Curious

[Justatruthseeker]

The Church I attended as an undergrad mentioned evolution (as a bad thing) basically every week.

Today, my wife is the pastor of my Church, and she doesn't really talk about such things in her sermons -- she uses the lectionary and typically interprets and applies one or more of the passages of the week. Science doesn't really come into it except as an illustration.

She should start then. The church was once the leader in science and education. I have just always believed since the same Author penned them both - they should go hand in hand.

 

[Willtor]

She should start then. The church was once the leader in science and education. I have just always believed since the same Author penned them both - they should go hand in hand.

To us, theology and science do go hand-in-hand. But they go hand-in-hand as the top students of their respective subjects. We don't read the Bible to learn about the Earth's history because that wasn't what it was written to teach us. Likewise, we don't subscribe to ostensibly science-based popular philosophy. On the other hand, we do look to science for knowledge about the structure and history of the universe and of our species. And we look to the Bible for knowledge about God and the nature of His relationship with us. There is one Author of both, but the two objects are not written in the same language.

 

[yeshuasavedme]

But I can - it dwells everywhere, which is why all of science still relies on that aether they deny...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_permeability
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_permittivity
Nope, you do not know where the light dwells anymore than Job did.
When God said "Light Be"!, He called into being the electromagnetic forces of creation.

You might start learning what is "the electric universe" which God created.
http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/



As to your faulty reasoning against the Word of God in Genesis 1, you need to look at how silly your own imagination is in light of the Word itself.
There was no light when God created the heavens and the earth, in Genesis 1.

Light was called to "Be", and evening and morning were established by the "revolving around the globe, heavens", which were not yet stretched out between the divided in two waters of this created globe; and the Light was separated from the darkness. "Light" and named "Light", on day 1. God called the Light "Day", and the Darkness He called "Night", and the evening and the morning [caused by the revolving heavens that were not yet stretched out from the globe of water, between the not yet divided in two waters], were named "Day" as to the unity of the whole of it, making the first, "one" 18 part "Day" of the creation week. We call the parts 24 hours, now, but God calls them "parts" -Enoch tells us this, and Revelation and Job and Matthew 24:22, and Joshua's command for the sun and moon to stand still, do corroborate it, for in the history "Book of Jasher", the sun stood still 36 "moments", which are the parts, and so did the moon stand still.

The sun revolves around the globe in the revolving heavens, in its own peculiar path, running its course as ordained in its electromagnetic course, which God ordained for it from the beginning, when He created the sun and set it in the heavens on day four of creation week's "evenings and mornings/Days", to govern the "light", by day...


Rev 8:12 And the fourth angel sounded, and the third part of the sun was smitten, and the third part of the moon, and the third part of the stars; so as the third part of them was darkened, and the day shone not for a third part of it, and the night likewise.

Job 17:12 They change the night into day: the light is short because of darkness.

The heavens were not stretched out from the earth until day 2 of creation week's evenings and mornings, in Genesis 1, and not even named until they were stretched out between the cut in two waters of creation, from this globe, which was created as water, and charged with all the powers of His electromagnitic creation when He said "Light, Be!". That is why the Creator named the stretched out "expanse/firmament" Two waters/Sha-mayim".

The half of the creation's waters are still, today, "above the stretched out heavens", in this electric universe -and always will be, for they aid in the conducting of the ""electromagnetic forces of creation".


There was not even "dry: commanded "to be", on this globe of water, until the Creator commanded the waters to be gathered together in one place and "Dry" to "Be", out of the waters. He then named "the Dry", "earth".
That was day 3 of evenings and mornings of creation week, and that same "Day", God called vegetation to spring out of the earth -wholesale! -No "drying time" of mud, as you stated, for when God called it to "Be" out of the waters, He called it to be "Dry/yabbashah "....

 

[Justatruthseeker]

To us, theology and science do go hand-in-hand. But they go hand-in-hand as the top students of their respective subjects. We don't read the Bible to learn about the Earth's history because that wasn't what it was written to teach us. Likewise, we don't subscribe to ostensibly science-based popular philosophy. On the other hand, we do look to science for knowledge about the structure and history of the universe and of our species. And we look to the Bible for knowledge about God and the nature of His relationship with us. There is one Author of both, but the two objects are not written in the same language.

Ahh, but they are - you must simply look beneath the surface to see the language of both. Romans 1:20

It is the Works themselves that show those things of God that can not be seen. Qualities hidden since the beginning, the very part of God that all is made from. The Works themselves that will eventually leave them with no more excuses to deny God. One just has to wait until technology advances. And as it does those excuses are removed one by one - until there are no more and we bring about our own judgement.

No, the Bible wasn't written to teach us earth's history - but mankind's. But the Works were written to teach us earth's history - and not just mankind's through the Word. So if the same Author penned them both and one has a seeming discrepancy between one or the other, then the interpretation of one or the other is wrong. But personally I don't see a God from eternity, or a man living 800 years - to be calling a mere 2500 years prior to his birth, of ancient times.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

You might start learning what is "the electric universe" which God created.
http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/

Apparently you are new here.

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/astronomers-should-be-sued-for-false-advertizing-4.7844589/

We've been arguing that for going on two years now. And I expect I may have just as good if not better grasp than you of EU theory.

 

[yeshuasavedme]

Apparently you are new here.

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/astronomers-should-be-sued-for-false-advertizing-4.7844589/

We've been arguing that for going on two years now. And I expect I may have just as good if not better grasp than you of EU theory.

Well, I joined in 2004, so I am "newer" than you....what has that to do with anything?
I have believed in the electric universe since the first time I read the book of Enoch, and with things that I already knew and had read in the Word of God, or in other places or understood or had seen; reading Enoch gave me the final understanding that the creation is "electric", and all the forces of creation are electro-magnetic forces and they all came "to be" when God said "Light Be"!, in the beginning.
[then I began searching and found that, indeed! many have long understood, demonstrated, and written the same, though they are not Bible Believers, they corroborate the "Electric creation"...]

And I have stated the same in many posts on this CF forum...though I am not anything more than a great granny and mother of seven and married to one husband for, soon to be finished, 52nd year. By just reading the Word of God that I love, and seeing what He said and believing it, I have found delightful confirmations in many places and ways to the facts of the electric universe.

It all starts in Genesis 1.
So there is no way there was anything before day one of Genesis 1, and no light until verse 1, and no heavens stretched out from the earth till day 2, between the cut in two waters of creation; and all the stars are electric, and the sun is not a burning furnace, but the Menorrah receiving the powers from the "Light", conducted to it by the stars, and refracted back out to the creation as the governor of that light by day.

And the beauty of believing what God tells us in His Word, in that He created the sun on day 4, and set it in the heavens to govern the "Light" by day, is that He confrims it all to one who asks and wants to understand; and the great glory of it all is that in the Word, He tells us that in the the sun, He has set His own created temple in the created heavens, where He, as God the Great Glory, God the Word, sits on the throne of Glory and looks down upon the globe and men upon it and they are as grasshoppers in His sight.

So, there was no sun before day 4.
There was no created temple in the sun until day 4.
He did not make His throne in the sun til day 4.
The sun runs its electromagnetic course in the circle of the earth, where He sits.

Man has changed His word to be a garbled glob of nothing since Galileo, but the Hebrew, the Septuagint, the Latin Vulgate, and the Douay Rheims all state the truth of the Word as God gave it: "He has set His temple/dwelling place, in the sun".

The sun is not a furnace, nor a star, but governor of the electro-magneticilly received powers of "The Light", and He does call it a "Menorrah", in the beginning.

I did a thread on the facts of the Word of God stating His created temple is set in His created sun in His created heavens.

http://www.christianforums.com/thre...-god-which-is-in-the-created-heavens.7259341/

I have gained more understanding since I first posted that, but the facts are the same, as to the Word...

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Well, I joined in 2004, so I am "newer" than you....what has that to do with anything?
I have believed in the electric universe since the first time I read the book of Enoch, and with things that I already knew and had read in the Word of God, or in other places or understood or had seen; reading Enoch gave me the final understanding that the creation is "electric", and all the forces of creation are electro-magnetic forces and they all came "to be" when God said "Light Be"!, in the beginning.
[then I began searching and found that, indeed! many have long understood, demonstrated, and written the same, though they are not Bible Believers, they corroborate the "Electric creation"...]

And I have stated the same in many posts on this CF forum...though I am not anything more than a great granny and mother of seven and married to one husband for, soon to be finished, 52nd year. By just reading the Word of God that I love, and seeing what He said and believing it, I have found delightful confirmations in many places and ways to the facts of the electric universe.

It all starts in Genesis 1.
So there is no way there was anything before day one of Genesis 1, and no light until verse 1, and no heavens stretched out from the earth till day 2, between the cut in two waters of creation; and all the stars are electric, and the sun is not a burning furnace, but the Menorrah receiving the powers from the "Light", conducted to it by the stars, and refracted back out to the creation as the governor of that light by day.

And the beauty of believing what God tells us in His Word, in that He created the sun on day 4, and set it in the heavens to govern the "Light" by day, is that He confrims it all to one who asks and wants to understand; and the great glory of it all is that in the Word, He tells us that in the the sun, He has set His own created temple in the created heavens, where He, as God the Great Glory, God the Word, sits on the throne of Glory and looks down upon the globe and men upon it and they are as grasshoppers in His sight.

So, there was no sun before day 4.
There was no created temple in the sun until day 4.
He did not make His throne in the sun til day 4.
The sun runs its electromagnetic course in the circle of the earth, where He sits.

Man has changed His word to be a garbled glob of nothing since Galileo, but the Hebrew, the Septuagint, the Latin Vulgate, and the Douay Rheims all state the truth of the Word as God gave it: "He has set His temple/dwelling place, in the sun".

The sun is not a furnace, nor a star, but governor of the electro-magneticilly received powers of "The Light", and He does call it a "Menorrah", in the beginning.

I did a thread on the facts of the Word of God stating His created temple is set in His created sun in His created heavens.

http://www.christianforums.com/thre...-god-which-is-in-the-created-heavens.7259341/

I have gained more understanding since I first posted that, but the facts are the same, as to the Word...

And once again stop mistranslating "hayah" in the first chapter of genesis. The ONLY place they translate is as "was". In all other places it is translated to mean "became,"

http://biblehub.com/interlinear/genesis/1.htm

http://biblehub.com/hebrew/1961.htm

There is no sense trying to justify an incorrect interpretation of the 2nd word of the 2nd verse of the Bible - all to hold to an incorrect pre-conceived idea of a young earth. Mankind was created recently - not the earth. Which is why you will never be able to justify no bones of modern animals mixed in with dinosaurs. Because you start from an incorrect perspective.

 

[yeshuasavedme]

And once again stop mistranslating "hayah" in the first chapter of genesis. The ONLY place they translate is as "was". In all other places it is translated to mean "became,"

http://biblehub.com/interlinear/genesis/1.htm

http://biblehub.com/hebrew/1961.htm

There is no sense trying to justify an incorrect interpretation of the 2nd word of the 2nd verse of the Bible - all to hold to an incorrect pre-conceived idea of a young earth. Mankind was created recently - not the earth. Which is why you will never be able to justify no bones of modern animals mixed in with dinosaurs. Because you start from an incorrect perspective.

It is most silly to try to make your translation make up a doctrine that is not the Word of God at all!

There were no heavens stretched out from the globe of water until day 2 of creation week. -No heavens stretched out! -see?
The heavens were not stretched out until day 2 of creation week.
They were named "two waters/Sha-Mayim" because half the waters of this created globe were raised above the stretched out heavens on day 2 of creation week.

There were no heavens "out there", until they were stretched out on day 2, between the cut in two waters of this created globe of waters. Before that, they were all of a piece with the globe of waters, which was not even named "earth" until the "dry" was brought forth out of the waters -it was not mud, as you claimed, either, but "dry".

The "dry" was called "earth". It did not exist until day 3 of creation week. On the same day 3 of creation week that the "dry" was called out of the Waters below the stretched out heavens [which waters were gathered together in one place], God called the earth to "bring forth vegetation", and it all sprang up all over the "dry" of this globe, which Dry, God called "earth"....just as the heavens were not even named "heavens" until the"expanse" was stretched out between the cut in two waters of the created globe.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

It is most silly to try to make your translation make up a doctrine that is not the Word of God at all!

There were no heavens stretched out from the globe of water until day 2 of creation week. -No heavens stretched out! -see?
The heavens were not stretched out until day 2 of creation week.
They were named "two waters/Sha-Mayim" because half the waters of this created globe were raised above the stretched out heavens on day 2 of creation week.

There were no heavens "out there", until they were stretched out on day 2, between the cut in two waters of this created globe of waters. Before that, they were all of a piece with the globe of waters, which was not even named "earth" until the "dry" was brought forth out of the waters -it was not mud, as you claimed, either, but "dry".

The "dry" was called "earth". It did not exist until day 3 of creation week. On the same day 3 of creation week that the "dry" was called out of the Waters below the stretched out heavens [which waters were gathered together in one place], God called the earth to "bring forth vegetation", and it all sprang up all over the "dry" of this globe, which Dry, God called "earth"....just as the heavens were not even named "heavens" until the"expanse" was stretched out between the cut in two waters of the created globe.

No, what is silly is to pretend you can translate words to mean other than they mean and that's ok to do so - all to uphold a belief not supported in the Bible at all. A belief formulated by man over 1000 years ago - back when people believed bees came from flowers.

Why are you ignoring the meaning of the word "hayah" to attempt to perpetuate your pre-concieved beliefs? When nowhere but the first chapter of Genesis do they translate it as "was"? Why are you so adamant about using a false translation?

 

[yeshuasavedme]

No, what is silly is to pretend you can translate words to mean other than they mean and that's ok to do so - all to uphold a belief not supported in the Bible at all. A belief formulated by man over 1000 years ago - back when people believed bees came from flowers.

Why are you ignoring the meaning of the word "hayah" to attempt to perpetuate your pre-concieved beliefs? When nowhere but the first chapter of Genesis do they translate it as "was"? Why are you so adamant about using a false translation?

Frankly, your attempt to divert the very plain language of Genesis 1 so as to hold onto a false doctrine made up by fallible men is what is not acceptable.
So there was no heavens stretched out from this globe of water until day 2 of creation week.

The heavens were not named until they were stretched out between the divided/cut in two waters of creation, and then they were named "two waters"- Hebrew "shin", for the "two", and the "mayim", for the waters, which we transliterate "shamayim".

So God names things, from the beginning, as signs of what He has done; and the earth was not named before the waters below the stretched out heavens were commanded be gathered together in one place, and the dry to appear.
The "dry" was then, on day three, named "Earth".

There was no "earth" until day 3 of creation week; just a globe of water, with half the waters above the stretched out expanse named "two waters".
In a former post, you claimed that time was needed -in spite of what the Word clearly states- for the "mud" of earth to "dry out". You clearly do not understand the Hebrew there at all, in spite of your making claims of such, so as to change the entire doctrine as God wrote it, firstly; in the "Scripture of Truth" which He, God the Word, wrote in heaven [Daniel 10:21, in the original language refers to it], for the "sons of God to read and know what would befall the sons of Adam from the beginning to the end", as Enoch also states.

Adam was "Adam, son of God in heaven"; in the third heaven, in Paradise, when he was created from the dust of earth and taken from the "midst of earth below", as the Word states [for the Hebrew word transliterated to English as "laqach" means, "to remove from one place to another, to go get, to take away, to fetch, to marry, 'rapture', even', etc...] and set in Paradise, God's Garden, which He planted in Mount Eden above, the Holy Mount of God [Ezekiel 28:13- and which Garden is stated in the word to be, specifically, in the third heaven.

So Adam was taken from the earth below and set in Paradise above, in the third heaven, in God's Garden, and was made to "labor in and to guard" Paradise, as the Hebrew states; before he was tempted, and chose to become irrevocably unclean by disobedience, and was driven out/divorced [as the Hebrew word means], and cast down, and was no longer in fellowship with the Presence of the Great Glory above, and was no longer "Adam, son of God".

But the promise was given for the redemption and restoration in the "Seed of the Woman [Jerusalem above, personified from Genesis to Revelation as a Woman], and to Mount Eden, God's Holy Mount, where the Tree of Life is, shall we who believe and receive the Salvation in the Redeemer/Kinsman, be restored, but not in the "Adam" name, but in the New Name of the New Man, whose name is "Israel", as to His "Kinsman/Redeemer flesh" made new for Him to put on and wear like a garment, in the womb of the virgin.

There shall we dwell and have free coming and going in and out, between Paradise in the third heaven and the earth below, and shall ever be in fellowship and in the presence of, the Great Glory, God the Word, there, as Adam was before he became unclean and could no longer enter into that presence and so, was divorced from the Presence and cast down to the earth below, to labor in vain all his days, and never be, "Adam, son of God", again.

 

[yeshuasavedme]

double post

 

[abysmul]

I've attended churches all my life, of various denominations over the years, and I've never heard the subject brought up in a sermon or service.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Frankly, your attempt to divert the very plain language of Genesis 1 so as to hold onto a false doctrine made up by fallible men is what is not acceptable.
So there was no heavens stretched out from this globe of water until day 2 of creation week.

The heavens were not named until they were stretched out between the divided/cut in two waters of creation, and then they were named "two waters"- Hebrew "shin", for the "two", and the "mayim", for the waters, which we transliterate "shamayim".

So God names things, from the beginning, as signs of what He has done; and the earth was not named before the waters below the stretched out heavens were commanded be gathered together in one place, and the dry to appear.
The "dry" was then, on day three, named "Earth".

There was no "earth" until day 3 of creation week; just a globe of water, with half the waters above the stretched out expanse named "two waters".
In a former post, you claimed that time was needed -in spite of what the Word clearly states- for the "mud" of earth to "dry out". You clearly do not understand the Hebrew there at all, in spite of your making claims of such, so as to change the entire doctrine as God wrote it, firstly; in the "Scripture of Truth" which He, God the Word, wrote in heaven [Daniel 10:21, in the original language refers to it], for the "sons of God to read and know what would befall the sons of Adam from the beginning to the end", as Enoch also states.

Adam was "Adam, son of God in heaven"; in the third heaven, in Paradise, when he was created from the dust of earth and taken from the "midst of earth below", as the Word states [for the Hebrew word transliterated to English as "laqach" means, "to remove from one place to another, to go get, to take away, to fetch, to marry, 'rapture', even', etc...] and set in Paradise, God's Garden, which He planted in Mount Eden above, the Holy Mount of God [Ezekiel 28:13- and which Garden is stated in the word to be, specifically, in the third heaven.

So Adam was taken from the earth below and set in Paradise above, in the third heaven, in God's Garden, and was made to "labor in and to guard" Paradise, as the Hebrew states; before he was tempted, and chose to become irrevocably unclean by disobedience, and was driven out/divorced [as the Hebrew word means], and cast down, and was no longer in fellowship with the Presence of the Great Glory above, and was no longer "Adam, son of God".

But the promise was given for the redemption and restoration in the "Seed of the Woman [Jerusalem above, personified from Genesis to Revelation as a Woman], and to Mount Eden, God's Holy Mount, where the Tree of Life is, shall we who believe and receive the Salvation in the Redeemer/Kinsman, be restored, but not in the "Adam" name, but in the New Name of the New Man, whose name is "Israel", as to His "Kinsman/Redeemer flesh" made new for Him to put on and wear like a garment, in the womb of the virgin.

There shall we dwell and have free coming and going in and out, between Paradise in the third heaven and the earth below, and shall ever be in fellowship and in the presence of, the Great Glory, God the Word, there, as Adam was before he became unclean and could no longer enter into that presence and so, was divorced from the Presence and cast down to the earth below, to labor in vain all his days, and never be, "Adam, son of God", again.

Then why do you keep ignoring what "hayah" means? You can talk all you like - but you can't change the meaning of a word just because you don't like what it really means. You have yet to justify your ignoring the meaning of the second word of verse two of the first chapter of genesis. let alone then believing anything else you say the Bible means means what you say. You have yet to get past that second word, yet to justify translating it as "was" and not what it means "became".

 

[yeshuasavedme]

you are the one ignoring....
your claim is debunked by the Word, from the beginning.
there is no way you can twist all the beginning out of its plain declarations with "wordcrafting".

 

[yeshuasavedme]

I've attended churches all my life, of various denominations over the years, and I've never heard the subject brought up in a sermon or service.

How can that be????
The Churches would have to throw out and ignore the Word from the beginning, to "never have it brought up", because it is just the Word, itself, so how can it be ignored in a "Christian, Bible believing Church???

 

[Lukamu]

I'm a regular Church attendee, once or twice a week. Unless I missed one, there has never been a service which even mentioned evolution or the age of the earth. For that matter, I've never heard anyone there even talk about it.

With that in mind, I'm curious as to what others have experienced. Is that a usual topic at your church, occasional topic, rare topic, or never discussed.

I've been attending the same church for 20 years, having visited a few others on occasion, and your right... now that I think of it... the pastors have never mentioned evolution and the age of the earth. I think maybe that's because it is such a divisive subject. I think it's crazy to believe the world is only 6000 years old, but I also think evolution is absurd. I don't discuss this with some people because it would just start an argument where the best outcome would be agreeing to disagree. However, I also don't think your viewpoint on evolution and the age of the earth will keep you from being saved and spending eternity with Christ. When I get to heaven, God willing, I'm sure I'll be like "Ooohhh, so THAT's how it happened!" (regarding creation)

 

[Ada Lovelace]

At the churches I attend (I am active in more than one because of special ministries) evolution isn't a divisive, debatable, or unsettled subject, but it's infrequently discussed simply because it's more beneficial for us to learn about how live to a meaningful and upstanding life than to talk about how life evolved.

Edited because of a typo.

 

[Lukamu]

At the churches I attend (I am active in more than one because of special ministries) evolution isn't a divisive, debatable, or unsettled subject, but it's infrequently discussed simply because it's more beneficial for us to learn about how to a meaningful and upstanding life than to talk about how life evolved.

Yes, how does knowing the exact age of the Earth help us live more godly lives? Perhaps in places where it remains debatable, it could be used as an example in a sermon on "how to argue in a godly way," which many people would benefit from hearing!

 

[yeshuasavedme]

It all comes down to believing the Creator one professes to "know" -or not.
We are to study to show ourselves approved, workmen that need not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the Word of Truth, and we are to compare Scripture with Scripture for doctrinal understanding.....
If there is no truth in Genesis as it is stated, then there is no fall, no redemption, no Salvation.
Some people are happy to not know anything.
I want to know. I want to know my Creator more. I want to eat His word, and make it part of me.
I want to be able to give an answer to every man for the hope that lies within me.

If people do not want to know anything, then why would they post on a forum like this???

 

[zippy2]

It all comes down to believing the Creator one professes to "know" -or not.
We are to study to show ourselves approved, workmen that need not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the Word of Truth, and we are to compare Scripture with Scripture for doctrinal understanding.....
If there is no truth in Genesis as it is stated, then there is no fall, no redemption, no Salvation.
Some people are happy to not know anything.
I want to know. I want to know my Creator more. I want to eat His word, and make it part of me.
I want to be able to give an answer to every man for the hope that lies within me.

If people do not want to know anything, then why would they post on a forum like this???

Yes, but understand that some people are Martha's and some people are Mary's.

You are a Mary, dear.