What happened 6,000 years ago?

[Ezra]

10 hours ago, Bonky said:

Aside from the 6000 year marker there's nothing from the article that points to a creation event.  Now if the article was talking about an explosion of life 6000 years ago I'd see the connection. 

The point is that something happened 6000 years ago which is significant to evolutionists. Since they will not accept the Creation account, they have given it another meaning. It matters not. It is a wake-up call to evolutionists one way or another.

[Bonky]

Ezra I'm afraid I don't follow.  You are shoehorning in a creation event to something "significant" 6000 years ago.  I also don't know what you mean by wakeup call....wakeup call to what?

[SavedOnebyGrace]

14 hours ago, Ezra said:

The point is that something happened 6000 years ago which is significant to evolutionists. Since they will not accept the Creation account, they have given it another meaning. It matters not. It is a wake-up call to evolutionists one way or another.

I don't see that at all.  Evolutionists have the same problems proving evolution whether the 6000 year "event" occurred or not.  If anything, this supports the Ruin-Reconstruction (Gap Principle) view of early Earth history and restoration event.  Thank you for your support.

[enoob57]

On ‎12‎/‎18‎/‎2015 at 5:33 PM, Ezra said:

Or will they be like the left-liberals saying Radical Islam does not exist even as they get slaughtered?

In a field of dead sheep no living witness can be found...

6 hours ago, Bonky said:

Ezra I'm afraid I don't follow.  You are shoehorning in a creation event to something "significant" 6000 years ago.  I also don't know what you mean by wakeup call....wakeup call to what?

Significant is undefined! To process it any one way or other falls outside of the article... but the significance does require searching for a 6000 year event! I think that is what Ezra is exclaiming!

41 minutes ago, Saved.One.by.Grace said:

I don't see that at all.  Evolutionists have the same problems proving evolution whether the 6000 year "event" occurred or not.  If anything, this supports the Ruin-Reconstruction (Gap Principle) view of early Earth history and restoration event.  Thank you for your support.

The foundation of your thinking lies outside of Biblical hermeneutics... and is by that suspect!

[SavedOnebyGrace]

1 minute ago, enoob57 said:

The foundation of your thinking lies outside of Biblical hermeneutics... and is by that suspect!

I disagree and since I've been studying this subject with respect to Biblical hermeneutics for 33+ years I rather doubt your off-the-cuff statement more than my research.

[enoob57]

13 minutes ago, Saved.One.by.Grace said:

I disagree and since I've been studying this subject with respect to Biblical hermeneutics for 33+ years I rather doubt your off-the-cuff statement more than my research.

Please! The Genesis 6 days with the further comparison of The Exodus 6 days lays to rest in simplicity God's intent toward defined time period
of creation and any other is just pure willful  ignore of the very first hermeneutic principle- if the plain sense makes sense seek no other sense!!!
Love, Steven

[siegi91]

On 18 December 2015 at 9:25 PM, Ezra said:

Evolutionary "science" is corroborating that something significant happened 6,000 years ago. They call it an "ecosystem shift".  Christians call it Creation.

http://www.newsmax.com/TheWire/ecosystem-shift-blame-humans/2015/12/18/id/706324/

 

The article bases its findings on previous biological history that lasted about 300 millions years in the past. Can this assumption be taken seriously?

 siegi

 

[SavedOnebyGrace]

30 minutes ago, enoob57 said:

Please! The Genesis 6 days with the further comparison of The Exodus 6 days lays to rest in simplicity God's intent toward defined time period
of creation and any other is just pure willful  ignore of the very first hermeneutic principle- if the plain sense makes sense seek no other sense!!!
Love, Steven

Not at all.  What doesn't make sense is the Ark load of other scriptures (that Hazard has listed) that you ignore and cling to your understanding of Genesis 1:1-1:2.

[enoob57]

4 minutes ago, Saved.One.by.Grace said:

Not at all.  Want doesn't make sense is the Ark load of other scriptures (that Hazard has listed) that you ignore and cling to your understanding of Genesis 1:1-1:2.
What you are not understanding that you are making assumptions of undefined facts as though they are defined and then bringing The Word of God into question by this method ( ! )  This is unwise in my opinion...

Your prideful violation of hermeneutic principle 1 set for by common sense in the very begin separates us from further walking together in reason...
Understanding this- what is being said and done now is laid up for an accounting before God in the Judgment Seat of Christ... love, Steven

[Ezra]

27 minutes ago, siegi91 said:

The article bases its findings on previous biological history that lasted about 300 millions years in the past. Can this assumption be taken seriously?

 siegi

Ask the evolutionists (to whom you belong). Since they take their assumptions seriously, we have to allow them to make these discoveries without the benefit of Divine revelation.