sword that reaches it has no effect, nor does the spear or the dart or the javelin. 27Iron it treats like straw and bronze like rotten wood. 28Arrows do not make it flee; slingstones are like chaff to it. 29A club seems to it but a piece of straw; it laughs at the rattling of the lance. 30Its undersides are jagged potsherds, leaving a trail in the mud like a threshing sledge. 31It makes the depths churn like a boiling caldron and stirs up the sea like a pot of ointment. 32It leaves a glistening wake behind it; one would think the deep had white hair. 33Nothing on earth is its equal— a creature without fear. 34It looks down on all that are haughty;

Whilst secular cosmologists like to romanticise our observations of the universe as “looking back in time”, the scientific reality is that we only actually, directly observe are photons of light as they are captured or viewed from Earth on their journey through space. The history of the universe is thereby modelled based on assumptions (logical extrapolations) about the unobserved history of those photons. All models of the universe (including the secular Standard Cosmology model) are therefore necessarily formulated around layers of hypotheticals. For example; the original Big Bang theory was a mathematical reversal of our observations of an expanding universe. But the original mathematical model didn’t fit subsequent observations of uniform cosmic background radiation. So the model was changed to include Inflation; a proposal that the initial Big Bang was contained to a small area followed by a massively rapid expansion, and subsequent slowing down, of the universe (without any proposed cause for either expansion or slowing or any direct observation of the event – but fits the math and is therefore now part of the model). Then it was discovered that around 83% of the matter in the universe needed to hold galaxies together by gravity was missing. So a scientifically unobserved substance called Dark Matter was proposed. And even though Dark Matter has never been scientifically observed (a necessary condition of legitimate scientific confidence), proponents of this model constantly tell the community that “we know it’s there”. Due to the gravitational effect of all this matter, scientists expected that the expansion of the universe would be slowing down. However observations indicate that the expansion of the universe is accelerating. We now call the scientifically unobserved energy driving this acceleration Dark Energy. Now this model may be completely correct, or completely false (or perhaps some of each). We cannot go back in time to make the necessary observations required to verify any aspect of this model. And that makes it unfalsifiable. No current observation could necessitate the complete rejection of the model. Any seemingly contrary observation could be rendered impotent by the claim that “we haven’t figured out how this evidence fits our model yet”. And if we are fair, there does exist a logical possibility that some future discovery or idea may reconcile the evidence to the model. But it is this very possibility that allows us to set aside seemingly contrary observations/facts and renders the model unfalsifiable. This applies equally to both secular and creationist models of reality. The claim that unfalsifiable means unscientific is debatable. However, neither unfalsifiable nor unscientific mean “logically impossible” or “necessarily untrue”. Any accusation of unscientific or unfalsifiable only speaks logically to our capacity to test a claim - but not in any sense to the possible truth of a claim. The foundational source of the creationist model is the Bible. The current favoured model of creationists combines the Biblical claim that “God stretched out the heavens” with the implications on time of Einstein’s relativity. Simply; as space was “stretched”, so was time (called time dilation) such that the space stretched away from the Earth is actually older than space on/around Earth. That is, as stretched space results in more space, stretched time results in more time. Regarding the alleged creationist models presented in the article. Models 1 & 2: As a creationist for over 2 decades, I don’t ever recall hearing either of these arguments. To present these as typical creationist models therefore employs logically fallacious Strawman reasoning. As presented, model 1 itself is an example of the logical fallacy called Unsupported Assertion. No effort is made by the author to provide the supporting arguments for the claim – so the article immediately demonstrates a lack of rational objectivity. The rebuttal of both models heavily incorporates Innuendo and Unsupported Assertion (both logical fallacies). Unsupported counter-claims do not constitute a rational rebuttal of any position. Models 3 & 4: Creationists once considered the Cdk issue to be a possibility. However this argument is now broadly rejected by creationists because it raises more problems than it solves. Note the Innuendo in the statement “the velocity of light was infinite or at least millions of times faster than it is now, then slowed down and conveniently stabilized at the current value” – Yet replace “light” with “space”, and you have the secular concept of Inflation (which has been readily incorporated into the secular model). Model 5: This is a valid attempt by a Physicist to model creationism. Dr. Humphreys freely admits that the model is imperfect. The secular model also contains many imperfections; none of which have warranted a wholesale rejection of secular cosmology. The main rebuttal used by the author is that the some concepts utilised by Dr. Humphreys lack direct observational support. Have they considered that the same is true for the Big Bang itself, as well as Inflation, Dark Matter and Dark Energy (i.e. the entire secular model)? All cosmology models are highly speculative and therefore subject to legitimate scrutiny and criticism. Model 6: Oddly, the author himself points out that this model does not represent the informed creationist position and that the problems with this model are essentially theological – not scientific. Even though I don’t subscribe to this model, I think this model is logically viable in the sense that God could have created a mature universe without any deception involved. The inconsistencies stem from our interpretations of the observations – not from what the Bible claims. God creating mature people is not a deception about their lack of infant history; even though contemporary observations of adults would indicate a childhood. God creating mature (fruiting) flora does not represent a deception about the history of the plants. Another model that would reconcile these potential problems would involve God winding the physical universe forward independently of time - In the same way that winding a clock forward represents a physical change, but doesn’t actually alter time. The author then concludes with Innuendo; “Even though creationists claim they have the truth, they contradict each other as well as science” – seemingly unaware that both the Christian belief and the scientific method explicitly permit consideration and debate of all ideas. Our claim to “have the truth” is a faith claim about the Bible – not a scientific claim about models formulated around it. So this statement represents yet another Strawman fallacy. Model 9: (not really a model - but a claim demonstrating a logical weakness in the presentation of scientific confidence beyond what has been scientifically observed). Every claim regarding the history of the photon prior to its observation is assumed; how far and fast it has travelled, what lies between the vast amount of space between its origin and the Earth, assumptions regarding how the properties of light are impacted over such large amounts of distance and time, and how those properties should be interpreted. We extrapolate several hundreds of years of observations to billions of years of history. Any hypothesis beyond observation therefore necessarily employs assumption. Assumptions are common in science. They only become problematic when they are ignored; resulting in exagerated levels scientific confidence. Assumptions may be rationally justifiable - but until claims are verified through observation they remain assumptions. Models 7, 8 & 10 do not represent the informed creationist position. The author of the presented rebuttal demonstrates that they have not given fair or objective consideration to the actual creationist position - and therefore should not be considered a reliable source of information.

Come Near to God Posted on 2014/1/25/ by June sceneryby Gail Rodgers Shelly envied her friend. Nell seemed to feel God’s nearness and find comfort in His presence daily. Shelly had invited God into her life too yet He often felt distant and she wondered why. God’s Word holds the answer. It says: “Come near to God and He will come near to you.” James 4:8 Just how do you come near to God? How do you enter into His presence and feel His nearness and draw on His comfort? Start with offering your thanks to God for His blessings in your life. Even when life is difficult find the blessings, however small they seem, and thank Him for them. God says we enter His gates with thanksgiving. Thanksgiving opens the door. Next, begin to praise God for the faithful characteristics of who He is. Praise Him for His compassion toward you. Praise Him for His mercy and His forgiving heart toward you. Praise Him for His faithfulness and the fact that He can always be trusted, even in the dark. Choose to praise Him for His graciousness toward you. Cultivate a thankful heart. Keeping the faithfulness of God in clear view through deliberate praise will open the door to His presence in new ways. Begin today. Loosen the doubt and the lack of trust from your heart by going through the gate of thanksgiving. Loosen the fear and skepticism from your heart by praising God for who He is. Take time to let the truths of His character penetrate your heart. He is good and He is faithful. “Enter his gates with thanksgiving and His courts with praise; give thanks to Him and praise His name, for the Lord is good and His love endures forever; His faithfulness continues through all generations.” Psalm 100:4 & 5 Prayer & reflection: Father God, My heart is hungry to feel Your presence close to me. Help me to enter into Your presence through the gate of thanksgiving. Remind me to draw near to You with praise for the wonderful qualities of who You are. You are good, Father God. I trust You to come near to me as I declare Your blessings and Your character. Let these truths penetrate my heart, shape my thinking and change my attitudes today. In Jesus’ name I pray, Amen. You can comment on this devotional online at: http://thoughts-about-god.com/blog/2014/01/25/gr_come-near-to-god/ This is a Daily Devotional that I read this morning & it says what I tried to say in a much better way,I thought you might be encouraged by my sharing this with you.... With love,in Christ-Kwik ________________________________________

~ Yep~! The Truth But when Jesus saw it, he was much displeased, and said unto them, Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God.But when Jesus saw it, he was much displeased, and said unto them, Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God. Mark 10:14 Is Dangerous To All Liars And whosoever shall offend one of these little ones that believe in me, it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea. Mark 9:42 Unless They Should For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. John 3:16 Repent But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance. Matthew 9:13

~ A Short Message From The LORD Through His Servant Moses And the waters prevailed, and were increased greatly upon the earth; and the ark went upon the face of the waters. And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered. Genesis 7:18-19

I have heard Bill Nye he believes creationism is dangerous for children. I would warn my children against Bill Nye.

The purpose of the Tree of Life was to get God into man. The fruit of the tree of life was the literal embodiment of God's very eternal life and nature, Just as Jesus Himself was the literal embodiment of God's eternal life and nature. Therefore, Jesus is actually the tree of life. When we received Him into our spirit we became partakers of God's life and nature, thus fulfilling God's desire in Genesis.

Back then, people didn't care about understanding the the natural world for the sake of the natural world. Nor did they care about time the way we would. Consider this, Matthew writes a genealogy for Jesus that skips people (as compared to what we see in the OT) and claims there were "14 generations" between significant people. Can you explain how we can consider Matthew's "14 generations" as literal when we know in reality there were more than that? If we can take this literally, then why can we not take a more lenient understanding of a Genesis 1 "day" to be just as literal? Matthew's "14 generations" corresponds to story telling of his time and not our ethnocentric idea of historical precision. Just like God incarnates stating that mustard seed is the smallest of seeds corresponds to the subsistence farmers and herders of that area knowledge of seeds. I find this amusing. "Matthew's '14 generations' corresponds to story telling of his time and not our ethnocentric idea of historical precision." But yet Genesis 1 corresponds to our ethnocentric idea of historical precision? In ancient times, the concept of time was not heeded with our historical precision. Likewise, chronology was not heeded with our historical precision. Nor was the description of events heeded with our historical precision. Yet people claim the days of Genesis 1 were regarded with our historical precision, the chronology presented was regarded with our historical precision, and the description of events was heeded with our historical precision. Unbelievable.

I'm amazed at how many YEC do not want to even consider the possibility of this. This even allows for their literal six day interpretation. Sigh I am a YEC. I do not see why this is significant. Well, many YEC people say the universe is 6000 years old too. Why not consider the universe to have already been laid for a long time before God recreated the earth from darkness and void? In the beginning God CREATED the heavens (stars)and the earth. Dateless past. Now here comes the restoration/recreation-the six day story as you insist is literal. Maybe it is. The 6000 year thing is a product of Bishop Unger and Lightfoot. It is plagued with problems and assumptions. We do not know how old the universe is. The difference between YEC and Old earthers is that YEC's believe that God created "all that there is" in 6 literal days, and old earthers believe that God is not capable of doing it. That is rather unflattering, but that is the nuts and bolts of it. I do not apologize or compromise my beliefs to fit the modern dark ages of science. Ouch! Not capable? Where or when did we add that condition? All things are possible for our God. Oy ve Sigh Shaking my head.... Believe what you want, but please don't misrepresent the basis for what I believe (small God).

Back then, people didn't care about understanding the the natural world for the sake of the natural world. Nor did they care about time the way we would. Consider this, Matthew writes a genealogy for Jesus that skips people (as compared to what we see in the OT) and claims there were "14 generations" between significant people. Can you explain how we can consider Matthew's "14 generations" as literal when we know in reality there were more than that? If we can take this literally, then why can we not take a more lenient understanding of a Genesis 1 "day" to be just as literal?

Don't kill yourself over this. Ultimately it isn't worth it. You and I will get all wisdom in a very short time, just not now. We both can agree of what really is important-Jesus is the son of God and died to pay the penalty we so deserved and now we can have eternal life.

Hmmm... don't stop now man.

some time ago I bought an "M" string theory physics book and the reading is fascinating..... the math is way over my head (haven't had calculus since 1969) but the possibilities in the upper dimensions are remarkable. Example is that in the fifth dimension, as I understand it, things can be in two places at the same time and in the same place at two different times. by the time you get into the upper dimensions where God would exist, something can be virtually everywhere at the same time and/or somewhere in all times. From what I understand about the theory what we know about God's capabilities is just normal. And as for time, it's not that there is eternity, it's that there is no time at all. yesterday, today and tomorrow is all the same...... thus God knows what decisions we will make next year...... assuming we will be here next year.

Thanks ayin! It's not a secret, nor do I intend for it to be, that I have struggled with faith a lot. But, thankfully God seems to be merciful and patient with me so against all my personal expectations I'm still around to harass you guys.

Keep in mind that not everyone receives the gift of speaking in tongues, although "everyone" can receive the Holy Spirit, and that's what you need if you want things to change in your life.

Yes, I just heard about that. I went through something similar in 91' (my 2nd departure from the Military ...I came back off of leave suitcase in my hand and the 1SG said, if you wanna get out head over to the Personnel Office......All you seen was elbows and knees and a very lonely suitcase LOL ) They always screw it up....in a few years, there will be a mad dash to enlist more Best wishes to you Praise The LORD!!

Still serving, though there will be 18000 fewer of us in the Air Force by 2016. The cuts to the military and its budget have been brutal, much worse than anything this country has ever faced. I could say that PBHO is hostile to the military and it wouldn't be an exaggeration.

quote Shiloh: "Critics of Ken Ham think that Nye is going to wipe the floor with him. . ." These critics are too smart for their own good. If they can't see past their own biases, what makes them think anyone else will be able to either? In other words, the debate is pointless and meaningless if people come away without it changing their minds. It's a circus, it's a farce, it's a PR stunt, the evolutionists are losing the science and have nothing left to hold on to but their flawed theories. A few years ago, they were so confident in the supremacy of their science that they wouldn't even consider debating any creationists. Well, now they have to. Looking forward to watching the debate.

"Inconceivable!" What is... "Inconceivable!" ? "Just stories, speculations, and Unfalsifiable/Unprovable Assumptions." That anyone would doubt the peer reviewed affirmations of any and all scientific observations of the created world. The prickly little problem these scientists have always had, is that, they have to see to believe, and they can't see YHWH. And, what's worse, they are so confident in their knowledge of the created world, that they mock and scorn anyone that believes there's more to creation than what the eyes, microscopes, telescopes can see. Yes. And the term "Science" or "Scientists" along with "Scientific Evidence"...... 'Scientific Evidence: consists of observations and EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS that serve to support, refute, or modify a scientific hypothesis or theory, when collected and interpreted in accordance with the SCIENTIFIC METHOD.' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence By definition, Science is Limited to the 7 Steps of the "Scientific Method". If you can't put that (Whatever) into that method....then it's not Science. It has to satisfy these Tenets: Observable Measurable/Testable Repeatable Falsifiable The problem as I see it is..... a lack of differentiating between: "Scientific Claims" and Claims that Scientists make.

When YHWH created everything, He set aside 6 days to do His work and rested on the 7th. My guess, since He can create anything, then He is more than capable of setting a timeframe that falls within His abilities. The first day, He began working and working and working, once He completed everything He wanted to do, He called it a day. The next day, the same. He continued this process for 6 days. Each day completing His work for that day. Finally, the day came where there was nothing else left to create, so He rested. To YHWH, it was only 6 days of work, but for us, we can't fathom what a day for Him is like. We can only measure a day by how fast the earth is spinning, because, the only frame of reference we have is the Sun. The earth spins faster, the earth spins slower, our days get longer, our days get shorter, if the path the Earth takes to orbit the sun changes, our years get longer or shorter. We didn't create time, we can only observe it.

"Inconceivable!" What is... "Inconceivable!" ? "Just stories, speculations, and Unfalsifiable/Unprovable Assumptions." That anyone would doubt the peer reviewed affirmations of any and all scientific observations of the created world. The prickly little problem these scientists have always had, is that, they have to see to believe, and they can't see YHWH. And, what's worse, they are so confident in their knowledge of the created world, that they mock and scorn anyone that believes there's more to creation than what the eyes, microscopes, telescopes can see.

Here is how I answer this and all the other objections that are based on arguments of "Natural Law" i.e. light. God, by definition, is not constrained by "Natural Law", when he created Adam he did not created a one day old infant, but a walking, talking, blood oxygenated, synopitic link firing person. God can create anything at any point along it's perceived linear time scale. God did not have to start with "light" starting at its perceived distall local.

My prediction only one will for all eternity...

Another Way, Even Peer Reviewed Yet Seldom Considered And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. Genesis 1:6-7

From your source: http://csharp.com/starlight.html "The claim that God created the universe with an appearance of age with light already in transit to the earth from distant stars cannot technically be proved or disproved, so it is not scientific." Neither is anything he postulates! It's in the past...you can't do EXPERIMENTS on the past. So Everything, from whatever camp on this issue, is not "scientific". It's UNFALSIFIABLE; Hence, UNPROVABLE!! Just stories, speculations, and Unfalsifiable/Unprovable Assumptions. Setterfield @ least has measurements from the past. Can he Prove the extrapolations......NOPE!!

you are assuming the speed of light has always been the same..... science has no idea what happened when God spoke, "let there be light".

You do not save people from hell by outlawing actions, a change of heart is required. You are so very correct. But when we condone sin we see no need to share the Gospel so that God can change a heart. And when the law condones sin it promotes the kind of ungodliness that brings shame to a nation and for which judgement came upon the nation of Israel. It also becomes permissive toward the persecution of Christians for not condoning such immoral but now legalized behavior such as adultry, lying, homosexuality, fornication, pornography, abortion, euthanasia and the like. If our values are not the standard, the world's values are made the standard and we, by law, may be forced to conform to the world or face lawsuit. We now face an uphill battle where we once had the law supporting us.

But it's impossible for a born again believer to go to hell, and this lady thought she was going to hell. I didn't say she was born again...... I think we would differ in our salvation requirements..... just believing Jesus is who he said he was in my opinion will not get a person saved, it is just step one. She has not and will not confess with her mouth that Jesus is her Lord though she knows that He is more powerful than Lucifer. I understand that if you believe that one does not have to confess Jesus's Lordship then she would make no sense to you at all.

Who's morality should we impose on others? Which brand of Christianity should get to choose which morality we codify into law? Should we be stoning women for wearing pants? Some would tell you that even a single drink is a sin, that R rated movies are immoral and should be banned. Dancing, well that is a for sure a sin. How about outlawing lust? To lust is a sin and is immoral. Is there anything less moral that sex outside of marriage? I assume you think we should make this action illegal as well to "impose our morality" on others.

Correct it is not biblical. I believe when the Bible says about those who have fallen asleep, I believe it to mean just resting in the Lord, Not a literal sleep. It would make no sense. I have a friend who believes that those who have died are just sleeping. She can't tell me where or anything else. She believes no one is in Heaven, in fact she believes there is sin in Heaven. The Paul said "to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord." It does not say to be present with the Lord and asleep. So DRS is right on with this one. Not biblical.