Genesis and Modern Science

  • 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.
A

AnandaHya

Guest
#21
OK some one help me understand why most Bible scholars believe in the 6000 year young earth thing?

People told me to add up the chronology and I have as much as I can find it:

Genesis chapter 5 gives the genealogy between Adam and Shem which is a total of 2, 494 years with Noah not having had Shem until he was 500 years old.

Genesis chapter 10 from Shem to Abraham = 391 years

total 20 generations with 2, 895 years

Then we have Matthew 1 with the genealogy of Jesus as traced through Joseph (could someone explain that one since he does not contribute any DNA to Jesus due to the virgin birth, why is Jesus genealogy traced through His adoptive father unless its via Divine invitro- Fertilization or something?)

Anyway we have 40 generations but no years from Abraham to Jesus

However I don't see how long each generation is if you want to estimate you could multiply 3,000 by 3 and get about 9,000 years since Adam to Jesus but still where did 6,000 plus come from?

they go by generations not years and you have a generation before giving birth differing from 29 years (Nahor) to 500 years (Noah)

and does year mean the same thing today as it did back then?

anyway I thought you might find this interesting: did you notice that the serpent's curse was to lose his legs?

 
A

AnandaHya

Guest
#22
do you know how that tree is constructed and how often it is changed and debated? By how similar their traits, DNA, embrology etc are.

14 So the LORD God said to the serpent:
“ Because you have done this,
You are cursed more than all cattle,
And more than every beast of the field;
On your belly you shall go,
And you shall eat dust
All the days of your life.

23 therefore the LORD God sent him out of the garden of Eden to till the ground from which he was taken. 24 So He drove out the man; and He placed cherubim at the east of the garden of Eden, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to guard the way to the tree of life.


sounds like God sent Adam and Eve back to till the ground from which they were taken. which means Eden is not Earth at least not as we know it.

Unless you've seen a cherubim at the east of a garden or a flaming sword somewhere on Earth?

ever think that the destruction of dinosaurs might be related to the Serpent's betray of God?

If you start Adam and Eve entrance after the mass destruction of dinosaurs?

the time line doesn't work out but after a few hundred years my brain stops counting. I'll leave it in God's hands for now and do some more research :)
 

Cleante

Senior Member
May 7, 2010
280
0
16
#23
sorry can't edit post after the time limit. the Earth has a core that creates a magnetic field that helps shield it, not just the ozone. let me find an article, it'd take to long to type up...
Are you suggesting that the magnetosphere protects us from asteroids? If so, that is wrong. The magnetosphere only protects us from charged particles by deflecting them to the poles.
 
A

AnandaHya

Guest
#24
Ok the dates are off but science does support that there is all humans share a common ancestor and that supports the Adam and Eve statement from the Bible.

Recent African origin of modern humans - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"In paleoanthropology, the recent African origin of modern humans is one of two mainstream models describing the origin and early dispersal of anatomically modern humans. The theory is called the (Recent) Out-of-Africa model in the popular press, and academically the recent single-origin hypothesis (RSOH), Replacement Hypothesis, and Recent African Origin (RAO) model. The hypothesis that humans have a single origin (monogenesis) was published in Charles Darwin's Descent of Man (1871). The concept was speculative until the 1980s, when it was corroborated by a study of present-day mitochondrial DNA, combined with evidence based on physical anthropology of archaic specimens.
Genetic and fossil evidence is interpreted to show that archaic Homo sapiens evolved to anatomically modern humans solely in Africa, between 200,000 and 150,000 years ago, that members of one branch of Homo sapiens left Africa by between 125,000 and 60,000 years ago, and that over time these humans replaced earlier human populations such as Neanderthals and Homo erectus without interbreeding with them. The date of this original "out of Africa" migration has mostly been dated to between 70,000 and 60,000 years ago, but a 2011 study suggested that an early wave of migration may have taken place as early as 125,000 years ago.
The major competing hypothesis is the multiregional origin of modern humans, which envisions a wave of Homo sapiens migrating from Africa and interbreeding with local Neanderthal populations in multiple regions of the globe. Most multiregionalists still view Africa as a major wellspring of human genetic diversity, but allow a much greater role for hybridization.[1][2]
The recent single origin of modern humans in East Africa is the predominant position held within the scientific community"
 
A

AnandaHya

Guest
#25
Are you suggesting that the magnetosphere protects us from asteroids? If so, that is wrong. The magnetosphere only protects us from charged particles by deflecting them to the poles.
no God protects us from asteroids but He has set up the world so that we are protected from other things most people don't think about or consider.

for example why don't planets collide with each other as they orbit the sun?
 

Dude653

Senior Member
Mar 19, 2011
12,349
1,044
113
#26
That's why i cant watch those national geographic shows and shows about the earth. As soon as i hear ""Millions of years ago''...Click!! im changing the channel.. im not gonna listen to that garbage. The Bible tells us that the earth is NOT millions of years old.
 
A

AnandaHya

Guest
#27
"In the field of human genetics, Mitochondrial Eve refers to the matrilineal "MRCA" (most recent common ancestor). In other words, this was the woman from whom all living humans today descend, on their mother's side, and through the mothers of those mothers and so on, back until all lines converge on one person. Because it is generally passed from mother to offspring without recombination, all mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) in every living person is directly descended from hers by definition. Mitochondrial Eve is the female counterpart of Y-chromosomal Adam, the patrilineal most recent common ancestor, although they lived thousands of years apart.
Each ancestor (of people now living) in the line back to MRCA had contempories such as brothers, sisters, cousins, etc. but none of those people have descendants living now. Although it is possible that there were multiple MRCAs, all born on the same day, month, and year, they can collectively be referred to as one individual MRCA.
Mitochondrial Eve is generally estimated to have lived around 200,000 years ago,[2] most likely in East Africa,[3] when Homo sapiens sapiens ("anatomically modern humans") were developing as a population distinct from other human sub-species.
Mitochondrial Eve lived much earlier than the out of Africa migration that is thought to have occurred between 95,000 to 45,000 BP.[4] The dating for 'Eve' was a blow to the multiregional hypothesis, and a boost to the hypothesis that modern humans originated relatively recently in Africa and spread from there, replacing more "archaic" human populations such as Neanderthals. As a result, the latter hypothesis is now the dominant one"

Mitochondrial Eve - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

why should you care about this debate between Monogenesis (out of Africa, supported by the Bible and mitochondrial evidence, etc) and the Multiregional origins?

Multiregional origin of modern humans - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Because the multiregional is not only non Biblical but was also used to justify mass genocide of people because they could be considered "subspecies" and "tainted" with DNA from other sub homo groups.

Note most think this is FALSE but it would justify hate groups to say that there are different "races" of humans when Genetically it is WRONG. Humans share 99.9% similarities in our DNA and the 0.1% is what accounts for the differences and is vastly different from fossil found in the homo genus.
 
A

AnandaHya

Guest
#28
That's why i cant watch those national geographic shows and shows about the earth. As soon as i hear ""Millions of years ago''...Click!! im changing the channel.. im not gonna listen to that garbage. The Bible tells us that the earth is NOT millions of years old.
That's what i'm trying to figure out, how old does the Bible tell us the earth is? how did the Bible scholars get their number... I'll do some research unless some one can save me the trouble...
 
A

AnandaHya

Guest
#29
here is an article I've found:

How old is the earth? - Answers in Genesis

"The age of the earth ultimately comes down to a matter of trust—it’s a worldview issue. Will you trust what an all-knowing God says on the subject or will you trust imperfect man’s assumptions and imaginations about the past that regularly are changing?

Thus says the LORD: “Heaven is My throne, and earth is My footstool. Where is the house that you will build Me? And where is the place of My rest? For all those things My hand has made, and all those things exist,” says the LORD.
But on this one will I look: On him who is poor and of a contrite spirit, and who trembles at My word (Isaiah 66:1–2)."

"Even the Mayans had a date for the Flood of 3113 B.C."

add 2,494 years and we get about 5,607 years between Adam and Jesus?

I think i'm going to do some more research on the subject.
 
A

AnandaHya

Guest
#30
Jeremiah 4:23-26 (New King James Version)

23 I beheld the earth, and indeed it was without form, and void;
And the heavens, they had no light.

24 I beheld the mountains, and indeed they trembled,
And all the hills moved back and forth.
25 I beheld, and indeed there was no man,
And all the birds of the heavens had fled.

26 I beheld, and indeed the fruitful land was a wilderness,
And all its cities were broken down
At the presence of the LORD,
By His fierce anger


Sounds like the first verses of Genesis doesn't it?

some one mentioned it as describing what happened after Satan rebelled and the birds of heaven were his fallen angels, what do you think?
 
Last edited:
Mar 22, 2011
386
1
0
#31
I don't really understand the controversy. I'm most likely to annoy both Bible scholars and scientists but I thought I'd give you my working Hypothesis on both and see what you guys thought. Again please remember what a hypothesis is. I'm quite willing to test and revise it if needed. For we should seek GOD's truth and not our own understanding or "rightness" on matters pertaining to the world.

Early Earth - National Geographic Magazine

"Its birth pangs began some 4.6 billion years ago as rock and ice particles swirling around the young sun collided and merged, snowballing to produce ever larger planetary building blocks. In violent pileups, they smashed together to create planets, including the infant Earth. In the turmoil, another body, as big as Mars, struck our planet with the energy of trillions of atomic bombs, enough to melt it all the way through. Most of the impactor was swallowed up in the bottomless magma ocean it created. But the collision also flung a small world’s worth of vaporized rock into orbit. Debris quickly gathered itself into a ball, and since then Earth history has unfolded beneath the blank stare of the moon.

After the moon’s fiery birth, the Earth’s surface cooled. Even so, our planet remained an alien world for the next 700 million years; scientists call this time the Hadean, after the Greek underworld. Rafts of solid rock drifted in the magma like dark ice floes. Gases hissed from the cooling rock—carbon dioxide, nitrogen, water vapor, and others—enveloping the planet in a scalding atmosphere devoid of oxygen. As the temperature dropped further, the steam condensed into rain that fell in primordial monsoons and filled the ocean basins.

These first oceans may have been short-lived. Space rubble left over from the birth of the planets—chunks of rock tens to hundreds of miles across—bombarded Earth throughout the Hadean. The greatest impacts might have boiled the oceans away, forcing the process of cooling and condensation to begin again.

By 3.8 billion years ago the impacts relented. Liquid water could persist. About that time, perhaps in the oceans, lifeless chemical reactions crossed a threshold, producing molecules complex enough to reproduce themselves and evolve toward greater complexity. Life was on a road that led, as early as 3.5 billion years ago, to single-celled, blue-green cyanobacteria that flourished in the sunlit parts of the oceans. By the trillions, these microscopic organisms transformed the planet. They captured the energy of the sun to make food, releasing oxygen as a waste product. Little by little they turned the atmosphere into breathable air, opening the way to the diversity of life that followed."

Genesis 1

The History of Creation

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was[a] on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.
3 Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light. 4 And God saw the light, that it was good; and God divided the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. So the evening and the morning were the first day.

Ok what do you think it means that "darkness was on the face of the deep" and notice that "the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters?"

Let there be light I always thought was the lightening that released oxygen from the water like in the Urey and Miller experiments.... Now how can we have day and night when the sun and moon and stars aren't formed until day 4? If the light was lightening or the movement of electrons or energy ,then wouldn't it make more sense for the night to be matter or "darkness" which "was on the face of the deep"? I'm not sure but it doesn't sound like our typical day and night as we would define them without a sun and moon.

6 Then God said, “Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.” 7 Thus God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament; and it was so. 8 And God called the firmament Heaven. So the evening and the morning were the second day.

ok this is when God created the atmosphere and our ozone, oxygen and "Heaven" and "waters were divided from waters" Without our ozone, life would not be possible because

'These first oceans may have been short-lived. Space rubble left over from the birth of the planets—chunks of rock tens to hundreds of miles across—bombarded Earth throughout the Hadean. The greatest impacts might have boiled the oceans away, forcing the process of cooling and condensation to begin again"

that would have continued to happen and God protects us from asteroids and other things people forget to thank God for....

should we go to day 3 and 4 of creation?

9 Then God said, “Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear”; and it was so. 10 And God called the dry land Earth, and the gathering together of the waters He called Seas. And God saw that it was good.
11 Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb that yields seed, and the fruit tree that yields fruit according to its kind, whose seed is in itself, on the earth”; and it was so. 12 And the earth brought forth grass, the herb that yields seed according to its kind, and the tree that yields fruit, whose seed is in itself according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 13 So the evening and the morning were the third day.
14 Then God said, “Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs and seasons, and for days and years; 15 and let them be for lights in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth”; and it was so. 16 Then God made two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night. He made the stars also. 17 God set them in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth, 18 and to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 So the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
20 Then God said, “Let the waters abound with an abundance of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the face of the firmament of the heavens.” 21 So God created great sea creatures and every living thing that moves, with which the waters abounded, according to their kind, and every winged bird according to its 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 birds multiply on the earth.” 23 So the evening and the morning were the fifth day.
I WANT TO ANSWER BUT . JEEZE U SO LONG.
 
A

AnandaHya

Guest
#32
"The Age of Earth" | Reasons To Believe

"This portion was from a Q & A time, following a presentation by Dr. Moreland that was based upon his book "Love Your God With All Your Mind"

The argument is that if you take the days of Genesis as not being six days and take them as maybe longer periods of time, then where do you draw the line...why wouldn't the same reasoning imply that we'll eventually have to reinterpret the virgin birth and the resurrection of Jesus. Let me give you a counter-example. I doubt, sir, that you or anybody else in the room takes the biblical passages that say that 'Jesus will call his angels from the four corners of the earth' to teach a flat Earth. I also doubt that anyone in here says that when the sun rises and sets it literally means an earth-centered universe. But you must understand that...there were times when the church interpreted the text that taught that God--Christ will call his angels from the four corners of the world to teach very obviously that the world has four corners. The text says that. There is absolutely no evidence in that text that it means anything other than four corners. You can read it until you're blue in the face, and it says that the Earth has four corners. Similarly, the Bible says the sun rises and sets. Now, that's what it says. You can dance around it all you want. That's what the text says. But there's nobody in here that believes that. No one in here believes the earth has four corners. And so, what we've done is taken that language and interpreted it metaphorically. Similarly, with the rising and the setting of the sun, we treat that...phenomenologically--we say that's the language of description; it is not meant to be taken literally.

So then, suppose that you believe that...those texts do not teach that there are four corners and that the sun rises and sets? Are you now going to deny the virgin birth? Are you going to to give up the resurrection? No, of course not. So, the point is...that the general argument from adopting a certain view of one text, there's no way to block the slide to doing that to other texts, is an example in philosophy of what is called hasty generalization; it makes a generalization based upon a slim sampling of evidence. The fact of the matter is that when you interpret biblical texts, you've got to take each one at it's own merits and you've got to do the very best you can to handle that text by itself. And so from the fact that one particular text is handled in some way, it does not follow that...other texts will need to be handled in any way whatsoever, unless you can show that there's a clear parallel in the way that the two texts are being handled.

Now, when it comes to the...flat earth and the rising and the setting of the sun: it was scientific evidence that caused people to say 'maybe we'd better re-look at those passages.' There was nothing exegetically or strictly in the Hebrew grammar and syntax. There was absolutely nothing about the literary genre of the passage or the historical-grammatical method of interpretation that could tell you anything at all about one way or the other--it was scientific evidence. So now the question was raised by the church interpreters: 'Is there anything essential to this passage that's violated if we take the four corners of the earth to be metaphorical?' Now, their answer was, in that particular passage, 'no.' That particular text can allow for that without violating the teachings of the scriptures in that particular text. Now, is this procedure risky in other passages? You bet. But does it follow that it should never be applied? No, you've gotta take texts--each text, on its own. So, the devil's in the details, and you've got to be very, very careful.

Now, when it comes to the days of Genesis...I'm of the view on this that while we ought not allow science to dictate to us our exegesis of the Old Testament, nevertheless, if there is an interpretation of the Old Testament that is exegetically permissible-- that is, and old age interpretation; that is to say, if you can find conservative, inerrantist, evangelical Old Testament scholars that say that the interpretation of this text that treats the days of Genesis as unspecified periods of time, and that is a completely permissible thing to do on exegetical grounds alone, then my view is that that is a permissible option if it harmonizes the text with science because that option can be justified exegetically, independent of science."
 
A

AnandaHya

Guest
#33
I WANT TO ANSWER BUT . JEEZE U SO LONG.
Sorry thinking out loud :) trying to figure out how both what is observed in the world still supports God's revelation to us via the Bible :)
 
T

Taelin

Guest
#34
Ananda - I have no idea if this will be helpful, but there's a guy names Kent Hovind I believe, and he does various lectures on creation vs evolution etc etc which addresses a lot of the topics you had here. Perhaps listen to some of his lectures and maybe it will help you in your search for answers? Best of luck!
 
A

AnandaHya

Guest
#35
Thanks Taelin :) I'll look him up :)
 

zone

Senior Member
Jun 13, 2010
27,214
164
63
#36
Jeremiah 4:23-26 (New King James Version)

23 I beheld the earth, and indeed it was without form, and void;
And the heavens, they had no light.
24 I beheld the mountains, and indeed they trembled,
And all the hills moved back and forth.
25 I beheld, and indeed there was no man,
And all the birds of the heavens had fled.
26 I beheld, and indeed the fruitful land was a wilderness,
And all its cities were broken down
At the presence of the LORD,
By His fierce anger

hi Ananda:
i'm glad you're looking into the geneologies: God likes that (though we might them hard to get through).
the Bible frequently uses polysyndetons - a device (meaning more is implied than what is actually said...above example AND...it means though we are not told, more happened (is implied) between the two lines...it does not mean that event was the next in a rapid succession of events: it means that's how and what God has chosen to reveal us, and that is what we are to have faith in.)

example: (paul used them alot):

Christ the Hope of Jews and Gentiles
8 For I tell you that Christ became a servant to the circumcised to show God’s truthfulness, in order to confirm the promises given to the patriarchs, 9 and in order that the Gentiles might glorify God for his mercy. As it is written,

“Therefore I will praise you among the Gentiles,
and sing to your name.”
10 And again it is said,
“Rejoice, O Gentiles, with his people.”
11 And again,
“Praise the Lord, all you Gentiles,
and let all the peoples extol him.”
12 And again Isaiah says,
“The root of Jesse will come,
even he who arises to rule the Gentiles;
in him will the Gentiles hope.”

Romans 15:10
And again it is said, “Rejoice, O Gentiles, with his people.”

~

without form
8414. tohu
formlessness, confusion, unreality, emptiness​

Tidal
From an unused root meaning to lie waste; a desolation (of surface), i.e. Desert; figuratively, a worthless thing; adverbially, in vain -- confusion, empty place, without form, nothing, (thing of) nought, vain, vanity, waste, wilderness.

void
922. bohu

emptiness, void
From an unused root (meaning to be empty); a vacuity, i.e. (superficially) an undistinguishable ruin -- emptiness, void.​


Genesis 1
1 In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. 2 The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.

3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 And God saw that the light was good. And God separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day.

~​

God can either be trusted to tell the truth about His creation, or He can not:​

In Exodus 20:11 we read of a literal six day creation. No gaps, not even for one minute, otherwise these would not be six normal days. Also, in Romans 5:12 we read that death is the result of Adam's sin. Because the rock layers display death on a grand scale, they could not have existed before the fall of Adam. There is no direct evidence that the earth is much older than six thousand years. However, we have the direct eyewitness report of God himself that he made everything in six days. Tracing back through the biblical genealogies we can determine the age of the universe to be about six thousand years with an error of not more than two per cent.

as you know: all else is man's THEORY.​
 
Last edited:
Mar 11, 2011
887
5
0
#37
Which light do you think Jesus is? I thought Jesus was God, as in Immanuel "God is with us"

God spoke the first "light" into existence and separated "day" from "night" how is that possible if the sun and moon supposedly was not created until the 4th day.

When do you think angels were created? before the Genesis account starts or during the 4th day as "stars" since in Revelation "stars" are revealed to be "angels" of the seven churches? Or are they winged birds created with the great sea creatures in day four?

I don't that Genesis is the beginning of the universe but the beginning of our solar system in that day one there are already things in existence: "The Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters."

It does not say HOW or WHEN God created the waters that he was hovering over.

Therefore it makes me think that the account we have is but a partial account of creation because we don't really need to KNOW everything GOD knows just enough to live and function as He created us to live and function as caretakers of the Earth.

However I think it would be good to study how life can be recreated on other planets and terraform the moon or Mars and advance a space colonization program. Hopefully others will look past petty skirmishes and learn to work together and actually focus on something beyond themselves.
First; God is not chaotic; He has a purpose and a will in everthing; Don't you think that before He brought up the land out of the water in Genisis, that He had A PLAN?

God did say that He would never leave us or forsake us; But we have things to do for Him; in paticular, Put Up with Affliction for a while; So that God can JUDGE who is sincere and who isn't through their intentions mainly, not so much actions, unless its rape, murder or child abuse, in that case, send them to Him, God.

You can have the most beautiful and sincere intentions to do something for God, or a fellow person, but that doesn't mean that it couldn't turn into a chaotic situation with lots of bad actions.;)

I have no idea what the big deal is with angels, as all the word angel means is messenger, are we not all on this site so-called angels (messengers) just that were in the flesh?

There are many cases in Bible where angels appeared in a spiritual body to Gods Chosen, however, they were always embarrassed when a flesh person fell down and starting worshipping them; See thou does't it Not, worship rather God.

The only times that this didn't hold true was when it was, The Angel of The Lord; then it was not a problem to fall down and worship, in fact, required, if you have any sense at all.

As far as trying to colonize elsewhere? :eek: I really don't even want to go there! I'll try to give you a couple of things to consider, through me, as to how Our Father feels about this, but its up to you.

Mans Word: If We work together and get along, We can make this a better place, We can save the planet, We can stop all this hatered, confusion and war, etc....

My Opinion :p does NOT line up with what God says.

Gods Word: through Moses at the time of his departure; For i Know that after all this, that ye will go forth and utterly corrupt yourselfs.

God says, He will save US, God says He will restore order, God says He will restore Mt Zion, His most favourite place in the Universe, in His way, His time and His Will. And not for US, so much; as it is for His Names Sake!

So you have to decide, Who do you beleive? Man or God?

Sorry that i don't know off the top of head where in the Bible this is, But i assure you its in there, For though they build their tower of Babel right into heaven this time, (this generation) .The rest i will put in my own words, as i've heard it in the Hebrew and like the clarity of it more;

I (God) take it as an insult; and I WILL knock it down!

As far as getting into when the begining was, and lapses of time; Well i've been trying to expose that information on here for a year now, and it is not received. So what are you gonna do?

The so-called scriptures, that so many people on here reffer to the NT being as well, are NOT the scriptures :p as The Scriptures were already here when Christ was, as He (Christ) taught out of them in the synaguogs; All Christ was doing here was Affirming and Confirming that these Scrptures ARE TRUE, regardless as to whether you understand them or not; Fathers WILL Shall be done.

So anyway hopefully some things to consider. You know about my computer issues, so if you have any questions, please fell free to ask, But if you could do 1 or 2 at a time, it would be appreciated.

Forever in Christ :)
 
D

dmdave17

Guest
#38
Once again, it appears as though some of us are trying to put restraints on God. Based on what "science" is telling us, we feel compelled to reconcile that with our perception of God's power. I personally believe that God can do anything He wants to do, including putting together a universe in a few days. If He chose to make it look to us like millions of years, that is His prerogative. However, that does not change the fact that He can, and did, speak the universe into existence by His Word.
 
Mar 11, 2011
887
5
0
#39
With all due respect; Gods Word, when studied, clearly states that this old earth of His, IS in fact millions, possibly billions of years old; as to for sure how many ??? I don't beleive that any flesh man could figure that one out, short of God himself telling them.

To me, from my studies, the Science of today, only re-enforces what Gods Word says.

The first verse in the Bible does not say when it was created, other than, in the begining; however through study, it becomes very clear that He is speaking of Eons of time, that we were already with Him before.

When all of the stars of heaven sang together.

The whole point of being born in the flesh, was so that we would be born innocent. Innocent of What???

Innocent of the knowledge that caused this Paridise to end up in its current condition. Can you really phatom, the utter destruction that took place here? How deep in the earth some of these remains are that science is using.

It sure would be interesting to see the truthful facts, in which of the dinosaurs are really millions of years old and others, well i beleive, not near as old.

When someone asks you, where you came from, do we not say God? of course we do. But do you think that He had us originate from this Hell Hole??? I certainly DO NOT beleive that.

He did ask us in the begining to go forth and multiply and replenish the earth, as it was already plentished before, Only then, it was perfect, you know, when He's here.

Forever in Christ :)
 
A

AnandaHya

Guest
#40
well someone sent me this...



I'll keep researching :) Stay blessed.