Joy in the Journey

I have heard that a christian read through genisis and came up with 6000 years. Who did this and does anyone have how they came up with this many years? Could 6000 years be wrong? I believe the bible, I also know man is often wrong. We can get things wrong, even when we base our ideas on the bible. This is not a fualt in the bible (I believe the bible 100%), it is a fualt of man.

With science we know we can be wrong and it is okay. Scientist just look at the good data and start over. Why do we think we can't be wrong in the way we understand the bible?

Yeah, many will say there is "undenyable" proof that that Earth is billions of years old...but I'd rather believe in the Bible as literal; not open to man's interpretation. That being said, I simply believe God when He said that "in 6 days, God created the earth and seas and all that is in them" (Exodus 20:11). You know, modern science says that a global flood never happened, yet you'd be hard pressed to find a Christian that denies the flood story...so if science is wrong about that (which they are), why can't they also be wrong about the age of the Earth too (which they are) ?

If you trace the geneology as provided in the Bible back, you will find that in doing some simple math, it comes out to be ~ 6000 years from today all the way back to Adam (ever wondered why God put all those borring names and geniologies in the Bible ? Now you know! ) The Bible also says that there was no death before the fall and that because of Adam's sin, all death and decay is a direct result of the fall...that being said, if the fall was 6000 years ago as we believe it to be, there could not have been any death older than 6000 years- making all these alleged fossils aging millions of years old to be nothing more than a lie to pull peoples' faith from the Bible away.

Not that any of this will be well received by many, but I believe that the Bible speaks for Itself just as God intends it too.

God bless,

Tim

Fossilized Food Chain Found in German Museum

Tuesday, November 27, 2007

By Charles Q. Choi

A fossilized shark that swallowed a crocodile-like amphibian that, in turn, had gobbled up a fish has now been unearthed.

This exceptional find marks the first time scientists have found direct evidence of such a complex, extinct food chain.

In the past, researchers had uncovered evidence of what past species ate based on the fossilized contents of their guts or droppings.

For instance, fossilized dung, or "coprolites," have revealed some dinosaurs ate grass.

"Prey, especially in the gut or intestines of fossil organisms, are very rarely preserved," said paleobiologist Jurgen Kriwet at Humboldt University of Berlin in Germany.

Full report here

So tell me something- why aren't animals that die today rapidly buried and fossilized like they supposedly did millions of supposed years ago ? All the buffalo that were killed in the great plains; why didn't they fossilize ? Was it because they were exposed to the elements and scavenger animals ? If that is so, which to me is logical, then why weren't these "prehistoric" creatures subjected to predation, scavenging and elemental factors as they are today...it's almost as if something very fast happened that buried them suddenly and alive- something....like a world wide perhaps

Why aren't there any fossils forming today right under our eyes like they allegedly did millions of years ago ? Why were conditions so much more conducive to fossilization then but are not today ?

Sadly, even Christians are siding with today's [pseudo]science and taking the position that instead of taking God's proven Word for it, they say the creation week wasn't really a week (Exodus 20:11 ) And furthermore they don't believe the flood really happened (2 Peter 3:3-7 ) After all, I've never read any secular, "main stream" scientists agreeing with the Biblical account for the flood or admitting it really occured- in fact "they" claim there is no evidence for such a flood...the Bible says there was regardless what man may say....and it was only ~ 4500 years ago...so perhaps if "they" are wrong about the flood (which "they" are )- is there any chance "they" could be wrong about the earth's age and all these supposed 'fossils' they find ?

Just curious,

Tim

K-40 has a half life of 1,260,000,000 years. Trying to use it to date something recent is like trying to dig a posthole with a backhoe.

How do you know ?

Even if it does have a half life of 1.26 bln years- can you prove ( beyond a reasonable doubt ) that it has always had that long of a half life ? That may sound crazy to you, but your "proof" that the Earth is old by current dating methods sounds crazy to me- and to be honest, it's a huge leap of faith to put your eternal soul in the hands of man who simply claim it to be true.

Anyway, you'll probably try to tear me apart now and deny that you have faith in science ( AKA- a religion ), and it's been peer reviewed so therefore it must be true...and bla bla bla As I've said- proof is in the eye of the beholder.

...go ahead- I've heard the rantings before. If science is your god, so be it. Don't believe in God then- that's your choice....but as for me ? I simply don't trust man's methods when they are corrupt from the start...I'd rather start with a perfect book ( which yes, I have faith in ) and go from there...and the Bible's infinitely more perfect ( as it was written by God Himself ) than a science book is ( which was written by man himself )

Cheers,

Tim

Hello Sue. I am not a follower of Calvin's teachings and am not sure what his 5 points are. I remember this coming up in another thread but am not sure where it is. Could you post the 5 points? That will make it easier to attempt to defend or refute it.

From what I have seen in the past, there are not that many that accept pure Calvanism. Even most Baptists only hold to part of his original teachings, so you will probably get a wide range of answers. The only group I know of that holds to Calvanism in it's entirety is the Primitive Baptist Church.

You brought up Calvanism and don't want any arguing? If there is no arguing with regard to such a contentious subject, I will be pleasantly surprised.

Hey Butero,

In this forum there is a "sticky thread" at the top discussing the 5 points of Calvinism in contrast to Arminisim- it explains the differences in detail.

Just a friendly FYI in case you didn't see it

Love in Christ,

Tim

I think Penguins are smug

..........you agitatin' my dots ?

>>>>>

Hmmm ?

HA!

Right then.....

< Agitatin' his dots....................... >

"Proof" is in the eye of the beholder wink.gif

I like that. Can I borrow that one?

Sure!

If it helps to get the truth across that modern scientific "proof" is nothing more than man's opinon and never has been nor will be fact- use it as often as you need to

Just because a bunch of "experts" say it's so- doesn't make it so -

Romans 1:22

22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools

....however, because God says something is so- it always is so

Cheers,

Tim

Regarding the argument of "how could all the animals fit into the Ark"...I would like to copy/paste something I found while researching this very issue...you can read the entire article HERE

This is a little bit of what it says...

The Ark of Noah was a barge-like structure probably built of cypress or cedar ("gopherwood"). It was about 450 feet long by 75 feet in beam, and 45 feet high. Such a boat would displace 20,000 tons and have a gross tonnage of 14,000 tons. There were three decks, one door (in the side) and a window 18 inches high probably running around the top of the vessel under the roof. The ark was caulked "within and without" with pitch (Hebrew: kopher = "to cover,"---translated "atonement" elsewhere in the Old Testament).

The capacity of the ark was about 522 railroad cars, (1.4 million cubic feet). Only 188 railroad cars would be required to hold a pair of each of the 17,600 species of animals presently known to man, according to Dr. John Morris of the Institute of Creation Research. (This number of cars includes food supplies for a year's subsistence). From this we can assume that many perhaps as many as two-third of the species originally created by God are already extinct.

As you can see, there really is no problem given the Ark's size.

Cheers,

Tim

And yes, ketamine would have been useful.

Why ?

There was no fear of man prior to the flood....you do believe in the Words of the Bible ?

Genesis 9:2-3

2 The fear and dread of you will fall upon all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air, upon every creature that moves along the ground, and upon all the fish of the sea; they are given into your hands.

3 Everything that lives and moves will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything.

What do you think God is saying here ?

Cheers,

Tim

(especially since I think it's clear that he's a Christian).

What gave you that impression ? He struck me as, while a "good" person, not too keen to anything Christ centered

Of course, it's not for any man to make that call as only God has that right and only God knows his heart. But in the end, the Bible does say we can see who are Christians by the fruit they bear- and I really didn't see how he could be seen as a Christian. A good and decent man ? Yes- but "good" does not qualify one for Heaven; only Jesus and faith in Him does.

Just wondering what gave you the impression that he loved the Lord from watching the Croc Files ?

Cheers,

Tim

one of the most distinguished Business Law attorneys in the U.S

Like anyone could even know that

( sorry, I couldn't resist )

Cheers,

Tim

Come on, I started this as a serious thread. Scientists don't all agree with each other - often, they disagree quite loudly - and I'm sure you know that. Do you have any actual belief in dinosaurs? Do you really think they didn't exist? At least one semi-genuine response would be appreciated.

Alright, in all fairness I'm sorry for having a run on you mate.

To answer your questions, I do believe there were animals that simply were not able to cope with the climate changes after the Flood and they are now, sadly extinct. Do I think there were all the dinosaurs we see in museums and books ? I am cautious as to how someone can find a chip of a tooth and construct an entire animal out of it

And as a Christian, I choose to believe the Bible over man- regardless of how silly it makes me look. I do know for a fact that the Bible says that Adam, the first man was created 6000 years ago and there was no death before he sinned. Just the other day I read where they claim to have found a skull of a child that is said to be 3 million years old- someone is not telling the truth here...and I know it's not the Bible that's wrong- therefore if science is wrong about that, they can surely be wrong about other things as well- and they are....but that's a whole different discussion!

So in short, I do believe there were animals, perhaps large reptile like creatures that have since died out...but it was less than 6000 years ago that this happened.

Cheers,

Tim

Thank you all for yor comments and info. I agree that if you live here you have to pay taxes. I am just in a debt of gratitude to Dr Hovind because he helped me in the struggle over what I was taught in schools over what the bible says. He helped me trust in the Lord. But hes human and makes mistakes so I pray for him, not judge him.

C

So true mate. He helped me get over the initial "hump" so to speak as well and I'm thankful for his work. I hope and pray that things will work out for him...and as I said earlier, I don't judge the man either- we all make mistakes

Cheers,

Tim

Thank you.

You're welcome

- Tim

Hopefully, others who watch/ed his series will not throw out the baby with the bathwater.

I agree 100 % -

Hovind's mistake has nothing to do with his presentation of the truth. Just because he sinned doesn't mean everything he taught is inherently wrong...if that were the case, there wouldn't be any preachers in any church anywhere in the world.

Cheers,

Tim

Well, here's a glitch for the theory - the first dinosaur bones in the modern era were uncovered in the late 1800's (from memory) - at any case, a very long while before marketing might've got their hands on the idea. The Crystal Palace, I think it's called, in England, was the first park built housing dinosaur statues in the 1900's.

Well shucks! I thought I had all me ducks in row...and here all along I thought is was a global consipacy to inudate the markets and indoctrinate the masses with the biggest lie ever told....after all, all those bright scientists just couldn't be wrong since they all agree with each other No one could be that misguided

That'll teach me to trust the Bible won't it

Cheers,

Tim

I do not even know if his attorney is a court appointed one, or if he has hired his own council. I thought he mentioned he incurred attorney fees from somewhere, so I am not sure. How do you know?

"Hovind's attorney, Assistant Public Defender Kafahni Nkrumah, told U.S. Magistrate Judge Miles Davis at a hearing Monday that his client did not want to enter a plea because he does not believe the United States, the Internal Revenue Service and the U.S. Attorney's Office "have jurisdiction in this matter."

Click HERE for news article.

Cheers,

Tim

My theory is simple- it's a get-rich-quick scheme created by corporate America ( Toys-R-Us to be precise ) to manufacture and sell at large profit, childrens' novelty items depicting a now extinct species purported to have lived millions of years ago.

Brilliant really- who's going to refute their claims and take away a beloved toy from a child ?

( only the anti-mainstream, uneducated, scientifically inept and fanatical literal fundamentalist Christian who's running a counter-scheme by introducing a 6000 year old Earth/Creation in an attempt to throw out everything man has taught himself over the past hundred years and thus tarnish man's perfect record of knowing everything there is to know...who do they think they are anyway ? )

You know, I can't actually tell if you're being sarcastic or not, which is a little worrying. Some clarification required.

I am being a bit cheeky, partly. I'm a bit serious as well though

I don't think my theory is any more crazy than what is passed off as "science" these days

"Proof" is in the eye of the beholder

Cheers,

Tim

Well, he does have his reasoning for not paying taxes.

However it's still against the law- and we are mandated by scripture to obey our leaders and to pay taxes that we owe. Yeah, no one likes them, but they're there and we therefore have to obey the rules. I'm sure he does have "reasons" for not paying them, but that doesn't make it right.

What I find interesting over the whole deal is that Kent refuses to pay taxes yet he has a court appointed attorney defending his liberty at who's expense ? Tax-payers which he is not....if he abhores taxes so much, how is it that he has no problem using something funded by the very cause he hates ? What if his home caught on fire ? Who pays for that service ? Not him- but I'll bet he'd dial 911 if his house was on fire. A how about the roads he drives on- who pays for that ? Does he enjoy his freedoms ? Who pays for military protection ? If he's gonna stop paying taxes he should at least stop benefitting from other people's taxes, don't you think ?

Cheers,

Tim

Here is a link for the article. O am sad. We were just there this summer and it really is a great place to hear the gospel and science live in harmony. God bless you kent Hovind and family.

http://www.religionnewsblog.com/15261/kent...federal-charges

http://www.pensacolanewsjournal.com/apps/p.../607140333/1006

What is intersting is how a christian article and a news article can have the same facts but be so differently toned....hmmmmmm..

C

Sad ? Yes. Unexpected ? No. Kent broke the law and in the process, has ruined his witness. I'm a YEC and truely believe that the Bible is telling the truth in that God did as He said He did and in the order He said He did it in. However, I'm disappointed that Kent seems to have been driven by greed and refused to pay taxes- a direct violation of the Bible. And now who looks victorious in the fight ? You guessed it- the devil. The world now laughs at Kent and the ministry he was given responsibility over and thinks he's a fraud on all accounts. I'm not judging the man as I've made a tonne of mistakes in my life- but Kent has seen this one coming for a very long time and chose to ignore the warnings- now not only is he in big trouble, but millions will suffer due to his mistake ( which he won't even accept that he's done anything wrong ).

Anyway, I still love the man and pray that God will use him in minister the truth- we need it more than ever these days.

Cheers,

Tim

EXACTLY

you do not have to be cursing to use His wonderful Name in vain.... you can just be speaking regular, and by using His Name, with out a peticular purpose, it is in vain.... kind of like playing "air guitar" there is no purpose in it....

mike

Good description Mike ( the "air guitar" ). I often hear ( and from Christians nonetheless ) people casually using God's name in everyday conversation like it's no big deal; "God only knows", or "My God", etc. Slices right through me like a hot knife. It should be said that controlling one's tongue ( self control ) is a fruit of the Spirit ( Gal 5:22 ). We really should be mindful of what we say and plan ahead. God doesn't take this issue lightly

Cheers,

Tim

Unreal

My theory is simple- it's a get-rich-quick scheme created by corporate America ( Toys-R-Us to be precise ) to manufacture and sell at large profit, childrens' novelty items depicting a now extinct species purported to have lived millions of years ago.

Brilliant really- who's going to refute their claims and take away a beloved toy from a child ?

( only the anti-mainstream, uneducated, scientifically inept and fanatical literal fundamentalist Christian who's running a counter-scheme by introducing a 6000 year old Earth/Creation in an attempt to throw out everything man has taught himself over the past hundred years and thus tarnish man's perfect record of knowing everything there is to know...who do they think they are anyway ? )

Cheers,

Tim

What's your definition of using the Lord's name in vain?

Much like the other responses here, any use of His Name that is not glorifying to Him. It strikes me as strange that people who do not know Him- the unsaved ( agnostic, atheist- whatever they wish to be labled- the unsaved at any rate ) use His name flippantly with no regard to Who they are talking about. The very Name they use in vain is the One they do not even believe in; not sure how that makes sense ?

At any rate, if you're not calling on Him in prayer and/or praise- you're best not to invoke the Name of the Most High God...to do so is not only in vain, but "the Lord will not hold anyone guiltless who misuses his name" ( I think that's in the Bible a couple of times )

Don't know about you, but I take that seriously

Cheers,

Tim

Hmmm, that makes sense, that the holy spirit does still heal... however, the bible speaks of it like a very public kind of thing, everyone seemed to know that there was healing, physical and mental going on. Now it's something that is only known to those who have experianced it... most of the world would laugh at somebody claiming that God healed people every day... I'm not sure if I'm making much sense here, sorry if not...

Let me give you a few Bible verses to show what I mean-

John 14:12-14

12 I tell you the truth, anyone who has faith in me will do what I have been doing. He will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father.

13 And I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Son may bring glory to the Father. 14You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it.

Mark 11:24

24 Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours.

Matthew 21:21-23

21 Jesus replied, "I tell you the truth, if you have faith and do not doubt, not only can you do what was done to the fig tree, but also you can say to this mountain, 'Go, throw yourself into the sea,' and it will be done.

22 If you believe, you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer."

I don't believe these verses are out of context either...but a key to all of them is faith. However I do want to be clear that one does not confuse "charismatic" with "word of faith"- which I certainly do not believe in...God is not at our disposal to make us rich...and the fact remains that sometimes it is God's will that we are afflicted so that we remain humble ( 2 Corinthians 12:7 )...also, no matter how much faith one has, we all get sick and we all die- it's a fact of reality due to our sin ( Romans 5:12 )- so just because one has faith and asks God to heal them, it doesn't mean that it's God's will to do so every time- remember we work for God, not the other way around But God DOES give the believer healing if it will bring glory to Himself ( because it's all about Him, not us! )

God bless,

Tim