6000 years and the distance of Stars

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
U

Ugly

Guest
300 Prophecies hey? What's the best one? Can you even name one?

And what about all the Muslims who carried out suicide bombings? Did they all die for a lie? Is that any different?
So i ask you to prove that all those trillions of planets have been proven to be capable of sustaining life and you completely ignore my (impossible) request and try to turn it around and throw questions out of your own. If you can't answer questions posed to you why does anyone owe you an answer?
This is a most obvious and blatant failure when your lie was called out and you tried to point fingers away from yourself to deflect it. All of your future arguments are invalid, as far as i'm concerned.
 

posthuman

Senior Member
Jul 31, 2013
36,691
13,135
113
There are over 25 trillion planets in the universe that are able to sustain life so it had to happen somewhere

you are, like so many other people so frequently do, misinterpreting the "
Drake equation" -- which isn't an equation at all, technically. it's an estimator, and one with a ridiculously high variance.

this optimistic guess is assuming that any planet where there is a possibility water can exist in a liquid state can sustain life. which is a highly suspect assumption.

beside this, there is something even more fundamental in your interpretation that is wrong:
there is no such thing as a "law of averages"
just because you have a large number of chances for a thing to occur does not mean it "must" occur.
say you flip a coin a zillion times. each coin flip remains independent. it doesn't matter if the last hundred billion flips were heads, all in a row - the next coin flip is still 50/50 heads or tails. the coin doesn't care what has happened all the other times you flipped it. it's totally unaffected. these are independent events

suppose a lottery has 2[SUP]64[/SUP] possible outcomes.
suppose you play the same number 2[SUP]64[/SUP] times.
this is not a guarantee that your number will come up.
every time you play this lottery, your probability of winning remains the same: 2[SUP]-64[/SUP]
totally unaffected by previous and future lottery draws.

¿comprende?
 

trofimus

Senior Member
Aug 17, 2015
10,684
794
113
[/I]suppose a lottery has 2[SUP]64[/SUP] possible outcomes.
suppose you play the same number 2[SUP]64[/SUP] times.
this is not a guarantee that your number will come up.
every time you play this lottery, your probability of winning remains the same: 2[SUP]-64[/SUP]
totally unaffected by previous and future lottery draws.

[/SIZE][/FONT][/COLOR]
¿comprende?
The probability grows higher with the number or guesses. You have higher chance when you have two guesses than when you have only one.

And, BTW, lottery is won quite frequently :)
 
Dec 27, 2016
24
0
0
Yes sir, here's a good one:

Prophecy -

"Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel."


Prophecy fulfilled -

In the sixth month of Elizabeth’s pregnancy, God sent the angel Gabriel to Nazareth, a town in Galilee, to a virgin pledged to be married to a man named Joseph, a descendant of David. The virgin’s name was Mary.

The angel went to her and said, “Greetings, you who are highly favored! The Lord is with you.”

Mary was greatly troubled at his words and wondered what kind of greeting this might be. But the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary; you have found favor with God. You will conceive and give birth to a son, and you are to call him Jesus. He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over Jacob’s descendants forever; his kingdom will never end.”

“How will this be,” Mary asked the angel, “since I am a virgin?”

The angel answered, “The Holy Spirit will come on you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God.
You silly person. Can't you see the floor with this line of reasoning? If there is a prophecy written in the Old Testament that means that the people who wrote the New Testament had access to it. When they were writing the New Testament they they wrote it to fulfill the Prophecies in the Old Testament. Why would they have written it any other way?

Any prophecy which only contains proof of fulfillment in the pages of the Bible can't possibly count as proof of fulfilled Prophecies. Because the people who wrote that the Prophecies were fulfilled had access to the writings containing the original prophecies and therefore wrote that they were fulfilled
 
Dec 12, 2013
46,515
20,395
113
There are over 25 trillion planets in the universe that are able to sustain life so it had to happen somewhere
Over 25 trillion able to sustain life....ya say..........but only one we know of for sure without guesses, surmising, supposition.........
 

trofimus

Senior Member
Aug 17, 2015
10,684
794
113
You're the one contending a day is longer than 24 hours. Gen. 1:5 defines then there was evening and then there was morning -- the First Day. (If I didn't get the exact words right, consider that paraphrased.) So, if it took eons for the first day, it had to take eons for the sixth day, right? Since, surely, God didn't redefine each and every day he explained in Gen. 1. That means there had to be millennium, at the very least, of darkness, if a day is both an eon and divided between light and darkness. And I'm giving an Alaska-in-summer kind of conditions there, since the Earth doesn't usually have a lot more daylight than darkness. It stands to reason you are saying plants were basking in the sunlight nonstop for longer than man has been around (according to evolutionists), and then shriveling in the darkness for as long as man has been around (according to evolutionists again.)

It cannot happen. Plants cannot survive the darkness that long. And it certainly can't happen that mammals could survive without plants.
A. We count too much on herbivores.
B. We get our oxygen from plant respiration.

Again, Gen 1:5 tells what a day was. We can't be saying the definition given is wrong. We cannot expand on that definition without making it into something else. It doesn't work.




The storm raged for 90 days. Noah and family were stuck in the boat for 13 months. So the waters weren't raging nonstop. After death, animals decay. Do bugs bloat and sink or do they just sink? (I have no idea. lol) But cows bloat. Humans bloat. Big animals bloat. And then they sink. Put a bloated hadrosaurus next to a bloated mouse in the water. Which do you think will sink first? I'm going with the mouse, because less gasses to escape and skin and fur is more porous than scales before the sinking. Put a salamander next to a mouse and the salamander sinks first too, because it is an animal that lives in water, so was made to go under. Now all those living creatures were filling the ocean at the same time, along with all the plants, dirt, sand, silt, etc. How does that settle? I've seen a flood. It only lasted three days, but I can tell you I saw dirt stuck to everything. I'm picturing the forest floor and trees though. It wasn't there a week later. It all went back to the ground where it belonged.

Have you not noticed? Most of the fossils found are in dry places that used to be wet places. I lived in the Midwest for a couple of years. The best fossils I ever found. One was a trilobite and one was a tentacle. (To what, I have no idea.) Midwest America isn't known for ocean, but it used to be one.

And you also forget something evolutionary paleontologist keep saying, "The right conditions have to be met for a fossil to form. It is unlikely we will ever find 10% of what was, even if we found ever fossil there is." Just because there were salamanders all along, doesn't mean we'll find evidence of all of them. After all, they aren't made of the right stuff to fossilize often.



Heavens and earth created -- Day 1. What do you mean one was already formed? Even earth was still "without form and void." Which one was already around?



"More knowledge" isn't the same thing as "all knowledge." Scientist just 10 years ago treated any form of cancer the same way -- remove quickly. Something new has come along. They stopped automatically removing cancerous goiters because it is often such a slow growing tumor there is no purpose in removing it. And it's encapsulated, so it won't metastasize. They now just keep an eye out for it. Three years ago, when a cyst formed on a kidney, it was time to cut the patient from back to front to remove the cyst in case it was cancer. Now they insert a long needle, get a biopsy, and then freeze the rest to death. When I was a kid, they taught us the earth was millions of years old. Now it is billions and billions. Why in the world would you think scientists have it right, just because they have more knowledge?

And, again, no! Not all scientists believe in the Big Bang, (Hawkings does not), and they still haven't brought it back to the very beginning of the bang. They cannot. Their belief system prevents them. I've only seen one thing remain the same since I was a kid -- God.




So, Gen. 1:5 is a lie? This goes back to then why trust the rest?

You're looping on the Adam question. I already answered that one.

No idea how we can see stars burning out. My guess is because a star burnt out? I also have absolutely no idea if there is a planet somewhere out there with life forms. Absence of knowledge is just that -- absence of knowledge. I'm 60. I've grown accustom to not knowing it all. lol

Why are there impact craters? Wild guess -- meteors? The rest is speculation. And given there is still life on this planet, I'm going with the theory that it wiped out all life is crap.

You know what's amazing though? God created an asteroid belt, a bunch of bigger planets, and even a moon that all act like netting to capture meteors constantly that could well hit Earth. Ever notice all those other objects tend to have a lot more meteor craters than we have? I particularly am impressed with the moon, since it was quite likely if those meteors didn't have that to hit, they had Earth next! And the moon is just the right distance to manage our water. AND we are just the right distance from the sun to have life. Amazing how God set this all up.

And who says I do believe in 6000 years? All I believe is that might be true. It might not be.

Bishops? I haven't read about any bishops' beliefs since I learned the Bishop of Ireland's take on the Trinity. (Bishop of Ireland was St. Patrick.) Why would you assume I believe what I believe because of a bishop? That was bizarre. I kind of keep up with bishops a little less than I keep up with the Kardashians. (I can't even name them. lol)

Truthfully, I prefer spending my time studying about God. Fossils simply fascinate me. I find one trilobite imprint on a stone when I was 14 and I've been hooked on paleontology ever since. (My brother found the tentacle, so I have no idea what he did with it, but I still have my trilobite imprint. lol) But I love that God gave us so much we can check out.
It tooo looooong! How can I respond to all this? :)

1. My case about the beginnings and the light, atmosphere, plants etc:

In the beginning God created the heavens (the universe) and the earth (our planet).
The land was yet invisible and unprepared, waters (from asteorids bombardment) covered whole the surface of the earth and the atmosphere was developing, thick and dark.
Then the amosphere begin to be translucent. Light could come trough, but not the shapes (like sun, stars, moon). It was not transparent yet.
Then the first continents (dry land) begin to appear from the waters.
Then the first microplants, evolving to larger and more complex plants. They need light, light was there. They do not need to "see" stars or moon or sun".
Then God made the atmosphere transparent. Sun, stars and moon become visible. Its needed for animals and humans to get oriented in time/seasons and space.
Then God created animals and humans.

2. Flood vs geological columns.
In your case, the heaviest bodies would be in the earliest strata. Which is not true at all.
Geological columns goes from the simplest organisms, then the first "backbone organisms" (sorry for my English, I dont have time to search for the proper terms) then the first fish then the first "between the fish and the land animal", then the first land animals, with very primitive legs, then the more complex land animals, then the first sauropods (is it the word?), then dinosaurs, then the first mammals, then the first "something between dinosaurs and birds", then the first primitive birds, then the first humanoids, almost today's animals, then the today's animals and today's humans.
Also DNA testifies to this lineage.

So your argument regarding the flood creating such columns is impossible. If we would take your tought, then the first columns would be the most huge dinosaurs, then smaller, smaller, then todays and various other mammals, then birds, then trilobits then simple most primitive organisms.
But this is not the reality.

3. There is no lie in the original text of Genesis. We must just know it was not meant to be a scientific description, it was not written for the 21st century reader, but for the reader in the bronze age. But it is amazing how this text in their language is proved by today's science.
We should be grateful that the Bible is the only holy book on the Earth that got this events right as proved by science. Not to try to hold middle-age ideas like the flat earth, geocentrism or 6000 year old universe (counted btw wrong, it should be about 10 000, when the right texts are used ) :)
 
Last edited:
D

Depleted

Guest
It tooo looooong! How can I respond to all this? :)

1. My arguments about the beginnings and the light, atmosphere, plants etc:

In the beginning God created the heavens (the universe) and the earth (our planet).
The land was yet invisible and unprepared, waters (from asteorids bombardment) covered whole the surface of the earth and the atmosphere was developing, thick and dark.
Then the amosphere begin to be translucent. Light could come trough, but not the shapes (like sun, stars, moon). It was not transparent yet.
Then the first continents (dry land) begin to appear from the waters.
Then the first microplants, evolving to larger and more complex plants. They need light, light was there. They do not need to "see" stars or moon or sun".
Then God made the atmosphere transparent. Sun, stars and moon become visible. Its needed for animals and humans to get oriented in time/seasons and space.
Then God created animals and humans.

2. Flood vs geological columns.
In your aguments, the heaviest bodies would be in the earliest strata. Which is not true at all.
Geological columns goes from the simplest organisms, then the first "backbone organisms" (sorry for my English, I dont have time to search for the proper terms) then the first fish then the first "between the fish and the land animal", then the first land animals, with very primitive legs, then the more complex land animals, then the first sauropods (is it the word?), then dinosaurs, then the first mammals, then the first "something between dinosaurs and birds", then the first primitive birds, then the first humanoids, almost today's animals, then the today's animals and today's humans.
Also DNA testifies to this lineage.

So your argument regarding the flood creating such columns is impossible. If we would take your tought, then the first columns would be the most huge dinosaurs, then smaller, smaller, then todays and various other mammals, then birds, then trilobits then simple most primitive organisms.
But this is not the reality.

3. There is no lie in the original text of Genesis. We must just know it was not meant to be a scientific description, it was not written for the 21st century reader, but for the reader in the bronze age. But it is amazing how this text in their language is proved by today's science.
We should be grateful that the Bible is the only holy book on the Earth that got this events right as proved by science. Not to try to hold middle-age ideas like the flat earth, geocentrism or 6000 year old universe (counted btw wrong, it should be about 10 000, when the right texts are used ) :)
1. The first day the earth was formless and void. BUT there was light! Here's a shocker. The sun didn't show up until Day Four. What was the light before that?

Again, not enough knowledge to know for sure, but I think it is God. And since God gave enough light to the plants before even coming up with the sun and moon, the whole logic of it having to be in a specific order to go along with evolution gets blown away. Not only is the sun a problem with trying to make our image match that of what scientists keep telling us, but the moon is big. How did waters part without a moon? The moon governs tide.

2. Nope. You got me wrong. Read again. I think the little animals fell first, so the the strata is about the same. (Oh, and you might want to keep up with how often evolutionists change their minds. They're now up to some birds turned into dinos, some dinos turned into birds, and, oh-oh, some dinos had feathers. Honest. They really do continually change their minds on their own "facts." This is the stuff that amuses me. lol)

3. Was Proverbs not written for the 21st century reader either? Because I think that stands the test of time. I also think Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, all the way to Revelation stands the test of time. What doesn't stand the test of time is evolution. Evolution started with Darwin. Read what he wrote, because most modern evolutionists would laugh at his notions as much as they laughed at the first paleontologist who said dinos had feathers in the 1990's.

And, since I really haven't given my personal opinion about how old the earth is yet, it's about time. That whole genealogy given before the flood is a bit suspect. I mean, it really is a genealogy, but I can trace some of mine back to more famous people too, like that did. BUT I can't tell you who the unfamous people were in-between were either. I suspect the prediluvian genealogy and the postdiluvian genealogies were a Who's Who list of the famous names in history. Both are also exactly seven generations. Seven meaning perfect, complete, or God. I don't really think we can count how many years were in there because of that.

My guess? 25,000ish, but it is no better or no worse than anyone else's guess. It really is just guessing. The reason why 6,000 doesn't bother me at all.

I can't remember if it was Adam Clarke or John Gill, but I lean toward Clarke. He gave a good rundown demographically on how the entire world -- Old World and New World -- could happen by the time Abraham came along. He estimated 17 generations since Noah. That sure caught me to figure out how the Clovis People showed up in what is now America. (North, South, and Central.)

I suspect you think I get my thoughts from some religious traditions. I do, when it comes to stuff directly related to God. This side stuff? I get this from all sorts of places including The Smithsonian magazine and a seminary student (who has since become a pastor.)
 

trofimus

Senior Member
Aug 17, 2015
10,684
794
113
1. The first day the earth was formless and void. BUT there was light! Here's a shocker. The sun didn't show up until Day Four. What was the light before that?

Again, not enough knowledge to know for sure, but I think it is God. And since God gave enough light to the plants before even coming up with the sun and moon, the whole logic of it having to be in a specific order to go along with evolution gets blown away. Not only is the sun a problem with trying to make our image match that of what scientists keep telling us, but the moon is big. How did waters part without a moon? The moon governs tide.

2. Nope. You got me wrong. Read again. I think the little animals fell first, so the the strata is about the same. (Oh, and you might want to keep up with how often evolutionists change their minds. They're now up to some birds turned into dinos, some dinos turned into birds, and, oh-oh, some dinos had feathers. Honest. They really do continually change their minds on their own "facts." This is the stuff that amuses me. lol)

3. Was Proverbs not written for the 21st century reader either? Because I think that stands the test of time. I also think Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, all the way to Revelation stands the test of time. What doesn't stand the test of time is evolution. Evolution started with Darwin. Read what he wrote, because most modern evolutionists would laugh at his notions as much as they laughed at the first paleontologist who said dinos had feathers in the 1990's.

And, since I really haven't given my personal opinion about how old the earth is yet, it's about time. That whole genealogy given before the flood is a bit suspect. I mean, it really is a genealogy, but I can trace some of mine back to more famous people too, like that did. BUT I can't tell you who the unfamous people were in-between were either. I suspect the prediluvian genealogy and the postdiluvian genealogies were a Who's Who list of the famous names in history. Both are also exactly seven generations. Seven meaning perfect, complete, or God. I don't really think we can count how many years were in there because of that.

My guess? 25,000ish, but it is no better or no worse than anyone else's guess. It really is just guessing. The reason why 6,000 doesn't bother me at all.

I can't remember if it was Adam Clarke or John Gill, but I lean toward Clarke. He gave a good rundown demographically on how the entire world -- Old World and New World -- could happen by the time Abraham came along. He estimated 17 generations since Noah. That sure caught me to figure out how the Clovis People showed up in what is now America. (North, South, and Central.)

I suspect you think I get my thoughts from some religious traditions. I do, when it comes to stuff directly related to God. This side stuff? I get this from all sorts of places including The Smithsonian magazine and a seminary student (who has since become a pastor.)
"Formless and void" is a wrong reading. Massoretic texts got this one wrong.
LXX has "unseen and unprepared". Which makes much more sense. Dry land was not "void", it was unprepared, under the waters.

Sun was of course created in the verse one - in the beginning God created heavens.

Sun was only not visible because the atmosphere was not translucent till the day one and transparent till the day 5.

Flood could not create the strata we have. Because it is ordered from the simplest to the complex ones. Not according to their weight or something else. If little animals sink first, then how is that dinosaurs are before dogs, cows or humans.

It stands the test of time, but it was not written in the language and ideas of the 21st century. Moses could now write about Pluto or about atoms or about the chemistry of the brain because he did not have the words for this. And God had no need to reveal such things. They are not important for salvation.
So it is written in their words, in the thoughts they could understand. And we can understand it too, because it is the same science says that happened. Even in the same order of evolution.

I agree with the genealogies, they do not serve the purpose of getting the age of the Earth or humanity, thats why they are made "nice" by 7, 70, 40, 10 etc. There are unknown gaps between them.
I would say it is something between 100 000 and 10 000 for the history of the modern homo sapiens sapiens, not less.
 
Last edited:
Aug 25, 2016
236
1
0
This should explain myself.[h=3]"A Spirit Does Not Have Flesh and Bones": Another Application of Luke 24:39[/h]

A text which has been frequently cited by Trinitarians and others who do not accept the biblical teaching that Jesus of Nazareth was raised to life as a "spirit" is Luke 24:39. For example, according to Dr. Walter Martin, the founder of the Christian Research Institute and the author of a variety of books and other materials concerning many of the beliefs promoted by the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society and by Jehovah's Witnesses:
[Acts 1:9] shows that the disciples were "looking on" and saw him "lifted up and a cloud caught him up from their vision" (v. 9). They could hardly have been looking at a spirit, which by definition is incorporeal, not with human eyes at least, and Christ had told them once before, "Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have" (Luke 24:39). [Walter Martin, The Kingdom of the Cults, Revised, Updated, and Expanded Edition, Ravi Zacharias, General Ed. (Bloomington, Minn.: Bethany House Publishers, 2003), page 102; compare also page 121.]​
In a footnote to the word "incorporeal" Martin writes, "Even angels have to take a human form in order to be seen (Genesis 19:1-2)," and so it is a genuine mystery why Martin did not see that Jesus, since his resurrection as a "spirit" (1 Corinthians 15:45 [see discussion below]), could also have taken on various human forms, including the one he chose in Acts Chapter 1, but without requiring him (or the angels in Genesis 19) to actually have a real human body apart from such physical manifestations.

Where it concerns Jesus' words in Luke 24:39, here is the text together with verses 36-38 and 40-43 according to the New Revised Standard Version (with my added underlining):

Luke 24:36-43 (NRSV [1989])
While they were talking about this, Jesus himself stood among them and said to them, "Peace be with you." They were startled and terrified, and thought that they were seeing a ghost. He said to them, "Why are you frightened, and why do doubts arise in your hearts? Look at my hands and my feet; see that it is I myself. Touch me and see; for a ghost does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have." And when he had said this, he showed them his hands and his feet. While in their joy they were disbelieving and still wondering, he said to them, "Have you anything here to eat?" They gave him a piece of broiled fish, and he took it and ate in their presence.​
The NRSV uses "ghost" to translate the Greek word pneuma, which also and regularly means a "spirit," that is, either an evil, demonic angel or a righteous, holy angel. Compare the use of pneuma in Luke 4:33, 8:29, 9:39, 9:42, Acts 16:16, 19:15, 16, and in Revelation 16:13-14, where pneuma clearly refers to a demonic spirit, and then compare the use of pneuma in Hebrews 1:14 and Revelation 1:4, where it clearly refers to angelic or to other holy spirits in Jah God's service.

Returning to the account associated with Luke 24:39, those in the room did not recognize Jesus by his face when he "stood among them" or by his voice as he spoke to them (Luke 24:35); they thought he may have been a "ghost" or some kind of harmful spirit (hence, they were "startled and terrified"). But Jesus reassured them by "showing them his hands and his feet" which in this instance had the wound marks from his execution. This was proof Jesus provided to help others who could not otherwise recognize his voice or his temporary physical form, because he did not look or sound like he did before he died. Related to this, Jesus then also explained, "A spirit/ghost does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have."

It is therefore without question that on this occasion Jesus did have the marks of execution in the body in which he appeared to them. But was this the same "body" in which he was raised to life before his appearance in this room, or elsewhere?

If Jesus is correct, namely, that "a spirit does not have flesh and bones," then the body which he manifested to his followers according to Luke 24:39 was not the same body in which he was raised to life. Note what is written concerning this raising to life, that is, the actual resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth from the dead according to 1 Corinthians 15:35-45 (with my underlining added):

1 Corinthians 15:35-45 (New International Version [1984])
But someone may ask, "How are the dead raised? With what kind of body will they come?" How foolish! What you sow does not come to life unless it dies. When you sow, you do not plant the body that will be, but just a seed, perhaps of wheat or of something else. But God gives it a body as he has determined, and to each kind of seed he gives its own body. All flesh is not the same: Men have one kind of flesh, animals have another, birds another and fish another. There are also heavenly bodies and there are earthly bodies; but the splendor of the heavenly bodies is one kind, and the splendor of the earthly bodies is another. The sun has one kind of splendor, the moon another and the stars another; and star differs from star in splendor. So will it be with the resurrection of the dead. The body that is sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable; it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. So it is written: "The first man Adam became a living being"; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit [Greek: pneuma].
According to Paul the "last Adam," Jesus of Nazareth, was "raised a spiritual body," meaning he "became a life-giving spirit" (Greek: pneuma). Therefore, merely by comparing what Jesus said in Luke 24:39 with the teaching here in 1 Corinthians 15:45, it is clear that the body in which Jesus was raised to life was a "spiritual body," one meant for a "life-giving spirit" and so not a body with "flesh and bones," which he did manifest in different forms after his resurrection had already taken place.—See Luke 24:13-35; John 20:14-17; compare Mark 16:9-14 (note the longer ending's wording in verse 12, "He [Jesus] appeared in another form [Greek: ephanerothe en hetera morphe]").

Apart from his appearances in different bodies/forms prior to his ascension but since his actual presentation of his "body" to Jah God the Father (John 20:14-17; Acts 1:1-8; Hebrews 10:5, 10), which appearances are similar to the manner in which angelic spirits are said to have taken on human forms (even to the point of eating; compare Genesis 19:1-3 with Luke 24:43), Jesus' resurrected spirit body, according to his own testimony in Luke 24:39, does not have "flesh and bones." Rather, the actual "spiritual body" in which Jesus was raised to life is much different from those which he took on during some of his earthly, post-resurrection appearances. Here is how his actual "spiritual body" is described by those who saw him with it (with my underlining added):

Revelation 1:12-16 (New World Translation [1984])
And I turned to see the voice that was speaking with me, and, having turned, I saw seven golden lampstands, and in the midst of the lampstands someone like a son of man, clothed with a garment that reached down to the feet, and girded at the breasts with a golden girdle. Moreover, his head and his hair were white as white wool, as snow, and his eyes as a fiery flame; and his feet were like fine copper when glowing in a furnace; and his voice was as the sound of many waters. And he had in his right hand seven stars, and out of his mouth a sharp, long two-edged sword was protruding, and his countenance was as the sun when it shines in its power.
As I wrote in Chapter 6 of my Third Edition of Jehovah's Witnesses Defended: An Answer to Scholars and to Critics (Murrieta, CA: Elihu Books, 2009), page 436, after citing the above description of Jesus' resurrection body according to his apostle John:
Here we have a clear description of what Jesus’ heavenly body looks like to humans. Jesus’ “head” and his “hair” are said to be “white as wool, as snow, and his eyes as a fiery flame.” His feet are “like fine copper when glowing in a furnace” and “his voice was the sound of many waters.” Finally, his “countenance was as the sun when it shines in its power.” This is a far cry from the human forms Jesus took on after his resurrection! Revelation 2:18 also describes the heavenly Jesus in similar terms, where it says he has “eyes like a fiery flame, and his feet are like fine copper.” These descriptions are also very similar to the angel in Revelation 10:1, whose “face was as the sun, and his feet were as fiery pillars.” It is little wonder, then, that the apostle Paul refers to Jesus as ‘not a man’ in Galatians 1:12.
The descriptions of Jesus’ heavenly body in Revelation 1 and 2 have several striking similarities with other angelic spirits who are described in the Bible. In Ezekiel 1:7, 13 the cherubs are described as “gleaming as with the glow of burnished copper,” and "like burning coals of fire." Their voices are even similar in sound to Jesus’ voice, for they are both like "vast waters, like the sound of the Almighty."—Ezekiel 1:24.

Further, in Ezekiel 40:3 an angel is described as "like the appearance of copper." Also, in Daniel 10:6 the eyes, the body, and the voice of the angel who appeared to Daniel is described in terms which are very similar to how Jesus and the cherubs in Ezekiel are described. Consider (again with my underlining added):

And his body was like chrys´o·lite, and his face like the appearance of lightning, and his eyes like fiery torches, and his arms and the place of his feet were like the sight of burnished copper, and the sound of his words was like the sound of a crowd [NWT].

It is clear, then, that the body in which Jesus was raised to life is not the same body in which he died, even though he did use that same body or one like it when appearing to others after his resurrection in order to provide proof that he was not "a ghost," or some terrifying, demonic "spirit." Yet, apart from these appearances Jesus is presented just like other spirit beings in the Bible and in other literature written during the biblical periods about such beings, namely, as a "spirit" being with a "spiritual body" (1 Corinthians 14:45), a body "not made with hands" but made by God just for him (1 Corinthians 15:38; 2 Corinthians 5:1-3), a body "raised imperishable" and so one with no "flesh and bones" as we see him with before his death and when appearing on earth to others before his ascension.—Luke 24:39; Acts 1:1-9; 1 Corinthians 15:52.

For additional discussion of these and other, related texts and arguments concerning the 1) physical body in which Jesus died and 2) the spiritual body in which he was raised to life, including a complete discussion of the context and understanding of John 2:19-21, the empty tomb and the non-corruption of Jesus' "flesh" according to Acts 2:31 and Acts 13:36-37, see Chapter 6 of my Third Edition of Jehovah's Witnesses Defended (2009), which chapter is now available online in its entirety for your reading/printing/saving at no cost. Simply click here and enjoy
 

Ahwatukee

Senior Member
Mar 12, 2015
11,159
2,373
113
Returning to the account associated with Luke 24:39, those in the room did not recognize Jesus by his face when he "stood among them" or by his voice as he spoke to them (Luke 24:35); they thought he may have been a "ghost" or some kind of harmful spirit (hence, they were "startled and terrified"). But Jesus reassured them by "showing them his hands and his feet" which in this instance had the wound marks from his execution. This was proof Jesus provided to help others who could not otherwise recognize his voice or his temporary physical form, because he did not look or sound like he did before he died. Related to this, Jesus then also explained, "A spirit/ghost does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have."


I will stop you right there! Believing in the bodily resurrection of Christ is paramount to a believers salvation. If you are believing that Jesus appearing was "his
temporary physical form" then this belief is detrimental to your salvation and anyone else who believes that lie!

The word "anastasis" translated "resurrection" is defined as ana = "up again" histemi = "to stand" properly "to stand up again bodily.

When Jesus resurrected, he did so in the same body that he was crucified. He appeared to his disciples in that same resurrected body. He ascended into heaven in that same body of flesh and bone. He is currently sitting at the right hand of the Father in that resurrected body and will be returning in that same resurrected body. Regarding this, please consider the following prophecy regarding Christ:

"you will not abandon me to the grave. You will not allow your holy One to see decay."

The reference to not allowing His holy One to see decay, is because Jesus rose three days later in the same body, although immortal and glorified, it was the same body that he was crucified in, a body of flesh and bone, which is referred to as a spiritual body and that because of the heavenly characteristics.

If you do anything at all, understanding the bodily resurrection of Christ should be your first priority and that because by believing that Christ's bodily resurrection was only for the sake of his disciples and was only temporary, it is detrimental to your salvation. Unless you or anyone else believes in the bodily resurrection of Christ as literally being in the body and not just as a pretense, you have no salvation.

"
If you declare with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved."

The bodily resurrection is the whole point behind the empty tomb, ergo, He was back in His body. The verse above would not be true if Jesus was appearing in a flesh and bone body as an aid for his disciples. Before you debate about anything else on this site or anywhere else, you need to confess the bodily resurrection of Christ. According to Roman's, the Lord's bodily resurrection was proof of His being the Son of God:

"
Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle and set apart for the gospel of God—the gospel he promised beforehand through his prophets in the Holy Scriptures regarding his Son, who as to his earthly life was a descendant of David, and who through the Spirit of holiness was appointed the Son of God in power by his resurrection from the dead: Jesus Christ our Lord.

This should be your first priority buddyt!


 
Last edited:
Aug 25, 2016
236
1
0
This thing of people coming out of the ground to join there sprit body troubles me.

John 3:5-6
"Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and [of] the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit
is spirit.

We are made of three distinct components:
1: The BODY. This is your PHYSICAL component of being. It is flesh made from a collection of unremarkable mineral elements (but is mostly water) and is in harmony with the nature and spirit of this world. It grows, matures, begins to deteriorate, eventually dies, and then decomposes back into its constituent elements and remains a part of the dust of the world. The body is a part of you but is NOT ALL of what defines who YOU are.
"And thou mourn at the last, when thy flesh and thy body are consumed,"
(Proverbs 5:11
2: The SOUL. This is who YOU are; it is a part of your SPIRITUAL component. This is your individuality, your "I AM" so to speak (made in God's image), your "heart
"And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell."
(Matt. 10:28 KJV)
3: The SPIRIT. This is the source of power and control for both your body and soul; it is either evil or good, darkness or light, unholy or Holy, unclean or clean.
The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound therof , but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.
John 3:8




[SUB][SUP]
[/SUP][/SUB]







 
B

BeyondET

Guest
Huh I thought the thread was about 6000 years and distant stars...
 
B

BeyondET

Guest
There are over 25 trillion planets in the universe that are able to sustain life so it had to happen somewhere
Interesting post, I've read that the number you mentions 25 trillion is estimated just in our own Galaxy.

some say that With a estimation of least 200 billion galaxies out there (and possibly even more), we’re very likely talking about a Universe filled with around 1024 planets, or, for those of you who like it written out, around 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 planets in our observable Universe.
 

WebersHome

Senior Member
Dec 9, 2014
1,940
32
0
-
The available data suggests that the universe is expanding in all directions.
In other words: it's stretching out-- every galaxy in the cosmos appears to
be moving away from every other galaxy (with the exception apparently of
the Milky Way and Andromeda, which astronomers-- according to an article
in the Mar/Apr 2013 issue of Science Illustrated --predict will collide in 4
billion years).

And not only is the cosmos expanding; but the velocity of its expansion isn't
slowing down as might be expected; but rather, contrary to common sense
and Newton's laws of gravity; the velocity of the cosmos' expansion is
accelerating due to a mysterious force which, for convenience sake, has
been labeled dark energy.

Plus, the expansion isn't uniform. Galaxies farthest from the earth appear to
be moving away faster than those closer in.

Ergo: the stars that God created on the fourth day are now quite a bit
farther away from Earth than when He first made them. How much farther
away I don't know; but if the age of the Earth is really and truly 4.5 billion
years then it's my guess the difference is significant.

So; what we end up with when determining the distance to objects in deep
space is their apparent distance and their actual distance. In other word: if
the light from a particular galaxy takes 8 million years to get here, then
we're looking at the location that the galaxy occupied in space 8 million
years ago rather than where it's located in space today.

NOTE: These kinds of discussions are futile. Every one that I've seen like it
has ended up the same: they become perpetual bull sessions that never get
to the bottom of anything.

/
 

WebersHome

Senior Member
Dec 9, 2014
1,940
32
0
-
Everything that lives on land was created the sixth day, including, but not
limited to, a variety of life called creeping things.

The Hebrew word is remes (reh'-mes) which means: a reptile; or any other
rapidly moving animal. Dinosaurs would've been included in this grouping.

On no other day but the sixth did God create land animals; so we are pretty
much stuck with the fact that humans and dinosaurs were both created on
the sixth day.

However; the fossil record. in combination with scientific dating methods,
has thus far easily proven that dinosaurs preceded human life by several
million years. So then, in my estimation, the days of creation should be
taken to represent epochs of indeterminable length rather than 24-hour
calendar days. That's not an unreasonable estimation; e.g.

"These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were
created, in the day that Jehovah God made earth and heaven." (Gen 2:4)

The Hebrew word for "day" in that verse is yowm (yome) which is the very
same word for each of the six days of God's creation labors. Since yowm in
Gen 2:4 refers to a period of time obviously much longer than a 24-hour
calendar day; it justifies suggesting that each of the six days of creation
were longer than 24 hours apiece too. In other words: yowm is ambiguous
and not all that easy to interpret sometimes.

So then, why can't some people accept an epoch explanation? Why are they
so insistent upon on six 24-hour calendar days? Because they're hung up on
the expression "evening and morning".

The interesting thing is: there were no physical evenings and mornings till
the fourth day when the sun was created and brought on line. So I suggest
that the expression "evening and morning" is simply a convenient way to
indicate the simultaneous wrap of one epoch and the beginning of another.

Anyway; this "day" thing has been a chronic problem for just about
everybody who takes Genesis seriously. It's typically assumed that the days
of creation consisted of twenty-four hours apiece; so people end up stumped
when trying to figure out how to cope with the 4.5 billion-year age of the
earth, and factor in the various eras, e.g. Triassic, Jurassic, Mesozoic,
Cenozoic, Cretaceous, etc, plus the ice ages and the mass extinction events.

NOTE: Galileo believed that science and religion are allies rather than
enemies-- two different languages telling the same story. In other words:
science and religion compliment each other-- science answers questions that
religion doesn't answer, and religion answers questions that science cannot
answer; viz: science and religion are not really enemies; no, to the contrary,
science and religion assist each other in their respective quests to get to the
bottom of some of the cosmos' greatest mysteries.

/