What is your theory on dinosaurs?

[passion84god]

That is not in question. What is in question, is the impossible reference to our understanding of 7 24 hr cycles. Notice how God creates. He puts the life He wishes to continue within the creation itself. In other words, trees grow after their own kind, kangeroos do not produce camels and so on.

Time, seems to play into all of it. Gestation, being born.....everything takes time and for His own reason, He made things that way.

I am actually more in awe of God speaking to enact or bring into existence all things, then the 24 hr day cycle most seem comfortable with.

God created the trees, grass, and herbs on the third day, and the Sun on the fourth day. Do you honestly believe that these days represent thousands or millions of years? How did the trees, grass, and herbs grow for thousands or millions of years without sunlight?​

 

[pinebeach]

God created the trees, grass, and herbs on the third day, and the Sun on the fourth day. Do you honestly believe that these days represent thousands or millions of years? How did the trees, grass, and herbs grow for thousands or millions of years without sunlight?​

Do you honestly believe that will be my salvation? I honestly believe that one day we will know even as we are now known. See, your reasoning is very faulty with your question regarding the growth of plants. Check out verse 3 of Genesis 1 and then come back and ask the same question.

Further, I never stated how long a'day' was or even if there were 'days'. but you are pre-programmed to try and make me seem ignorant of scripture because I see more than you in what is written and just so happen to actually believe it as well

 

[pinebeach]

Another theory I have on dinos, is that they are no longer around.

 

[passion84god]

Do you honestly believe that will be my salvation? I honestly believe that one day we will know even as we are now known. See, your reasoning is very faulty with your question regarding the growth of plants. Check out verse 3 of Genesis 1 and then come back and ask the same question.

Further, I never stated how long a'day' was or even if there were 'days'. but you are pre-programmed to try and make me seem ignorant of scripture because I see more than you in what is written and just so happen to actually believe it as well

Your understanding of both scripture and me is terribly faulty.

 

[DeanM]

So where is your 'truck Bible'?

The original scrolls were big and heavy cos thats what parchment was in those days. The words were big so people could read them, they were not in tiny mass produced print like they are now.

So you think everything in scripture is all that happened from Genesis to Revelation?

 

[pinebeach]

Your understanding of both scripture and me is terribly faulty.

You are being quite the hypocrite since you saw the error I pointed out to you and try to flip the script. Do you actually care about the truth?

God created the trees, grass, and herbs on the third day, and the Sun on the fourth day. Do you honestly believe that these days represent thousands or millions of years? How did the trees, grass, and herbs grow for thousands or millions of years without sunlight?​

Passion here is not that familiar with Genesis as he would have us to believe. He is concerned that all plant life would have died on Terra, but Genesis 3 reveals light was created prior to plant life.

3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light.

11 Then God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.” And it was so. 12The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.

You know, I don't care about different understandings; BUT I do care about honesty and it seems passion is lacking some. As far as my understanding goes, I had virtually none besides he believes everything he has been taught. Now however, I see a little more.

 

[passion84god]

You are being quite the hypocrite since you saw the error I pointed out to you and try to flip the script. Do you actually care about the truth?



Passion here is not that familiar with Genesis as he would have us to believe. He is concerned that all plant life would have died on Terra, but Genesis 3 reveals light was created prior to plant life.

3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light.

11 Then God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.” And it was so. 12The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.

You know, I don't care about different understandings; BUT I do care about honesty and it seems passion is lacking some. As far as my understanding goes, I had virtually none besides he believes everything he has been taught. Now however, I see a little more.

You are free to make all of the wild allegations against me that you want to, but not without consequence. The God who formed the ear is listening, and, unlike you, he knows perfectly well what I believe and don't believe, and what I know and do not know. Keep on blessing me with your slander. You are only hurting yourself.​

 

[pinebeach]

You are free to make all of the wild allegations against me that you want to, but not without consequence. The God who formed the ear is listening, and, unlike you, he knows perfectly well what I believe and don't believe, and what I know and do not know. Keep on blessing me with your slander. You are only hurting yourself.​

Well, the problem was not with who or what God created. It was actually your denial of what you stated. Where is the slander? You stated how could plants grow in the dark and yet scripture states God created light first and then the plants. How is that interpreted as 'wild allegations' on my part? Perhaps it is all Moses' fault since he might have written the first 5 books in the OT

Whatever you think you need to defend is between your own ears. Why have you become so hostile simply because I pointed out an obvious oversight on your part? I mean everyone can read what you wrote and what Genesis states. Perhaps just see what you did and don't try and fight me for pointing it out. I think you can probably stop using scripture as some kind of defense for me pointing out the obvious.

This is not a personal attack on you; you did not write scripture and cannot twist it to suit your own preferences. I will leave you to your 'save space' and sorry, it seems I might have triggered you by accident

I did notice you are putting people on ignore that do not agree with your sentiments about the current President. Please feel free to put me on ignore also because we will also disasgree about your politics

 

[Lanolin]

to me, it seems Passion4God has valid point that it wouldn't have taken MILLIONS of years for plants to grow, that's all.

 

[Lanolin]

Also, mountains and such don't take millions of years to form either. And there aren't trees that are millions of years old. The oldest alive today is estimated 5000 years. And we know that trees can outlast the life span of animals. (At most, the oldest is 120 years tortoise)

Earthquakes and floods and volcanoes can change entire landforms in an instant. Like an earthquake only 60 seconds long can cause huge disruptions in the land, and a volcano can erupt out of the ground and form a crater or peak in a few seconds. Rocks can form under immense pressure and cool in just a few hours. So the whole millions of years thing is unbelievable.

And interesting that, in pre flood times, humans lived very long lives, like as can see in the Bible, some were lived to be what 700, 900 years old.

 

[Gideon300]

Well thats in interesting made up theory that reads into things that are not there lol

Iasiah doesn't contradict the Genesis creation story. You just taking one verse out of context and creating another entire story out of it. Before the clay is shaped, it's without form.

The word was is not a mistranslation.

Nobody is saying And the earth BECAME without form as if God smushed a previous creation.

You have weird way of reading the Bible that's for sure. Also the cherub or cherubims were placed to the East the Garden of eden to guard the tree of life. Possibly they weren't doing their job when Adam and Eve picked the fruit of the forbidden one.

Nobody? I am nothing special but I am also not nobody. There are quite a few who also believe that there was a creation prior to Adam. Look up Larry Ollison. Watchman Nee also believed in the pre Adamic creation.

Isaiah 45:18 says, "For thus says the LORD, who created the heavens—He is God; He formed the earth and fashioned it; He established it; He did not create it to be empty, but formed it to be inhabited: “I am the LORD, and there is no other."

So no, it is not made up. And the word "was" can indeed be translated "became". Lot's wife did not start out a pillar of salt. She became a pillar of salt. It's the same word translated "was" in Genesis 1:2

You are wrong about the Cherubim that God instructed to guard the Tree of Life. They were put there after Adam sinned, not before. Genesis 3:23. Perhaps you could maybe possibly wrong about the pre Adamic creation idea also.

 

[Gideon300]

That does nothing to negate the fact there was a blob hanging in space that God grieved over and so He rolled up His sleeves and had another go.

The statement '1In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. 2The 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.' does not actually state anything became as we learn that God created all things.

We don't need to be told more than that if we accept by faith that God did indeed create all things. That does not negate the fact that for some reason, the earth was formless, empty and void. When a person reasons that scripture must line up with their previous understanding, then, that is what they will see. When a person's attention is grabbed by seeing what does not line up with 'religious' expectations, then a better understanding will hopefully be realized.

I do wonder about all the rest of the universe though. Did He agonize over each and every planet, star and vast nebulas the same way? See, God is far more than what we can ever think or imagine.

Except Isaiah 45:18 says that God did not create the earth formless and empty.

"For thus says the LORD, who created the heavens—He is God; He formed the earth and fashioned it; He established it; He did not create it to be empty, but formed it to be inhabited: “I am the LORD, and there is no other."

 

[DeanM]

Another thought ive had is Satans fall and when it happened. Some feel it was pre-adamic and caused the cataclysmic event that was the reason the earth was without form and void.

 

[HealthAndHappiness]

The only place I see there was creation before the garden is in scripture, so patronizing me with 'Of course we all have free will and can believe whatever books we choose' does not work since I have never read any book about a gap or heard any theories or pastors speak on it.

I'm sorry to come across as patronizing. My intent was to point out that the belief of the Gap Theory aka Ruin Restoration Creation account tries to integrate a scientific explanation with a biblical perspective.
After having variations this view forced upon me for many, many years, examining the so called science thoroughly and the verses used to support the theory, I have concluded that it is neither scientific nor biblical.

I went perhaps further than you in my beliefs because I was a theistic darwinian evolutionist.
If you can provide a scientific basis for your perspective, I am listening.

Frankly, I find it a bigger challenge to believe the world is only 6000 years old while ignoring all the massive evidence that indicates otherwise. I think that people choose to believe whatever lines up with what makes them feel comfortable or perhaps lines up scripture for the way the see it. Hey ~ if that makes someone comfortable in their faith I won't judge them on that as the only criteria for salvation is faith in Christ and I see absolutely no disparity between my faith in Him and the fact I do not believe this old planet is only 6000 yrs old.

I agree that the issue of origins is not necessarily a salvation issue: However teachings that depart from the fundamentals of the Bible undermine faith to the lost world and retard growth of believers.

I firmly believe God knows what He is doing and has given me a mind that does not just accept popular beliefs or opinions and I am the one that has to live with that and I am comfortable with it.

Right now, I am studying the actual mindset and beliefs of those who wrote the inspired word of God and the spritual realm was far more on the minds of those people than our western culture allows for today. Actually, I thank God I have found teachers who expound on such things because I was at a point in my life that I am up to here tired and bored with the usual church constuct which, for the most part does not follow biblical instruction anyway.

My pastor for a decade+ majored on the gap theory concept and I don't think I am exaggerating that he brought it up at least twice a month.

In fact, disbelief seems to be the order of the day in many denoms while they present an unbiblical Christ and their own interpretation that does not align with the spiritual reality of scripture.

So yeah. There's that.

I can agree with that.
Most denominations have gone out of their ways to teach various works based gospels.
>This is< what I teach.

 

[Lanolin]

Except Isaiah 45:18 says that God did not create the earth formless and empty.

"For thus says the LORD, who created the heavens—He is God; He formed the earth and fashioned it; He established it; He did not create it to be empty, but formed it to be inhabited: “I am the LORD, and there is no other."

Well duh..you can't even read scripture in sequence and quibble over words like 'was'.

Of course it wasn't created TO BE empty. It was just empty before He started creating it, and then he formed it and filled it with his creation. How hard is that to picture? How hard is that to read?

Why do you feel the need to make things up?
Weird.
Obviously Hebrew and English are probably not your first languages.

Just because other people make up fantastical stories to fill in the gap that isn't even there doesn't mean you have to believe them. lol

 

[Lanolin]

Well its 6000 years or so of recorded history of the earth...I don't believe its millions of years older than that. Science cant prove millions of years. How do we record a year? Its the length of time the earth goes around the sun.

Radioactive dating relies on half life of radioactive decay, but get this, it wasn't always constant.

If earth is without form or void it just means nothing is in it - it's dead and its just one big mass. Then God starts shaping it.

Ok its like, you have paint, its in a can, there's no life to it until you start painting something! There are no forms, its in a tube or a can or on a palette, until you dip a paintbrush in it and start painting. The canvas is blank...the painter starts painting i.e moving the paint around in shapes and patterns they start CREATING.

How hard is that to picture.

 

[Gideon300]

Well duh..you can't even read scripture in sequence and quibble over words like 'was'.

Of course it wasn't created TO BE empty. It was just empty before He started creating it, and then he formed it and filled it with his creation. How hard is that to picture? How hard is that to read?

Why do you feel the need to make things up?
Weird.
Obviously Hebrew and English are probably not your first languages.

Just because other people make up fantastical stories to fill in the gap that isn't even there doesn't mean you have to believe them. lol

Quibble over the word was? Not much into scholarship, are you. "Became" changes the whole meaning of the verse.

 

[Charlesiii]

Quibble over the word was? Not much into scholarship, are you. "Became" changes the whole meaning of the verse.

Genesis 3:1 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?

 

[pinebeach]

I'm sorry to come across as patronizing. My intent was to point out that the belief of the Gap Theory aka Ruin Restoration Creation account tries to integrate a scientific explanation with a biblical perspective.
After having variations this view forced upon me for many, many years, examining the so called science thoroughly and the verses used to support the theory, I have concluded that it is neither scientific nor biblical.

I went perhaps further than you in my beliefs because I was a theistic darwinian evolutionist.
If you can provide a scientific basis for your perspective, I am listening.

OK. No problem. Where is the scientific evidence for the earth only being 6000 yrs old?

I agree that the issue of origins is not necessarily a salvation issue: However teachings that depart from the fundamentals of the Bible undermine faith to the lost world and retard growth of believers.

Well, it isn't. There is but one way for salvation or there isn't. Believers are retarded in their growth through both their own faults (lack of study, prayer etc) and the pastors who believe their professors over scripture. I've been kicking around churches for quite a while now, both in the congregation and as someone in leadership. The often incurred manipulation of some in leadership affects the entire church. We forget who the object of our worship is supposed to be. The focus of scripture is on the spiritual and the spiritual world, yet churches make sure our feet are firmly planted on the earth.

To many, God exists on a page.

My pastor for a decade+ majored on the gap theory concept and I don't think I am exaggerating that he brought it up at least twice a month.

I never heard it taught or read a book about it. It was my first thought when reading the book as an adult. Insisting that dinosaurs are described in the Bible is right up there with unicorns and rainbows IMO. I think believers are cheated out of knowing what the Bible actually has to say about the reality of the spiritual world (to which we will go as believers once our life on earth is over) And how about all the create your own reality with what you say. After all, God wants us to be healthy and rich. So I guess belivers in 3rd world countries suffering persecution need to hear that message.

And of course the 'if you are not healed, you don't have enough faith' nonsense. The Bible does not say that anywhere but verses are used to make it seem it does.

Not angry at you, but really past caring about all the fake nonsense that passes for reality.

I can agree with that.
Most denominations have gone out of their ways to teach various works based gospels.
>This is< what I teach.

Basic gospel which I agree with. That's the bones of scripture. We have lost the reality of the spiritual truth scripture presents and in fact, many today actually refuse to believe what is being plainly stated.

I will use the term 'sons of God' for an example. These are fallen angels but people will argue all day long that angels cannot mate and point to scripture and say the sons of God are good believers in God. Peter, calls these beings spirits and angels. Demons are not fallen angels, which I was taught, but came to the conclusion that no fallen angel is a demon. Are they not in chains awaiting judgement?

The Fallen Angels View: The most ancient and widely accepted interpretation identifies them as divine beings (angels) who rebelled against God. According to this view, these angels mated with human women, producing the Nephilim (giants). This perspective is heavily supported by the ancient Book of Enoch and references in the New Testament (such as 2 Peter 2:4 and Jude 1:6) regarding disobedient spirits.

I don't particularly hold to the book of Enoch becoming book 67 of our Bibles, but Jude quotes it nonetheless. There are things in the book that contradict scripture, yet people in Jesus time were familiar with the book. Asking questions should lead to answers but when no one asks and just accepts, then that becomes their understanding. James indicates we can ask if we lack wisdom.

I might not make sense at this point and people might be calling me a heretic of some kind, and compared to what far too man think they believe, that's an indication that stagnant waters are coming up over the steps to many if not most, churches. People become so insensed as though they had written the Bible themselves and it's sinful to ask questions or dig deeper.

So, believe in a God you cannot see and His Son who died for you but you were not there and reject anything else that you cannot explain but the gospel has been explained so many times you do have a little grasp on that. The book of Romans explains the exchange at the cross as nowhere else in scripture, yet we have people, including in this forum, who will have nothing to do with it.

 

[pinebeach]

to me, it seems Passion4God has valid point that it wouldn't have taken MILLIONS of years for plants to grow, that's all.

No one said it did and that is not even what he said. Yes, to you it seems it might have appeared that way.