Origins TheologyForum for the discussion of Creation Science (Young/Old) vs Theistic Evolution. Discussion of Atheistic Evolution should be taken to the Discussion and Debate forums.
So basically trust you and you will give the church victory over science, sell two thousand years of theology and exegesis for an interpretation you cannot show any basis of in scripture because you say they got it wrong. Sounds like a pretty thin soup to buy for that price.
Trust God, and forget the defeated nominal compromising laughable stupidity that caused the doubting of the word of the Almighty.
In your fight against science though, you stand in a long tradition of people who believed just that, Cosmas Indicopleustes who claimed the church was following Pagan philosophy when it said the earth was round, or Lactantius who said couldn't prove the earth was round because no one had gone there to describe what life was like in a city on the other side of the world. Then you have the Inquisition's trial of Galileo or Luther calling Copernicus a fool. A great host of witnesses who fought the good faith against science just like you do, but Creationists usually don't like the company. One problem with your claim you can give the church victory over science, according to Cosmas if you accept the pagan philosophy that the earth is round you are already defeated, trying to sup at the table of the lord and the table of demons.
Galileo had a real observed and well based point. The mistake of the religious powers that were, was to assume that the present arrangement meant that things always were this way!
Of course biblical symbols stand for reality, but the symbol are still symbolic. Jesus was real but he wasn't really a lamb.
The title refers to the prophesy of One to be sacrificed from the beginning. He has many titles and names, such as Prince of Peace.
I take Genesis as God's creation account, or rather God's creation accounts, just as I take Revelation as God's account of the world to come. I just don't think God's revelations are always literal, in fact they often aren't. And as you pointed out there are deep similarities between Genesis and Revelation I don't see why people insist Genesis has to be literal while Revelation is full of symbolic allegory.
Not really. Revelation deals in mature and spiritual matters, so some get left in the dust pretty quick. For the spiritual minded, and rest of the bible based believer, it is a piece of cake. The few times that present realities were inadequate to portray the realities of the future, a type was given, that still represented a reality.
You claim this, but Revelation describes the new heaven and new earth as very different from the first heaven and earth.
I agree, but NOT so different from the time of the garden!
Who lived forever in Genesis? What spirits are you talking about and why do you keep making these vague claims?
Adam and Eve were to live forever. All their children also.
What makes you think God is gone?
Nothing. But He sure ain't here in any garden I walked in, chatting it up, making a fur coat, etc etc. Jesus is gone too, notice? Of course they are with us, if we have them in our lives and hearts. In spirit. In heaven it will be right in your face! Same with Eden.
Where does Genesis say it is an eternal state,
If man could have lived forever, such as even after the fall, if he ate the tree of life, that means there had to be a forever state. We are not in one now, notice? Ask science how long the earth and sun could last here!
where does it say the speed of light was different?
Stars were made for us to see as signs. That means the light got here in creation week.
What makes you think the tree of life isn't symbolic?
No reason to think it. In heaven, they grow on both sides of a river, and they have fruits every month, they have leaves. Etc. No more reason to think that they are some elusive, and unreal practical joke, than thinking that the body Jesus has, is an ipod.
We read more about it in the book of Revelation than Genesis and the only tree that I know of in the bible that can give everlasting life is the cross, or Jesus Christ who die on it who is the true vine, by whose stripes we are healed.
Jesus made New Jerusalem. So the trees there are His doing. They seem to have a special purpose for the nations. That means people living on the earth outside. For example the Jews. Maybe when they (or others) visit, that tree will really have a special purpose.
What does it say in Revealtion that the tree of life does? It's leaves are for the healing of the nations.
Bingo!
Sure we read about the tree of life in Genesis and in the book of Revelation, and he was walking around this earth for thirty years without any problem from Peleg or your split.
Yes, and walking in a PHYSICAL body like you and I, if you notice.
As you said 'the symbols in Revelation stand for a reality' and that reality was walking among us two thousand years ago.
True, and the reality is He rose from the dead in a new, spiritual and physical body, that He still has!
__________________ If the flood happened when laws were different than this present state we know, all bets are off for present state science being able to extrapolate backwards in any meaningful or accurate way.
Nope. Not at all is that remotely true. Look deeper. Show me light measured as you claim? As far as decay, that is merely looking at how it now decays, and assuming it was always so. They generally do that by looking at the parent daughter ratio of isotopes in the material. If the materials got there another way, then assuming present decay always is silly. They don't know.
Yet you can never come up with any evidence for other ways the material got there, never any evidence for your split or that the universe was in a different state, instead every where we look in ancient rock laid down before Peleg, we see the results of processes that look exactly like the processes taking place now. Why do isotopes in lower strata have more decay? Why does an ancient natural nuclear reactor like Oklo look exactly like they went critical with radioactive isotopes decaying at the same rate they do now? Why do the products of this decay look as though they have undergone 2 billion years of decay at present rates. If rates were much faster why didn’t every deposit of radioactive isotopes all over the world go critical? Why do decay rates observed in distant supernovae look exactly the same as they do today? Not only can you not give any evidence scriptural or scientific for your supposed split, you cannot explain why science gets such consistent results for a universe that has been ripped apart and completely changed
Not at all, they simply try to patch and weld current movements and past heat, with same state models of the unknown. If, for example most of the heat was caused at the tail end of the rapid separation of continents, all their dreams of a hot inner earth are naught! It is fables. Right from the godless getgo.
What we know....heat was here and was caused by something. Present continent movement rates. The rest is in your bean.
I don’t suppose you have any evidence the heat was caused at the end of the separation? Not that is would make any difference. Geologists do not rely on the earth being hotter billions of years ago to show the continents moved a bit faster, they know from radiometric dating the continents did move a bit faster, a hotter mantle is simply a plausible explanation for the fact they did move faster, Don't forget Pangaea is not the only time the continents were together. Older supercontinents broke apart and the plates had to travel around the globe to join together to form Pangaea. We can date the geological strata that were formed when the older continents were together, and the ones that formed when new ones joined together. So we know how far they travelled and how long it took and it just so happened that the rates of continental drift were the same as we have now for a couple or billion years. It is funny how the figures work out that way, all these coincidences. And all you can offer is the unsupported claim the state of the universe was different, the unsupported claim the tectonic plates moved at vast speeds, no coherent model to explain how the continents whizzed around the earth, no evidence all the heat was released at the end of Pangaea's separation or reason why it should.
[quote]I know. In other words heat spurted up some islands in a pattern. The "dates" have no meaning at all. Correlating imaginary dates in an imaginary dreamscape is vain. [quote]If the dates are imaginary why would they correlate? Scientists measure radioactive decay rates in the lab, in ancient supernovae and from ancient nuclear reactors, and for some strange reason get the same rates. When those decay rates are used to date a series of volcanic islands their dates and the distance they are from the currently active volcano matches the rate of continental drift the island is moving at now. What an amazing coincidence for imaginary dates.
At the tail end of the movement, apparently, the present state started to exist. It was the split that likely caused the movement to start with. Of course as this state came to be, great heat would come as well.
Speaking of imaginary dreamscapes… Any reason a change in state of the universe would produce great heat? Why would a split between the physical and spiritual universe move tectonic plates?
That was after the curse, and so why would we not expect weeds? Water was needed, but didn't come as rain.
You know the bible never says it didn’t rain until the flood, that is just another creationist myth. However we are still left with the fact plants needed water before Peleg just as they did afterwards. No change there then. And whether weeds were created as part of the curse, or they were just more abundant in Adam’s farmland as a result, we still have weeds causing problems for farmers before and after Peleg. Again, no change there.
Yes there is mucic in heaven as well, does that make it the same too!? Think.
I am sure there is music in heaven, musical instruments may even work the same way, although we don’t know that they do. But that is irrelevant really. The issue is whether the pre Peleg world was the same as the one we live in now and it seem all the laws of sound and vibration in air and in strings worked the same way it does now. The fact we have description of the same kind of wind and stringed instruments are we read about afterwards tell us the universe worked the same way with sound and vibration too.
They will also beat the swords into pruninghooks in the future!
Is that the millennium or the new heaven and earth?
Now if you had some details, such as how much force and heat were required and produced, we could talk. You don't.
The melting point could not have been too much different, too low and the finished metals would be too soft for making tools, to high a melting point and it would have been much too difficult to produce or work. The physical and chemical properties of metals must be pretty similar or there is no reason copper would be alloyed as bronze while iron is used unalloyed, why not copper and iron, steel and bronze, or steel and copper? The chemistry of the whole periodic table must be pretty similar too. Iron and copper are not the most abundant elements. Iron is pretty abundant though less abundant than aluminium, while copper is less abundant than calcium, sodium, potassium, magnesium, titanium, manganese, strontium, zirconium, tungsten, vanadium, chromium, rubidium, nickel or zinc. Bronze is an alloy of copper and tin, but tin is even less abundant in the earth's crust than copper with cerium, neodymium , lanthanum, yttrium, cobalt, lithium, niobium, gallium, scandium, lead, samarium, thorium, praseodymium, gadolinium, dysprosium, hafnium, erbium and ytterbium. Of all the possible metals and alloys metal workers could have discovered and used before the time of Peleg, they used iron and bronze, metal which in the current state of the universe are tough enough to use as tools, but melt at a temperature that is easily obtainable with simple technology and whose chemistry makes them easy to extract from ore.
If it was wood, then tell me what is gopher wood? Man doesn't know. But, for brevity sake, let's assume it was wood. How much water did it displace if you know, compared to present state vessels? Would pitch really keep a wooden boat dry completely for a year in this state?
Gopher was probably Cyprus or pitch pine from the etymology. It was wood though Gen 6:14 Make yourself an ark of gopher wood. Do we need to know the displacement of the ark? The fact is a hollow box made of wood floated before Peleg just as it floats afterwards obeying the laws of buoyancy of our current universe. Isn’t tar what Columbus and Magellan used to keep their ships waterproof? Otherwise why would Noah have covered the ark with pitch inside and out? Purely symbolic reasons that just happened to match the hydrophilic properties of non polar compounds in today's universe? The coincidences keep mounting up.
[quote]The curse was something like 16 centuries before the flood, add a century till the split. What are you talking about? The curse was a localized change on the surface of the earth. Focus, man. The universe state change was after the flood. Noo wonder you are confused. [quote]You brough the curse up. Don’t complain to me if your argument falls apart.
The surface of the earth needed to be changed, and obviously was.
Why do you need a change in state to grow thistles?
Nonsense. Prove it.
God formed Adam in a region with a type of red earth called adamah, God plants a garden to the east of Eden and moves Adam to the garden. Gen 2:7 then the LORD God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature. 8 And the LORD God planted a garden in Eden, in the east, and there he put the man whom he had formed.
Gen 3:17 And to Adam he said, "Because you have listened to the voice of your wife and have eaten of the tree of which I commanded you, 'You shall not eat of it,' cursed is the ground because of you; in pain you shall eat of it all the days of your life; 18 thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you; and you shall eat the plants of the field. 19 By the sweat of your face you shall eat bread, till you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken; for you are dust, and to dust you shall return."
Gen 3:23 therefore the LORD God sent him out from the garden of Eden to work the ground from which he was taken.
After the fall God sends Adam back to the red adamah ground he was taken from, where he has to work hard farming until he returns to the red dust he was taken from. This is the ground God curses and the curse is that it will produce thistles and thorns when Adam farms it. It is only the ground Adam was taken from, which he returned to to farm after being thrown out of the garden, that God curses.
[quote]True. I see no evidence of that. [quote]Yet you think mosquitoes were changed by the fall.
[quote]Well, the universe change came later. But the fact that animals and plants and men could evolve rapidly, and change like this shows that this present state could not have been in place. [quote]And you know that the increase in pain is the result of rapid evolution rather than the direct effect of God’s curse? You know that God could not have made that curse if rapid evolution hadn’t been been possible in the state of the universe back then? Do you even have any evidence for this rapid evolution? As I pointed out to you before, the bible doesn't mention evolution and the scientific evidence for evolution say it happened over hundreds of millions of years.
The universe change was to restrain man further, not lift the curse. Of course woman still had trouble. In fact, I can't prove it directly, but I suspect that gestation for mankind in the pre split world was far less. I guess 3 months. That would really help people multiply. I also suspect that kids came to pubescence much faster. My guess, less than ten years. But thats another story.
But I don’t suppose you have any evidence for you shorter gestation period and early puberty, which leaves us only with painful birth, another thing that didn’t change after Peleg.
No. It was the creature, the serpent that was changed. If the devil possessed it, and was gone, that was the creatures punishment for allowing it.
Who says the devil possessed the snake? The bible say the devil was the snake. Rev 12:9 And the great dragon was thrown down, that ancient serpent, who is called the devil and Satan, the deceiver of the whole world--he was thrown down to the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him. Rev 20:2 And he seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years. I pointed this out to you before. Nor does the bible say the snake was punished for allowing Satan to possess it either. It was punished for deceiving Eve Gen 3:13 The woman said, "The serpent deceived me, and I ate." 14 The LORD God said to the serpent, "Because you have done this…
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
When you come to the Ammonites, do not
harass them or provoke them. Deut 2:19
Trust God, and forget the defeated nominal compromising laughable stupidity that caused the doubting of the word of the Almighty.
So accepting your claim that you cannot back up is 'trusting God'?
Incidentally, Copernicus shook a lot of people's faith too.
Galileo had a real observed and well based point.
Galileo had observations and his analysis of the evidence as do modern scientists. The problem was the scientific evidence contradicted the literal interpretation of a whole series of scriptures, just as the age of the universe and evolution do today. We even have creationist on this forum claiming you can't trust what you see in a telescope. I am sure he could have used that argument for Galileo's evidence too.
The mistake of the religious powers that were, was to assume that the present arrangement meant that things always were this way!
Since the scriptures they interpreted geocentrically come after Peleg, I don't see how your mantra about the present arrangement would have helped. Even if it could, they didn't have you to tell them about how the universe changed with Peleg, and as you cannot back up your claims from scripture, I do not see any reason they would have realised this for themselves.
The title refers to the prophesy of One to be sacrificed from the beginning. He has many titles and names, such as Prince of Peace.
Of course it does. Doesn't change the fact Revelation describes him as a lamb when he wasn't actually a sheep. John the baptist called him a lamb too. So Jesus being a lamb doesn't depend on some change in the universe in Revelation. Lamb is a symbol, like so many other symbols we see in the book of Revelation.
Not really. Revelation deals in mature and spiritual matters, so some get left in the dust pretty quick. For the spiritual minded, and rest of the bible based believer, it is a piece of cake. The few times that present realities were inadequate to portray the realities of the future, a type was given, that still represented a reality.
Not sure why you keep saying the symbols represent reality, I have already agreed that they do. But the book of Revelation is packed full of these symbols, the problem literalists have is that they keep trying to interpret these symbols literally and think it is being mature. Why should the tree of life be any more literal than the seven headed lion leopard bear, a prostitute with a gold cup, the cubic city from space wearing a wedding dress? Why should the tree of life be any more literal than the snake which was also in both Genesis and Revelation and we find out in Revelation it wasn't a literal snake it was Satan?
You claim this, but Revelation describes the new heaven and new earth as very different from the first heaven and earth.
I agree, but NOT so different from the time of the garden!
So why does Revelation describe our heaven as earth as the first one when Eden was allegedly so different and so like the new heaven and new earth? There isn't the slightest hint of your Peleg doctrine in scripture and Revelation contradicts it. You haven't been able to come up with any evidence that it Eden was a different state of the universe, and anyway you claim the real change happened long after the garden. The garden was still the first heaven and earth, the first heaven and earth we read about in Revelation that is different from the New heaven and Earth.
Adam and Eve were to live forever. All their children also.
You don't know that. The bible does not say they were immortal before they fell. They were warned they would die the day they ate the fruit, but the only death they died that day was spiritual. The only reference to Adam and Eve living forever is ascribed to the Tree of Life. But that is a promise given to us too, and we are mortal. Rev 2:7 He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. To the one who conquers I will grant to eat of the tree of life, which is in the paradise of God.' For us the promise of everlasting life comes through the cross, through Jesus the true vine.
Nothing. But He sure ain't here in any garden I walked in, chatting it up, making a fur coat, etc etc. Jesus is gone too, notice? Of course they are with us, if we have them in our lives and hearts. In spirit. In heaven it will be right in your face! Same with Eden.
If your split means God cannot walk on earth any more what was Jesus doing walking on earth for thirty years or so? Who was it who came walking along to chat to Abraham and tell him Sarah was going to get pregnant? Jesus may be gone, but your split argument say he should not have been able to be here at all after Peleg.
If man could have lived forever, such as even after the fall, if he ate the tree of life, that means there had to be a forever state. We are not in one now, notice? Ask science how long the earth and sun could last here!
Seeing as you do not even know what the Tree of Life is, how do you know how it works? Do you think Elijah is dead? If he is not, does that mean the world has to be in a 'forever state'
Stars were made for us to see as signs. That means the light got here in creation week.
Or that the creation 'week' wasn't a week. As I have said many times, evidence against Creationism is not evidence for your split. You need actual evidence for your faster speed of light, either scriptural or scientific, just because you need something like this to rescue your interpretation does not make it so, just wishful thinking.
I dealt with this before, but you did not reply:
I think the passage about the creation of the sun the moon and stars is very interesting though. Gen 1:14 And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night. And let them be for signs and for seasons, and for days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light upon the earth." And it was so. 'And it was so' tell us all his was happening, the sun moon and stars were marking out signs, season, days and years when God said it was so. And this is supposed to be a a single day in a creation 'week'? There is a simpler explanation to Creationists' 'starlight problem', their interpretation is wrong.
Creation 'week'. You do realise that as well as giving a different order of creation, Genesis 2 tells us the creation took place in a single day? Gen 2:4 These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens.
What makes you think the tree of life isn't symbolic?
No reason to think it. In heaven, they grow on both sides of a river, and they have fruits every month, they have leaves. Etc. No more reason to think that they are some elusive, and unreal practical joke, than thinking that the body Jesus has, is an ipod.
How about a lamb?
So are all the other symbols in Revelation an unreal practical joke?
Jesus made New Jerusalem. So the trees there are His doing. They seem to have a special purpose for the nations. That means people living on the earth outside. For example the Jews. Maybe when they (or others) visit, that tree will really have a special purpose.
You realise the New Jerusalem is the bride of Christ, the church. We are no more literal buildings than we are going to be literal pillars in the temple of God.
What does it say in Revealtion that the tree of life does? It's leaves are for the healing of the nations.
Bingo!
Bingo indeed. You do realise who the bible says heals us? Isaiah 53:5 But he was wounded for our transgressions; he was crushed for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace, and with his stripes we are healed. The symbolism of the tree of life comes full circle again back to Jesus, the true vine, Jesus whose death on a tree gives us everlasting life.
Yes, and walking in a PHYSICAL body like you and I, if you notice.
He was still walking around which you claim was not possible after Peleg and you have the the question of Abraham's visitors.
True, and the reality is He rose from the dead in a new, spiritual and physical body, that He still has!
Couldn't agree more. But it still doesn't help you argument. The reality is not the same as the symbol. Jesus wasn't actually a lamb, either before or after the resurrection, and Revelation is full of symbols like this. You really haven't come up with any evidence the universe was in a different state before Peleg. What you have shown is that you have a problem recognising symbols and allegories in scripture and tell them apart from more literal passages.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
When you come to the Ammonites, do not
harass them or provoke them. Deut 2:19
Yet you can never come up with any evidence for other ways the material got there, never any evidence for your split or that the universe was in a different state,
That is silly. If it got here in another universe state. Just exactly as it is sillly to try to suggest that the new heavens state will keep decaying, and the materials remain as is. The onus is on you to prove it, if you want to cart the evidence here, off to the unknown areas. Which is precisely why you need to prove a present state both in the future, and the far past, or you have no possible case.
instead every where we look in ancient rock laid down before Peleg, we see the results of processes that look exactly like the processes taking place now. Why do isotopes in lower strata have more decay?
They don't. Some of the oldest rock on earth wasn't that far down, now was it? Support your claim with detailed examples.
Why does an ancient natural nuclear reactor like Oklo look exactly like they went critical with radioactive isotopes decaying at the same rate they do now?
Because you use a lot of imagination, mostly! For example, the way that that conclusion is reached requires a lot of miracles. One has to dunk the whole area miles under the earth for I think it is millions of imaginary years, the resurface it, all the way to the surface when cooked! In other words, the whole scenario is same state based, and what 'must have' happened, to make a same state reaction. Prove it! Nonsense.
Why do the products of this decay look as though they have undergone 2 billion years of decay at present rates. If rates were much faster why didn’t every deposit of radioactive isotopes all over the world go critical?
Easy! It wasn't faster, it never existed! The materials were not there engaged in a decay process. You get fooled because the daughter material is NOW produced by decay, so you assume it all got there that way! No. It was there already, I assume, in the non decay different state past.
Why do decay rates observed in distant supernovae look exactly the same as they do today?
You know how they measure the distance to SN1987a? They need three lines, if I recall. Guess what one of them is!? One of the REQUIRED parameters is the present speed of light! How long it took the outer ring to light up, they figure "must" mean that it was so and so far away! The fly in the ointment is that you need a same state past first, you can't assume one first.
So, that knocks out the distance. Which changes everything right there. We could go on, but it would consume the thread. Don't forget to sprinkle stardust or pixie dust to account for a light curve representing the decay, at just the right time now...etc etc! Oh, and remember to pat science on the back for it's great powers of prediction here!! They had NO CLUE there would be rings! They cooked up an explanation after the fact! But they did predict that darn neutron star. (later scrambled out on a limb, changing it to a black hole) Neither have turned up...fancy that! They are a bunch of religious fanatics and jokers, falsely called science.
Not only can you not give any evidence scriptural or scientific for your supposed split, you cannot explain why science gets such consistent results for a universe that has been ripped apart and completely changed
Ripped apart??? Calm down. The separation of the spiritual element did not rip the universe apart. It just left the physical only temporary state bit working as we see it now. It was not an accidental change! It was perfectly planned and executed by no less than the creator Himself, just as the new heavens will be. ALL the ancient records and the bible agree it had to be different. The bible is full of things that REQUIRE a different state past and future. Science gets only same state results, as that is all it uses for any results.
I don’t suppose you have any evidence the heat was caused at the end of the separation? Not that is would make any difference.
Well, deduction, is one way. We know that great heat is not produced in the different state. We have creation week as an example. So that is known, a known quantity. Next, we have evidence, that there was a lot of heat produced somehow. That is a clue. We know heat from friction etc is produced in this state. Therefore the heat for the most part likely was caused in this state, or the process of coming into it as well.
Geologists do not rely on the earth being hotter billions of years ago to show the continents moved a bit faster, they know from radiometric dating the continents did move a bit faster, a hotter mantle is simply a plausible explanation for the fact they did move faster,
Plausible = same state based
Now that opens up a can of worms. See, if the cause of the separation is nothing like they assume, or the timing, that means we need to look at the (possibly residual movements of the last several hundred years) known tiny movements of the present in a new light. I would even ask if the present directions represent the actual directions of the separation itself at the split!? If they are merely settling BACK, for example, a bit, that means they would have come from the opposite direction!
So, actual Pangaea might be a little more like this..??!
Now, someone would have to take into account the axis shift of the earth then, etc. maybe Australia and Antarctica woulld end up with a little more momentum, and touching the main mass, etc? But it is something to consider. Haven't thought it through yet.
Looks like the Euphrates and Tigris and Israel and etc would fit well.
__________________ If the flood happened when laws were different than this present state we know, all bets are off for present state science being able to extrapolate backwards in any meaningful or accurate way.
So accepting your claim that you cannot back up is 'trusting God'?
Incidentally, Copernicus shook a lot of people's faith too.
Galileo had observations and his analysis of the evidence as do modern scientists. The problem was the scientific evidence contradicted the literal interpretation of a whole series of scriptures, just as the age of the universe and evolution do today. We even have creationist on this forum claiming you can't trust what you see in a telescope. I am sure he could have used that argument for Galileo's evidence too.
The tables are turned now. The analysis is shpown to be present state based.
Since the scriptures they interpreted geocentrically come after Peleg, I don't see how your mantra about the present arrangement would have helped. Even if it could, they didn't have you to tell them about how the universe changed with Peleg, and as you cannot back up your claims from scripture, I do not see any reason they would have realised this for themselves.
I wasn't thinking about bible, that seems to be selectively interpreted by some, to make God look silly. If, however, the information of a geocentric system was passed down from ancients, in other records they would have no way of knowing that it did not apply in this state. The case for a major change in the laws of the universe is strong in the bible. The plant growth rates, properties of matter, light, and life spans, for example are simply nothing similar to what they were.
Of course it does. Doesn't change the fact Revelation describes him as a lamb when he wasn't actually a sheep. John the baptist called him a lamb too. So Jesus being a lamb doesn't depend on some change in the universe in Revelation. Lamb is a symbol, like so many other symbols we see in the book of Revelation.
The title of Lamb of God refers to something real, that was here since the garden, and promised. It refers to a Savior, that would be sacrificed for our sins. Reading that to mean an animal is carnal.
Not sure why you keep saying the symbols represent reality, I have already agreed that they do. But the book of Revelation is packed full of these symbols, the problem literalists have is that they keep trying to interpret these symbols literally and think it is being mature. Why should the tree of life be any more literal than the seven headed lion leopard bear, a prostitute with a gold cup, the cubic city from space wearing a wedding dress? Why should the tree of life be any more literal than the snake which was also in both Genesis and Revelation and we find out
in Revelation it wasn't a literal snake it was Satan?
Actually, the rest of the bible explains the symbolic aspect of the way realities are described in the last book. Ask God for His spirit, and maybe listen to Christian radio or something, get some different takes on it.
So why does Revelation describe our heaven as earth as the first one when Eden was allegedly so different and so like the new heaven and new earth?
Fair question. First of all, I don't see Eden here, do you??? Any more than I see heaven here. At the time the new heavens come to repleace what exists, Eden will not be here, of course either. It doesn't say He is replacing the created universe, just the temporary state one that will exist at the time!
__________________ If the flood happened when laws were different than this present state we know, all bets are off for present state science being able to extrapolate backwards in any meaningful or accurate way.
No problem, guess someone thought the shoe fit. And I have no time for people that put man's wisdom first, at the expense of God's word. Thank you very much.
__________________ If the flood happened when laws were different than this present state we know, all bets are off for present state science being able to extrapolate backwards in any meaningful or accurate way.
No problem, guess someone thought the shoe fit. And I have no time for people that put man's wisdom first, at the expense of God's word. Thank you very much.
You realize that attitudes like that is the reason Christians have a bad reputation with the rest of the world, right?
You realize that attitudes like that is the reason Christians have a bad reputation with the rest of the world, right?
That depends on whose attitude you are talking about. What really gives Christians a bad rep is not believing in the bible, as Jesus did. Not believing in creation. Accepting the godless foolishness of man above and beyond the truth of God, for NO reason. You get that, right? Standing up for the truth, and asking hard quaetions of so called science, and it's disciples of the deception, is actually a good thing. Letting them lie, and walk all over you, and steal the faith away in schools is a bad thing.
__________________ If the flood happened when laws were different than this present state we know, all bets are off for present state science being able to extrapolate backwards in any meaningful or accurate way.
Linear Mode
