Hawkins

God doesn't want anyone to perish, which remains a good wish as He also said that His sheep will only be saved through the narrow gate.

God's Law and the cause of a curse can be different things. In the written Law, one will not be punished due to sin of his parents or children. In reality however, if you choose to leave God, the curse may follow you generations after generations. We Chinese can be of a typical example. In Noah's time after the flood, all humans (actually Noah's family) knew God. But since then some of the descendants of Noah chose to leave God, including the ancestors of us Chinese. That's the country is more like in a curse that people in it have been held captive without seeing the Grace from God. In an absolute sovereignty tone (the Jews use this tone most of the times), you may say that "God cursed the nation of Chinese, generations by generations". Because from the Jews' perspective, God can actually remove such a curse if He wishes to. If He knows of such a curse, and has all the ability to remove it but not. Then from the perspective of His absolute sovereignty, you may consider that it is God who put such a curse onto people.

In reality there are 60 billion unique human minds. It's impossible to get them "united" in any way. God allows diversity but not without a bottom line. He allows denominations but to the extent that salvation is not affected. As a result, the basic doctrine of a church is govern by the Apostle's Creed or something to that effect. Beyond that a denomination will become a heresy or a false doctrine.

The big picture is that God counts souls, He counts sheep but not wolves. God puts the first death in a much lower priority then the second death. Everyone will have to die once, one way or another. This is so because if one will have to spend his eternity in hell then what's point of keeping his first death a natural death ? Especially in the case that their living is to stop God from saving more souls (of His sheep). That's why God adapts or allow the Jews to adapt the eye for eye and tooth for tooth policy. The killing of the first born sons of the Egyptians act more like a vengeance for the Egyptians killing the Jews' children at will just for the purpose of population control. And God removed any enemies (should I say wolves) of the Jews to make sure that His salvation of human souls can extend through history till today. Humans kill each other, wipe each other out (adults or children alike) at that period of time (the time when God decided to intervene to reserve the Jews branch). That says, if the Jews didn't kill their enemies, they could have been wiped out as a whole by their cruel surrounding enemies. To put it another way, humans kill each other without mercy, God just chose one of these human branches to preserve for the reason that this branch can carry His message of salvation onward to save more human souls along the timeline of human history. As for children's death, will they enter hell after death ? They won't as they are not mature enough to be judged by Law. On the other hand, if they die as adults (being killed or not). They enter hell. God's morality and priority is save human souls (His sheep). Israel is more like a planted seed of His salvation. Anyone trying to stop this seed from growing up to bear fruits, he will be removed. That's the situation.

That's true, many Christians listen to scientists on philosophical matters that scientists are not experts on. Scientists don't actually know what science is in terms of the philosophy of science. There's a reason why science can prove things beyond doubt where faith is considered having no bearing. For a simplified example, water dissolves into hydrogen and oxygen. You can make such a prediction before each experiment that "water will dissolve into hydrogen and oxygen disregarding when and where you do the experiment". If your this prediction shall failed, you can get a Nobel Prize because this is the way how the formula is falsified. You make predictions which will never fail (or else you can get a Nobel Prize), this is what the nature of science is. A human brain will know for sure (without faith) that it is a truth because the endless repeatedly made predictions will never fail. This is regarding to the predictability of science. Predictability depends on repeatability (things must be repeatable to make the predictions), and without predictability it's not a science. However, today's human call everything a science even that without any predictability. For another example, if you try to conclude that cat is a result of evolution, you need to make a cat from a single cell repeatedly till you can predict that "if you follow these procedures, the single cell will certainly be turned to a cat (but not a dog)". And your this prediction never fail, then you are holding the truth. This is what science is. However, humans (including scientists) know that the above (turning cell to cat) is not possible. That's why the scientists have already abandoned the true scientific approach. Instead of confirming a scientific truth by repeated predictions without failure, they start to use another approach to try to find out the truth of the origin of species. They try to look into the past to collect the so-called "evidence". However, this approach is hardly a science. You need to know what limits humans are facing, before you draw your own conclusion. Yet another example, why the Big Bang Theory is controversial because the Big Bang itself never repeats in front of humans. Strictly speaking it's not a science because you can never get the predictability out of it until it repeats. Subsequently, since it cannot be confirmed scientifically, you can have multiple theories about what it is. And you can choose one of them to believe with faith.

We can actually work it out this way. Under the assumption that God exists. He can do this, 1) create half of the overall species and allow the other half of the species to, say, evolve from a single cell. (i make a half vs half for the sake of easy understanding) 2) create every single species 3) allow everything evolves from a single cell In the case of 1), how can humans later on distinguish which species are created, and which are not ? They can't. Randomly say, if rat is a result of evolution while cat is a result of creation, then what evidence out there can distinguish the two ? It's none. Now if cat was originally created and under the assumption that nature has the power to make changes, then cat now is part of the "evolution" process, 100000000 years later, humans can never tell whether cat is a result of evolution or a result of creation. In this case, the evolutionist's stand point is that, everything subject to this "evolution" process must have been evolved from a single cell. This stand point is a purely faith based belief based on the fallacy that anything ever "evolved" cannot be created but must be evolved from a single cell. If God exists, things can be created in the first place then placed to the nature to allow natural impact (evolution) to do the rest. Now get back to case 2), if God created everything but allow the nature to act after the first creation, can humans 100000 years later identify if species at the time are originally created or not ? They can't. But based on their partial observation that nature has certain impact to living organisms, they can quickly draw the conclusion that everything must have evolved from a single cell.

The Jews culture itself is a preparation of the coming of Christ. It is so such that Christ's sacrifice will be witnessed. If the Jews are not with a developed concept about what sacrifice is, then how can the sacrifice of Christ being witnessed. To put it another way, without the Jews' culture built for witnessing, then anyone can jump off the roof and claim to be sacrificed and thus is the Messiah. There's not the effect of witness there. Witnessing is when the Jews understand the meaning of lamb sacrifice such that they witnessed how the Lamb of God is sacrificed.

Well, it depends. If the claim is extraordinary, the evidence must be proportionally extraordinary; if this evidence is not available, then it is rational to dismiss the extraordinary claim. If the content says that my ancestor was a fisher on the North Sea, I might give it a certain credit, even without additional evidence. Might be true, might be false. If the content says that my ancestors traveled to the Andromeda galaxy and back, without corresponding evidence, then I dismiss the claim. Simple. Ciao - viole The point is, you have no choice but have to make use of your faith either way. In the end, the question is what would happen to you after death. Everyone will have to have his own answer by faith, there's no middle ground over there. What left is where does your faith go, and whether you realise this "no middle ground' or not. As for the 'content' situation, you need faith to believe that it's false. As for your approach ot dismiss it, it's not your rationale made that choice, it's your preference. As not everything has a middle ground for you to dismiss, your faith is undergoing a decision making, perhaps beyond your own awareness though. As an example: when an atheist died in a hospital peacefully due to old age. He's in peace. Is it because that he dismissed all sort of faith, or is it because he has faith that nothing would happen after death while he's unaware of his this faith? To me, he sub-consciously assumed (by faith) that nothing would happen after death. He's not aware of his own assumption (by faith) though. Moreover, perhaps it involves a fallacy that "the absence of evidence becomes the evidence of absence upon which his faith is built. To give you another example, to which part of human history you ever acquired any evidence? Or are you saying that human history as a whole shall be dismissed ? Or do you consider the acceptance of human history as irrational? Lacking in evidence is actually the nature of what history is! To me your approach of "dismiss" doesn't work in this situation while you mistakenly think that your "rationale' shall be universal (as most atheists do)!

From my own speculation, people (the atheists) don't know what they are talking about most of the time. They possess a very much mixed concept about what science is, yet they are keen on applying their superficial and even twisted conceptions. When science is concern, it's 'talking' about something repeatable which humans can do repeatitive observation (or at least theoretically so). Science can be futile and not applicable to something which is not repeatable. History, in nature, happened only once, science thus can be futile and not applicable to history. For example, when researching into the existence of the grand father of your grand grand father, science can be completely useless, as the evidence of his existence may have gone as a nature of what history is. It by no means says that he never existed (in the contrary he surely existed), it's just that science is completely futile and not applicable in the situation. On the other hand, if one of the unknown member of your ancestors wrote a book about him, then how its content shall be treated?????!!!!! 1) the content must be untrue due to the lack of evidence 2) the content can be true and can be false Apparantly, 1) isn't true (might not be that apparant to the atheists though). And in case of 2) you need faith to believe that either the content is true or it's false. Science has completely no bearing on this. The atheists however tend to apply 'science' without the awareness of its limitation. It thus becomes their religion, worse still without their own awareness. The fruit from the Tree of Knowledge that they use to judge what's right and what's wrong (good and evil), however the same day they eat of it the same day they shall surely die (the second death). This prettey mush sums up the situation.

God ordered that the Amalekites to be destroyed because they were on His way of salvation. So the question is what will happen if the Amalekites were not destroyed that way. One of the possible outcome is that the Israelites will be destroyed instead. As a result, God's plan of salvation will be vanished as in His plan, the Israelites will act as a messenger to carry forward His plan of salvation. We can't look into the future to make a decision but God can. If God foresaw that the Amakekites will possibly destroy the Israelites as a whole, He will have no mercy on the Amalekites. Sometimes you have to kill the wolves to protect the sheep. Moreover, there are always spiritual wars going on in the spiritual realm. The Amalekites may well be under the influence of the devil and his horde to try to put a stop to God's plan. Luke 10 doesn't apply in this situation. We are humans with limited intelligence. We can't be in God's position to consider on the scope as He considers, such as the historical perspectives and spiritual war aspects. To trust our own "logic" means to trust something limited which can be mistaken. Faith actually means to trust God instead of our limited and mistakable "logic". I am a Chinese from Hong Kong and now is living in Canada. Nice to meet you here in Worthy Board Forums. God Bless. Hawkins

Keep whatever Jesus Christ mentioned, followed by what are still meaningful to the church. Matthew 19 New International Version (NIV) 17 “Why do you ask me about what is good?” Jesus replied. “There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, keep the commandments.” Matthew 22: 36 “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?” 37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’[a] 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.” Matthew 19: 18 “Which ones?” he inquired. Jesus replied, “‘You shall not murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not steal, you shall not give false testimony, 19 honor your father and mother,’ and ‘love your neighbor as yourself.’” That is, first love God and man. Then other commandments. Then the Sabbath and Tith, because they will be beneficial to the church. As for others mentioned in the Torah, God will be pleased if you can keep. But it is unexpected that you'll be able to keep. And first of all, you should try your best to secure your own salvation first, that is, to learn and practice Jesus Christ's teaching first before you keep those in the Torah.

I assume that in God's plan, 1) free will is to be created, 2) an eternity named the Kingdom of God is to be created as an ultimate goal. When people (humans or angels or beings in any other creations) with free will are given true choices, they will divide. On the other hand angels have not be give the full free will as humans'. The division of angels is allowed to happen in Heaven. However, when giving full free will, humans' division is designed to happen in a place "neutral" to God's realm. That's why earth is needed for such a division. On the other hand, Eden was first created to show that even under the supervision of God, even when put inside God's realm, humans will still choose to sin and thus divide. God actually show through Adam that when free will is granted, even perfect figures like Adam (and Lucifer) may finally leave God and God allows this to happen. Earth is thus a place where human division is allowed to occur. What Adam lacks is fundamentally 1) faith, 2) obedience. He doesn't have enough faith in God that he chose to listen to Eve. He's disobedient as knew clearly what God had said about the fruit of the Tree. Adam's story shows that without this two key factors, even a perfect figure like Adam may still choose to sin against God. Thereby, all covenants are composed of two key components, the law part and the faith part. "Right and wrong" was gained since Adam, so after Adam God may have already put His "Law in heart" in everybody's heart such that humans should have known of God's Law ever since Adam. But without a covenant, the faith part has not yet in effect till Noah. On the other hand, judgment is based on the placement of Law. When Law is laid, judgment awaits. The taste of the fruit may mean that humans since Adam will have to be subject to the judgment of Law. What Lucifer lacks is the love of God, it actualy marks the common path how one will finally leave God. You don't love God, then you don't worship Him, then your pride grows, then you sin, then you have to leave. The fallen angels may have followed this path to fall, even they all know God in the beginning. At the same time, it shows the importance of loving God. Humans are put to the "neutral" earth, they will be given a chance to return to God through Jesus Christ who made "saved by faith" possible via the covenants. Fallen angels however are chained to the darkest part of Hades called the Abyss. They are, together with the evil spirits and wicked souls, however allowed to deceive the world. Luke 22:31 Simon, Simon, Satan has asked to sift all of you as wheat. That marks the purpose of Satan, his job is to sift those weeds to be told apart from the wheat. Without Satan, you earthly life may last 1000 years in order for others to tell that you should be placed to Heaven or Hell. With Satan, however, you current life span is good enough for others to see who you are. For the same reason, God allows Satan to bring as many angels as possible with him, such that those angels who are not deceived by him will qualify themselves to the eternity of Heaven where God and angels and humans will live together forever. 2 cents.

Death was introduced by Adam and since then humans are no longer within God's Kingdom, we are outside His Kingdom and pray His Kingdom come. At the same time, we urged to make our return to His Kingdom through Jesus Christ. Humans are the sheep in the wilderness full of wolves. That's why earth makes a difference to heaven, earth is never paradise. On the other hand, if bad things don't happen 'outside God's Kingdom', what's the point of returning to His Kingdom in Heaven. In contrary, suffering should be everywhere outside the Kingdom of God, heaven and paradise are only possible within His Kingdom but not outside. Outside the protection of the Shepherd, sheep will be victimized by the wolves one way or another. The good side is that under this circumstance, God's sheep will make up their mind to return to Shepherd instead of making a decision to stay outside. And once returned to the Shepherd they will never go out again the second time.

On the other hand, I believe that Paul's message is that "even when you are truly gifted, just leave it between you and God until it's useful to the Church". Here are some characteristics of some unsound doctrines. doctrine 1, universalism saying that everyone will finally be saved. The behind the scene message is that "you don't need Jesus Christ", because you'll be saved anyway. characteristics: in case universalism is wrong, you are caught to believe that "no Jesus is needed", at least Satan will accuse you of so, that you might not be able to be saved. That's the risk of universalism the unsound doctrine. in this case, Christians who don't believe in such a doctrine are put to an extremely safe position. That is, if universalism is correct, they will be saved. If universalism is wrong, they will be saved too. doctrine 2, saying no hell exists. Again, the message behind this is that "no Jesus Christ is needed", as there's little to no consequences of sin, you die you just vaporize. characteristics: same, in case people with this view are wrong (i.e. in case hell does exist), they are caught to believe that "no Jesus is needed", by Satan the accuser at least. And they might not be able to be saved. That's the risk. Those Christians don't believe in such a view are put to the safest position, say, if hell doesn't exist they shall be saved. If hell does exist they shall be saved too. doctrine 3, after believing in Jesus Christ we become perfect and sinless The message behind this doctrine is that, "we no longer need to repent as we are already perfect". characteristics: in case people with this view are wrong that they are not perfect but sinners, what they owe is repentance. And in accordance to the new covenant, without repentance one can't be saved. At least Satan the accuser will accuse so. That's the risk. Those Christians don't hold this view are put to the best position, if they are truly perfect, they will be saved. If they are not perfect but sinners, they will be saved too. Now let's get back to tongue, People speak in gibberish while claim that the Holy spirit is behind all these. The same is "spirit slain", people lying on the floor scream and cry then claim that the Holy Spirit is behind all these. The risk in this case is the unforgivable sin of offending the Holy Spirit. That is, if they are wrong, they are risking their life of such a sin. Satan the accuser will accuse so at least. The Christians without holding this view are put to the best position. If the Holy Spirit is behind all these, they are saved. If the Holy Spirit is not behind all these, they are saved too. Moreover, what do you expect Paul to say about it? In the first 3 cases the devil is behind the scene to drag souls away from God by introducing the false doctrines. Should Paul say that the 4 case is so too? No he won't, God won't allow him to be in such a position that if he's wrong that he'll be in the risk of offending the Holy Spirit. So if Paul said that "the Holy Spirit is NOT behind all these" but in case he's wrong, well he's in the risk of offending the Holy Spirit too. So IMO, by God's will Paul would not and cannot rebuke but setting an example of how this situation should be dealt with. That is, you are asked to leave it between you and God. Don't over state it when the Church is not beneficial while you are lacking a witness (the interpreter). No one will be able to rebuke you, and no one should rebuke you when you claim that the Holy Spirit is behind something which few can discern. The situation is very different in the case that an interpreter exists to translate your tongue. Because when your tongue can be translated it is beyond doubt that this is from the Holy Spirit, and at the same time you have a witness to say that you are truly speaking in tongue. That's my 2 cents.

I don't like to assume. Have you been brought to that state? Will you share any of the details if it could possibly bring edification unto us? Gary It is a yes. I don't usually mention that coz I don't think it does any good anymore other than fulfilling one's curiosity. Briefly speaking, I was fully conscious under the witness of 4 doctors (they all knew and said so that I was fully conscious), but I was half in this reality and half in Hades. I wasn't a true Christian at that time, I didn't even read the Bible, I didn't know anything about what the Bible might have said, I didn't even know that man is triune. It was an NDE but never like any other NDE I had read afterward. I was all the times lying in the be (you can't have a dream in your bed all the times, can you?), it's long long time that I thought normally a dead person should have thought about. As the NDE is totally unexpected even by the doctors, so I thought alot about why me and why me in this age, I thought a lot about my family, my wife and kid and how they would live without me. I even thought about how they would be able to claim the insurance as I purchased the insurance before marrying and the beneficiary was my sister instead of my wife, so I thought she might have a problem claiming the insurance. Anyway, this was not a dream to the best of my judgment. I tried to get out of my body but I couldn't (I later on conclude that the body is just like the cocoon while the soul like a worn trying to get off its cocoon). And I saw how my spirit flying out and it vibrated with a shape of a "flying dove", I couldn't find out a better description of its shape, and it's with a size similar to the lung. It vibrated (so resembles flying) right in front of me while I couldn't help but jumped up in a sitting position (my soul, not the body) and scared. And at the same time, I noticed that I was not alone, they all gave it a loud "wow" so I could hear them but I couldn't see them but the hospital room environment. I was in the sitting position more than once but it seemed that I couldn't keep myself in the position long enough, the body kept dragging me (my soul) back to the body (a cocoon and worn fight). In that gloomy environment I remembered clearly what my last position was, as I sided my head to the left. And at the same exact position I woke up. I quickly noticed that different as I saw normal lighting (of a sunshine afternoon at around 3pm) instead of the gloomy environment. So I jumped up in the sitting position and this time it finally worked. I was truly in the sitting position this time. I heard people murmuring but I didn't pay any attention at first, as I assumed that other patients were there (actually it was odd as there were not many patient there to make the noise of a crowd, but I was just too busy to notice). I was busy thinking about what had been going on, hey I just returned from death. Gradually I noticed the odd, because I was somehow "addressed" to the chat. I started to notice that I wasn't totally "back" to the reality. So I had a chance to speculate how they talked. First I assumed that they were local folks (dead wicked souls) so I was not surprised that they all spoke in my native language (Cantonese). I speculate that they spoke in a special way that, when you are "addressed" to the chat, you'll hear a clear and much louder voice, other times you just hear the murmuring but without knowing what they are talking about (that's because you are not "invited" to the chat). When someone tries to speak to you with you "addressed", you should be able to hear a louder and clearer voice and all are carried out in your native tongue. 10 minutes after, I saw a cherub of some kind. At the same time all others (those chatting wicked souls) seemed gone. I never read that Bible so I didn't know how to describe it (it was later that I knew that it's a cherub of some kind). I perceived the fear it cast on me and I was deeply scared so I yelled "ghost, ghost". All the doctors and nurses came, the doctors started to test whether I was conscious so 4 of them questioned me in turn while the nurses were calling the hospital's pastor to tell him to come over. At the same time, I noticed that my body was still in a num, I couldn't feel my skin and muscle, the feeling is as odd as you are in a corpse not belong to you. I later on concluded that my soul wasn't combined well with my body yet, so it's half in body and it's half out of body and naturally my second half was in Hades (last time Paul was in the third heaven and heard strange chatting but God didn't allow him to talk about). Another thing puzzled me was that the cherub spoke some Cantonese which actually inspired me to make the conclusion about what "speak in tongue" might be. The pastor was more than half an hour late so I had to face the cherub for around 40 minutes. And at that time what scared me was that what if it never leaves me in my life time, what if in my life time that I have to face this haunting cherub whenever my eyes are open, or even after I die? The doctors tried to move me to the ICU but the ICU was full so they moved me to another area nearer to the nurses' desk. By the time when I was moved to the new location and I looked up again, the cherub was gone. And it's like 10 seconds after the pastor arrived and said me a prayer. The doctor's dialogue; doctor 1 said, "It's truly strange that he's fully conscious". She said so after the questioning and a reliable visual test in which I had to read through a card with numbers and alphabets in various sizes, and I did all correctly and answered all questions perfectly (Actually I would like them to ask more complicated questions such as mathematical calculations but they didn't. Perhaps to them it's clear that I was fully normal). doctor 2 said to doctor 3, "Don't say that you won't believe (supernatural things), when you are put to the same situation you probably will see the same thing". while doctor 4 seemed scared, he didn't act as normal and calm as he should.

From my own experience, I suspect that "tongue" could be totally something else. ======== From my experience and study, "tongue" could be something totally different from what we think it is. This could be heretic though but for your reference only. "Tongue" is part of the off-body language for you to speak off-bodily and for others to hear off-bodily. Souls in Hades may speak this way, as they don't have a body. The main characteristic of "tongue" is that, no matter who speaks, you shall hear your own native tongue. Mostly you speak in your own native tongue while all others will hear their own native tongue respectively. There are usually 2 symptoms when people with a physical body speaking in "tongue". 1. One tries to speak his own native language while God makes him speak off-bodily, and at the same time making all his audience listenning off-bodily. This shall be the case in Pentecost. 2. You (you could be gifted in this case) tried to speak off-bodily but by your effort somehow your physical tongue is out of control that your physical voice turns into gibberish to others who are unable to hear off-bodily. If God would like your message to be heard in this case, He might choose to allow one or several of your audience to be able to hear off-bodily to understand what you said, and in this case they shall hear their own native language respectively. In theory, you are still intending to speak your own native lauguage though in voice it appears to be gibberish. ("tongue" might have been ceased (?not sure yet) because most likely speaking in this way will leave physical evidence of His existence) 2 Corinthians 12:2 Whether it was in the body or out of the body I do not know—God knows. If you are ever brought to this state, you may have a clue about what I am talking about. Acts 2 5 Now there were staying in Jerusalem God-fearing Jews from every nation under heaven. 6 When they heard this sound, a crowd came together in bewilderment, because each one heard their own language being spoken. 7 Utterly amazed, they asked: “Aren’t all these who are speaking Galileans? 8 Then how is it that each of us hears them in our native language? 9 Parthians, Medes and Elamites; residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, 10 Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya near Cyrene; visitors from Rome 11 (both Jews and converts to Judaism); Cretans and Arabs—we hear them declaring the wonders of God in our own tongues!”

I think that depends several things. First, how much humans understand what "time" actually is. The answer is, no one actually understand what time is, not even Einstein. In the theory of relativity, when two beams of light travel towards each other, the relative speed is still the speed of light. It is said that the speed of light is a constant in this case, while time and space changes in a way that we never understand. In quantum physics, "time" shares a lot of common characteristics with "space", so in multi-spatial calculations "time" is treated as the outer most "space". The "time" we understand (or assume) is a constant as we experience through, this is because we are bound by our living environment which happens to be a 3D space and only within this environment time behaves as we observed in the past several thousand years. Beyond this scope, it relies on our faith to believe what it was. 14 billions is calculated under the assumption that time in the past was as stable as it is now. On the other hand, Eintein said that time is not a stable physics unit, instead speed is. In a nutshell, time can behave totally outside our concept to comprehend. What left is the question that under what conditions it behaved "normally" and what conditions it behaved totally out of our concept to comprehend. So whether it is 6000 years or 14 billion years, inevitably we already applied our concept of time with the assumption that it behaves constantly and stably. It's just like saying that dogs are good companion of men, and that's before they bite. Second, we took for granted to think that planet earth is in its current position all the times. Now take a look at Genesis, earth and heavenS (assume multiple spaces) were created in the beginning, but it never says in which heaven the earth was created. How about that earth was created in another space then brought to its current position on Day 4? If so, how will you be able to calculate its age?

That actually doesn't matter as long as God is in full control of how the canonical Bible shall be crafted. If on the hand God let loose that control, even Peter can be mistaken. The point is, the church can be corrupted, the Bible can be twisted by humans. Discernment is required all the times to identify this twist and corruption while preserving the original Word of God. Please explain how Christ's Apostolic [ because apostles were nucleus of Christ's Church] Church could possibly become corrupted when Jesus promised 'even the gates of hell shall never prevail against my church " Matt 16: 18 and in Daniel 2:44 "The God of heaven will set up a kingdom that shall never be destroyed " If you notice Jesus said "my church"singular usage, not "churches" as we find today starting from the 16th century. If you believe in your description of "church" who then amonst the early brethren had the authority to determine which books belonged in the NT Canon and to make this decision binding on all Christians ? If nobody has this authority , then can you remove or add books to the canon on your own authority? In order to identify this, you need to understand first what's meant by In Christ. Church refers to bhe body of Christ He established in three days which covers the Christians who are in Christ. Even when the end comes, His body still covers those who endure, and only those who endure shall be saved. Physical churches including the Roman Catholic Church can go corrupted, and it did that's why by God's will Martin Luther led the reformation. When corrupted, they are no longer considered In Christ, or else you will be saying that they are corrupted in Christ. Mark 14:58 “We heard him say, ‘I will destroy this temple made with human hands and in three days will build another, not made with hands.’”

Then it must be my bad. She's right. Science shouldn't have said anything about God exists or God doesn't. Science itself doesn't even claim that God should be expelled from science. Science just prove beyond doubt through its predictability and falsifiability that a law/theory stands without God being included in the formula. So actually you can assume God in those formula as an assumption, it's just got refuted real quick. Science will not ban any assumption which is possibly true. Science cannot disprove God, at the same time it doesn't make sense if something possibly true cannot be scientifically assumed. I can't disprove it, but you are not allowed to assume so. <--- this is not science, this is a religion employing a twisted science.

That's your mistake. It's never about the choice between the natural world and supernatual world. It's always about when you are living and after your death. If you think that it's better with science and natural world after you die, that's your choice but it doesn't make any sense to me.

In science, a hypothesis can be wrong before it is verified by the predictability and falsifiability of science. For example, the Big Bang theory is a hypothesis. It is not "well tested" simply because you can't observe or experiment on a repeatedly exploiding universe. It is thus a hypothesis can hardly be confirmed. As a result, it won't be considered a truth even though scientists in majority may buy into it. They buy into it because it is weighed among the various theories regarding to the origin of the universe, including Big Bang, resonance theory and so forth. With these given alternatives, they believe that the Big Bang theory shall be more closer to the truth. But in the end, this is a belief, this is not a confirmed truth scientifically speaking. On the other hand, if the Big Bang theory is confirmed to be the truth, other theories will not be able to exist, as you can't have two different truth regarding to how the universe was originated. As a sign, the different theories exist simply because none of them is confirmed scientifically through the predictability and falsifiability of science. Even after the verification of predictability and falsifiability, a theory will usually be claimed to work under a certain paradigm. This is because even scientific laws are imperfect. A lot of them are waited to be perfected. You might already heard of the Newtonian laws only work under a certain paradigm. And humans have not yet discovered the true nature of gravity, so any law about gravity possibly is not perfect, they may subject to corrections when we know more about its true nature. To humans, we know of totally 4 field forces, but the 4 theories related to these forces are independent theories working for each forces (paradigm) but incompatible with each other. Top scientists (I heard that including Albert Einstein) were/are still working towards a "super theory" to resolve this incompatibility. You shall see that even science is limted and relative.

The only thing that cannot be flawed is God and His Word, everything else is subject to flaws, science makes no exception especially the false science such as ToE. While you have absolute faith on the scientists (men) and their science, I question them. On the other hand, I questioned God too, and that's when I was an atheist. Now I have absolute faith on Him. The flaw of your "science" has been pointed out time and again, that's not hard anyway. But your absolute faith may still argue with the faith statement that "how can the scientists be wrong". ======= 2H2O = 2H2 + O2 This is science. Science is the claim of existing repeating patterns following rules. You have to demonstrate how it repeats predictably if you declare that something repeats. You have to do a lab to demonstrate, and more importantly you have to predict correctly about the result before the lab. In the formula above, you have to do the lab itself and to predict beforehand that H2 and O2 will be the result. If in the infinitive number of repeated lab tests of the equation, your theory will be falsified or rejected even when you failed once (as long as your lab setup isn’t an issue). This is evolution. You don’t do the lab itself. Instead, you collect evidence from test tubes used in yesterday’s labs. And you use high precision equipment (such as DNA analyzer?) to examine the residues left in the test tubes. Then you claim that evidence shows that water dissolves into H2 + O2. When you came across a test tube doesn’t support this view, you said new evidence suggests something else. And you call this science?! Scientists buy into this because you don’t have an alternative. It’s a political correctness to choose ToE because scientists won’t introduce God into their research that lightly. And actually this is yet another fallacy to conclude that “because a lot of scientists buy into ToE so that ToE must be a truth”. This is a fallacy in terms of science. However, you can claim that if you consciously admit that ToE is a faith and a religion, because the claim itself is a religious statement. The approach employed by ToE is totally different from any other science. Any other science will have to rely on the predictability and falsifyability to confirm a scientific truth (a repeating pattern). That is, you have to do the lab itself and predict beforehand. ToE abandoned this approach because it is impossible by far to do a lab covering the time frame needed for an evolution to occur. On the other hand, how credible ToE is if it is the only “science” using the “without doing a lab” approach. I speculate that there are tons of flaws using this approach and it actually opens a can of worms to the field of science. ========= The 2 applied most misconception of evolution of which the whole ToE is built on are 2 fallacies. Fallacy 1 Because I observed one thing evolves, such that every species now and in history must have evolved. Yet observable evidence shows that certain species never changes or there's no observable changes can be obtained. So in order to claim that every known (and unknown) species must have evolved, you need to observe or provide evidence of each species now and in history. Since not all species in history can be known to humans, thus no conclusion can be drawn to say that all species evolved. How ever "all species must have evolved" is already used and applied as fact. Fallacy 2, Because all species have evolved (in accordance to fallacy 1), such that all species must have evolved from a single cell (or whatever simplest life form). Even all species "evolve" (subject to mechanisms assumed by today's humans), it by no means says that 1) we already figured out all possible mechanisms, and 2) they have been evolved from simplest life forms (i.e., single cells). Because no evidence ever existed about how a single cell turns into, say, an elephant. There are other fallacies of which the ToE is based heavily on. For example, when it is observed that A, B, C, D, E and F appear to be looked alike. People will draw the fallacious conclusion that evolution must occur in the sequence that A->B->C->D->E->F. They never consider the possibility that A, B, C, D, E, F are of totally different species, as they appeared to be alike by no means says that they must have relation to each other, they can still be totally independent of each other. Moreover, they also never consider other combinations such as CBDAEF instead of ABCDEF, it is also possibly BDCAFE and so forth. So what conclusion ToE can draw? It's none. Do every species evolve? ToE pretends to provide an answer yet it is a fallacy saying that "because one or a bunch of species evolves such that all species now and in history must have evolved". Do all species evolve from a single cell (or whatever simple life form)? Again, ToE pretends to give answer which turns out to be a fallacy of "because all species evolves, such that must have been evolved from a single cell. If you are willing to think deeper you'll notice that ToE is fundamentally built on fallacies, and with the deceptive and fallacious implication that all species evolves and evolved from a single cell. =========== As for biblical account. I believe mostly it's talking about how it originally was. Bible never says anything about what have been going on after the completion of the 6 day creation. God may have created thousands of species then put them in the nature the let the nature continue to impact and make change to the existing species. Moreover, hybridization is also possible biblically speaking, as it is said that God' sons mate with men's daughters. It is possible in ancient times that the Jews called whatever with the shape of a man the son of man while creature which were not human beings, say, other homo erectus the sons of God. As a result, even when it could be evident that the nature impacted and made certain changes to certain species, it by no means says that this is the way how species were originated. Just like I said, "because I observed the nature making changes to certain species, such that all species must be a result of natural selection" is a fallacy applied by the evolutionists. ==========

That actually doesn't matter as long as God is in full control of how the canonical Bible shall be crafted. If on the hand God let loose that control, even Peter can be mistaken. The point is, the church can be corrupted, the Bible can be twisted by humans. Discernment is required all the times to identify this twist and corruption while preserving the original Word of God.

I think that it's quite reasonable for the gospel to be finalized in 70-80 AD. Because reasonably the first line eyewitnesses are to behave for the second line witness to write how they behave, especially when the first line eyewitnesses were all made themselves ready to matyrdom. So they won't write "I was killed for preaching the gospel", the job should be left for the second line witnesses to write/finalize the Bible. Second, the first line eyewitnesses were not necessarily all familiar with Greek, even when they write they could well be writing in Hebrew instead of Greek. Paul and Luke may be fluent in Greek, but I am not sure about others. So some of their original scripts may well be in Hebrew then being finalized by the second line witnesses using Greek. Second, it took time for centre of the gospel preaching to be shifted and finalized in the Greek/Rome area, before that Peter seemed to be with the Jews while Paul was sent to Greek/Rome, others may be in other areas. They had use local language for their preaching and writing mostly. Even when they wrote about Jesus and their witnessing, the original script may well not be in Greek. At the time when Christianity was centered to Greek/Rome, it could well already be 70-80 AD. And from this point, demand for Greek version of the Gospel rose, and thus the Greek version gospel we based on today. At the same time, there could be various versions of the gospel (some were false) and in various languages. It was thus demanded for a Canon to filter out those false gospel. This may further pushed for the formal use of Greek version gospel. By God's will and influence, the Greek version gospel shall be the true gospel. As for multiple denominations, it's normal and natural that human minds vary. On the other hand, mind unity won't guarantee truth and correctness. Even with the multitude of denominations, it's obviously clear that a standard exists for salvation. God allows multiple denominations but with only one version of salvation. The good side of multiple denominations is that Christians need to discern true from false. They are trained to discern. With careful discernment, they keep receiving new revelations from each other. They are advancing while following the same path of salvation. The Bible is still the same Bible, but as time goes by, God will be able to reveal to them new things, new things which is contained in, say, Daniel's scoll which shall only be revealed in end time, things like the how the seals are to be "remvoed" in the book of revelation. They are advancing in a healthy way.

Yes iit does and every major proponent of Evolution says so. The attraction of evolution to atheists is the very philosophically naturalistic explanation that the TOE provides. The entire debate would have been over a long time ago, had the TOE not been viewed by both sides of the debate as a competeting theory over not only Divine origin of the universe but the method by which life developed. Your assertion is simply false and denies decades and decades of history. Evolution is never about evolution. Even from his statement one can tell that ToE is a product of deception. How? Evolution is never about evolution, while the origin of species is never about the origin of species. Aren't this deceptions? To be more specific, ToE can be about evolution when needed, but it's not about evolution at all when needed in some other times. Same the same, Origin of Species is about origin of species when needed, but it's not about origin of species in some other times when needed (by the evolutionists). If you can't sense deception inside these, I can't help the much.