God Created the world 6000 years ago

[createdtoworship]

No, you called me a witless, uneducated fool but that's much better then being called an idiot.

You are doing the same thing you always do, insulting, belittling and demeaning Bible believing Christians. Now I appreciate the fact that you are trying to be the peacemaker here but don't plead innocence, you flame creationists continually.

I know your well educated and a scientific professional, I actually respect that. What offends me is that you make a Christian profession only to spend your spare time attacking people who you are supposed to be united with by faith in the risen Savior.

If you want to correct someone, by all means, confront error with facts. Making it personal is not only a clear violation of the rules but a fallacious ad hominem attack. You might want to consider that while your bashing people for believing the Bible as it was intended to be understood.

Have a nice day
Mark

The Bible says in 1 corinthians 1 regarding righteous fools....

For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.

19For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.

20Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?

21For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.

22For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:

23But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;

24But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.

25Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.

26For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called:

27But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;

28And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are:

29That no flesh should glory in his presence.

 

[Assyrian]

He's stating that people who are not sinful will not suffer the iniquities of past sin, as the sin of the father will wash away along with him. Or vice versa, the past generation will not suffer the inequities of the next generation who is of sinful nature, as the next generation would have no foothold.
The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.

However he also explain what the wicked having the wickedness on himself means. It means bearing the punishment of your own sins, Ezek 18:13 NET Because he has done all these abominable deeds he will certainly die. He will bear the responsibility for his own death.
But even if you want to read it as wickedness being passed down through the generations, Ezekiel says it isn't. The father's wickedness is on himself not his son.

An important thing to know about sin is that it literally means to 'miss the point'. It doesn't have to amount to a single, instant act.
When it is said that sinners will die, it simply means those who just 'miss the point' in general.

It is certainly more than a single act, but it begins with a single act that bring spiritual death. Rom 7:9 And I was once alive apart from the law, but with the coming of the commandment sin became alive 10 and I died. This death and sin becomes our way of life Eph 2:1 you were dead in your transgressions and sins, 2 in which you formerly lived.

You die in or by your sins, not for them.

The bible certainly says people die in their sins, but it also says we die because of them too. Rom 5:12 and so death spread to all people because all sinned.

This is overlooked by some who think that because they are avid Christians, they are completely sinless. They do not realize that it is practically impossible because of the plague of sin. It's been a domino effect since Adam and Eve.

What domino effect? We have just seen in Ezekiel that sin isn't passed down the generations.

And that is the significance of the events in the Garden, because it shows that he smallest sin is the birth of chaos.
The Chaos Theory can be used to exemplify this very well. The smallest, seemingly insignificant thing will result into something much more consequential.

You are not suggesting the laws of mathematics changed in the garden are you? Anyway I think you misunderstand the chaos theory. Not all butterflies cause hurricanes, most straws don't break a camel's back.

But only because of existing sin by the Adversary. That's kind of the point, really. The Adversary had them eat a forbidden fruit, and it cursed mankind forever. To put it into perspective: my friend has a drink in the fridge, Someone talks me into drinking it, so I do, and I just did something wrong. I have realized good and evil. (Just hypothetically, I was a perfect being)

You have to want to drink it first, it has to taste good and you have to be thirsty, otherwise how could your friend talk you into it? Eve sinned because she allowed her desires to lead her into disobedience. Gen 3:6 ESV So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate. Doesn't sound particularly perfect to me, she just sound like any other human being drawn into sin by our natural appetites.

Remember what James said? James 1:14 But each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire. 15 Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin, and sin when it is fully grown brings forth death. How was Eve any different?

Exactly, as the old law is harsh and not very forgiving. It is meant to halt sin at it's advance. Some people find it to be some malevolent tyranny by God, but if every single person in the world followed it to a tee, there would be no contagious curse floating around, and we would be like Adam and Eve pre-fall.

They didn't follow God's law, so what's the difference? You need to show we sin because of Adam and Eve's sin, not because we are like them, and follow our natural appetites instead of obeying God.

Gal 3:10 For all who20 rely on doing the works of the law are under a curse, because it is written, "Cursed is everyone who does not keep on doing everything written in the book of the law."21

The Adversary is completely alien to us except by our shared natures. He simply took advantage of the naivety of Adam and Eve, and it through them that sin was brought to the world. If the Adversary was not originally ordained as the keeper of Earth, he would not have been able to place his sin to us through them.

That is a 'yes' then? The first sin in the world was the snake's. Why does Paul say Rom 5:12 sin came into the world through one man?

 

[Assyrian]

These are two different things. One is through the man as an individual and the other is through the entire model of mankind through Adam.

If you believe Adam was the father of mankind, then Ezekiel says we do not bear the consequences of his sin.

Unfortunately will extends as far back as God through his grant of free will. Will takes on a greater significance there than on a purely material basis. It's only after Darwinism is implanted you are forced to contort desire to serve on a purely physical basis and the fall to when a beast man tripped on a stone.

Try not to confuse your jaundiced view of TE with what we actually believe. Why ever would you think my view of the fall was "a beast man tripped on a stone" when I just described their sin as "Disobeying the Lord God their creator"?

 

[Sum1sGruj]

The bible certainly says people die in their sins, but it also says we die because of them too. Rom 5:12 and so death spread to all people because all sinned.

Romans 5:12
Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned

It pretty much consolidates what I have stated on sin.

You are not suggesting the laws of mathematics changed in the garden are you? Anyway I think you misunderstand the chaos theory. Not all butterflies cause hurricanes, most straws don't break a camel's back.

No. What is it about anything science that makes some people seem to just jump completely off the edge whenever it is merely mentioned?
The theory was meant to show the fragility of the situation and how the simple act lead all the way to now. The theory is one largely of cause and effect, of course not everything ultimately leads to chaos., not in the layman sense anyways.

You have to want to drink it first, it has to taste good and you have to be thirsty, otherwise how could your friend talk you into it? Eve sinned because she allowed her desires to lead her into disobedience. Gen 3:6 ESV So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate. Doesn't sound particularly perfect to me, she just sound like any other human being drawn into sin by our natural appetites.

Remember what James said? James 1:14 But each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire. 15 Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin, and sin when it is fully grown brings forth death. How was Eve any different?

They didn't follow God's law, so what's the difference? You need to show we sin because of Adam and Eve's sin, not because we are like them, and follow our natural appetites instead of obeying God.

Then desire when it has conceived gave birth to sin
- meaning her desire conceived sin and was born when she acted on it. Afterwords, came death.
A domino effect- meaning it wasn't an isolated incident, it has stayed with man since.

That is a 'yes' then? The first sin in the world was the snake's. Why does Paul say Rom 5:12 sin came into the world through one man?

Obviously, he is implying the Garden of Eden, not evolution.

Seems like TE has a big problem on it's hands.

 

[Assyrian]

Romans 5:12
Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned

It pretty much consolidates what I have stated on sin.

How? You think 'in this way' refers to an inherited tendency to sin, yet Paul hasn't mentioned inheriting Adam's sin, so why would he call it 'this way'? He is however talking about how death came to all people and he has just told us how death came to Adam, death came to all men the same way it came to Adam, he sinned and as a result died. And just in case there is any confusion, Paul goes on to spell it out. Death came to all men because all sinned - the same as it came to the first person to sin.

No. What is it about anything science that makes some people seem to just jump completely off the edge whenever it is merely mentioned? The theory was meant to show the fragility of the situation and how the simple act lead all the way to now. The theory is one largely of cause and effect, of course not everything ultimately leads to chaos., not in the layman sense anyways.

Sorry, misunderstood what you were saying there Sin certainly had disastrous consequences for mankind, way beyond the apparent significance of the action.

Then desire when it has conceived gave birth to sin
- meaning her desire conceived sin and was born when she acted on it. Afterwords, came death.
A domino effect- meaning it wasn't an isolated incident, it has stayed with man since.

Depends on what you mean by that. Do you mean the same sort of domino effect occurs in each of our lives when we desire, sin and die, or are you trying to protray a domino effect stretching through time from Eve? Because James portrays a new domino effect started each time by our desires, the same as it did in Eden.

Obviously, he is implying the Garden of Eden, not evolution.

Seems like TE has a big problem on it's hands.

Except Paul isn't implying anything that contradicts evolution either. For one thing Paul is talking how man disobeyed God, not how God made man in the first place, secondly I think Paul is speaking figuratively, like he says in verse 14. You are the one who is contradicting Paul with sin entering the world through a snake rather than 'through one man' as Paul says. Are you sure you don't want to change that claim.

 

[Sum1sGruj]

How? You think 'in this way' refers to an inherited tendency to sin, yet Paul hasn't mentioned inheriting Adam's sin, so why would he call it 'this way'? He is however talking about how death came to all people and he has just told us how death came to Adam, death came to all men the same way it came to Adam, he sinned and as a result died. And just in case there is any confusion, Paul goes on to spell it out. Death came to all men because all sinned - the same as it came to the first person to sin.

We are not inherited with sin. We are born into sin, and eventually get caught in the tides of it.
That we are inherited sinners is a common misconception actually, and brings on the wrong idea of sin.

Matthew 19:13-14
Then people brought little children to Jesus for him to place his hands on them and pray for them. But the disciples rebuked them. Jesus said, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.” When he had placed his hands on them, he went on from there.

From what we see, children belong to the kingdom of heaven. In fact, Jesus tells us that we are to be like children or we will not inherit the kingdom.

But this should not confuse the fact they are still sinners. They know of good and evil whereas a newborn is pure. The notion was simply grace at work.

Romans 5:12
Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned—

Sin entered the world through one man, and the sin which entered the world caused death.
Just as one man brought this to the world, everyone else does to. Then it continues:

Romans 5:13-14
To be sure, sin was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not charged against anyone’s account where there is no law. Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who is a pattern of the one to come.



In all reality, the passage kind of defeats the whole argument. From this, we see that sin existed before the law was given, stretching from the time of Adam, but not before it. Therefore, sin could not have existed before the time of Adam, which means that TE has a mighty problem trying to show how evolution of man fits into the picture.

To conclude what I stated on Romans 5:12, sin resulted from Adam as seen in the bold text in Romans 5:14. In turn, we are plagued by sin, and sin just from acknowledging good and evil and thus acting on it, even in the slightest. Even the little sins reach out to the next generation, though neither is responsible for each other. We are only plagued by it if we let it do so, but we are merely human and so such a thing is unreachable in all reasonable practicality.



All the verses in the Bible speaking of sin presents this grand symmetry.

This is why I mentioned the chaos theory (which I was a bit vague with, sry). It helps to illustrate the cause and effect between all things down to the smallest event. In this case, the plague of sin.

 

[KerrMetric]

Do you think light can cause curvature?

 

[Sum1sGruj]

Do you think light can cause curvature?

I was never wrong in what I stated, and quite frankly do not want to discuss it further. You were trying to tell me I was wrong when what I stated merely reflected the idea of gravitational lensing, in which light takes a curved path due to gravity of another object.
Einstein's relativity made sense of the phenomenon, theorizing a duality of movement and space.

So please, save it. I've made my point and put a major dent in TE, which is something you should care about because it came someone as 'unqualified' as myself and has to do with your beliefs. But the only thing you like to do is remain silent on anything that doesn't require trying to insult someone's intelligence on a moot point.

 

[KerrMetric]

I was never wrong in what I stated, and quite frankly do not want to discuss it further. You were trying to tell me I was wrong when what I stated merely reflected the idea of gravitational lensing, in which light takes a curved path due to gravity of another object.
Einstein's relativity made sense of the phenomenon, theorizing a duality of movement and space.

Go back and read your original post on this. You made (yet another) error of fact.

 

[Sum1sGruj]

Go back and read your original post on this. You made (yet another) error of fact.

No I didn't. Just give it up. Are you really so desperate as to try and lure me into a straw man? That is your field of debate, not mine.
I know I'm right, you know I'm right, so just on with all that. It makes me suspicious if you are even all what you say you are, to be perfectly honest. Someone with a PhD in astrophysics wouldn't be so insecure as to follow someone around, trying to correct someone stating the sky is blue with stating it's sky blue. Or in some cases, not even that.
What a mighty man you are.

 

[Assyrian]

We are not inherited with sin. We are born into sin, and eventually get caught in the tides of it.
That we are inherited sinners is a common misconception actually, and brings on the wrong idea of sin.

You would need to explain what 'born into sin' actually means and provided some scriptural basis for the claim.

Matthew 19:13-14
Then people brought little children to Jesus for him to place his hands on them and pray for them. But the disciples rebuked them. Jesus said, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.” When he had placed his hands on them, he went on from there.

From what we see, children belong to the kingdom of heaven. In fact, Jesus tells us that we are to be like children or we will not inherit the kingdom.

But this should not confuse the fact they are still sinners. They know of good and evil whereas a newborn is pure. The notion was simply grace at work.

How did they become sinners unless that actually sinned and how do they have the knowledge of good and evil if they were born without it?

Romans 5:12
Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned—

Sin entered the world through one man, and the sin which entered the world caused death.
Just as one man brought this to the world, everyone else does to. Then it continues:

Romans 5:13-14
To be sure, sin was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not charged against anyone’s account where there is no law. Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who is a pattern of the one to come.

In all reality, the passage kind of defeats the whole argument. From this, we see that sin existed before the law was given, stretching from the time of Adam, but not before it. Therefore, sin could not have existed before the time of Adam, which means that TE has a mighty problem trying to show how evolution of man fits into the picture.

I don't think the time before the law is an issue because Paul had already shown that Gentile without the Mosaic law still had a law written on their hearts, they still understand right and wrong.

I don't see that there is any difference between the evolutionary of mankind and the development of a child. A little child has to grow before it can come to a stage of moral accountability. It is then, as Paul outlined in Rom 7:9, we sin and die. Go back far enough in time and you will find ancestors of the human race with no more moral accountability than a small child. It doesn't just depend depend on our development either, God had to call humanity into relationship with him not just for our biological lifespan, but beyond it too.

To conclude what I stated on Romans 5:12, sin resulted from Adam as seen in the bold text in Romans 5:14.

Romans 5:14 doesn't say sin resulted from Adam, it says people before Moses sinned differently to Adam.

who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam
​

In turn, we are plagued by sin, and sin just from acknowledging good and evil and thus acting on it, even in the slightest. Even the little sins reach out to the next generation, though neither is responsible for each other. We are only plagued by it if we let it do so, but we are merely human and so such a thing is unreachable in all reasonable practicality.

You seem to be downplaying the influence of previous generations here. I agree we are influenced by our upbringing and by the broken world around us. But it is still our desires that lead to sin and death, Just as we read about in the garden. If the story in Genesis tells us anything, it is that we cannot blame our parents or society, because even in the best environment, we would still be drawn away from God by following our desires.

All the verses in the Bible speaking of sin presents this grand symmetry.

This is why I mentioned the chaos theory (which I was a bit vague with, sry). It helps to illustrate the cause and effect between all things down to the smallest event. In this case, the plague of sin.

Symmetry?

 

[Jazer]

the text that says the universe is only six thousand years old.

The text says that Adam and Eve were real people that God put in the Garden in Eden 6,000 years ago. Most people do not even understand that much. Of course most people do not read the geneologys, so you can not expect them to know what they skip over and do not read.

 

[KerrMetric]

And the mistakes I made were incredibly minimal,

So you do admit mistakes. And they weren't minimal, they just showed a lack of expertise. This isn't a big deal except when someone is trying to come off as informed. You are not informed.

 

[Papias]

mark wrote:

It's not because he is dumb or deceitful but because his claims cannot be reconciled to science or Scripture.

That's really funny, coming from someone who has hidden evidence about brain sizes, pretended that natural selection doesn't select good mutations over harmful ones, and has even denied that the Catholic Church allows theistic evolution!



Papias

 

[mark kennedy]

That's really funny, coming from someone who has hidden evidence about brain sizes

As usual you are twisting the evidence, my central issue is that the human brain had neither the time nor the means to have evolved from that of apes. There is not 'hidden' evidence, just an audacious lack of it.

pretended that natural selection doesn't select good mutations over harmful ones,

With a cranial capacity nearly three times that of the chimpanzee the molecular basis for this giant leap in evolutionary history is still almost, completely unknown. Changes in brain related genes are characterized by debilitating disease and disorder and yet our decent from a common ancestor with the chimpanzee would have had to be marked by a massive overhaul of brain related genes. I propose that a critical examination of common descent in the light of modern insights into molecular mechanisms of inheritance is the single strongest argument against human/ape common ancestry.

Pick a chromosome, any chromosome and you will find a disease or disorder effecting the human brain as the result of a mutation.

Human Genome Project Landmark Poster

Pretending that errors in DNA replication is a molecular mechanism capable of overhauling highly conserved genes on an evolutionary scale is the true deception here.

and has even denied that the Catholic Church allows theistic evolution!
Papias

It doesn't allow theistic evolution as it is commonly accepted and taught by the vast majority of TEs. Do you still believe that Adam married an ape?

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[ahopelessmoth]

Or the simple fact that when you look up at the night sky, some of those little points of light that you see, are hundreds of millions of light years away. The most distant observable object in the night sky that can be seen with the naked eye is the Andromeda Galaxy, it's over two billion light years away. That means that for the light you currently are seeing to have traveled the distance to your eyes, it has taken over two billion years.

That's a simple fact. It's unavoidable unless one believes that God decided to trick us all, creating light in mid transit. That is, God created a universe with a 14 billion year old history only six thousand years ago. That's deception, and what it says about God is theologically toxic.

-CryptoLutheran

I'm not trying to be rude (so please forgive me if I am) but are you implying that God can't do what he wants? Are you implying that God is not sovereign? Why couldn't God have placed his stars in his sky? He created the Universe by speaking. Why couldn't the place the stars instantly where he wanted them? God is outside of time. God is outside of distance.

 

[Sum1sGruj]

I'm not trying to be rude (so please forgive me if I am) but are you implying that God can't do what he wants? Are you implying that God is not sovereign? Why couldn't God have placed his stars in his sky? He created the Universe by speaking. Why couldn't the place the stars instantly where he wanted them? God is outside of time. God is outside of distance.

Somehow it's just so absurd for some that God, the seat of existence, the absolute essence of all that is, would create the universe in any allotted time he saw fitted other then what they want to perceive it. And not only that, but somehow He's a deceiver if He made it different then what they think.
I think some really need to do some self-reflection and realize that there logic is nothing compared to God. Man has deceived itself into thinking God has to obey the laws of reality that we are stuck with.

You are right, those things are limiting His power, and foolishly at that, because it carries no weight. God created the world how the Bible states, not by what Dawkins states.

 

[Willtor]

I'm not trying to be rude (so please forgive me if I am) but are you implying that God can't do what he wants? Are you implying that God is not sovereign? Why couldn't God have placed his stars in his sky? He created the Universe by speaking. Why couldn't the place the stars instantly where he wanted them? God is outside of time. God is outside of distance.

I don't think anybody disputes that God _could_ have done it any way He wanted.

But if He did it 6000 years ago, what makes you think there really are any stars more than 6000 light years away? If you say it's because God would not deceive us by creating the light "in transit" without also creating the stars behind the light, then you are accepting CryptoLutheran's premise that things really _are_ as they seem. And the universe is billions of years old.

 

[theFijian]

I'm not trying to be rude (so please forgive me if I am) but are you implying that God can't do what he wants? Are you implying that God is not sovereign?

I dont think anyone here is implying these things.

Why couldn't God have placed his stars in his sky? He created the Universe by speaking. Why couldn't the place the stars instantly where he wanted them?

The claim isn't that he couldn't have, simply that he didn't.

God is outside of time. God is outside of distance.

I think we'd all have no problem agreeing on this

 

[Sum1sGruj]

I don't think anybody disputes that God _could_ have done it any way He wanted.

But if He did it 6000 years ago, what makes you think there really are any stars more than 6000 light years away? If you say it's because God would not deceive us by creating the light "in transit" without also creating the stars behind the light, then you are accepting CryptoLutheran's premise that things really _are_ as they seem. And the universe is billions of years old.

How old we see the universe is subjective to how we think in general. We see light traveling at 186,000 miles per second, so we conclude the age of the universe by how far we can see in space.
But the thing is, you can freely admit that God is not bound by such laws and that Genesis clearly states how He created the universe, so why does it have to be the way you perceive it?
And further more, if it is explained how He created the universe, then who is really being deceiving?
God stated that what we see is what He made, but what are you really looking at? What He made or what others conclude from what He made?
So saying 'He could have but didn't' really carries no weight, for anyone who uses that idea.
People herald the ideas of science way too much then they should. My theology does not deny the possibility of the universe being billions of years old, but a good example of the over-confidence in scientific ideals is the Big Bang. People think that because it is commonly accepted, that it doesn't have big problems. To extend the idea to ToE, the theory relies on all sciences to be absolutely correct.
And we have not seen macro-evolution period. Micro-organisms are posing a problem for ToE, and the irony is that pro-evos see how they evolve to be promising. The reality is that micro-organisms sporadically change all the time, and yet never make that final leap, which hurts mathematical consistency with ToE.
If TE's think they have stumbled upon an absolute certainty of how God created the universe and all things within, they are sadly mistaken. TE's need to realize that they only have a theory and it it is yet to be competent enough to start stomping on creationists, plain and simple.
And that does not even include the contradictions it possesses outside of Creation ideas and venturing into the depths of the Bible, which I have fully brought to light and TE's cannot even accept that.

So really, the whole approach on evolution should really just be kept away from other ideas, because TE's have been issuing a battle they cannot really win. What they do is mass together and rely on eachothers bias to shove the idea on other people.