• CFN has a new look and a new theme

    "I bore you on eagle's wings, and brought you to Myself" (Exodus 19:4)

    More new themes will be coming in the future!

  • Desire to be a vessel of honor unto the Lord Jesus Christ?

    Join For His Glory for a discussion on how

    https://christianforums.net/threads/a-vessel-of-honor.110278/

  • CFN welcomes new contributing members!

    Please welcome Roberto and Julia to our family

    Blessings in Christ, and hope you stay awhile!

  • Have questions about the Christian faith?

    Come ask us what's on your mind in Questions and Answers

    https://christianforums.net/forums/questions-and-answers/

  • Read the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ?

    Read through this brief blog, and receive eternal salvation as the free gift of God

    /blog/the-gospel

  • Taking the time to pray? Christ is the answer in times of need

    https://christianforums.net/threads/psalm-70-1-save-me-o-god-lord-help-me-now.108509/

  • Focus on the Family

    Strengthening families through biblical principles.

    Focus on the Family addresses the use of biblical principles in parenting and marriage to strengthen the family.

[_ Old Earth _] Millions of Years

I ask again,
If there is no God why do people worship,pray,and trust him?
If THERE WAS no God how did we get here?
If there is no God how did bacteria get here?
If there is no God than how do people have great peace when they come to know him?
If there is no God than how does prayers get answered?

If you try rpaying to God to make something happen I bet you in due time it will happen.God can do anything.But you have to trust in him for it to happen.Why don't you try it?You will have more peace.
 
Angel2003:

Witches don't worship the Devil. Satan is a Christian concept and is not part of the Pagan Pantheon. Since worship is a conscious act you cannot worship what you don't believe in.

If there is no God why do people worship,pray,and trust him?
I alluded to this before but somehow you missed it. Worshipping something does not guarantee it's existence. If that were so each and every Diety in the world that is or has ever been worshipped would therefore exist. Is this what you are trying to say?


If THERE WAS no God how did we get here?
If there is no God how did bacteria get here?
There are many beliefs about how the world was created and by whom, your Bibles version is just one of them. There is also science which holds that the world, and bacteria :wink: , evolved through natural processes. If you are suggesting that the prescence of humans and bacteria proves God exists it does not. The prescence of Humans and Bacteria only proves that Humans and bacteria exist. You believe that it shows God exists, others believe differently.

If there is no God than how do people have great peace when they come to know him?
If there is no God than how does prayers get answered?
[/u]
People of all major religions claim to to have great peace through their faith. Inner peace is not an exclusively Christian Domain by any means. People of all major religions also claim to have their prayers/meditations/supplications/spells/etc. answered/effective/come true/etc. Again, the efficatiousness of prayer is not an exclusively Christian Domain.

Why don't you try it?You will have more peace.
I have tried it, for a much longer period than you've been alive. It was not my path. I currently have peace, my faith is fulfilling, and I live in the knowledge that my path is the correct one for me and my eternity is secure. No one can ask for more than that.

Havoc
 
Do you believe in life after death?
Proof to me that you god or whatever you belive in is true,I can proof to you that God is real.I pray,my prayers are answered,I trust he gives my hope,I belive and He gives me eternal life.If I didn't truly believe and trust in God I probably wouldn't be hear today.Why don't you belive?What don't you like about God?How do you know scentific proof is true?Why do you like your culture?I don't want to sound hash or be an enemy to you but I just want see what you think is true and what is wrong. :D
 
Sherri,

In an earlier post you said that your parents don't want you talking with Havoc. Since your under age, i need to ask you to get permission from your parents first before asking these questions and talking with him. He has asked that you do before he responds as he wishes to respect your parents wishes.
 
I though he ment directly,my parenta don't wamt me talking personally with him and getting to know him too well,but that dosen't mean I can't ask him some questions publically. :-?
 
Sherri:
Please don't take this as mistrust in your word. If you say your parents gave you permission to speak with me, publicly or otherwise, I believe you.

For my own comfort could you have one of your parents email me please at havoc@sunwave.net ? I'd feel much better knowing they had at least had a chance to speak with me and it would give them an opportunity to set some ground rules. I know if the situation were reversed and my child was conversing with a person of another faith I'd want to know who he was and what he was planning on telling that young person.

Havoc
 
PLease read this ir really intresting?I won't email you becuase now I feel like you can't trust me so I guess we will have to stop talk but that still dosen't mean we can't reply each other ever now aand then I think you misunderstood me are I accidently misunderstood my parents sorry for the confusion.

A young Earth—it's not the issue!

By Ken Ham

First published in:
January 1998 AiG-USA Newsletter

Time and time again I have found that in both Christian and secular worlds, those of us who are involved in the creation movement are characterized as 'young Earthers.' The supposed battle-line is thus drawn between the 'old Earthers' (this group consists of anti-God evolutionists as well as many 'conservative' Christians) who appeal to what they call 'science,' versus the 'young Earthers,' who are said to be ignoring the overwhelming supposed 'scientific' evidence for an old Earth.

I want to make it VERY clear that we don't want to be known primarily as 'young-Earth creationists.' AiG's main thrust is NOT 'young Earth' as such; our emphasis is on Biblical authority. Believing in a relatively 'young Earth' (i.e., only a few thousands of years old, which we accept) is a consequence of accepting the authority of the Word of God as an infallible revelation from our omniscient Creator.

Recently, one of our associates sat down with a highly respected world-class Hebrew scholar and asked him this question: 'If you started with the Bible alone, without considering any outside influences whatsoever, could you ever come up with millions or billions of years of history for the Earth and universe?' The answer from this scholar? 'Absolutely not!'

Let's be honest. Take out your Bible and look through it. You can't find any hint at all for millions or billions of years.

For those of you who have kept up with our lectures and our articles in Creation magazine, you will have heard or read quotes from many well-known and respected Christian leaders admitting that if you take Genesis in a straight-forward way, it clearly teaches six ordinary days of Creation. However, the reason they don't believe God created in six literal days is because they are convinced from so-called 'science' that the world is billions of years old. In other words, they are admitting that they start outside the Bible to (re)interpret the Words of Scripture.

When someone says to me, 'Oh, so you're one of those fundamentalist, young-Earth creationists,' I reply, 'Actually, I'm a revelationist, no-death-before-Adam redemptionist!' (which means I'm a young-Earth creationist!).

Here's what I mean by this: I understand that the Bible is a revelation from our infinite Creator, and it is self-authenticating and self-attesting. I must interpret Scripture with Scripture, not impose ideas from the outside! When I take the plain words of the Bible, it is obvious there was no death, bloodshed, disease or suffering of humans or animals before sin. God instituted death and bloodshed because of sin—this is foundational to the Gospel. Therefore, one cannot allow a fossil record of millions of years of death, bloodshed, disease and suffering before sin (which is why the fossil record makes much more sense as the graveyard of the flood of Noah's day).

Also, the word for 'day' in the context of Genesis can only mean an ordinary day for each of the six days of Creation [see Q&A Genesis: Days of Creation for more information].

Thus, as a 'revelationist,' I let God's Word speak to me, with the words having meaning according to the context of the language they were written in. Once I accept the plain words of Scripture in context, the fact of ordinary days, no death before sin, the Bible's genealogies, etc., all make it clear that I cannot accept millions or billions of years of history. Therefore, I would conclude there must be something wrong with man's ideas about the age of the universe.

And the fact is, every single dating method (outside of Scripture) is based on fallible assumptions. There are literally hundreds of dating tools. However, whatever dating method one uses, assumptions must be made about the past. Not one dating method man devises is absolute! Even though 90% of all dating methods give dates far younger than evolutionists require, none of these can be used in an absolute sense either. [See Q&A: Radiometric dating and Q&A: Young age evidence for more information.]

Question: Why would any Christian want to take man's fallible dating methods and use them to impose an idea on the infallible Word of God? Christians who accept billions of years are in essence saying that man's word is infallible, but God's Word is fallible!

This is the crux of the issue. When Christians have agreed with the world that they can accept man's fallible dating methods to interpret God's Word, they have agreed with the world that the Bible can't be trusted. They have essentially sent out the message that man, by himself, independent of revelation, can determine truth and impose this on God's Word. Once this 'door' has been opened regarding Genesis, ultimately it can happen with the rest of the Bible.

You see, if Christian leaders have told the next generation that one can accept the world's teachings in geology, biology, astronomy, etc., and use these to (re)interpret God's Word, then the door has been opened for this to happen in every area, including morality.

Yes, one can be a conservative Christian and preach authoritatively from God's Word from Genesis 12 onwards. But once you have told people to accept man's dating methods, and thus should not take the first chapters of Genesis as they are written, you have effectively undermined the Bible's authority! This attitude is destroying the church in America.

So, the issue is not 'young Earth' versus 'old Earth,' but this: Can fallible, sinful man be in authority over the Word of God?

A 'young-Earth' view admittedly receives the scoffing from a majority of the scientists. But Paul warned us in 1 Corinthians 8:2, 'And if any man think that he knoweth any thing, he knoweth nothing yet as he ought to know.' Compared to what God knows, we know 'next door to nothing!' This is why we should be so careful to let God speak to us through His Word, and not try to impose our ideas on God's Word.

It's also interesting to note that this verse is found in the same passage where Paul warns that 'knowledge puffeth up.' Academic pride is found throughout our culture. Therefore, many Christian leaders would rather believe the world's fallible academics, than the simple clear words of the Bible.

At Answers in Genesis, we believe this message needs to be proclaimed to the Church as a challenge to return to Biblical authority, and thus stand tall in the world for the accuracy of God's Word. Ultimately, this is the only way we are going to reach the world with the truth of the Gospel message.

Let's start 1998 by putting more and more pressure on our Christian leaders to take a long, hard look at how they are approaching the question of the authority of the Bible! Please help us fulfill our mission statement: to bring about reformation in the Church!
 
PLease read this ir really intresting?I won't email you becuase now I feel like you can't trust me so I guess we will have to stop talk but that still dosen't mean we can't reply each other ever now aand then I think you misunderstood me are I accidently misunderstood my parents sorry for the confusion.

A young Earth—it's not the issue!

By Ken Ham

First published in:
January 1998 AiG-USA Newsletter

Time and time again I have found that in both Christian and secular worlds, those of us who are involved in the creation movement are characterized as 'young Earthers.' The supposed battle-line is thus drawn between the 'old Earthers' (this group consists of anti-God evolutionists as well as many 'conservative' Christians) who appeal to what they call 'science,' versus the 'young Earthers,' who are said to be ignoring the overwhelming supposed 'scientific' evidence for an old Earth.

I want to make it VERY clear that we don't want to be known primarily as 'young-Earth creationists.' AiG's main thrust is NOT 'young Earth' as such; our emphasis is on Biblical authority. Believing in a relatively 'young Earth' (i.e., only a few thousands of years old, which we accept) is a consequence of accepting the authority of the Word of God as an infallible revelation from our omniscient Creator.

Recently, one of our associates sat down with a highly respected world-class Hebrew scholar and asked him this question: 'If you started with the Bible alone, without considering any outside influences whatsoever, could you ever come up with millions or billions of years of history for the Earth and universe?' The answer from this scholar? 'Absolutely not!'

Let's be honest. Take out your Bible and look through it. You can't find any hint at all for millions or billions of years.

For those of you who have kept up with our lectures and our articles in Creation magazine, you will have heard or read quotes from many well-known and respected Christian leaders admitting that if you take Genesis in a straight-forward way, it clearly teaches six ordinary days of Creation. However, the reason they don't believe God created in six literal days is because they are convinced from so-called 'science' that the world is billions of years old. In other words, they are admitting that they start outside the Bible to (re)interpret the Words of Scripture.

When someone says to me, 'Oh, so you're one of those fundamentalist, young-Earth creationists,' I reply, 'Actually, I'm a revelationist, no-death-before-Adam redemptionist!' (which means I'm a young-Earth creationist!).

Here's what I mean by this: I understand that the Bible is a revelation from our infinite Creator, and it is self-authenticating and self-attesting. I must interpret Scripture with Scripture, not impose ideas from the outside! When I take the plain words of the Bible, it is obvious there was no death, bloodshed, disease or suffering of humans or animals before sin. God instituted death and bloodshed because of sin—this is foundational to the Gospel. Therefore, one cannot allow a fossil record of millions of years of death, bloodshed, disease and suffering before sin (which is why the fossil record makes much more sense as the graveyard of the flood of Noah's day).

Also, the word for 'day' in the context of Genesis can only mean an ordinary day for each of the six days of Creation [see Q&A Genesis: Days of Creation for more information].

Thus, as a 'revelationist,' I let God's Word speak to me, with the words having meaning according to the context of the language they were written in. Once I accept the plain words of Scripture in context, the fact of ordinary days, no death before sin, the Bible's genealogies, etc., all make it clear that I cannot accept millions or billions of years of history. Therefore, I would conclude there must be something wrong with man's ideas about the age of the universe.

And the fact is, every single dating method (outside of Scripture) is based on fallible assumptions. There are literally hundreds of dating tools. However, whatever dating method one uses, assumptions must be made about the past. Not one dating method man devises is absolute! Even though 90% of all dating methods give dates far younger than evolutionists require, none of these can be used in an absolute sense either. [See Q&A: Radiometric dating and Q&A: Young age evidence for more information.]

Question: Why would any Christian want to take man's fallible dating methods and use them to impose an idea on the infallible Word of God? Christians who accept billions of years are in essence saying that man's word is infallible, but God's Word is fallible!

This is the crux of the issue. When Christians have agreed with the world that they can accept man's fallible dating methods to interpret God's Word, they have agreed with the world that the Bible can't be trusted. They have essentially sent out the message that man, by himself, independent of revelation, can determine truth and impose this on God's Word. Once this 'door' has been opened regarding Genesis, ultimately it can happen with the rest of the Bible.

You see, if Christian leaders have told the next generation that one can accept the world's teachings in geology, biology, astronomy, etc., and use these to (re)interpret God's Word, then the door has been opened for this to happen in every area, including morality.

Yes, one can be a conservative Christian and preach authoritatively from God's Word from Genesis 12 onwards. But once you have told people to accept man's dating methods, and thus should not take the first chapters of Genesis as they are written, you have effectively undermined the Bible's authority! This attitude is destroying the church in America.

So, the issue is not 'young Earth' versus 'old Earth,' but this: Can fallible, sinful man be in authority over the Word of God?

A 'young-Earth' view admittedly receives the scoffing from a majority of the scientists. But Paul warned us in 1 Corinthians 8:2, 'And if any man think that he knoweth any thing, he knoweth nothing yet as he ought to know.' Compared to what God knows, we know 'next door to nothing!' This is why we should be so careful to let God speak to us through His Word, and not try to impose our ideas on God's Word.

It's also interesting to note that this verse is found in the same passage where Paul warns that 'knowledge puffeth up.' Academic pride is found throughout our culture. Therefore, many Christian leaders would rather believe the world's fallible academics, than the simple clear words of the Bible.

At Answers in Genesis, we believe this message needs to be proclaimed to the Church as a challenge to return to Biblical authority, and thus stand tall in the world for the accuracy of God's Word. Ultimately, this is the only way we are going to reach the world with the truth of the Gospel message.

Let's start 1998 by putting more and more pressure on our Christian leaders to take a long, hard look at how they are approaching the question of the authority of the Bible! Please help us fulfill our mission statement: to bring about reformation in the Church!
 
I can agree with one thing, it really is a matter of whether you believe that the Bible is infallible or not. I personally don't.

The article does make some statements that I'm not terribly much in agreement with however, especially with what it leaves unsaid.
And the fact is, every single dating method (outside of Scripture) is based on fallible assumptions. There are literally hundreds of dating tools. However, whatever dating method one uses, assumptions must be made about the past.
One thing the author fails to point out is that belief in the infallibility of the Bible is in itself an assumption. The main difference between the two assumptions is the weight of physical evidence. The amount of physical evidence for an old earth is very, very high (see my reply to the Neandertal Debate for a very small sampling) whereas the amount of physical evidence supporting a young earth is very small.

Christians who accept billions of years are in essence saying that man's word is infallible, but God's Word is fallible!
To say that the dating methods used by Scientists are "fallible" (a better word would be "inaccurate) and therefore we should choose the alternative which has even less evidence is not very logical. BTW the characterisations made by the author (and many other obviously biased Christian authors on the same subject) regarding the accuracy of current dating methods is simplistic and misleading. No scientific instrument or test is 100% accurate, each has a range of error (ie a pipette that delivers 20ml +/- 0.0001ml). The key is recognising what the range of error is and not trusting data that falls under the range of error. Kind of like when you go to the store for a bag of apples. You pay by the pound but the scale is not perfectly accurate. You may be paying a fraction of a cent more or less than you should but it doesn't matter becuse a fraction of a cent is acceptable error. Same thing with Dating methods, some of the margin of error can be up to a million years or so. If you're trying to determine the real age of yesterdays leftover lasagna I wouldn't suggest you use carbon dating, if it's the age of a strata of rock that could be 500 million years old then a million years either way is acceptable.

So to summarise...
There are inaacuracies and assumptions made in science, this is accepeted and acceptable within the realm of knowledge and the weight of evidence. To point out these innaccuracies as a reason for accepting, without question, a religious book for which there is little if any evidence of infallibility is illogical.

"Look Joey, there's a worm on the sidewalk. It must have crawled there, see there is something that looks like a slime trail. Or maybe one of these birds flying around dropped it?"

"Ricky, science cannot prove how the worm got there. SCience cannot prove that wormed crawled or that any bird ever picked it up. The science of worm transport is just a bag of theories and is unreliable, therefore we have to conclude the only reasonable, and absolute, truth of the matter. The elves put it there."

Havoc[/quote]
 
I thought you would like that but I can't prove to you God is real. So well Ihave to go now I won;t be back for a long time.Some things have gotton to me today.Sorry guys.Its has nothing to do wwith you i AM JUST LEAVING.BYe

with love and thoughts,
Sherri
 
If you believe in Millions of Years please tell me why you believe this.
 
<<If you believe in Millions of Years please tell me why you believe this.>>

Scientific evidence explains that the earth's surface is constantly renewing itself and was created approximately 4.5 billion years ago. This phenomenon can be explained simply by looking at the earth's continents. If you look closely, the land masses of the earth fit perfectly together like a puzzle. Paleontologists have explained that the earth was once a super land mass that once existed. Modern day scientific phenomenon explains this occurrence. The oceanfloor spreads due to diverging tectonic plates, creating earthquakes, and volcanic eruptions. Lava flows from volcanic eruptions lay igneous rock on the earth's surface. In this way, the earth is constantly renewing itself. Paleontologists have found another way to explain the earth as one super continent that existed billions of years ago by examining metallic igneous rock lain by lava flows. As metallic rock lain by lava flows cools, it points to one of the two magnetic poles of the earth's surface (depending on the location of the volcanic eruption on the earth's surface). By piecing together the land masses of the earth, we can see that the land masses were once grouped together as one massive continent at one time in history. This giant land mass is believed to be the original sheet of rock that was created when the earth began 4.5 billion years ago. Although this original shield of land mass is not fossiliferous, there are sparse traces of organisms, such as algae and bacteria. These organisms are a source of evidence for the world's existence 4.5 billion years ago via methods of carbon dating.

I am not saying that scientists are accurate with their dating of the earth's surface, however, it seems to be convincing that the earth began a long, long, long, time ago (much longer than 9,000 years).

I personally do not take Chapters 1 and 2 of Genesis as geological fact. Genesis does not describe to me, how and when the world was created. Rather, it tells me that the Lord is God and He created the universe. There's nothing wrong with believing in the Book of Genesis as a literal translation.

Peace. :)
 
water to wine

Interesting thread - I'm of the opinion that God created the world approx. 6000 years ago but that the world is about 6 million years old. No ... how does that add up?!

Jesus showed, in John 2, that He can create with age. When He turned water to wine He didn't have to wait for it to ferment - it was instantly wine. It was created with age.

Thats the basis of my theory!
 
>>I'm of the opinion that God created the world approx. 6000 years ago but that the world is about 6 million years old. No ... how does that add up?!

God's plan of redemption began about 6000 years ago. So time as we now know it has only been in existance for 6000 years.

Adam and Eve were food producers and were put in the Garden of Eden to tend the garden. Eve was actually the first women or wife. Before Adam and Eve there was only male and female, not husband and wife. They were given the whole earth and were what we now call "food gathers". Genesis 2:5b "there was no man to till the ground".

Perhaps a more simple way to put it is we have no idea how long mankind was around, before they fell into sin. It could be that man was around for millions of years, before Adam and Eve fell away from God and caused all of creation to need redemption.
 
Re: water to wine

Micah,

< I'm of the opinion that God created the world approx. 6000 years ago but that the world is about 6 million years old.>>

I think I agree with you brother. The Lord can do anything.


Peace,

8)
 
I don't seem to agree with you. Millions of years just doesn't fit in with God's word. Maybe you're right, but I'm not positive on my decision at the moment.
 
I find these numbers very difficult to understand. However they do suit the evolutionist. I cannot believe our world is that old.
 
I do not recall anywhere in the bible saying that the Earth is 6, 000 years old. And in fact, it says the opposite. It says this:


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Websters defines that as - To build up again

Furthermore, if you actually study the origional Hebrew, in which it was written, there is a complete seperation between sections in Genesis. In other words.

In the beginning God Created

is seperate from

And the Earth Was Without Form Or Void

What am I saying. Its simple. The earth was without form or void, because it was inhabited before, God, in essense re-created, or really build the earth back up. This is actually very, very, very clear. Why, because the Bible clearly states that before man was made, God had created the angels. In fact you find Satan in Genesis. Satan was certainly not created along with man, nor were the fallen angels.

The point is simple. The earth was without Form or void for a reason. The angels fell. Do you believe they left gently? Obviously not. One can assume, that the massive devistation we find in Genesis, when the earth was without form or void, was a result of this falling out. Its no different then revelation. At the end of revelation, the earth will be unrecognizable. Why would it be any different here? God is the same yesterday, tommorrow, and today.

We also know, that along with the angels, which were created who knows how long before our current species, that
God had created several other creatures, many of which are mentioned in the bible. I cannot tell you what was here before us. But I can tell you that when God says:

Going back


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



That there was something here before. and all the fossil evidence points toward this, as does the bible. Otherwise why would the bible say. " Replenish.

Lets analyze this a bit more though in depth. Through the hebrew. First lets take the first statement in genesis.

In the beginning;; that is a beginning which you cannot date. You can estimate it as billions of years, and I think you would be accurate, but who knows how many? Certainly man does not know, we can only estimate. It says no where, 6, 000 years ago. Not one place. That is a misinterpretation of what is written. Now lets look at the Hebrew word that was used for create. It is

bara - To create out of nothing.

This word, the Hebrew word that is, is only used 3 times in Genesis! Why? Because it records the only 3 acts of creation.

(1) The creation of something from nothing: ;In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.; (2) The creation of life: ;And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth ; (v. 21). That;s animal life of all kinds. (3) The creation of man: ;So God created man "

Now, after this( god created the heavens that is), there is a pause. We are not sure what happened. But we know that the earth ended out being without form or void. It also states


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

;Darkness was upon the face of the deep;

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Which would indicate that it was without God at the time. However, going back to without form or void. The origion Hebrew word is

tohu - In ruin, or in ruins

Right, there, looking at the origional text would point to my origional thought. Ruin in Websters is stated as

Ruin - the remains of something destroyed
or physical, moral, economic, or social collapse

Again, we know that before man, God had created many other things. This is biblical. Here we find the earth, ruined, or the remains of something destroyed. I believe this can be connected with the fall of the angels. Which would be fitting, seeing how Satan was found here. And again, he was clearly created before mankind. And in fact, a clear establishent and order was way before man. Otherwise, what would have Satan and the other angels fallen from? They certainly were not created fallen, or they would have fallen from nowhere. This would stand to reason, that in all the creations we see in the Bible, God creates numerous creatures. Again, pointing to the fossil evidence that we see in the earth. That goes right with the biblical account.

The word void, in Hebrew is bohu which means emptiness, or vaccant. In Isaih we have;

;For thus saith the Lord that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the Lord; and there is none else; (Isa. 45:18)

In other words the Earth was created to be inhabited. We find it in ruin, and vacant, and God says " replenish it. "

As far as creating everything else. There is nothing mentioned in Genesis about that in the recreation. The fact that God said, let there be light, does not indicate that is the time he created the Sun. If the earth were without form or void, it was probably so screwed up, that barely any of the suns rays could reach the ground. It was in ruin, and without void. If you go to LA you can see how disgusting the sky can look with all the polution. Let alone, if an entire catatrophy happened that left the Earth ruined had taken place. he simply cleared things up, he did not create them. The word bara is not accosiated with this. It is a recreation and a replenishment, according to the terminology used.

There is nothing unscientific about Genesis. And the fact that the earth was in ruins, is shown throughout the whole recreation. For example:


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good [Gen. 1:9&11;10].

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Now there is a horizontal division made of the waters. First the waters above were separated from the waters beneath. Now the water is separated from the land, from the earth. May I say to you, there is nothing unscientific about this. According to science every spot on topside of this earth on which we live today was covered with water at one time. That was evidently a judgment that had come upon the earth way back sometime in the distant past, and we know practically nothing about it. Anything we say is speculation. God has really told us very little here. But He has told us enough so that we can believe Him, that;s all.

And in fact. The Bible is not even centered around creation. That is not God's point. The entire theme from Genesis, to revelation. Is the fact that man fell, and the redemtion that must take place after that fall. After which, Jesus is profesied in every book from Genesis on. For example in Isaih


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Isaiah 53: 1 - 12 -

1 Who hath believed our report ? and to whom is the arm of the LORD revealed? 2 For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him. 3 He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not.

4 Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. 5 But he was wounded F243 for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. 6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid F244 on him the iniquity of us all. 7 He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth. 8 He was taken from prison F245 and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken. 9 And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; F246 because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth.

10 Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand. 11 He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities. 12 Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



That literally tells the entire story of Jesus life countless years before he even came! And there are profesies like this throughout the bible from Genesis on. That is the theme of the book, not creation. But no where does it say that everything was created in 6, 000 years.

again ;In the beginning; that is a beginning which you cannot date. You can estimate it as billions of years, and I think you would be accurate, but who knows how many? Certainly man does not know, we can only estimate. It says no where, 6, 000 years ago. Not one place. And In fact, God says this to Job:

God asked him the question: ;Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? Declare, if thou hast understanding; (Job 38:4). In other words, God is saying to man, ;You talk about the origin of the universe, but you dont;t even know where you were when I created the earth!

Here are my feelings. As far as how much does man know about life. How many of you have lost loved ones from sickneses and could do nothing about it? That is how much we understand life and its complexities. If you ever get a chance to look at a cell through an electron microscope you will understand the compexity of life. One cell, even according to an atheist. Is more complex than the most complex machine ever created by mankind. It is an entire world taking place in even the most basic of cells. Let alone trillions of those cells working in unision in an organizm. Our brians are more powerful than any computer ever designed. I feel that says something about who created that brain.

However, we still would have to have faith


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

: 27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; 28 And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are: 29 That no flesh should glory in his presence. 30 But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption: 31 That, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



And yet, even if you look at the most basic life form you can see, a machine so complex that it boggles the mind.


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Romans 1:19-22 ( KJV )

19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. 20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: 21
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Life is so complex, so amazing. In addition, God is not seperated by science, if you believe in him, you believe he created what we see, and the physical laws that surround us.


Those are just my thoughts. My real point however was simple. Its not biblical that everything was created 6, 000 years ago. The main biblical message is Jesus. Not a time frame of when we were created, or by what means God created us.
 
Interesting post.
I would ask for more physical evidence however. Those scriptures can be twisted to play either for the Young Earth Creationist or the Old Earth Creationist. I also ask that you read my post here about Coal and carbon dating. It has some very good stuff that is proven facts. But like I stated very interesting post. :roll:
 
I agree with God's Child and the others who posted like in this thread. Please check out this for more of my thoughts on this issue:

http://www.christianforums.net/viewtopic.php?t=4505

Here are a few more I didn't put in that post:

*There would be no oil deposit pressure left
*Niagra falls only shows 5,000 years worth of erosion
*Coral reefs only show 3,000 years of build up (since the flood)
*The decay rate of the Earth's magnetic feild proves the earth is under 10,000 years old
*There should be a far greater amount of atmospheric helium.

Another thing ppl may want to check out is what they have been discovering as they study what has happend in the Mt. St. Helens area since May of 1980. They have been shocked to find that what they once thought took millions of years can happen in a few short hours, weeks and years.

Check out this link:
http://home.gallatinriver.net/howerter/ ... helen.html
 
Back
Top