[__ Science __ ] Man was in Pangaea

[Cooper]

For those who will not accept the meaning of day (yome) it is pointless continuing. So, I will leave it to others to continue to the bottom of the page.

Psalms 90:4 For a thousand years in your sight are but as yesterday when it is past, or as a watch in the night.

Heb 13:8 Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever.

2 Peter 3:7-8 But by the same word the heavens and earth that now exist are stored up for fire, being kept until the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly. (8) But do not overlook this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

Hosea 6:1-2 “Come, let us return to the LORD; for he has torn us, that he may heal us; he has struck us down, and he will bind us up. (2) After two days he will revive us; on the third day he will raise us up, that we may live before him.

This is the nation of Israel and the voice of the remnant in the last days.
It was about two thousand years ago that Israel ceased to exist as a nation. This is Day one, when Christ was lifted up on the cross. Now Israel are being revived. "After two days he will revive us." The third day when Christ rose from the dead represents the thousand year millennial reign. This is the kingdom age, when Israel again becomes the centre of the world and God will govern from Israel. So "a day is as a thousand years, a thousand years as a day."
Day 1 is when Christ was crucified.
Day 2 is the present.
Day 3 is when Christ returns, it is the beginning of the thousand-year millennial reign.

For the eternal God, JESUS who exists from eternity to eternity (Isaiah 43:13) time is meaningless. It is as nothing.
Isa 43:11 I, I am the LORD, and besides me there is no savior.
Isa 43:12 I declared and saved and proclaimed, when there was no strange god among you; and you are my witnesses,” declares the LORD, “and I am God.
Isa 43:13 Also henceforth I am he; there is none who can deliver from my hand; I work, and who can turn it back?”
Isa 43:14 Thus says the LORD, your Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel: “For your sake I send to Babylon and bring them all down as fugitives, even the Chaldeans, in the ships in which they rejoice.
Isa 43:15 I am the LORD, your Holy One, the Creator of Israel, your King.”

For further work
Hebrews 13:8
This verse declares Christ’s immutability "…that he is unchangeable; that he always was, is, and will be to all eternity, the same; that he is subject to no change either in his essence or in his perfections" (Wakefield, Vol. 1, p. 156). Cf. Php_2:6-8; Jas_1:17 and notes. Note that the Incarnation was a change of estate, not nature. In the Incarnation Christ: (1) has all the fullness of the Godhead dwelling in Him (Col_2:9); (2) is One with the Father (Joh_10:30); (3) is Omnipotent (cf. Joh_5:19; Joh_7:9-13; Joh_7:19; Joh_7:21; Joh_10:17-18; Joh_11:43-44; Joh_16:15); (4) is Omniscient (cf. Mat_11:21; Mat_11:23; Joh_2:24-25; Joh_6:64; Joh_16:15); (5) is Omnipresent (cf. Mat_18:20; Mat_28:20; Joh_3:13); (6) has all things whatsoever the Father has (Joh_16:15); (7) has power to remove sin (cf. Mat_9:2; Mat_9:6); (8) received worship as God (cf. Mat_2:11; Mat_8:1-2; Mat_14:33; Joh_9:35-38). Thus the Son remains essentially and eternally the same throughout His profound mutations of estate—pre-Incarnation, Incarnation, death, resurrection, glorification—even for the ages of eternity! (LNT, fn i). T76-4, God the Son is immutable. %Heb_13:9, *Heb_1:12, +*Exo_3:14; Exo_3:15; Exo_38:1, Psa_90:2; Psa_90:4; *Psa_102:27; *Psa_102:28; Psa_103:17, Isa_41:4; Isa_44:6, %+*Mal_3:6, %Mat_12:32; +*Mat_28:19 note. +*Joh_8:35; Joh_8:56-58, 2Co_1:19-20, Php_2:6, 1Ti_6:16, **Jas_1:17, Rev_1:4; Rev_1:8; Rev_1:11; Rev_1:17-18.

yesterday. Psa_93:2, Isa_30:33; Isa_43:13; *Isa_63:16, +*Mic_5:2, Hab_1:12, Joh_1:1; Joh_1:15; *Joh_8:58, Col_1:17, Rev_4:8.
and. FS148, +Gen_8:22.
to day. FS22D4B, +Dan_7:9, Heb_3:15, Isa_46:4, *+Joh_8:58, +*Rev_1:8; Rev_4:8.
for ever. Gr. aion, +Mat_6:13, lit. unto the ages. Heb_13:21, **Heb_7:24; **Heb_7:25, Psa_9:7; *Psa_102:12, +*Isa_43:3; +*Isa_43:11; *Isa_63:16, Lam_5:19, Hab_3:6, Rom_1:25; Rom_9:5; Rom_11:36; **Rom_16:26; **Rom_16:27, 2Co_11:31, Rev_4:8.

 

[dwb001]

I just noticed that Barb accuses others of of making up some 'new doctrine' if they do not disrespect and disbelieve the simple record God gave us.

Par for the course.

 

[Barbarian]

Nope. Where is your proof that Creationists invented the idea of God corrupting tigers?

How else do they explain God creating carnivores, if they think His creation is so bad?

Again... please show your proof that it is a creationists invention.

"One must, in humble obedience, simply believe God at His word. God, through His Word, clearly shows that the original, created creatures were to eat only plants."

Creation’s Original Diet and the Changes at the Fall

One must, in humble obedience, simply believe God at His word. God, through His Word, clearly shows that the original, created creatures were to eat only plants.

answersingenesis.org

Yes, I know. It's crazy and unbiblical, but there it is. If you realize that God created carnivores to be carnivores, my apologies. But I did say "some creationists." I wouldn't want to tar all of them with that kind of silliness.

 

[Barbarian]

Now as for them being alive... was that how they were viewed 6k years ago?

Doesn't matter. But yes, They knew plants were alive. Jesus mentions this fact as to plants dying.

Stars falling to Earth in the Bible is nonsense if you say that stars are giant balls of gas burning in outer space... but if you rightly say that in the original text the word for star is not referring to a 20th century star... but simply a light in the night sky, then you have no problem with stars falling to Earth.

The stars were, back then, what they are today. The person writing that passage used a metaphor because he wasn't aware of how large stars are. It's the difference between infallibility and inerrancy.

Evolution... would not allow for the following verse to be true either.
1Tim 2:13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.

Of course it does. The issue is that many
creationists don't approve of the way God did it.

Jerimiah 1:5 Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.

The key is it's not our corruptable bodies, but our living souls that make a difference.

 

[Barbarian]

just noticed that Barb accuses others of of making up some 'new doctrine' if they do not disrespect and disbelieve the simple record God gave us.

You aren't God. If you would just accept it His way, instead of insisting on revising it to your way, this wouldn't be a problem for you. Your modern revision of Genesis is the problem.

 

[dwb001]

How else do they explain God creating carnivores, if they think His creation is so bad?

All that needs to make the scenario work is for the nutritional value of the plants to be decreased.
And that is just one way to make it work.

"One must, in humble obedience, simply believe God at His word. God, through His Word, clearly shows that the original, created creatures were to eat only plants."

Creation’s Original Diet and the Changes at the Fall

One must, in humble obedience, simply believe God at His word. God, through His Word, clearly shows that the original, created creatures were to eat only plants.

answersingenesis.org

Genesis 1... would indicate that the original plan was for people to be fruit eaters and the animals to be ruminants.

Gen1:29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is on the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.
30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creeps on the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.

Yes, I know. It's crazy and unbiblical, but there it is. If you realize that God created carnivores to be carnivores, my apologies. But I did say "some creationists." I wouldn't want to tar all of them with that kind of silliness.

But I would tar all OE believers with your kind.

 

[dwb001]

Doesn't matter. But yes, They knew plants were alive. Jesus mentions this fact as to plants dying.

"Breath of life" is the phrase.

The stars were, back then, what they are today. The person writing that passage used a metaphor because he wasn't aware of how large stars are. It's the difference between infallibility and inerrancy.

Not so... the word is luminaries... and that only indicates lights. So you missed the mark on that one.

Of course it does. The issue is that many
creationists don't approve of the way God did it.

I a prove of how God did it... but you don't. You have to change the definition of words to make God fit your paradigm.

Jerimiah 1:5 Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.

The key is it's not our corruptable bodies, but our living souls that make a difference.

And yet you still miss the mark on what I am saying.
Why is physical death required to pay for spiritual life?

 

[Barbarian]

The stars were, back then, what they are today.

Not so...

Yes, they are the same. Now, if you want to argue that the Bible is wrong to call them "stars", I'd be willing to hear your evidence for this. What do you have to show the Bible is wrong?

I a prove of how God did it.

No, you don't. He clearly says what he means to form a human:
Jerimiah 1:5 Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.

Why is physical death required to pay for spiritual life?

Because God chose to make it a physical sacrifice. I think He got it right.

 

[Barbarian]

All that needs to make the scenario work is for the nutritional value of the plants to be decreased.
And that is just one way to make it work.

So another non-scriptural miracle to patch up errors in interpretation. Do you not see that any story is equally plausible if you can make up those miracles to cover? Why not just accept that God created tigers to be what they are?

 

[dwb001]

The stars were, back then, what they are today.

Incorrect.

Yes, they are the same. Now, if you want to argue that the Bible is wrong to call them "stars", I'd be willing to hear your evidence for this. What do you have to show the Bible is wrong?

Stars in Biblical language... luminaries... would include stars, planets, shooting stars, and the like.

No, you don't. He clearly says what he means to form a human:
Jerimiah 1:5 Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.

What are you talking about?
I really don't understand why you are changing topics at this point.

Because God chose to make it a physical sacrifice. I think He got it right.

So you have no answer for your bizarre claim. ok.

 

[dwb001]

So another non-scriptural miracle to patch up errors in interpretation. Do you not see that any story is equally plausible if you can make up those miracles to cover? Why not just accept that God created tigers to be what they are?

As per Gen 1:30
"And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creeps on the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so."
Tigers were designed as ruminants.

 

[Barbarian]

Tigers were designed as ruminants.

Fangs and meat shredding back teeth. Claws for holding and slashing. Metabolism that will not survive an all-plant diet. No, I don't think so.

 

[Barbarian]

What are you talking about?
I really don't understand why you are changing topics at this point.

As you just learned, God means something very specific about "forming" humans. It's not what you thought.

WRT Jesus dying on the cross:
Because God chose to make it a physical sacrifice. I think He got it right.

So you have no answer for your bizarre claim. ok.

God say He did. I believe Him. You should, too.

 

[daddd]

For those who will not accept the meaning of day (yome) it is pointless continuing. So, I will leave it to others to continue to the bottom of the page.

Context. When a day is given as a day, it is a day. If the word is used in another context, that is fine also.

Hosea 6:1-2 “Come, let us return to the LORD; for he has torn us, that he may heal us; he has struck us down, and he will bind us up. (2) After two days he will revive us; on the third day he will raise us up, that we may live before him.

This is the nation of Israel and the voice of the remnant in the last days.

That could not apply to others as well?

It was about two thousand years ago that Israel ceased to exist as a nation. This is Day one, when Christ was lifted up on the cross. Now Israel are being revived. "After two days he will revive us." The third day when Christ rose from the dead represents the thousand year millennial reign. This is the kingdom age, when Israel again becomes the centre of the world and God will govern from Israel. So "a day is as a thousand years, a thousand years as a day."
Day 1 is when Christ was crucified.
Day 2 is the present.
Day 3 is when Christ returns, it is the beginning of the thousand-year millennial reign.

How does that work, Jesus was dead three days. Do you count the first day He died as 1000 years but not the other two? So day 2 is the present? Does that mean we have 1000 years to wait for the day He returns? Gong!

 

[daddd]

You aren't God. If you would just accept it His way, instead of insisting on revising it to your way, this wouldn't be a problem for you. Your modern revision of Genesis is the problem.

His way is to be like a little child and believe what He said. Man's way is to think he is smart and disbelieve. If you insist on doing violence to the spirit and text of Scripture, at least have the courage to admit it rather than pretending it is God's way.

 

[Barbarian]

His way is to be like a little child and believe what He said.

But instead you add all sorts of things not in scripture to justify your new doctrines. Why not just let it be His way? I know you want us to believe your new ideas are God's word. Doesn't matter.

 

[daddd]

But instead you add all sorts of things not in scripture to justify your new doctrines. Why not just let it be His way? I know you want us to believe your new ideas are God's word. Doesn't matter.

I never took away from the meaning of a morning and evening. I never took away from the meaning of creation or the flood, or even the tower of Babel. It is not new to believe the bible. Nor is it a new doctrine. The catholic church used to believe in creation. Now they adopted a new doctrine. One like yours apparently.
People that disagree with the baseless beliefs of science do not have 'new doctrines' when they reject lies. They are standing of the Rock of Ages.

 

[Barbarian]

I never took away from the meaning of a morning and evening.

You refuse to accept them as God intended them to be.

I never took away from the meaning of creation or the flood, or even the tower of Babel.

You resist accepting so much of His word, preferring your new additions.

he catholic church used to believe in creation.

The canon of the Bible you read was first established by the Catholic Church. No wonder you don't accept it.

People that disagree with the baseless beliefs of science do not have 'new doctrines'

Rather you simply invented new doctrines to make His word more acceptable to you.

 

[Cooper]

Context. When a day is given as a day, it is a day. If the word is used in another context, that is fine also.


That could not apply to others as well?

How does that work, Jesus was dead three days. Do you count the first day He died as 1000 years but not the other two? So day 2 is the present? Does that mean we have 1000 years to wait for the day He returns? Gong!

The word day means a period-of-time, depending on context. Usually, it is twenty-four hours, but the beginning and end times that tell of the eternal God are the exception.

 

[BeyondET]

Incorrect.

Stars in Biblical language... luminaries... would include stars, planets, shooting stars, and the like.

What are you talking about?
I really don't understand why you are changing topics at this point.

So you have no answer for your bizarre claim. ok.

In Genesis He made the planets also. because ancient people didn't have a telescope. People called them wondering stars.
A shooting star is a flaming rock.