Lekcit

If you knew that this was man's way to discredit God, would you still argue it? There is no evidence, scriptural or otherwise, to suggest that this is true. In fact, scholars agree that when taken in a straightforward manner, scripture simply does not teach millions of years. Further, when taken purely on a Sola Scriptura basis, you come to an age ot the earth of about 8,000-10,000 years.

Keep in mind that the seven animals were not for eating but strictly for sacrifice. It wasn't until after the flood that God even allowed man to eat meat. Look to Genesis 9 for the allowance to eat meat after the flood. Further, there was a covenant established between God and Adam. It was for more than just clothing that God killed the two animals after the fall. He was showing that there was no remission of sins without the shedding of blood.

Wait, are you saying that Paul saw Jesus in physical form? Indeed.

The implication in Holy Scripture is that when faced with the opportunity Thomas had no need to do so. You are going to have to clarify this for me...

The problem with using Paul to say that is that Paul himself saw the risen Christ. Jessus appeared to Saul on the road to Damascus so Paul would have known that Jesus was in fact raised as a body. Also this argument fails to take into consideration the fact that all the disciples saw the risen Lord in a physical body, Mary, Martha, the two on the road to Emmaus, etc, etc. Thomas even put his hand in the wound in his side and touched his nail pierced hands (actually wrists but you understand). This was a common argument in Paul's time and he would have been very familiar with it. Hope this helps.

Someone please show me where I ever claim to be a Darwin fan or that I've made him my "god" as is claimed. I am against Darwin and his teaching. I do not agree with Darwin's claims. With that said, it was claimed by another poster here that Darwin eventually recanted, or said his position was wrong before he died. This point has been proven false. He never did this. Further, what difference does it make? Does it make evolution weaker and creation stronger? Or vice versa? No. It does nothing for either side. It doesn't matter. I've said it now four times and provided evidence to support the position. Have a great day.

damo, I never ignored your point. You said that Darwin said he was wrong. I've showed you where he never said he was wrong. Now clearly he was wrong but the fact is he never admitted it. And as I've said now for the third time, what difference does it make? As KeilanS stated, "Also, it really doesn't matter if Darwin recanted or not. It doesn't have the slightest effect on the validity of evolution. " That is the exact point I am making as well. I changes nothing if Darwin said he was wrong or not.

Forrest, Here we go again stating that the whole Creation movement is religion and evolution is science. Since you feel that evolution is science please show me how evolution fits within the scientific method. Based on my observation, it takes as much, if not more, faith to believe in evolution as creation. Please clarify.

damo, I can see nothing in that article that seems to suggest that Darwin recanted as you say. I pose the same question to you that you did to me. Did you bother to go to the link I provided? I also believe God's Word but that is not the issue at hand here. You claim that Darwin recanted his position in Origin of Species. I showed you evidence to the contrary and went a step further to show that it doesn't matter whether he recanted or not. It doesn't prove or disprove anything. What say you?

damo, This is untrue. His family members confirmed that Darwin did not recant before he died. Not only that, what does it change? Nothing. If I go my whole life and say that the earth is flat, and then on my deathbed recant and say I was wrong all along, what difference does it make? It doesn't change the fact that the earth was round the whole time, I just refused to see it. This point neither helps nor hinders the cause for Creation and is addressed in a very good article by Russel Grigg here: Did Darwin Recant? Hope this helps.

Such as what Myco?

Where? Show me, from Scripture where this is shown to be true. Because in all of my studies, there is no place in Scripture that would even begin to teach an old earth. In fact, if you do as Martin Luther and adopt the view of sola scriptura then you would eventually end up adopting a young earth view because Scripture taken alone always teaches a young earth.

Iryssa, While I suspect this may be true, at least in part; I don't think that it is the entire reason for kitty's statement.

kitty, In the Top 10 thread you mention that you don't like The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe or CS Lewis. I wish to understand this position clearer partially because CS Lewis is one of my favorites as well as the Narnia series. (I read them every year.) I wonder about your thought process and reasons behind how you feel. Let me know please...

I think Gia has offended me................. No seriously, Gia is a breath of fresh air when things go astray. She and I are co moderators on another message board local to where we live and she is always the one to bring civility and kindness back into focus. Everything she does is surrounded by that mood. Keep up the good work.

Hazard, Were these long days 24 hours or periods of time? I had a preaching professor in college that said, "If you have trouble with Genesis 1:1, you will have trouble with John 3:16."

Alright. I want to address a couple issues in this argument which I don't think have been addressed thus far. First those three scripture references don't have a whole lot to do with the topic at hand. The Jeremiah verse has been addressed already and the other two speak to events that happened in Heaven prior to the foundation of the earth. Remember the Timothy verse (I think) that says that Jesus was crucified for our sins before the foundation of the earth. Now why would that be needed unless Lucifer had already fallen. Second, even guys like Paddel Pung (sp?) who is a theistic evolutionist as best I can recall, states that if you take a simple reading of scripture that the only logical conclusion is 6 literal days. No where in scripture is billions of years taught or even implied. Third is this, yom can be used to mean an epoch or age but it by far is not the *best* Hebrew word. There are far better words to use in Hebrew if long periods of time are meant. Also, when you look at the Old Testament aside from Genesis 1, every time the word yom is used in conjunction with the phrase evening and morning, the word night, and/ or a number, it always means an ordinary 24 hour day. Now go back and look at Genesis 1 and what do you find? The word yom being used in conjunction with the phrase evening and morning, the word night, and a number. So therefore if we are going to let scripture interpret scripture, which is always the best strategy by the way, then we have no choice but to conclude that the "days" in Genesis 1 are literal 24 hour days. Fourth the issue of the sun not being created until day 4. What is needed to have a day? Light and darkness. What do we have on day 1? Light and darkness. Think about that cloudy day when you never see the sun. Would you say that wasn't a day? Of course not! Even though you had no sun that day it still was a day. Fifth is the 2 Peter verse about a day as a thousand years. It has already been addressed that it actually refers to future and end times events. Further, when it goes on to say that a thousand years is as one day so it actually cancels itself out much like a math equation with fractions. Also how can we use a verse that was originally written in Greek to interpret a verse that was written in Hebrew? Hope this helps...

Data Several: Captain Kirk, Spock, Picard The Borg Not sure. Maybe Data or Picard or Riker Worf Kirk Dax, the one that came around after Worf's wife died The holographic doctor from Voyager

Right on Fenwar. Isaiah's prophecy revolved around the remnant of the nation of Israel, both in that time and in this.

Fletcher, The question of light is only a difficult one because you want it to be. For those of us who believe in a literal translation of Genesis, it isn't difficult at all. God said, "Let there be light, and there was." For me there is no trouble at all because I believe that my God is big enough to create something and sustain it without the help of the sun, moon, stars, or any other light producing object to sustain it outside of Himself. No worries for me. In Him.

Fenwar, Your, "normal day" question shows your ignorance of the Jewish culture. It is in fact very well known that in Biblical times and in that culture that they began their "day" at nightfall. This is seen very prominently in the story of the Passion Week. Jesus actual death was somewhere around 3 PM and they said that they had to take them down before Passover which began at the start of the new day which was at nightfall rather than what we would call the start of the day at midnight. Therefore the phrase "evening and morning" is quite correct given that it was written in Hebrew by a Hebrew. Also it really doesn't matter to be perfectly honest because it doesn't change the fact that every time that phrase appears with the word yom it is an ordinary day. And even if that is the only time the word yom appears with that phrase, it doesn't detract from the other two instances that I showed you to determine that yom means an ordinary day.

Good day all. While this subject is highly stimulating and partially engaging intellectually, I want to put my two tenths of a dollar in. I've posted this information before and it seems to go unnoticed every time. In order to interpret any portion of Scripture properly, you must do one thing. You have to understand the language. Obviously the Hebrew word for "day" in Genesis is yom and yes it can mean a long period of time. So we must figure out when it means a literal 24 hour period and when it doesn't. If you look in all the instances in the Old Testament where yom is used for day other than Genesis 1 you see the following: 1. Every time yom appears with the word night it means an ordinary day 2. Every time yom appears with the phrase "evening and morning" it means an ordinary day. 3. Every time yom appears with a number it means an ordinary day. Now look again at Genesis 1 where the word yom is used. What do you see? The word day used in conjunction with the word night, the phrase "evening and morning", and a number. Sometimes it uses more than one in a single instance and sometimes even all three. Now in contrast go to Genesis 2 where it says, "in the day God created." Does that mean an ordinary day? No because none of the prior instances are used. What does it mean? It means, "In the time God created. Also, if a long period of time was intended there are many better, clearer Hebrew words to use other than yom to convey that meaning. So since the only way God has to communicate with us is through language, the meaning is simple. I hope this helps in some small way. Have a blessed day. In Him.

Jehovah is actually incorrect. Yahweh is the correct interpretation. Jehovah was developed by people that felt it was irreverant to use the name Yahweh. Also Yeshua is Hebrew for Jesus and is derived the same as the name Joshua.

I don't know where you are looking to go to college but I know of a really good Bible college here in Florida. It is where I graduated from and feel that it is one of the better ones out there. It is called the Baptist College of Florida. It is located in Graceville, Florida. Really great school. Here is the website: Baptist College of Florida Hope this helps.

Pax, I'm unclear what passage of scripture you see that in. Could you please offer some clarification? If only for my own personal edification. In Him.