Cliffe Knechtle on the 6 days in Genesis

[joshua 1 9]

So man has been around for billions of years?What prophecy?

Just because Genesis doesn't say, "And the evening and the morning were the seventh day," doesn't mean we're still in the seventh day.

We are at the end of the 13 th day. The 1,000 year reign of Christ will be the 14th day. Although this can also be referred to as the Third Day and the Sixth Day: "See, the LORD has given you the Sabbath; therefore He gives you bread for two days on the sixth day." Exodus 16:29

 

[Aman777]

Who declared them holy?

And while I don't agree with him, I like what he says about evolution being a PROCESS, not an ORIGIN.[/QUOTE]

The video is a case of the blind leading the blind since the speaker tells the theology of ancient men, which has been passed down through the generations. It doesn't agree Scripturally, Scientifically nor Historically. That is WHY we call it religion since it is nothing more than a "belief". Amen?

 

[Hoghead1]

Well, Aman, I have been carefully studying your emails, and I must say I am somewhat disappointed. I find them largely personal attacks on those who do not share your views. Now, I don't know about others, but I am not offended by your attacks. Frankly, I don't care what you think of me personally. I'm sure others feel the same. My biggest problem is that your comments are downright boring. There is no meat, thought, something solid there to move me, challenge me. The fundamental premise, the foundation of your comments is very apparent and represents an irrational, illogical pattern of self-talk: You believe that you have been led by the Holy Spirit to plumb the depths of God, nature, scripture, so that the Spirit taught you evolution is all wrong, Scripture is inerrant, there are hidden messages in the Bible, etc. Therefore guys like me who disagree with you are not only stupid when it comes to Scripture and nature, but are also blaspheming God by questioning his ways. So shame on all of us. The problem is that even a C-level student in freshman philosophy can easily shoot you down. See, I can just as easily sit here and argue that I was inspired by the Holy Spirit to become a theologian and plumb the depths of God, Scripture, nature, and so the Spirit has taught me that evolution is the true way God works, that Scripture is anything but inerrant, and that the Bible means what it says, no hidden , mysterious meanings, period. Therefore guys like you who think otherwise are not only being stupid but also deeply offending God by your attempt to force your standards on to God, rather than accepting his. After all, if God is contend with a very errant Scripture, so am I. This does seem strange to me, but God did not explain it, because I don't need to know why, and so I'm not going to worry about it. It may seem strange God works through evolution, but he is happy that and therefore I am happy with that, and feel no need to question it. As I said before, if God wanted to explain these difficult matters, he would have told me, but he didn't, because we don't need to know why, and therefore I do not worry about it. What I am hoping my comments will do is moti8vate you to at least try and give solid, rational arguments.

 

[Aman777]

Well, Aman, I have been carefully studying your emails, and I must say I am somewhat disappointed. I find them largely personal attacks on those who do not share your views. Now, I don't know about others, but I am not offended by your attacks. Frankly, I don't care what you think of me personally. I'm sure others feel the same. My biggest problem is that your comments are downright boring. There is no meat, thought, something solid there to move me, challenge me. The fundamental premise, the foundation of your comments is very apparent and represents an irrational, illogical pattern of self-talk: You believe that you have been led by the Holy Spirit to plumb the depths of God, nature, scripture, so that the Spirit taught you evolution is all wrong, Scripture is inerrant, there are hidden messages in the Bible, etc. Therefore guys like me who disagree with you are not only stupid when it comes to Scripture and nature, but are also blaspheming God by questioning his ways. So shame on all of us. The problem is that even a C-level student in freshman philosophy can easily shoot you down. See, I can just as easily sit here and argue that I was inspired by the Holy Spirit to become a theologian and plumb the depths of God, Scripture, nature, and so the Spirit has taught me that evolution is the true way God works, that Scripture is anything but inerrant, and that the Bible means what it says, no hidden , mysterious meanings, period. Therefore guys like you who think otherwise are not only being stupid but also deeply offending God by your attempt to force your standards on to God, rather than accepting his. After all, if God is contend with a very errant Scripture, so am I. This does seem strange to me, but God did not explain it, because I don't need to know why, and so I'm not going to worry about it. It may seem strange God works through evolution, but he is happy that and therefore I am happy with that, and feel no need to question it. As I said before, if God wanted to explain these difficult matters, he would have told me, but he didn't, because we don't need to know why, and therefore I do not worry about it. What I am hoping my comments will do is moti8vate you to at least try and give solid, rational arguments.

False accusation from one who has nothing to offer but Unbelief in God's Holy Word. I've noticed that other Christians here are opposing you and your wonderful credentials. Why not present your educated views and tell us which group recognizes your views? After all, it doesn't matter what God says when we have your educated peers to teach us poor ignorant Christians what the Bible really says. According to you, it's all just a bunch of contradictions and foolishness which God wrote to amuse us. Amen?

 

[Hoghead1]

Well, Cliff, let's get a few things straight here. Just calm down, don't thro8 a hissy fit. I respect the fact the everyone needs to have a huge defecation on the pity pot every once in a while, and that is your turn. However, that is better done in some other kind of group. Do you really think I or someone else in my position is going to take your kind of email seriously? Come to think of it, you probably do. So let me clue you in. All you sent me was personal attacks, hate mail. That is totally inappropriate in any theological discussion group. The rule of discussion is that if you object to what someone is saying, you present as solid of a rational counterarguments as you can, not waste time condemning others as lost souls, etc., as you did here. You sound like some sort of Inquisitor pronouncing sentence or something. "Nothing to offer but unbelief in God's word"? Evidence please. As a progressive thinker, I am well used to receiving such hate mail. It's only to be expected. I recognize it as largely harmless, meaningless, worthless. I really don't care what you think of me personally or even spiritually. I am not here to live up to your standards. I recognize you feel offended because I imply you are ignorant. But the truth is you lack any real formal education in any of these matters. You need to become more aware of the relationship you are in with guys like me. You re coming out of the laity. Nothing wrong with that. I am coming out of academia. Nothing wrong with that. The problem is when we meet. There can be a major conflict. There is a huge town-gown gulf that needs to be recognized. Many laity, and this is honestly true of you and many others here, have a very naïve conception of what really goes in the real world of academia, of scholarly study in theology, biblical studies, etc. I find laity hope or expect that the academic world is an extension, a further reinforcement of the cherished beliefs and values they learned in their local church or Sunday-school class. Forget it. The world of academic scholarship is a completely different world, completely different value system, completely different set of priorities. In encountering the academic world, it is only to be expected some laity will be disappointed, because they are apt to find one of their cherished beliefs has long ago been carefully weighed out and consequently and thrown out the window. For example, you and many others here hold with the inerrancy theory of Scripture, that it has to be errorless, etc. However, in the academic world, where we are free to question everything, this appears but another human-made, fallible theory of how God might be related to Scripture. Like any human theory, it deserves to be checked out. When it was, it was out not to work. Many laity make a mistake in coming to the Bible, assuming that it is all true, that whatever the Bible says, happened just that way. However, that is a bad bias to bring into serious research, as I prohibits you from being open-minded enough to learn anything. Now, you made sarcastic remarks about us academics thinking we are a lot smarter than you. Well, truth is, we are, as we have the opportunity to sit down and study matters in detail, whereas you, having other priorities, do not. You asked about what "groups" sponsor or support my thinking. Are you kidding Open your eyes and look at the Christian religion in full scope. It was not and is not a monolithic structure, as you may imagine, with only one way to go about things. I is a rich plurality or tapestry of diverse viewpoints which, unfortunately can conflict with one another. That may confuse or disturb some, but I like it, I love it, I want some more of it. It means we have a choice, we have freedom in the church. If some church hits you over the head with the old it's-own-way-or-the-highway-to-hell, you don't have to take that, you can simply choose another church. Though you may think your views represent the whole of Christendom, the truth is you are on the extreme right of the church. Nothing wrong with that. However, there is also a left wing or more liberal side to faith. Thank god, Not all Christians can or should be on the right. I couldn't. I had long exposures to your attitudes, teaching, doctrine, and I found they didn't even begin to meet my spiritual, emotional, and intellectual needs. So I moved to he left, to the liberal camp. Now, again, I strongly encourage you to avoid personal attacks or berating one's spirituality and take the time to think of, as best you can, a solid rational counterattack to my points if you truly find them objectionable. That way, we can have a real theological discussion.

 

[Aman777]

Well, Cliff, let's get a few things straight here. Just calm down, don't thro8 a hissy fit. I respect the fact the everyone needs to have a huge defecation on the pity pot every once in a while, and that is your turn. However, that is better done in some other kind of group. Do you really think I or someone else in my position is going to take your kind of email seriously?

I am Aman, not Cliff. I expect those who claim to understand Christianity to at least be familiar with God's Truth in the Bible. Your view is the typical modernist thinking which REJECTS the Bible's teaching in favor of the mortal man's view. We were warned about this position here: Mar 7:7

***Come to think of it, you probably do. So let me clue you in. All you sent me was personal attacks, hate mail. That is totally inappropriate in any theological discussion group. The rule of discussion is that if you object to what someone is saying, you present as solid of a rational counterarguments as you can, not waste time condemning others as lost souls, etc., as you did here. You sound like some sort of Inquisitor pronouncing sentence or something. "Nothing to offer but unbelief in God's word"? Evidence please.

Sure. A good example is your insistence that Genesis one and Genesis two contradict each other. This is totally false and reveals a view which is totally UnScriptural. Of course it doesn't seem to bother you that you constantly reject God's Truth in favor of men's opinions.

****As a progressive thinker, I am well used to receiving such hate mail. It's only to be expected. I recognize it as largely harmless, meaningless, worthless. I really don't care what you think of me personally or even spiritually. I am not here to live up to your standards. I recognize you feel offended because I imply you are ignorant. But the truth is you lack any real formal education in any of these matters. You need to become more aware of the relationship you are in with guys like me. You re coming out of the laity. Nothing wrong with that. I am coming out of academia. Nothing wrong with that. The problem is when we meet. There can be a major conflict.

Amen, especially due to the Fact that you CANNOT support your views Scripturally. Must we run to YOU and your wonderfully educated colleagues every time we have a question about the Bible? Your ego separates you from Scripturally supported verses which describe the "laity" as you see us. Paul tells us of how religionists treated him:

1Co 4:9 For I think that God hath set forth us the apostles last, as it were appointed to death: for we are made a spectacle unto the world, and to angels, and to men. 1Co 4:10 We are fools for Christ's sake, but ye are wise in Christ; we are weak, but ye are strong; ye are honourable, but we are despised.

***There is a huge town-gown gulf that needs to be recognized. Many laity, and this is honestly true of you and many others here, have a very naïve conception of what really goes in the real world of academia, of scholarly study in theology, biblical studies, etc. I find laity hope or expect that the academic world is an extension, a further reinforcement of the cherished beliefs and values they learned in their local church or Sunday-school class. Forget it. The world of academic scholarship is a completely different world, completely different value system, completely different set of priorities. In encountering the academic world, it is only to be expected some laity will be disappointed, because they are apt to find one of their cherished beliefs has long ago been carefully weighed out and consequently and thrown out the window. For example, you and many others here hold with the inerrancy theory of Scripture, that it has to be errorless, etc. However, in the academic world, where we are free to question everything, this appears but another human-made, fallible theory of how God might be related to Scripture. Like any human theory, it deserves to be checked out. When it was, it was out not to work.

The problem is with the modernist view, which you preach constantly as if you were going to convert us poor, ignorant, Bible believing "laity". Do you have any idea HOW a sinner is saved? If so, please tell us. Avoiding the question might make some think that you don't know.

***Many laity make a mistake in coming to the Bible, assuming that it is all true, that whatever the Bible says, happened just that way. However, that is a bad bias to bring into serious research, as I prohibits you from being open-minded enough to learn anything. Now, you made sarcastic remarks about us academics thinking we are a lot smarter than you. Well, truth is, we are, as we have the opportunity to sit down and study matters in detail, whereas you, having other priorities, do not. You asked about what "groups" sponsor or support my thinking. Are you kidding Open your eyes and look at the Christian religion in full scope. It was not and is not a monolithic structure, as you may imagine, with only one way to go about things. I is a rich plurality or tapestry of diverse viewpoints which, unfortunately can conflict with one another. That may confuse or disturb some, but I like it, I love it, I want some more of it.

Of course you do. Compromisers love to get together and tell each other what wonderful teachers they are, since they sit in a much higher position than those old stupid "laity" who don't know anything because they are NOT in our highly educated group. Such thinking is refuted in Matthew 23 by Jesus.

*** It means we have a choice, we have freedom in the church. If some church hits you over the head with the old it's-own-way-or-the-highway-to-hell, you don't have to take that, you can simply choose another church. Though you may think your views represent the whole of Christendom, the truth is you are on the extreme right of the church. Nothing wrong with that. However, there is also a left wing or more liberal side to faith.

I'm neither since I support my views with the AGREEMENT of Scripture, Science, and History. You don't because your view is unscriptural.

***Thank god, Not all Christians can or should be on the right. I couldn't. I had long exposures to your attitudes, teaching, doctrine, and I found they didn't even begin to meet my spiritual, emotional, and intellectual needs. So I moved to he left, to the liberal camp. Now, again, I strongly encourage you to avoid personal attacks or berating one's spirituality and take the time to think of, as best you can, a solid rational counterattack to my points if you truly find them objectionable. That way, we can have a real theological discussion.

Theologically, How can a sinner be saved? Do you know? Perhaps you could check with other modernists and see IF any of them knows? Amen?

 

[Hoghead1]

Alright,Aman, alright. I hear you, I hear you. You don't need to throw a hissy fit. As I said everyone needs to take a big defecation on the pity pot, and this is your turn. To be expected, no problem. So, for your edification and more so for the edification of those others out there who may be reading this email, let me say that I am relatively new on this site, don't know anybody, don't even know their real names, so I came here pretty loose on my expectations, ready for anything. I have a radical theological agenda and so am bund to attract flack from the conservative side of the church. Occupational hazard. So I am not shocked or surprised by angry emails, ranting and raving at my the0ology, such as the above. I take responsibility for particularly provoking the wrath of some right wingers, since I am putting them in the hot seat, and nobody likes that. Occupational hazard. The issue here is definitely not about God, per se or Scripture per se. Fundamentalists tend to misread it that way, but that is merely a result of their defense mechanisms kicking in to keep them out of the hot seat. The real issue here is the adequacy of the fundamentalist interpretation of God, the Bible, etc. I am seriously questioning their dogmas, and if there is one thing fundamentalist have, it is having their faith questioned. Fundamentalist Christianity rests on an anti-intellectual ground, so that it has a deep-seated hatred of liberals and anything like that, free thought, people questioning them, people who believe in other religions, fellow Christians who do not march to the beat of their drum, you name it. Christian fundamentalism has roots in the Reformation, and the Reformers were not exactly noted for having a great spirit of charity and tolerance. For an interesting read, check out Calvin's execution of Servet, Luther's extermination policy for the Jews, and the way the Reformers tried to persecute all Anabaptists off the planet. Consequently our founding fathers, especially Jefferson, Adams, Monroe, had serious doubts about the appropriateness of fundamentalist Christianity in a free society. They loudly denounced such faith as providing only bloodshed, tyranny, oppression, ignorance, you name it. So I am seen as a threat in that I am seriously questioning their dogmas. My criticism is that fundamentalism has taken the very human teachings, some good, some bad, of the church fathers, and enshrined these as a kind of sacred cow that dare not be touched and that has to be believed in order to get saved. Faith is identified with intellectual ascent to dogma. It does not matter to God how you live, just what your religious beliefs are. So there is no room in their circles for guys like me who explore the possibility that God's primary interest on how you live and he doesn't give one hoot what your religious beliefs are. Now, a particular scared cow I have been questioning is the inerrancy of Scripture. Fundamentalists treat their sacred cows as if they came right from the mouth of the Almighty, when in fact they came from the human thoughts of the very human church fathers. To me, the inerrancy of Scripture is no sacred teaching at all. I see it for what it is: a human-made theory about how God might be related to the writings of Scripture. I am well aware that are other, more viable ones out there. Like any other human-devised theory, the inerrancy theory can be fallible, and needs to be checked out thoroughly. Now, that is something fundamentalists refuse to do. So others of us got busy and checked it out and I came to the conclusion it hold no water. In previous emails I have stated my case and gave solid, empirically based rezoning to back my claim. To date, I have yet to receive even one attempt at a rational rebuttal from any fundamentalist. All I receive are hate emails, ranting and raving at me, such as yours, Aman.

 

[Hoghead1]

Well, Aman, what I said to you in my previous email goes double here. Incidentally, at least get your labels straight. I am not into modernist thinking. That wen out after WW 2. Today, we are into a postmodern period. I am into postmodern Christianity. See, if you would have studied the material, you would already know this and I wouldn't have had to take time off to inform you. Where else should people turn for enlightenment, but to the scholarly world. That is what we are here for. There is a very good reason why, for example, that professor is on that podium professing evolution, and you are sitting here. He or she has earned their stripes, demonstrated they have something worthwhile to contribute to the discussion, whereas you most emphatically do not. What do you expect people to do? Forget the scholarly world, forget about education, just cut their heads off whenever they enter some church and listen to the ranting's and ravings of some fanatic like you? You keep asking me how sinners get saved. I'm surprised one with your alleged faith and knowledge of Scripture does not already know. No person can save sinners; that is exclusively the job of God, period. That's right up front in the Bible. Too bad you missed that.

 

[Aman777]

Well, Aman, what I said to you in my previous email goes double here. Incidentally, at least get your labels straight. I am not into modernist thinking. That wen out after WW 2. Today, we are into a postmodern period. I am into postmodern Christianity. See, if you would have studied the material, you would already know this and I wouldn't have had to take time off to inform you. Where else should people turn for enlightenment, but to the scholarly world. That is what we are here for. There is a very good reason why, for example, that professor is on that podium professing evolution, and you are sitting here. He or she has earned their stripes, demonstrated they have something worthwhile to contribute to the discussion, whereas you most emphatically do not. What do you expect people to do? Forget the scholarly world, forget about education, just cut their heads off whenever they enter some church and listen to the ranting's and ravings of some fanatic like you?

Hog:>>You keep asking me how sinners get saved. I'm surprised one with your alleged faith and knowledge of Scripture does not already know. No person can save sinners; that is exclusively the job of God, period. That's right up front in the Bible. Too bad you missed that.

Thanks for admitting that you don't know How to be saved and you don't know the importance of Jesus in the process obviously, since you left Him out altogether. I'm sorry. God Bless you

 

[Hoghead1]

Look, Aman, let's get one thing straight. I don't care if you want to reject my position and I don't care what you think of me personally. That' s all your problem, not mine. The problem I have with your emails, such as, and especially, the above is that they are totally inappropriate in any theological discussion group. In fact, they are a major no-no that violates the whole purpose of such a group. If you disagree with what someone has says, your responsibility is to come up with a rational rebuttal. The strategy you seem to be using is anything but that. Here and elsewhere, you generally respond by saying, in effect,"Oh, you are so wrong because you are a lost soul who has not fully accepted the Spirit." That is not, by any stretch of the imagination, a rational argument. As long as you send out these uncalled-for emails, you are simply contributing nothing here at all.

 

[Aman777]

Look, Aman, let's get one thing straight. I don't care if you want to reject my position and I don't care what you think of me personally. That' s all your problem, not mine. The problem I have with your emails, such as, and especially, the above is that they are totally inappropriate in any theological discussion group. In fact, they are a major no-no that violates the whole purpose of such a group. If you disagree with what someone has says, your responsibility is to come up with a rational rebuttal. The strategy you seem to be using is anything but that. Here and elsewhere, you generally respond by saying, in effect,"Oh, you are so wrong because you are a lost soul who has not fully accepted the Spirit." That is not, by any stretch of the imagination, a rational argument. As long as you send out these uncalled-for emails, you are simply contributing nothing here at all.

I realize that you don't know HOW to get to Heaven, or get saved, since IF you knew, you would have posted it long ago. Instead, you posted some religious razzle dazzle designed to fool the weak and uninformed. It's obvious that you cannot understand Scripture since you see contradictions from the word "go". So give it up and admit that you are just spoofing us, or keep trying until the Bible believers here discredit you completely. Amen?

 

[Hoghead1]

Aman, let me set the record straight. This is the last of your hate-filled emails that I am gong to read. You violate all the rules for a theology discussion group. I'm surprised the moderators permit you here. You can email me all you want. No problem. I have a quick finger on the Delete button.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Look, Aman, let's get one thing straight. I don't care if you want to reject my position and I don't care what you think of me personally. That' s all your problem, not mine. The problem I have with your emails, such as, and especially, the above is that they are totally inappropriate in any theological discussion group. In fact, they are a major no-no that violates the whole purpose of such a group. If you disagree with what someone has says, your responsibility is to come up with a rational rebuttal. The strategy you seem to be using is anything but that. Here and elsewhere, you generally respond by saying, in effect,"Oh, you are so wrong because you are a lost soul who has not fully accepted the Spirit." That is not, by any stretch of the imagination, a rational argument. As long as you send out these uncalled-for emails, you are simply contributing nothing here at all.

I don't know, I find him pretty entertaining, and while his contributions on the biology side are certainly strange, it is better than hearing the same arguments over and over and over again.

He's also generally one of the friendlier people on here, or he's great at being subtly insulting, I wouldn't know, autism cripples me in that regard. And he is far from being the only person on here that calls Christians that disagree "lost souls" or equivalent labels; that's a pretty common bad habit.

Then again, I have noticed that he tends to get under the skins of fellow Christians more than any other group. Still, if you get this insulted by this habits, this whole site is going to leave you in a constant rage.

 

[Hoghead1]

Thanks for the heads-up. I am still new to this site, don't really know what to expect, and feel prepared for whatever happens. Fortunately, I have some compatible intellectual sparring partners here and I focus on them. I am willing to go a few rounds with guys here that I find irrational, that I know won't hear ne, simply because it is a great writing exercise for me to practice quickly coming up with a defense, or maybe a further clarifications of my position, right off the top of my head. It quickens my mental reflexes. If or when I see I'm not getting anywhere there, no problem, none at all. I simply delete them. You mentioned my going into a rage. The biggest problem I have with these guys and their hate mail is that it don't work me up, put me in a rage, offer to meaty challenge to make me want to get and do something. They just fall flat, on my end. I am well used to hate email. I realize I work with a radical theological agenda and that this may offend others. Occupational hazard. You should see some of the other hate mail I got. My response is simple, as I have a quick finger on the Delete button. Hence, I can't show any, but there were some real doozies. I just accept the fact that is what all progressive thinker face in the church and that is precisely why I have a Delete button. If I found I couldn't get anywhere anyplace on this site, I would not walk away in rage, I would walk away, saying to myself, "God, that was boring. I don't know why I wasted my time in a place that offers no excitement to me.

 

[Aman777]

Thanks for the heads-up. I am still new to this site, don't really know what to expect, and feel prepared for whatever happens. Fortunately, I have some compatible intellectual sparring partners here and I focus on them. I am willing to go a few rounds with guys here that I find irrational, that I know won't hear ne, simply because it is a great writing exercise for me to practice quickly coming up with a defense, or maybe a further clarifications of my position, right off the top of my head. It quickens my mental reflexes. If or when I see I'm not getting anywhere there, no problem, none at all. I simply delete them. You mentioned my going into a rage. The biggest problem I have with these guys and their hate mail is that it don't work me up, put me in a rage, offer to meaty challenge to make me want to get and do something. They just fall flat, on my end. I am well used to hate email. I realize I work with a radical theological agenda and that this may offend others. Occupational hazard. You should see some of the other hate mail I got. My response is simple, as I have a quick finger on the Delete button. Hence, I can't show any, but there were some real doozies. I just accept the fact that is what all progressive thinker face in the church and that is precisely why I have a Delete button. If I found I couldn't get anywhere anyplace on this site, I would not walk away in rage, I would walk away, saying to myself, "God, that was boring. I don't know why I wasted my time in a place that offers no excitement to me.

Please define "church". Thanks and God bless you.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Please define "church". Thanks and God bless you.

He probably means religious people in general, "church" being used as the term due to the fact that, more likely than not, most of the religious people he debates with are Christians.

 

[Aman777]

He probably means religious people in general, "church" being used as the term due to the fact that, more likely than not, most of the religious people he debates with are Christians.

Some religionists reject the Church's teaching. Some don't know of what the Church is. From his posts, he views everyone who disagrees with him, as filled with hate. It's because he has no standards since he discounts God's Holy Word. So did Lucifer. Amen?

 

[PsychoSarah]

Some religionists reject the Church's teaching. Some don't know of what the Church is. From his posts, he views everyone who disagrees with him, as filled with hate. It's because he has no standards since he discounts God's Holy Word. So did Lucifer. Amen?

I wouldn't know, most of the lore about the devil doesn't come from the bible, which does little to describe his inner workings.

 

[Aman777]

I think (in fact I'm sure) 'Gods holy word' was written by men? as were the Koran and all the other "Holy" books of all the dozens of other religions.
All were written by men for men so can be discounted by men.

Not so, since some of the events of Genesis Chapter 1 are just now being discovered by scientists. The Europeans will soon announce the discovery of the Fact that we live in a Multiverse. God told us this thousands of years ago. The first heaven/universe was made the 2nd Day Gen 1:8 and totally destroyed in the Flood. ll Peter 3:6

The Big Bang, or beginning of our Heaven/Universe, was on the 3rd Day. Gen 2:4 along with the 3rd Heaven. That means that God made a Multiverse by Day 3. No man of the time could have possibly known this. It's empirical (testable) evidence that ONLY God could have possibly authored Genesis. Amen?

 

[Herman Hedning]

... I'll admit though, I haven't read every single post on this forum. ...

You must have read quite a few though, since you made more than 6% of all posts here yourself.