Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'genesis'.



More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • Worthy Lobby
    • Worthy Welcome
  • Christian Discussions
    • Study Group
    • General Discussion
    • Do you want to just ask a question?
    • Theology
    • Apologetics
    • Prophecy
    • Christian Culture
  • Upper Room
    • Prayer Requests
    • Praises
    • Absolutely Positive!
    • Testimonies
  • Community Center
    • Fellowship Hall
    • Legacy Lounge
    • Humor! Need a good laugh?
    • Golden Oldies
    • Sports, Hobbies, Entertainment, and other interests
  • Videos
    • General
    • Comedy
    • Biblical Topics
    • Christian Music
  • Current News
    • Worthy Briefs
    • Most Interesting News Developments
    • World News
    • Israeli-Palestinian Conflict
    • U.S. News
    • Christian News
  • Worthy Ministries
    • Worthy Devotions
    • What's the latest with the Worthy Ministries?
  • Worthy Fantasy Football League's Discussions
  • Who's on the Lord side?'s Topics
  • Cooking club's What's your favorite recipe?
  • Cooking club's Bread
  • Cooking club's About Multi-cookers - features, tips, recipes
  • Cooking club's Smokers & related recipes/techniques
  • Gardening.'s Gardening Club Forum
  • Photography How To (tips and tricks)'s Photography Club Topics
  • Maker's Club's So, what do you make, what have you made?
  • Maker's Club's Club News
  • Bible 365's THE DAILY READING
  • Bible 365's Misc. Things of interest
  • Bible 365's Bible Topics - Looking at the Bible Topically
  • Reading Club's Topics
  • Bible Trivia's Bible Trivia Quizzes
  • Bible Trivia's Bible Trivia Answers
  • Bible Trivia's Index to Bible Trivia and Answers
  • Bible Trivia's Announcements
  • Puzzle Club's Forums
  • The Prophecy Exchange's Forums
  • The Prophecy Exchange's Resources
  • Songs of Praise Poetry Club's Forums
  • Drone Club's Forums
  • Christ Centered Recovery Group's Forums
  • Christ Centered Recovery Group's 12 Steps and Biblical Comparison
  • Christ Centered Recovery Group's Testimonies
  • Christ Centered Recovery Group's Lessons
  • Worthy Book Club's Forums
  • The New Hobbies Club's Discussion board
  • Diabetes and Low Carb Eating Support Group's Low Carb Eating
  • Diabetes and Low Carb Eating Support Group's Diabetes
  • Triumph Over Cancer's Encouragement
  • Triumph Over Cancer's General topics
  • Triumph Over Cancer's Tips and advice

Christian Blogs

There are no results to display.

There are no results to display.

Calendars

  • WCF Events
  • Worthy Fantasy Football League's Calendar of Events

Find results in...

Find results that contain...


Date Created

  • Start

    End


Last Updated

  • Start

    End


Filter by number of...

Joined

  • Start

    End


Group


AIM


MSN


Website URL


ICQ


Yahoo


Jabber


Skype


Location


Interests

Found 16 results

  1. Genesis say that after sinning, Adam and Eve were ashamed to be without clothes. That would explain why we wear clothing. But, why the native american (specially in south america) were ok with being naked, why they didn't have shame of their bodies if they too are descendant of Adam and Eve? why the native american were "blind" to nakedness? This is in Genesis 3:7-11 "Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves. 8 Then the man and his wife heard the sound of the Lord God as he was walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and they hid from the LordGod among the trees of the garden. 9 But the Lord God called to the man, “Where are you?” 10 He answered, “I heard you in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; so I hid.” 11 And he said, “Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree that I commanded you not to eat from?”
  2. Welcome Fam, My curiosity was sparked when reading the Book of Genesis about the beginnings of creation itself. Within the first chapter, most notably the ending of it, the Bible reads, "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. And to all the beast of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground -everything that has the breath of life in it -I give every green plant for food." -Genesis 1:29-30 NIV With this small portion of knowledge, it can be noted that mankind was constructed to be overseers of Earth, but also noting that our only source of food was that of the trees, bushes, plants, and all the was considered vegetation. Giving the norm that mankind was once only vegan and vegan alone. I am more than sure the same rules applied to the beast and animals that roamed the earth at the time, but my question here is not whether or not we we're, but if we should in todays day and age. Moreover, I would love to hear if anyone agrees with my statement above, I will certainly love everyones opinion on this subject. Continuing on this matter, is why give us the need of food? In other words, why did God make us in his image, but with the ability of eating daily to survive? In this sense, we we're victims of starvation, right? And if that implies, then why create something that needs to be refueled? What is the hidden purpose of this? There is much more to discuss here but I rather leave it to that to have a conversation start, for as my mind is baffled on such interesting topics. Feel free to express yourself on the notion and hope to hear from many of you. -J.D.
  3. Daily Reading 1 If you prefer, you can look up the following verses in your own Bible, or by whatever means and in whichever version you choose. (or go to next day) Luke 5:27-39 Genesis 1:1-2:1-25 Psalm 1:1-6 Audio 5:04 Audio 4:55 Audio 0:55 The above verse addresses are linked to Bible Gateway. That is an easy way to read (or listen to) the Bible verses, and choose your version. Personally, I prefer written, that way I can go at my own pace, and think about it, before moving on. Nothing wrong with doing either or both. The Bible says faith comes by hearing. See the picture below to get an idea of what to expect if you follow the above links. Note: The audio will not play the exact verses, it will play the BELOW THIS LINE IS OR OLD FORMAT November 1st, 2017, was our first day of this Bible Club. Below is the original format, we changed format sometime later. Above, is th updated format, I hope to update all the pages as the new year of the club continues. I think these old links below, will still work, but I am not maintaining them. Luke 5:27-39 Genesis 1:1-2:1-25 Genesis 2:1-25 Psalm 1:1-6 If you want to go to the site to see the verses displayed with auto popups of the verse text, then choose one of the versions listed below: King James Version The New King James Version, The New International Version, The New American Standard Bible If you do that, you will be taken to a page that has the same verse addresses shown above. My hovering your cursor over the address there, a popup should display, if your viewing device is comparable. I the verse is short, you may read it all in the popup, if it is too long to fit, then you will need to click where it says "more" to see the rest of the passage.
  4. Prayer Time Travel - The Holy Bible records time. The Bible has a beginning to end, Genesis to Revelation. God is outside time. He has no beginning or end. We have a beginning with no end. We start in time, then escape it, get outside it with no end. Many prayers are throughout the Holy Bible affecting past, present and future, from whoever's perspective. Jesus Christ is! God is the great "I am," not was nor will be. Jesus prays for all believers. 20 “My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, 21 that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. - John 17:20-21 New International Version (NIV) Revelation in the Bible affects the past to us now and beyond to the beginning of time, Genesis. A prayer in my future affects me and my now and even my past. My prayer now about my past affects my future. I am affected by my past, present and future, now. I am not an isolated silo. We cause ripple effects, everything affects everything, everything matters. Christ's life giving water is thee all encompassing most important matter. I lost my wallet. I decided not to fear or worry. I accepted it and let it go. Eventually I decided to pray about it, relatively long after the fact. Later, a policeman called for me to come get it from him. It had been been discovered moments after I lost it and immediately turned in. A beat cop had happened to be there. The officer had been swamped with work, so had notified and met with me a week later, having been so busy. That was my time traveling prayer eureka moment. At the time, my prayer was only to help process, comfort and put the whole matter in God's hands, whatever His will. I was happy with it and had left it at that. Yay and hallelujah, yet another reason for prayer! Now I realized and believed my prayer had actually traveled back in time. God's reach and power is anywhere anytime. He answered my prayer by changing my past, my reality and my future. What was lost was now found in time. December 18, 2016, I prayed a short, simple to the point prayer. I met and surrendered to Jesus Christ as my Saviour and Lord. What I prayed then and there took effect in the past on the cross at Calvary. Jesus Christ was sacrificed for me and my sin debt. That past was affected by prayer in its future. That present took effect in the past and affected the future until the end of time. Then, now and then, I pray in Jesus Christ's name, amen. 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. - John 1:1-2 New International Version (NIV)
  5. I was asked by a friend about the Book of Enoch that I was recently reading. I acquired it several months ago but have never taken the time to read the book. Having recently decided to pursue its contents, I find it requires my full concentration. Waiting for this friend to get out of his medical appointment, I had a few minutes to spare, and so I began rereading pages of the book I had already read. This time I had determined to make notes as I went because I wanted to build some word pictures in my head (it's how I learn best.) Waiting for some paperwork from the front desk, we still had a couple of minutes and so I started talking to him about what I had learned so far. I mentioned that the Book of Enoch had been an integral part of the early Church, and had been read aloud among the body for 700 years. (Consider that the early church would have had little in the way of documentation aside from expensive, hand-copied scrolls of the Talmud and Tanach. So, if they were to have a copy of Enoch's rare and prophetic book, then, yes, someone would have read it aloud.) It is said that Early Church fathers, such as Clement, Barnabas, and Irenaeus referenced and quoted from the Book of Enoch. Th D. JR Church made this statement in the book he published, “Enoch, The First Book Ever Written.” The late JR Church did a running commentary on it as he explains and defines what Enoch said. I have come to realize that verifiable evidence is not enough to convince some people of the necessity nor the authenticity of information that gives us more insight into Biblical events that are otherwise perpetually obscured. I am a strong believer that the answers are there, in scripture, and, if not they might be obtained through some other source, like the Book of Enoch. Keep this in mind as you read. Jude, the author of his own book, quotes a prophecy from Enoch that is not in our Bibles and can only be found in the Book of Enoch. The writer of Hebrews places Enoch in the hall of fame for his great faith, by which he walked off this earth and into God's arms, never to see death (Hebrews 11:5). And we find the name of Enoch in Luke 3:37, where he is listed in the lineage of Jesus Christ. I can't remember how we got there, but my friend said, then what do you do with Genesis 6:7 where God said, I am sorry that I made man? Perhaps I had attempted to point out how the fallen angels had, as Jude tells us, cohabited with the daughters of men, with the express purpose of circumventing God's plan of redemption. How can I make that statement? You have to go back to the garden where God is addressing Eve about her actions. She is cursed, but there is some good news, as one from her seed will bring about the redemption of the world. (Okay, I did not use the exact wording, but you should get a general idea.) Genesis 3:13-15 NASB Then the LORD God said to the woman, "What is this you have done?" And the woman said, "The serpent deceived me, and I ate." 14) The LORD God said to the serpent, "Because you have done this, Cursed are you more than all cattle, And more than every beast of the field; On your belly you will go, And dust you will eat All the days of your life; 15) And I will put enmity Between you and the woman, And between your seed and her seed; He shall bruise you on the head, And you shall bruise him on the heel." Satan's evil plan almost worked prior to the flood. Consider what was happening at this time. God, seeing that the earth was FILLED with violence and that the thoughts of “men” were only evil. The fallen angels, by taking whomever they wanted among women, had filled the earth with hybrids. The International Standard Bible says it best. Genesis 6:4 ISV The Nephilim were on the earth at that time (and also immediately afterward), when those divine beings were having sexual relations with those human women, who gave birth to children for them. These children became the heroes and legendary figures of ancient times. These titans became the foundations of mythology. Question, does the word all indeed mean all? No, because there was at that time a handful; specifically the close lineage that produced Noah. This family line was, as yet, untouched by the genetic corruption that these fallen angels were introducing. So far I haven't focused on any passages that touch on the word all, but the question was asked, “didn't God say that he was sorry he created man on the earth?” Doesn't that phrase imply that God was offended by all, including Noah? There is nothing about this question or the verse, that paints a correct picture of God or His character. If He was disgusted with all, then why waste any time communing with Enoch. The disjointed logic we use when we focus on one verse out of context makes no sense and is incorrect. So let's rethink the generalized question, wasn't God sorry He created man. Genesis 6:6-7 NASB The LORD was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart. 7) The LORD said, "I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the land, from man to animals to creeping things and to birds of the sky; for I am sorry that I have made them." While it is true that the Bible translations range from sorry to regret, and grieved; but remember, God, put the man on earth so that He could share His life with and talk to the man. [Right here is where the understanding that God was not caught off guard by Satan's/Lucifer's actions, and the plan of salvation – that is the securing of the creation, including God's finest creation, man, was initiated. All of our confusion and misunderstandings stem from how we perceive these first few moments of time. God knew full well what would happen and adapted to the perverted twists. The day will come when our relationship with the Father will once again be restored to the condition it was prior to Adam's fall in the garden.] When you understand God's nature and character, the emotion of being sorry doesn't seem to accurately convey His heart toward men like Enoch, Methuselah or Noah, and they should be excluded from such a generalized statement. Therefore, it must mean something more specific. To merely quote this verse is to ignore the context in which it is said. The context begins in verse two, where fallen angels are taking human women, having intercourse with them, and filling the earth with their own version of hybrids. Not only that, but these hybrids are not just tall, they are massive, and they are violent hunters of humankind. Genesis 6:2-5 CJB the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were attractive; and they took wives for themselves, whomever they chose. 3) Adonai said, "My Spirit will not live in human beings forever, for they too are flesh; therefore their lifespan is to be 120 years." 4) The N'filim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward when the sons of God came into the daughters of men, and they bore children to them; these were the ancient heroes, men of renown. 5) Adonai saw that the people on earth were very wicked, that all the imaginings of their hearts were always of evil only. The attention grabber in this paragraph above is verse 5, where it says, “Adonai saw that the people on earth were very wicked, that all the imaginings of their hearts were always of evil only.” Evidently, the Satanic scheme to hijack the redemption of the earth was so efficient that it had reduced the unpolluted lineage from Adam to the close relatives of Noah. Now, if the earth had been infiltrated to the point there were only a handful of undamaged humans left, wouldn't God be justifiably disgusted to the point where he was not only willing but needed to remove this malignancy from the earth? Genesis 6:6-7 NASB The LORD was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart. 7) The LORD said, "I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the land, from man to animals to creeping things and to birds of the sky; for I am sorry that I have made them." Sorry, the word used in the NASB is the Hebrew word nâcham and means to sigh that is, breathe strongly; by implication to be sorry. For me, an implication is not a translation, nor is it definitive. It is, however, something that may explain or add clarity. The words sigh and breathe strongly are words that I can understand, as I do it frequently. I sigh when I am angry, frustrated, and have enough. In this case, God had enough. The phrase “he had made,” is the Hebrew word ‛āśāh: A verb meaning to do, to make, to accomplish, to complete. This frequently used Hebrew verb conveys the central notion of performing an activity with a distinct purpose, a moral obligation, or a goal in view (cf. Gen_11:6). I could just as comfortably read Genesis 6:6 as The Lord was extremely frustrated that His good intentions had come to this. Isaiah tells the reader that the earth was habitable in the day that it was formed, and yet, something transpired because there was most certainly some imperfection taking place. Isaiah 45:18 NASB For thus says the LORD, who created the heavens (He is the God who formed the earth and made it, He established it and did not create it a waste place, but formed it to be inhabited), "I am the LORD, and there is none else. Likewise, man was perfect on the day he was made as well. Genesis 1:27-31 NASB God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. 28) God blessed them; and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth." 29) Then God said, "Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the surface of all the earth, and every tree which has fruit yielding seed; it shall be food for you; 30) and to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the sky and to everything that moves on the earth which has life, I have given every green plant for food"; and it was so. 31) God saw all that He had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day. What is there about this paragraph above for God to be disgusted with? Nothing. How about here in Genesis 2:7-9? Genesis 2:7-9 NASB Then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living being. 8) The LORD God planted a garden toward the east, in Eden; and there He placed the man whom He had formed. 9) Out of the ground the LORD God caused to grow every tree that is pleasing to the sight and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Still good. But things are about to change. I am cutting it short for space sake. Genesis 3:7-10 NASB Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked, and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves loin coverings. 8) They heard the sound of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and the man and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God among the trees of the garden. 9) Then the LORD God called to the man, and said to him, "Where are you?" 10) He said, "I heard the sound of You in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; so I hid myself." Eve was deceived, but Adam was wide awake and chose to trash his relationship with God. The passage also demonstrates an event that may have happened on a daily basis, God communing with the man and his wife. The tragedy here is that the connectedness and ease of communication with God were now broken. I pointed out earlier, how in talking with the serpent, God said, “I will put enmity Between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed; He shall bruise you on the head, And you shall bruise him on the heel.” Not too long after this, is when Satan's plan to stop this seed, gets put into action. Ask yourself a question. Through intercourse and a maintained level of violence, how long would it take you to redirect the global order of things? Now, consider the added benefit these hybrids had in their completion of Satan's ugly plan. Can you now see why the history of man on earth, has been riddled with holocausts?
  6. Hello again. Long story short, I had an unfortunate, sudden but not unexpected death in the family recently. The adult siblings all gathered. 5 families, 4 of which are lapsed or worse. We get on the topic of faith, and I'm sent into action. I defend truth as vehemently as I know how. However, I'm green, an amateur. I was challenged on the great flood and I was tripped up. A very sly objection I had never heard or had to defend anywhere. I was challenged on the timing of the Bible vs. Gilgamesh when it comes to the great flood. My only defense was to ask for empirical proof of dates and to explain the Bible was orally passed down for a long time as well. I also explained how all the Messiah myths of old were simply false Christ stories attempting to fulfill old testament prophecy, and it's backwards to think those myths are the same thing as the Jesus Truth which in fact DID fulfill ALL prophecies (attempting to correlate this logic to the Genesis flood). But I'm not satisfied with myself on the Gilgamesh topic and would like to ask if anyone could help basically debunk Gilgamesh as an empirical proof of an older flood story compared to Genesis? I apologize if the answers are already archived here, I'm just trying to engage some positive discussion, any thoughts would be greatly appreciated.
  7. There is a great creation science magazine you can receive free of charge from the Institute for Creation Institute. Here is there website link for more information: Institute for Creation Research
  8. So Abram went, as the Lord had told him; and Lot went with him. Abram was seventy-five years old when he set out from Harran. We know from later in the story of Abraham and Sarah, that there is a ten year age difference between Abram and Sarai. That means then that Sarai here, is 65 years old. 11 As he was about to enter Egypt, he said to his wife Sarai, “I know what a beautiful woman you are. 12 When the Egyptians see you, they will say, ‘This is his wife.’ Then they will kill me but will let you live. 13 Say you are my sister, so that I will be treated well for your sake and my life will be spared because of you.” Now, I find this interesting, because in my society and time, it is hard to imagine, that if I had a 65 year old wife, that I would have to fear for my life, because a 65 year old woman was so beautiful, that others would seek to kill me to possess her. Really, I find it hard to believe that I would have to fear for my life, over the beauty of a woman, even if she were the most beautiful woman in the world. Seems to me that there are several observations to be made about different societies and their values. For my society, I am willing to admit, that we value the beauty of youthfulness, way out of proportion. Sure, I get that it is easy to see a twenty something year old model as aesthetically pleasing, but we have taken this standard to such an extreme, that we encourage women to hide their age, as it is is something to be ashamed of. Anti-wrinkle creme, makeup, hair coloring, face lifts, silicone enhancements, etc. entire fortunes are made, and lots of time and money spent on convincing women (successfully) they are of lessor value, because they have a few miles on the odometer, and show some signs of maturity. I am not a fan of appearance shaming, and that is not the Biblical standard for beauty. We all, know well enough, to what degree we have bought into the standards of the world personally, and I think it is worth considering as individuals. I will leave it at that, and move on to other things. Next, that these Egyptian would actually do as Abram feared, value Sarai so highly, that they would go to extreme measures to posses her. I suppose, it is at least better, that they would consider purchasing her from her "brother" instead of killing her husband to have her, but still, how weird is that? That they considered her to be more valuable than some sheep and cattle, male and female donkeys, male and female servants, and camels apparently, for at least in some way, Abram was able to make that sort of profit on his supposed sister. While people are more valuable that animals, the male and female servants, are people too. Evidently, it was Sarai's beauty that made her valuable, not the fact that she was human. So, the priorities of those Egyptians, were more messed up than the society of even my culture is, when it comes to the value of physical beauty. Then there is the aspect of treating people like property to be bought, sold, traded, and killed for. We (humans) are so messed up, no wonder we need a savior! Abram, is on this adventure, as an act of faith. He goes, because God said "Go!". That seems admirable, to just pull up stakes and go somewhere, not knowing where, based on faith. However, I cannot help but wonder about the faith of a man, who takes some risks to go on an adventure into the unknown, but then, thinks that God won't protect him enough as Sarai's husband that he conspires to lie and deceive strangers. Seems not only to be a bit shaky in his faith at that point, but perhaps even a bit cowardly, but I suppose he knew better than I, what the Egyptians might do, so I won't judge him too harshly there. Later in the book, we will see that Abraham, will be willing to sacrifice his "only" son, out of faith and obedience to God. I would say that is faith that has grown, and I think that that is also, a lesson for us. We are not always as faithful as we could of should be, but, God is able to grow us. Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. As we go through these readings, let's be thankful, that God's word accomplishes what He designs it for, and one of those, is the building of faith.
  9. Daily Reading 4 If you prefer, you can look up the following verses in your own Bible, or by whatever means and in whichever version you choose. Luke 7:1-17 Genesis 8-10 Psalm 4 Audio 7:14 Audio 3:06 Audio 1:12 The above verse addresses are linked to Bible Gateway. That is an easy way to read (or listen to) the Bible verses, and choose your version. Personally, I prefer written, that way I can go at my own pace, and think about it, before moving on. Nothing wrong with doing either or both. The Bible says faith comes by hearing. See the picture below to get an idea of what to expect if you follow the above links. Note: The audio will not play the exact verses, it will play the
  10. Does the Hebrew translation of Genesis 1:1 leave the door open that God created life on other planets? From my Hebrew classes I always wondered about the plural designation of ”Na Shamayim” the word for Heavens. God created the Heavens and the Earth. This could have just as easily been written in the singular form – “Heaven” but the “im” at the end of the Hebrew word makes it plural.
  11. I am going to show you exactly WHY I believe Genesis chapter 1 is a LITERAL PART of the history of life on earth. I believe in what is known as "Old Earth Creation", or OEC, in theological circles. This is pretty much the opposite of a YEC or young earth creationist. The OEC doctrines can be easily traced back over 2000 years. In the OEC belief it is widely held that the "days" of creation are also better translated as "AGES", which is backed by the fact that the word translated "day", when we see in the translation "the first day" "the 2nd day" etc., is also just as properly translated as AGE. These ages can represent very long time periods. The most extensive time period most likely between the Genesis 1:1, and Genesis 1:2. We propose a wide gap of time between the 2 verses hence the name of this thought is "Gap Theory". So between verse 1, When God creates the heavens and earth, and verse 2, we are talking an extremely long and yet undetermined about of time. My THEORY regarding Genesis 1 is this: To put this in the simplest form, Genesis 1:1 initially mentions the creation of everything. From verse 2 and to the end of the chapter, Genesis 1 gves us a description of an "Extinction Event" unfolding before us, and then it also goes on to describe the subsequent healing of the earth and the rebounding of life on earth. Cycles of life and extinction are in fact verified in scripture, just as they are verified in stone. We see it here in Genesis 1, Jeremiah 4, Ecclesiastes, Revelation, and certainly implications are made elsewhere. Ecclesiastes 1 9 What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun. 10 Is there anything of which one can say, “Look! This is something new”? It was here already, long ago; it was here before our time. 11 No one remembers the former generations, and even those yet to come will not be remembered by those who follow them. Revelation ends with the destruction of this current civilization/age and then the subsequent healing of the earth once more for another cycle of life, just as it began in Genesis 1: Quote: Rev. 21:1 Then I saw “a new heaven and a new earth,”[a] for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea. So the bible declares we do indeed have cycles of life and death upon the earth. Today, people in the OEC movement believe this very thing. This OEC belief, as previously stated, can be traced back over 2000 years, and we believe it is the original intent in the earliest manuscripts. I am in very good company with SO many PHD's in various fields related to the subject . Genesis is one of the most poetic books in all of scripture and is valued as extremely sacred by more than one religion. I suggest that this is for good reason. It actually shows creation, then extinction, and then finally the restoration of life on earth... it shows both EVOLUTION and special creation. A theory makes predictions that are TESTABLE... Is MY theory testable? Yes it is and it HAS been REPEATEDLY tested every time we find a fossil. And it PASSES those tests with flying colors whereas Darwin fails. If this theory regarding the literal nature of Genesis 1 is to be tested, then MUCH of the testing of this theory has already been done for the last 150 years or more... through geology, archeology, as well as the fossil record. All we need do to test this theory is to compare it to all these records that have literally been written in stone and CANNOT be changed. We will test the theory against these findings right here in this thread. To summarize, I believe Genesis 1 gives us an HISTORICAL ACCOUNT of an extinction event upon the earth, similar to the one we see with the asteroid impact at the Yucatan peninsula. I believe it further details the subsequent healing of the earth, and the re-establishment of life on earth. To outline this belief and show it unfolds in Genesis 1, you can refer to this. 1) A proper translation of the Hebrew in Genesis 1, 1 and 2, says this: "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. And the earth BECAME decimated and laid waste." ...The verbiage of Genesis 1 allows us to reference verse 2 to a time after the creation, in which the earth was laid waste and emptied. This checks with the fossil and geological records. 2) In extinction events that have spewed ash, debris, earth, and water into the atmosphere, such as the impact in the Yucatan, the Atmosphere becomes so filled with debris that the suns rays no longer reach the plants depending on photosynthesis. Then the plant eaters die... then the meat eaters. At this point, the first thing necessary to occur for life again to flourish is for the atmosphere to clear. Genesis 1, on the first day or age, states that the special event occurring in the first age was the clearing of the atmosphere, to allow the rays of the sun to filter through. This checks with the fossil and geological records. More on this in a few moments... 3) We see in Genesis 1 that waters and the atmosphere were in a chaotic state and that eventual settling allowed some water to settle back down to the earth, while some water was left trapped within the atmosphere. We can see from the various geological records, that we have certainly seen times when the water levels of the earth have varied drastically, and polar caps do not always explain this. This checks with the fossil and geological records. 4) Genesis 1 refers to EVOLUTION and was the ONLY ancient document to declare Evolution of the animals of the earth. It states evolution AS A FACT 3500 years before Darwin. This CERTAINLY checks with the fossil and geological records. 5) Genesis 1 goes on to tell us that man is unique among the rest of the animal kingdom. Genesis 1 tells us that God gifted man with the ability to dominate and take rule and dominion over the earth. It is easy to see our intelligence and body style allows for a lot of intellectual and technological advancement, but WHAT is behind this sudden JUMP of our species over all others? WHY are we so far above the rest of the animal kingdom that we would appear to be like gods? We find one clue on a genetic level and we are unique among ALL other primates partially because of our 2nd chromosome, which, genetic scientists tell us deals specifically with intelligence. Every primate has 48 chromosomes in 24 base pairs... EXCEPT for man, who only has 46 chromosomes in 23 base pairs. The mystery of our 2nd chromosome is that it actually has the appearance of having been fused with another chromosome. So somehow we apparently DEvolved into a simpler form, and yet we gained superiority, Evolving in intelligence. This adds EVEN MORE to the credibility of taking Genesis 1 literally, recognizing it to be describing our last major extinction event, and the subsequent restoration of life on earth. Now... Can I show that the bible actually says the earth BECAME destroyed and laid waste? Yes and I can show also this view goes back over 2000 years. http://ucg-canada.org/booklets/BT/versesofgenesis.asp And http://www.scripture4all.org/ ,,, then click into "Hebrew interlinear" and then click into "Genesis 1". In the Above link you will find it actually IS interpreted as "BECAME" destroyed in one ancient translation of the Targum. Then by going here: http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible...c=1&t=KJV&ss=1 You can see the corresponding number for the words "Was" "without form" and "void". Here you see the word translated "was" is also properly understood to mean: Quote: to be, become, come to pass, exist, happen, fall out We see "without form" is also properly understood as Quote: wasteland, wilderness (of solitary places) and void we see is also properly understood as Quote: emptiness, void, waste To further show that "the earth BECAME destroyed" is the intended translation: "Qal" "Qal", Was = to happen, fall out, occur, take place, come about, come to pass to come about, come to pass to come into being, become to arise, appear, come to become to become to become like Without form = wasteland, wilderness (of solitary places) place of chaos Void = emptiness, void, waste So then we see without question that Genesis 1, 1 and 2 can be meant to say in the Hebrew, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The earth BECAME decimated and a wasteland." So... it has to be said that so far this is exactly what we are told in the fossil and geological records. Ok... now Im going to lay another layer of information on top of the first. First I want to lay out a little more order to my theory/view, and then talk about what strata and the fossil record teaches us. Past extinction event healing patterns 1) The earth is laid waste 2) This earth has certainly seen extinction events which filled the atmosphere with water, debris, earth, and ash, causing photosynthesis to cease, starving the plant eaters and then starving the meat eaters. 3) Inevitably the atmosphere ALWAYS began to clear. It MUST clear in order to allow photosynthesis to begin again on a mass worldwide scale. 4) Inevitably life began to flourish in the seas. 5) Inevitably grasses and herbs began to flourish. 6) Inevitably the atmosphere clears to the point that the heavenS, as in the stars the sun and the moon, can be seen and distinguished clearly. Here I will begin to lay out the evidences for my theory. Simply as a reminder, My theory is that Genesis 1, begins in verse 2 to relay to us a brief history of an extinction event and the subsequent clearing of the atmosphere and healing of the earth. This is a very testable theory. When we test for the big bang/string/inflation, we don't test these theories directly. Using scientific procedure we have made predictions regarding eh theories, and tested them against observation. In this same way, my theory that God created everything and Genesis 1 describes an extinction event allows us to make predictions in regards to the details of Genesis 1, predicting that the details will match the fossil and geological records. Now we just need to lay them side by side and see if the theory matches the observations we can take advantage of. Testing: Test 1: If this holds any water, then the first thing we should be able to verify VERY quickly whether or not this earth has ever undergone an extinction event. Result: I believe that there is nearly 100 percent agreement within the scientific community, that this earth has endured extinction events. Geology AND paleontology PROVE that this earth has seen extinction events... My theory regarding Genesis 1 holds up under this point. This test against the facts in stone verify Genesis 1. Test 2: This described event indicates that the atmosphere was cluttered and darkened to the point no light could filter through. A large abundance of Water also was mixed in with the description of contents within the atmosphere. This is tested again according to the same evidence indicating mass extinction events in the past. Result: It is quite evident for instance because of the crater in Yucatan, that this earth has seen MULTIPLE extinction events and that some of these events would have erupted large amounts of water into the atmosphere, along with earth and ash and etc, and that this indeed went on to possibly be the cause for the extinction of the dinosaur. There certainly is no disagreement within the scientific community that this earth has seen disaster that darkened the skies, killed off all plant life, starving out the plant eaters, and then starving out the predators. Genesis 1 in no way conflicts with and is verified. Test 3: Now regarding the atmosphere placed between the waters we see in the 2nd day, we can see that waters settled below and around the atmosphere. This is nothing new at all. We see example of this many times. A recent giant planet was recently found with strange plasma like water hanging into the lower levels of the atmosphere, while another dwarf planet was recently found with an enveloping water vapor layer. Result: Again we verify that this indeed is not an extremely unusual occurrence, it is not at all outlandish, and we do observe in nature, this event taking place around us elsewhere. Test 5: We should be able to expect basic plant life, both marine and on land, to begin to flourish, now that the earth begins to warm and a bit of life begins to allow photosynthesis to give us back our paradise. Result: This is the exact order given to us in the passages of scripture, and it is the correct order shown in the fossil record. Genesis 1 is calling correctly the order we see in stone. Now on the 4th day or age, many people look at this and think it means the sun and moon were created on the 4th day. We disagree... We recognize that since we saw the PLURAL "heavenS" created before this first age, and that we saw LIGHT during the 2nd age, this is simply a poor translation of the literal hebrew poetry.. He is causing them to appear as opposed to actually creating them at this point. They were created with the "heavens". Accepting then that God simply "caused the sun and moon to appear" which is literally what the Hebrew states, we recognize this as simply the clearing of the atmosphere to the point that the heavens can be distinguished. Test 6: Most amazingly during the 5th age we see EVOLUTION. We see that after this extinction event, and after the light could once again begin to filter through, life begins to spring forth from the oceans. Genesis 1 states that life began evolving in the seas first and that even the birds descended from the sea: Quote: 20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven. 21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good. 22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth. 23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day. ...IF this is true, then we should be able to note evolution in nature and in the fossil record. (nudge nudge wink) SO... how many times has this alone been tested? How many times have fossil finds shown us that life began in the water and evolved from there? How many? Sure there are a lot of connections that CANNOT be made or have not been made, but consensus is that life began in the seas and evolved... I can produce the consensus of NEARLY EVERY major scientist in this area. This is one of the best tested theories in science. I can literally produce hundreds of fossil finds that verify it. The only problem IS, they arrived to this consensus 3500 years after Genesis 1 stated it as a very bold fact. Sudden explosions of life coming out of nowhere http://www.economist.com/news/scienc...e...aeontol... Again... NOBODY KNOWS what detonated this Cambrian explosion. Now we must reason that when theory departs from unchanging stone records, we need to begin to reconsider certain dogmas. The fossil record is our WITNESS... to what really occurred. WHERE did this sudden explosion of life come from? The records in stone teach us that Darwin was WRONG about gradualism that he held so stubbornly to. Explosions HAVE come seemingly from nowhere... miraculously. Now lets look at Genesis 1 again: Quote: 20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven. 21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good. 22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth. 23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day. NOTE the word ABUNDANTLY. Not only is Genesis 1 the ONLY ANCIENT DOCUMENT IN HISTORY to declare an evolutionary process, until Darwin, and not only did it teach as we know today, that life began in the seas, It DECLARES sudden explosions of life, JUST as we see in the Cambrian. DARWIN did NOT do this and this was where he and Huxley failed. They postulated a very long and very slow process of life evolving over hundreds of millions of years. This SIMPLY IS NOT what we find written in the fossil record. Sure life evolved, and sure it took time, but for some unexplained by science reason, life EXPLODED before it "evolved". Genesis 1 nails this on the head. 3500 years before Darwin and Huxley... and the fossil records prove Genesis 1 to be correct about the sudden explosion of life... Darwin and huxley, falsified in this aspect of the theory, Genesis 1, Verified. http://www.newscientist.com/article/...e...ambrian... http://www.csun.edu/~dgray/Evol322/Chapter18.pdf Quote: Darwin was a gradualist • Expected evolutionary change to be slow and continuous – Predicts many many intermediate forms • Many of course have been found in major groups – But many fossil morphological species • Appear suddenly in fossil record • Fewer transitional forms than you might expect • Darwin attributed stasis to incomplete fossil record http://www.icr.org/article/biggest-p...for-evolution/ http://www.allaboutthejourney.org/pr...sil-record.htm David B. Kitts. PhD (Zoology) is Head Curator of the Department of Geology at the Stoval Museum. In an evolutionary trade journal, he wrote: Now... this was a nutshell and we can fill in the spaces. We also have to tackle the Big Bang and String and inflaitonary theory, as this is the standard model of the universe. The current model of the universe utilizes the big bang, string theory, and inflaitonary theory. The string theory comes in attempting to fix the shortcomings of string, which simply was not working out mathematically. How does our current model of the universe fare in its testing? From http://io9.com/5714210/string-theory...erimental-test Quote: String theory fails first major experimental test From: http://www.popsci.com/science/articl...d-lhc-physicis... Quote: Physicists working at the Large Hadron Collider report that after a series of tests, they have not seen any mini black holes, to the chagrin of string theorists and the relief of disaster theorists. Researchers working on the Compact Muon Solenoid team have been crunching numbers to test a form of string theory that calls for the creation and instant evaporation of miniature black holes. They report that the telltale signs of these black holes are disappointingly absent, however. And again... Another failure... http://www.science.slashdot.org/stor...ould-spell-tro... Quote: "Paul Steinhardt, an astrophysicist at Princeton University in New Jersey, and colleagues have posted a controversial paper on ArXiv arguing, based on the latest Higgs data and the cosmic microwave background map from the Planck mission, that the leading theory explaining the first moments of the Big Bang ('inflation') is fatally flawed. In short, Steinhardt says that the models that best fit the Planck data — known as 'plateau models' because their potential-energy profiles level off at relatively low energies — are far less likely to occur naturally than the models that Planck ruled out. Secondly, he says, the news for these plateau models gets dramatically worse when the results are analyzed in conjunction with the latest results about the Higgs field coming from CERN's Large Hadron Collider. Particle physicists working at the LHC have calculated that the Higgs field is likely to have started out in a high-energy, 'metastable' state rather than in a stable, low-energy configuration. Steinhardt likens the odds of the Higgs field initially being perched in the precarious metastable state as to those of dropping out of the sky over the Matterhorn and conveniently landing in a 'dimple near the top,' rather than crashing down to the mountain's base." In other words, the Higgs data doesnt resemble standard predictions made by inflation. The data, more resemble plateau models... but then the Particle Physicists at CERN have noted that plateau models have problems of their own that prevent them from being verified... In other words again, the predicted models do not fit the observations... they are totally failing in every test in every respect. Remember that string touted itself as "The theory of everything", by greats like Alan Guth and Michio Kako. They amazed the word with their claims, yet Kako admits that string followed no scientific method whatsoever. It claimed to answer the mystery of what banged in the big bang... it claimed to answer several of the big bang's inconsistencies. But... we can bury the theory of everything now... and BB has lost any hope of answering these problems... as Guth and Kako both admit, String is the only game in town trying to answer these inconsistencies... and now string as you can see, has not just one, but REPEATEDLY been falsified.. http://planetsave.com/2012/12/03/sup...der-tests-phys... Quote: ‘Super Symmetry’ Theory Fails Collider Tests – Physicists Must Seek New ‘Theories of Everything’ ...The theory posited ‘super partner particles’ — exotic particles that accompany every known particles and what provide the ‘symmetry’ in super symmetry — that would indirectly confirm such controversial ‘New Physics’ theories as String Theory. But with recent high energy collision experiments at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) producing (most likely) the fabled Higgs Boson — but none of the partner particles expected to appear within the energies ranges utilized — physicists are now having to reconsider one of their most prized theoretical models of the universe. SUSY Fails the Test According to physicist Mikhail Shifman, a once enthusiastic advocate of SUSY and author of an essay published on arXiv.org,, “…nature apparently doesn’t want it. At least, not in its original form.” So yes, String has been repeatedly falsified, and whats worse, Great notable scholars who were for decades proponents of string, are now it's biggest detractors and skeptics. It gets worse for BB and string... Because of certain observational inconsistencies with both hypotheses, they had to assume that there were obviously differences between the model and what is actually observed. To fill in THIS gap the pull out another untestable hypothesis from their bag of endless imagination that just keeps failing... Dark matter and dark energy
  12. I was reading the bible and before the great flood. God was sorry he made us. I'm upset to know God is sorry he made me. If not true then what does that verse mean.
  13. On the significance of the age of the Earth Omegaman Republished from an earlier post on Feb 28, 2009 Is the Earth Old or Young ? No answers here, but some things to think about. I hear this question frequently, but I always wonder what is in the mind of the person asking the question. Is the answer to this question important, and if so, why and in what ways? An unbeliever might like to pit the conclusions of modern scientists, who almost universally hold to the idea that the Earth is very old against the apparent assertions of the Bible that the Earth is relatively young. In other words, if the Bible says the Earth is young, and scientists say the Earth is ancient, then clearly the Bible is wrong and not to be believed. A believer, on the other hand, might look at this problem and conclude, that the unbeliever has a point. Out of concern for the skepticism of the unbeliever, the believer might want to make it easier for the unbeliever to accept the Bible. Similarly, the believer may have his/her own doubts about this and so adopt the position that the correct interpretation of the scriptures is that the Earth is old and in harmony with the consensus of scientists. Personally, I believe the age of the Earth as it relates to an unbeliever is of little significance, and is usually either an excuse not to believe, or is a way of avoiding the important topic of the unbelievers salvation, or moral failures and their implications etc. As a believer addressing this issue with an unbeliever, I will point out that there are believers that hold both positions and that the real topic of concern is whether Jesus came to Earth, died for our sins, and was resurrected on the third day. That is the belief upon which our salvation rests, and any other topic pales in importance. Therefore, I shall be addressing this topic from the stand point of the believer – what it means to us. Is it important what we believe? What should we believe? What concerns me the most, is not what we believe in regards to this question so much as why we believe what we believe. A standard rule of biblical interpretation, is that we interpret the Bible literally, unless we are compelled to do otherwise. Some might make the case that the science is so compelling, that we have to interpret Genesis in some figurative way. I have to ask, what is it, that makes the science so compelling? I am a scientifically minded person, I run much of my daily life depending on ideas which science has observed and proven. Obviously, science has proven to be a powerful and useful tool. However, I think that the most trustworthy part of science, is the part where we can observe current phenomena, develop theories about the phenomena, and test those theories. When we begin to attempt to apply science to metaphysics – the spiritual part of our universe, science has left it’s realm of expertise. When examining topics of an historical nature – the issues of the formation of the universe, the development of life etc, science has also strayed from it’s expertise because it is attempting to guess what has happened in the past, from clues in the present. Most of the time, this will be of questionable reliability, since there is no way to repeat history in a test tube. It is gone, and not subject to examination. For me, what it comes down to then is this: “Which do you trust more, the pronouncements of a demonstrably infallible God, or the pronouncements of demonstrably fallible men?” Now, to be certain, we can make mistakes in our interpretation of the Bible, so both methods have a risk of error. Never-the-less, I believe that the Christian who maintains that the Bible teaches or allows for and ancient earth, is knowingly electing to disbelieve the most natural literal interpretation of the Bible, in favor of the theories of men, derived from the natural sciences. Personally, if I am wrong in my assessment that the Earth might be quite young, I would rather have the clear conscience of taking God at His word and be in error than choosing to trust the dictates of men that God pronounces to be fools for their unbelief of Him. It is true that there are reputable scientists who believe in an old Earth and who profess to be Christians. I do not doubt that most of these men and women are saved, trusting Jesus for their salvation. I do find it very odd, however, that they are willing to trust God about the scientifically unlikely event of the His resurrection, upon which their salvation rests, but cannot find it within themselves, to take Him at His word with regards to issues of origins. In fact, I find it saddening. As you have probably concluded, I am of a younger Earth persuasion. This is not to say that I believe that the Earth was created in 4004 B.C. as some assert. I note that the Bible never makes such a claim, and that this number is merely the result of calculations of a man who added up life spans and genealogies in the Bible. I have never checked his math, but in as much as the Jews were known to practice genealogies with gaps in them, recording more notable ancestors, it seems to me that there is some room for some extra time. In my estimation, all you can prove from the Bible about when the Earth was created, is that Adam, the first man, was created in 4004 B.C. or earlier. How much earlier, I have no idea. In other words, I do not believe the Bible makes any definitive statement on how old the Earth is. Having said that, can I prove there are gaps. Yes and no. The Bible as we know it, notes them itself, by comparing genealogies in some books versus others. In other words, different book describe ancestral lines with differing numbers of people in them. Therefore, some of these have to be incomplete, or else other have extra generations. If there are extras, then those passages are either untrue, or they are some sort of allegory. The do not appear to be allegory, so the most logical choice is that the others are not complete. If they are not complete, then we know that gaps were an allowable custom. Knowing that gaps are allowable, we can assume that all of the genealogies could contain gaps. Now, a little known and underdiscussed fact is, that the Hebrew text from which the 4004 B.C. creation date comes, is the Masoretic text, the major text underlying the translations of many modern Old Testaments. However, copies of the manuscripts of the Septuagint, a Greek translation of the Hebrew, written some 300 years B.C. with extant copies going back to 400 A.D.) predates the Masoretic text by at least 350 years (the the oldest extant copy of the Masoretic text is Masoretic text dating to the 9th and 10th centuries A.D.) . Jesus and the apostles frequently quoted the Septuagint, so it is safe to assume it was thought reliable as the word of God. The genealogies of the Septuagint, if totaled in the same way that the 4004 B.C. Creation date was arrived at, push the creation date back to 5315 B.C. See how muddy and impossible it is to determine the date from the scripture? To me then, the Bible allows for an undetermined age of the Earth, and mankind is at least 6000 years old (7300 if going by the Septuagint). Which brings us to the length of creation time passed before God created mankind. The Old Earth Theorists, will have to hold to the idea that the 5 days prior to the creation of man, are not 5 literal days, but days which are of undetermined lengths of time, even millions of years each. This is done to force the scriptures to harmonize with scientific conclusions. That people may choose to interpret the Bible according to the dictates of predominantly atheistic scientists, is their own business. I think that it sets a very dangerous precedent, which allows for changing the meaning of the word of God, to suit whatever belief is in fashion. This is already being done in other portions of scripture. For example, science is looking to find a genetic causation for the behavior of homosexuality. If a link can be found to exist between heredity and sexual orientation, then what will follow is a discounting of the biblical notion that the practice homosexuality is a sin. Now, that leap will not be a logical one, but the leap will be made, never-the-less. I could cite other examples, but this one will serve to illustrate the point. However, even if it can be proven that homosexuality is genetically caused, it still does not alter the fact that God calls it a sin to practice, just as He calls it a sin for heterosexuals to act out their carnal desires outside of the man/woman marriage that He ordained. For myself, I shall not ever use the temporary and ever-changing opinions of science (or political correctness) to interpret the God inspired scriptures which never need adjustment, but that is just me. Many Old Earth Creationists are aware of the supremacy of God’s word, but just do not have enough faith in the most natural interpretation of scripture to overcome their faith in modern science. In such cases, I can understand that, but I wish more of them were honest about that fact that that is what the problem is. Sadly, too many choose instead, to find that the traditional beliefs of Christianity are suspect and inferior. It should not take any effort on my part, to convince anyone that the most natural interpretation of the creation days of Genesis, is that they are 6 literal days. Nothing in the text suggests otherwise. Old earth creationists will sometimes go to great lengths to point out that the Hebrew word for day, does not always mean a literal, twenty-four hour day. They are absolutely correct on that point. This Hebrew word is “Yom”. Gen 1:4-5 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning — the first day. (NIV) The first thing to notice about the word “day” as used in the creation account, is that it comes to us pre-defined. The light God called day. We do the same thing to this day. Also, one light and dark cycle, is also called a day. Just like we do. The implications of this one verse are a monumental obstacle, to anyone who wishes to maintain the notion that a day in Genesis, represents a length of time of thousands or millions of years. For one thing, we see here that in context, the word day is used identically as it is normally used in modern English. The internal, literary evidence therefore points to the conclusion that God intended this portion of scripture to be understood as literal, that a day is simply one cycle of light, most likely, near 24 hours long. To assume that something else is intended, is a gross violation of long established rules of interpretation, not only of the Bible, but for any document. Let’s suspend those rules momentarily, and allow for the idea that this day is, for example, not 24 hours, but one million years. Does this help Genesis square with modern scientific opinion? An interesting thing to note in the Genesis account, is that during this first day, the Sun has not yet been caused to shine upon the earth. The lightness and darkness that is cycling, is not sunlight. This gives some wiggle room because this light and dark, may not be dependent upon the rotation of the earth. We could say perhaps, that days were longer at that time. It get’s more difficult to maintain this notion though at creation day 4: Gen 1:16-19 16 God made two great lights — the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning — the fourth day. (NIV) If these days are not 24 hours long, and we go back to the idea that a day is one million years long, might it be that the light was on for 500,000 years during a light/dark cycle. Since the old Earth theory is done to accommodate scientific opinion, then we should be consistent and assess the implication of 500,000 years of light. Is this light of similar intensity to what we experience from the Sun? If so, what would the surface temperature of the Earth rise to? Would the plants (created on the third day) survive the temperatures? Could they survive 500,000 years of darkness and no photosynthesis? I think interpreting the scriptures to accommodate scientific consensus, causes more problems that it solves. I think we have seen that interpreting Genesis passage literally, makes the most sense from a literary perspective. We have seen that interpreting it in the light of science, makes the text into nonsense. What about this word "yom" we touched on briefly, is there a reason to expect that it might mean other than 24 hours in the original Hebrew? My Bible software reports that this word "yom" occurs 2304 times in the Old Testament. That should be plenty of data to work with, to discover the likelihood that yom should be understood as some sort of age. How many times is yom not 24 hours in the Bible? Here are examples of how it is used otherwise: (1)The span of human life. – Gen 5:4: “And the days of Adam …. were eight hundred years.” “And if thou wilt walk …. then I will lengthen thy days” (1 Kings 3:14; compare Ps 90:12; Isa 38:5). (2) An indefinite time. – Existence in general: Gen 3:14: “All the days of thy life” (compare Gen 21:34; Num 9:19; Josh 22:3; Luke 1:24; Acts 21:10). (3) A set time. – Gen 25:24: “And when her days …. were fulfilled”; Dan 12:13: “Thou shalt stand in thy lot, at the end of the days” (compare Lev 12:6; Dan 2:44). (4) A historic period. – Gen 6:4: “The Nephilim were in the earth in those days”; Judg 17:6: “In those days there was no king in Israel” (compare 1 Sam 3:1; 1 Chron 5:17; Hos 2:13). (5) Past time. – Ps 18:18: “the day of my calamity”; Ps 77:5: “I have considered the days of old” (of Mic 7:20; Mal 3:7; Matt 23:30). (6) Future time. – Deut 31:14: “Thy days approach that thou must die”; Ps 72:7: “In his days shall ….” (compare Ezek 22:14; Joel 2:29; Matt 24:19; 2 Peter 3:3; Rev 9:6). (7) The eternal. – In Dan 7:9,13, where God is called “the ancient of days.” (8) A season of opportunity. – John 9:4: “We must work the works of him that sent me, while it is day: the night cometh, when no man can work” (compare Rom 13:12-13; 1 Thess 5:5-8). See DAY (4), above. That was from the International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia, Copyright ©1996 Did you see anything there that seemed to suggest eons of time? Most of those uses are less that a human lifespan. Some, are references to historical periods – in other words AFTER the creation of man. The one possible exception, is number 7 above, but it is a reference to God Himself, not his creation. In short, to say that the word Yom contains the potential to represent millions of years, is forcing a definition or use of it, that is so extreme compared to actual uses of the word, that it can be considered as nothing other than a desperate grasping at straws by those that lack the faith to take God at His word. If any choose to believe the unstable opinions of the sciences over the revelation of God’s word, I am okay with that, I really am. I just wish they would have the honesty to state that they feel the need to abuse the science of hermeneutics to satisfy their own uneasiness about God’s word, instead of trying to convince others that it is somehow justified or legitimate to force personal beliefs upon the interpretation of scripture. To quote Prof. James Barr from the EXPOSITOR’S BIBLE: “If the word ‘day’ in this chapter does not mean the period of 24 hours, the interpretation of Scripture is hopeless.”. Is the evidence too strong against the bible, or at least of a literal interpretation of it? Certainly if scientific consensus is going to be the determining factor concerning out faith and theology, we have to ask the question: What about the resurrection? Scientific consensus would be that a man who dies, and remains dead for three days, stays dead. If God cannot defy the opinions of scientists, then no miracles happen, not now, not ever, and the resurrection never took place. If that is true, then Christianity is little more than a collection of interesting tales, sort of like Aesop's Fables. If God is going to be limited to our understanding of the laws of nature, then why would we be wondering about the length of the creation period. A God without the power to do the miraculous, could not bring the creation into existence in the first place. If that creation did not happen, then why would we suspect that creation has an author at all, and without such and author, does sin really exist? Who gets to define what is sin and what is not, who decides how salvation is accomplished or if it is even necessary. Is there really even an afterlife? Apart from a revelation from a supernatural God, these things are all unknowable, and Christianity has no real value. It may not be critically important, how long creation took, but knowing that it took place, believing God by faith that it did, is important, and I have to wonder how much we really believe God, if we cannot trust Him to accurately describe and make plain, the details of His own creation. Consider some of the implications of a lengthy creation. How does it affect other beliefs or statements from the Bible? Do other passages make reference to the creation events – do we call them into question? Did Jesus or the apostles mention anything about the creation account that would leave you to believe that they took it literally – if so, how does that affect their credibility? If we can choose to ignore a literal interpretation in Genesis – do we then grant ourselves the same license in other parts of the Bible – if so, how will you know where and when? These are questions each person must address and consider. While science has century by century, worked to discover how the universe works, each generation of scientists has seen major scientific opinions come and go. Each generation of scientists indeed, has at it’s disposal, new knowledge and new tools to investigate the natural world. Each generation has advanced the collective knowledge of mankind, and each has refuted theories held dearly by colleagues of previous generations, and yet, after thousands of years, is still seeking answers to fundamental questions, answers that are elusive. Meanwhile, the Christian is able to hold the same views as Jesus and the apostles expressed 2000 years ago, with no need to apologize for any of them. The 20th Century saw the sciences advance at a tremendous rate, but as theories about origins and cosmology became more refined and old ones discarded as obsolete, we found that the theories of prevailing science, are looking more like the bible all the time. Of course, science cannot truly address origins and cosmology ultimately, because those things are outside of it’s scope of examination. Science works in the present, it examines present clues about past events. The past is not like electricity or chemistry, it cannot be replicated or examined directly. Modern science is even more at a disadvantage, to look into matters of a spiritual nature. Science examines natural phenomena, the supernatural is outside it’s purview. Still, it is interesting to observe that scientists seem to be edging their way toward beliefs that the bible expressed all along. Considering that the bible is not intended to be a science text book, it is remarkable how many scientific facts it got right before scientists would discover them. Addendum, added on 11/14/2014 Some years ago I developed a calculator which computes theoretical future population numbers from assumed starting calculation numbers and factors like length of generations, birth rates etc. It cannot adequately factor in unknown and unpredictable events like plagues, wars, etc. due to complexity and my own ignorance on those subjects. I also know that there is some error in the math, that skews the results by a generation or two, and I have not been able to figure out where the error lies, and have given up trying, I have more important things to do. However, if you would like to speculate and experiment with the calculator, using your own chosen assumptions, I have decided to publish the calculator as it is. While it is imperfect, I beleive it does demonstrate that the young earth model is more feasible that the ancient earth model, based on math and what we know about population growth and statistics, if the interests you at all, have fun by: clicking here. (http://omegazine.com/population/populationpredictions/populationpredictions.htm) Below were 10 Responses to the original posting of “On the significance of the age of the Earth”: shawn Says: March 9th, 2009 at 11:16 am This is such an unfortunate topic for Christians. I am a believer in Yeshua. I also believe that Rome High jacked Christianity and changed it into what ever they wanted. Not only did they change the Shabbat to the day they worshiped the sun, as well as a great many other holy days, but they also changed the relationship between the Torah and science. In Judaism the Torah and modern science go hand in hand. Many of the great Jewish sages hundreds of years ago calculated the age of the universe to be 13 billion years old and they did this using the same bible that christians use to say the earth is only 6000 years old. Because Rome high jacked christianity and changed a great many of things we have not only lost great spiritual gifts but we have also lost a most basic understanding of our natural universe that the rabbi’s have until this very day. If you want to rectify the bible and science you dont need to try and debunk science, science is from Hashem. Science is good, it is our roman inheritance of the hatred of science that is bad. Rome hated science because they hated any opposition to their views on how to interepret the bible. But if we take back what rome stole from us, our Israelite heratige as christians, then we will finally be able to rectify not only science but also a great many spiritual gifts and understandings that were stolen from us. Blessing to you and your community in the name of Yeshua HaMashiach our Rabbi. josiah Says: April 6th, 2009 at 7:35 am hi..My name is Jos , from new zealand and im 38 years of age, currently studying at otago unversity in new zealand. I disagree with some of your statements, and would like to offer a rebuttal.I dont think this is a unfortunate topic, nor do i agree with your quote that it is irrelevant..I quote from your text “Personally, I believe the age of the Earth as it relates to an unbeliever is of little significance, and is usually either an excuse not to believe, or is a way of avoiding the important topic of the unbelievers salvation. As a believer addressing this issue with an unbeliever, I will point out that there are believers that hold both positions and that the real topic of concern is whether Jesus came to Earth, died for our sins, and was resurrected on the third day. That is the belief upon which our salvation rests, and any other topic pales in importance” If you look into the historical context, to the unbeliver, the church has always suppresed the formation of scientific ideas formed from observation and interpretation of the results.This is why we had “dark ages” and why they are called “dark ages”. Christians are all too happy to accept the material benifits of technological and scientific endevour, such as internet, computers, carpets and the lightbulb but when it comes to facing up to the questions asked by the scientific community, most immediatly go into ostritch mode and pretend they dont exist until the thing goes away. but the thing doesnt go away, and now all the things that havent gone away are taught as scientific fact to your children.I dont have any children, so that why i say your children. I am a christian – that is i belive and try to adhere to the teachings of Jesus of nazereth and his disiples.I belive Jesus of nazereth is the son of God. I belive he died on our behalf for my sins and wrongdoings against God, and by accepting his sacrifice on my behalf i will have eternal life with him in The presence of God the Father and The holy spirit and all the Angels and others who have believed as i do. I also belive that the law and the prophets, the old testament was inspired by God and in some books directly transmitted by God Orally to Moses, such as the book of Genesis. I belive that the interpretation of the words of Genesis is literal, that is creation took 6 literal 24 hour periods.I am also a scientist. I am currently returned to university to undertake a B.A. in Lingustics, with a minor in Geology. I like volcanoes. i know that the current interpretation of the Geological record is in error. The majority of the Geologic community dissagree with me. some might even go so far as to say that i am misguided, or quite simply a religous nutter.you can imagine that someone with views like mine goes down in academic circles like a lead balloon at a party.lol. But there are flaws in the theory of geologic time, that can be found. The truth points to itself. Its time for us to admit we don’t know all the answers, nor should we pretend too.This is the crux of what scientific method or reasoning is about -to quote websters dictionary… “principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses..” but i do belive we should tackle these problems with Faith in the Lord Jesus christ as our guide, pray for guidance, and look for credible scientific evidence to support the creation story and present this to everyone freely for discussion and debate because surely as eggs are eggs if we dont try to answer the hard questions, and tackle the problems presented by the current view of the community at large for a old earth and no God, why should people resonably listen to us when we try to share our beliefs? And as you can see currently in the textbooks of any mainstream high school, the Devil is not lax. What makes us different from the ten-thousand other wacko’s with thier own take on The metaphysical universe? I personally dont belive, although i may be wrong, that Paul the apostle, who was a learned man would agree with your arguement, but putting it in context, he said” i count it all as loss for the gospel,” yet he reasoned with men, trying to win them over to the gospel by showing them thier errors in logical thinking as well as christian works of good deeds, and living at peace with all men as far as possible. I hope you take my argument to heart and consider it. afterwards, you may still belive that i am wrong.I would like to hear your thoughts. jos..11.35, 6th april 2009. Omegaman 2.0 Responds: April 10th, 2009 at 12:31 am Hi Jos, I don’t think I have anything to disagree with there, and yet my mind has not changed. How is this possible? I am an apologist, I believe in being ready always to give and answer for the hope that I have. Does my hope lie in the age of the earth, or in questions like “how could all the animals fit on the ark”? My hope lies in a risen savior. That is what I am supposed to defend. I am a young earther personally, but I find that giving answers to defend that view to be a poor investment in time. I have those answers, and answers for the animals on the ark etc. How about the existence of God? Yes, I can defend those too. I have spent hours at a time doing so many times, and in my experience, all I end up doing is convincing people that I am more knowledgeable than they first believed, and that I actually have some good points. Good for my ego, but not worthwhile. That is all well and good, if my task is to win debates, but I think it more important, to win souls. So, I may have not been clear on my comments, by not being thorough enough in my explanation. My point is, that Christians can go round and round debating the age of the earth themselves, the topic is not relevant to unbelievers from our point of view if it does not move them closer to a decision. I think that these kind of doubts, shared by believers and unbelievers alike, distract us from the real issues. If a person is curious about how I can hold a young earth view, I will make my response in as brief and yet convincing way that I can, but I am going to change the topic to the gospel as quickly as I can – the heart of what I am called to defend. What I find is, that as soon as I defend the early age of the earth, the subject will then go: “what about the animals”, I answer and the subject then goes “what about all the contradictions in the Bible”, and so on and so on and so on. Games of "what about" and "what if", are the ploys of one who seeks to win a debate, not one who wants to ponder the issues. Paul described a type of person that would exist in the last days: ” They are the kind who worm their way into homes and gain control over weak-willed women, who are loaded down with sins and are swayed by all kinds of evil desires, always learning but never able to acknowledge the truth. – 2 Tim 3:6-7 NIV I do not want to enable anyone to remain in that category – merely always learning. I want to attempt to get them to acknowledge the truth. In as much as Jesus instructed the disciples: “If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, shake the dust off your feet when you leave that home or town.” - Matt 10:14 I take it He meant that we need to be wise, not wasting time casting our pearls before swine, but instead, moving on to greener pastures, where the sheep know they need a shepherd. Lest you still miss my point, I was not trying to say that the age of the earth is of no relevance, and certainly your point about Christians needing to have credibility is a valid one. However, most of the people that the normal Christian encounters, are not scientists, are not familiar with the research nor the scientific method. For the average Christian to try to convince the average unbeliever on the topics in early Genesis, is very difficult. After all, if that person is swayed by science, he will most likely automatically ignore the opinion of a Christian, who is not a scientist normally, and favor the opinion of an actual expert. If he is not swayed by science, then you are wasting your time anyway, as he will not listen to either one of you. Remember, even Christians disagree on the topic, so, I would rather move on to the topic all Christians agree on, the person of Jesus Christ, the center of our faith and hope. To quote you: “I like volcanoes. i know that the current interpretation of the Geological record is in error. The majority of the Geologic community disagree with me. some might even go so far as to say that i am misguided, or quite simply a religious nutter.you can imagine that someone with views like mine goes down in academic circles like a lead balloon at a party.” I believe you, and I believe the the unbelieving world get that. If you cannot convince your colleagues, I am not sure how successful you will be with those who are more willing to believe them that you. Now in the context of academic circles, I believe these topics are critically important. I am just referring to the day to day encounters of believers, who spend time in debates that cannot be won, because in those debates, it is not the truth that matters to some, the only thing that matters to them is to win, or, in some cases to not lose, and therefore remain comfortable in their unbelief. In as much as there are Christians who believe that Jesus is the only begotten Son of God, who came and died for our sins, that we might be forgiven and have eternal life, who also believe that the Bible is the inerrant and inspired word of God and who also believe in an ancient earth and a lengthy creation process, I have little desire, nor do I see much benefit, to devoting too much time to topics that do little to advance the case of Christ. The topic is not related to salvation, and that is why I give it little significance. That is all I meant by that paragraph that you so eloquently and respectfully rebutted. Thank you for taking the time to read my ‘article’ and investing the time to correct me. Omegaman Omegaman 2.0 Responds: April 11th, 2009 at 3:12 am Quoteing Shawn: “In Judaism the Torah and modern science go hand in hand. Many of the great Jewish sages hundreds of years ago calculated the age of the universe to be 13 billion years old and they did this using the same bible that christians use to say the earth is only 6000 years old. ” Do you have any sources for this Shawn, that would be interesting to see. I also cannot fathom that anyone could “calculate” 13 billion years using anything in the Bible. If it was Rome that hijaaked the faith and came up with the 6000 year old calculation, why does the Jewish calendar indicate that it as been 5769 years since the creation? FresnoJoe Says: May 31st, 2009 at 4:05 am The Reason I Must Discount The Speculations Of Various White Coats And Such Is The Record Of Book Of Beginnings And All The References (OT/NT) To My LORD’s Part As Creator And The Accounting Of The Short Lineage Of The Brothers/Sisters From Jesus All The Way Back To The Sixth Day Of Creation “And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,” “Which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Janna, which was the son of Joseph,” “Which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Amos, which was the son of Naum, which was the son of Esli, which was the son of Nagge,” “Which was the son of Maath, which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Semei, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Juda,” “Which was the son of Joanna, which was the son of Rhesa, which was the son of Zorobabel, which was the son of Salathiel, which was the son of Neri,” “Which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Addi, which was the son of Cosam, which was the son of Elmodam, which was the son of Er,” “Which was the son of Jose, which was the son of Eliezer, which was the son of Jorim, which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi,” “Which was the son of Simeon, which was the son of Juda, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Jonan, which was the son of Eliakim,” “Which was the son of Melea, which was the son of Menan, which was the son of Mattatha, which was the son of Nathan, which was the son of David,” “Which was the son of Jesse, which was the son of Obed, which was the son of Booz, which was the son of Salmon, which was the son of Naasson,” “Which was th”e son of Aminadab, which was the son of Aram, which was the son of Esrom, which was the son of Phares, which was the son of Juda,” “Which was the son of Jacob, which was the son of Isaac, which was the son of Abraham, which was the son of Thara, which was the son of Nachor,” “Which was the son of Saruch, which was the son of Ragau, which was the son of Phalec, which was the son of Heber, which was the son of Sala,” “Which was the son of Cainan, which was the son of Arphaxad, which was the son of Sem, which was the son of Noe, which was the son of Lamech,” “Which was the son of Mathusala, which was the son of Enoch, which was the son of Jared, which was the son of Maleleel, which was the son of Cainan,” “Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.” Luke 3:23-38 If One Believes In The Resurrection (After Three Days!) Of The Uncorrupted Physical Body Of Our LORD And Our Savior And The Redemption Of Vile Hateful Sinner Man By The Holy And Pure Blood Of The Lamb Of God Then The Creation Of Life, The Universe And Everything Is Just The Finger Play Of God And Will Be Nothing Compared To The Knowledge Of The Heights Of The Love And The Amazing Grace God Offers To The Sons Of Adam To Folks Such As You And I Love, Joe andrew o'shea Says June 19th, 2009 at 7:04 am: oh the mysteries of God. all will be revealed at the gathering of the saints, children of God who believe in the Son Jesus Christ, Yeshua. people by nature like to argue, that has always been man’s problem and why we have to have wars. It is by faith we believe God, a gift He gave us. I had my experience and have never looked back, i believe God. The only thing that matters to me is that i can relate to people the love God has for them that may recieve remission of sins and eternal life, John 14 v 26 the Holy Spirit will teach us all things and bring to our rememberance all the things we have been taught.’ it really doesn’t matter to me how old the earth is rather how much time is left. a great deception of the enemy is to get us to focus on things any thing that distracts from the salvation message, eternal life. we can ask and be told how old the earth is,i did, God bless you all on your journeys, no i wont ‘measure the earth’ i wouldn’t know where to begin. searching scripture i came to approx. 6000 years, think about God’s time line, 7 is a sabbath,mmmm getting close to Jesus return. come Lord come hallelujah, repent and be save God loves us amen Linda Says July 3rd, 2009 at 10:40 pm: Here’s a way to think about the “How old is the earth” question. When God created Adam he created a man. Not baby. Not a child. Simply put…. who is to say that God did not create the earth as an “adult earth”. Why do we think it had to be created in an infant stage? Lean not to our own understanding. Omegaman 2.0 Responds: July 15th, 2009 at 11:16 pm Hi Linda. I believe you are relating an argument often put forth by those who hold to an old earth theory, in answer to those who hold to the idea of an more recent creation on the basis that the universe and the earth appears old, much older than 6000 ears. The young earthers sometimes respond to the that the earth has an appearance of age, because God created it that way, mature as you put it. There answer to that would be that the earth does not just appear mature, it appears worn out. By analogy with adam, it would be like God created Adam with teeth that were worn down, were stained yellow, had cavities and perhaps few missing as well. By this analogy, Eve would be looking in the mirror at her gray hair and wrinkles on her first day, if she had been created with the appearance of age, instead of mere maturity. Many scientists and those who follow their lead, believe the earth worn, not merely mature. While my point was that the whole issue should not given more importance than it merits. That being said, I will give the response that the Old Earthers would give. They would also point out, that if God created the world to look that old, when it was in fact only a few thousand years old, then that would make God a deceiver, as though He was trying to fool people into believing the young earth was ancient, when that is not the case. Personally, I find that to be one of the most powerful arguments from the Old Earth camp. Of course, like most things there are difficulties. While an old earther can state that creating an earth to look old, makes God a deceiver if it is in fact young, does not the old earther have the same dilemma, if the earth is actually old, yet God chose to say it is young in His word? I prefer to accept that the earth is young, doing my best to understand scripture, and maintain that God is not a deceiver, but that some scientists are in error in how they interpret data, and in some cases, maybe they are the deceivers. I could go into details of what I think might be solutions to why the young earth appears old, but that is not the purpose of the post. I am not putting forth an apologetic for a young earth, I am making the point that faith in what God has said, trumps evidence from modern science for believers who think like I do. Sohei Says: August 21st, 2009 at 3:48 am Wasn’t Jesus a Jewish rabbi? Then he was taught same as others, which he didn’t dispute. They say Earth is 5769 years old. I would guess you would have to argue with what Jesus was taught. Sohei, do you have any source material demonstrating that the belief among Jewish rabbis 2000 years ago, was in a young earth of the age you suggest? I don't think Jesus was a rabbi in the way we usually think of the term, but I do suspect, that He would have understood from the scripture, that the earth was fairly recent, and of course being the Creator, He actually knew for certain at some level. winsomebulldog Says March 26th, 2010 at 9:53 am: I’m not positive about how old this post is, but I just wanted to leave a quick comment none-the-less. I have read through several of your posts and find it comforting to encounter another “scientifically minded” Christian. Sometimes, those two things instigate internal battles, and some might even argue that the very notion is an oxymoron. My husband and I cannot, however, change who and what we are. We are intelligent people who respect and appreciate the sciences. We are also Christians. Our faith does, and in truth must, outweigh our intelligence. Our God gave us both the ability to learn and a hunger for learning. Hubby is an engineer and at one time was in the aeronautical engineering program at Perdu University with an eye toward NASA. He has a grasp of physics and math that I cannot even fathom at times. But even he knows that science is nothing more than an effort by finite, fallible humans to define and quantify the unfathomable. Personally, I am willing to admit that there have been times in my life that I found myself struggling to reconcile what my mind wanted to believe and what my faith demanded that I accept. It is very easy, I think, for a scientifically minded Christian to be seduced by all the scientific “evidence.” It can sound so convincing. And Lord knows that scientists these days are very fond of spouting off their theories as if they are in fact scientific laws. (One look at the pervasive THEORY of evolution is evidence of that.) Hubby and I are fond of scientific programming on television and have watched more than a few that dealt with everything from dinosaurs to the big bang theory. How anyone with a critical mind could not see the evidence of the countless suppositions that are made here is beyond us both. We have both concluded that it would be vastly easier to be Christians without a bent toward scientific, critical thinking. But God did not create us that way and so we must both strive to never let our brains override our faith. I have rambled on far longer than I intended. But I really wanted to let you know how much I have appreciated your posts. Thank you for speaking your mind without fear. And thank God for forums like this that allow Christians everywhere to connect and share. God Bless You.
  14. My uncle posed this question to me, and I had not ever wondered about it before, but now that I think about it,it is a mystery. Genesis 4:15-16 (New International Version) 15 But the LORD said to him, "Not so; if anyone kills Cain, he will suffer vengeance seven times over." Then the LORD put a mark on Cain so that no one who found him would kill him. 16 So Cain went out from the LORD's presence and lived in the land of Nod, east of Eden. If the only people on earth were living in the Garden of Eden, were there people also living in the land of Nod, and if so, where did they come from?
  15. Hi. My name is Joe. I believe in Jesus Christ the savior,Son of God. I know I should not post it here but in attempting to read the whole bible starting from Genesis, one of my first questions is why God hardened ones heart; Isnt it againts freewill idea? "From a human perspective, it seems wrong for God to harden a person and then punish the person He has hardened." gotquestions.org
  16. First Use Of the Cross At Tell Khaiber? By: Marshall Ramsey II, Worthy News U.S. Correspondent TELL KHAIBER EXCAVATION SITE, Ur, Iraq (WorthyNews) - An even more amazing discovery has been found at Tell Khaiber in Ur, Iraq. Professor Stuart Campbell of Manchester (UK) University's Archaeology Department found the remains of a "sprawling complex" near the ancient city of Ur along the Euphrates river in southern Iraq. Ur is the birthplace of the patriarch Abraham.(1) Various artifacts such as bowl pieces made out of alabaster and gaming pieces (ancient version of checkers?) made out of diorite have been found there as well as fragments of unbaked clay containing the names of Babylonian men and their fathers, providing some nice genealogical information.(2) The most amazing discovery, however, is the remains of the building that was found there. For more information, please go to: http://conspiracyprophecyguy.blogspot.com/2013/04/ancient-building-found-at-tell-khaiber_15.html
×
×
  • Create New...