God's 7 Days

[JAL]

Again, Aman, you say that God's ways are unknown mortals, that w cannot understand what He does, but you keep insisting we have hope in Christ! This is one of several contradictions you've failed to resolve.

"Tell us of any child who has suffered for thousands of years. "
I see, Aman, so if it's only a few YEARS, God is exonerated. On that logic you could let your children starve to death under the defense that the pain didn't last for thousands of years, so that still makes you a good guy, right? Fact is, Aman, you're trying to hold to a double standard, one for man, one for God. If a MAN acted that way, you'd call him a monster. But it's okay for God to treat innocent children that way? I don't care whether it's a day, a month, a year, or ten trillion years - a person is a monster if he knows his baby is in AGONIZING pain or hunger and yet sits idly by doing nothing about it unless there is some NECESSARY or VITALLY EXPEDIENT justification for this apparent negligence. THAT was the point of the ten trillion years - it was merely to open your eyes to the injustice of innocent suffering but your eyes are obviously still closed to it when you say, "No child is tortured for 10 trillion years, and God does not interfere unless He performs a Miracle." Yes, duh, a miracle is needed but the whole point is WHY does He sit idly by instead of performing a miracle. Neglecting to do so, if those babies are innocent, would make Him a monster! You yourself admit, "More than 20k children died of hunger Today."
Suppose your children were sick or starving and you needed a miracle to obtain some food or heal them. And let's suppose you had the ability to do miracles but abstained without any VITALLY EXPEDIENT justification for your abstention. That would make you a monster! So why the double standard? You say that I'm poisoning the well, but fail to see that YOUR theology is poison because it has been insulting God for 2000 years. I SINCERELY believe that one of the REASONS that God doesn't do more to help the church in its efforts to end world hunger and suffering is that it has been insulting Him, instead of honoring Him, for the last 2000 years with its ridiculous theology. (Traditional theology insults God in a VARIETY of ways that I probably won't cover on this thread).

Aman, here's your vitally expedient reason, "IF He did [do miracles all the time], we would not be allowed to live out our lives on this Earth." Just be consistent - no double standards. Again, imagine your babies are sick or starving, and you have the ability do miracles, yet you abstain, saying, "If I do miracles, people would not be able to live out their precious lives on earth." How would that NOT make you a monster? Here again you'd have to appeal to that ridiculous double-standard - which does nothing but insult God.

"Then YOU are saying that all of us, including innocent children, deserve our suffering because Adam disobeyed ONCE. How many times have YOU disobeyed and missed the mark?" If you're going to parrot my position, Aman, please don't use the word innocent (after all, innocence is the one thing I've been objecting to this whole discussion). YOU are Adam (in my view) even from childhood and therefore you were never innocent. YOU (your soul) is a subdivision of the original Adamic soul created in Genesis. You understandably ask why would that one sin in the garden warrant God in allowing 100 billion people to suffer and die? Good question. The answer is actually quite simple. The gravity of a crime - and hence the severity of the penalty - is in accordance with the intentionality. Let me explain. Suppose you were raised by a terrorist organization that recently obtained a nuclear bomb capable of killing 100 billion people. And suppose a paperclip is currently used to hold the bomb-trigger at bay. Now suppose you need a paperclip to do some paperwork in your office. Normally stealing a paperclip isn't a very serious crime, but if you grab THIS paperclip knowing full well the potential destruction, you are now responsible for 100 billion deaths. In order for you to PAY for that crime, God might have you to suffer and die 100 billion times (I'm sorry to say). What I am suggesting to you is that in the garden God gave Adam a mental picture/vision of what the world might look like (a 100 billion people suffering and dying) if he partook of the fruit. And yet he partook of it anyway. The penalty? Adam's soul has been made to suffer and die 100 billion times! That penalty is actually quite appropriate in view of the crime.

FURTHERMORE we really don't know (given the brevity of Scripture) all the specifics of what transpired in the garden. We don't really know for sure how many times Adam and Eve partook of the forbidden fruit before the hammer dropped.

"The suffering would have been over when Jesus paid the penalty for Adam's sin, and our's." Aman, that objection is a good one and deserves attention, but it would get me into a slough of theological issues that I don't care to delve into here. For one thing, you're theology is oversimplified, for instance you fail to consider the doctrine of limited atonement. My version of limited atonement is very different from, and much more complex, than Calvin's version. (I am not a Calvinist). One way for you to begin escaping your oversimplified theology is to simply ask yourself, why would God create a world like this in the first place? Why create a world where there even the POTENTIAL for sin and suffering? (And please don't rest content with the traditional pat answers that aren't satisfactory responses).

JAL:>>It's like this. Suppose a man commits murder and then God moves his soul into the bod of an infant. Is that an innocent babe? Hardly.

"Give us chapter and verse of God moving a murderers soul into an infant. I don't believe you can, since it is not in God's Holy Word."

Aman, I DID give you chapter and verse. I began with Romans 3:23 and moved on to Romans 5. In so many words Paul IMPLIED that God moved Adam's soul into our bodies. (No theologian has come up with an alternative view that does justice to these verses in the last 2000 years). Here's you'll say, "Show me where Scripture states it, not just 'implies' it." Ok, show me where Scripture STATES the word Trinity instead of just implying it.

"It is Satan who brings sickness, disease and death upon us, and we should give him the credit, instead of blaming God, who has always shown His love and kindness to us." Again, if you had the power to do miracles to save your sick and starving children, would you abstain saying, "It's not my fault, it is Satan's fault". That would make you a monster!

 

[Aman777]

JAL:>>Again, Aman, you say that God's ways are unknown mortals, that w cannot understand what He does, but you keep insisting we have hope in Christ! This is one of several contradictions you've failed to resolve.

Dear JAL, I didn't say that. I posted the LORD's word which say that. Here it is again:

Isaiah 55:8
For My thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways My ways, saith the Lord. 9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are My ways higher than your ways, and My thoughts than your thoughts.

Aman:>>"Tell us of any child who has suffered for thousands of years. "

JAL:>>I see, Aman, so if it's only a few YEARS, God is exonerated. On that logic you could let your children starve to death under the defense that the pain didn't last for thousands of years, so that still makes you a good guy, right? Fact is, Aman, you're trying to hold to a double standard, one for man, one for God. If a MAN acted that way, you'd call him a monster. But it's okay for God to treat innocent children that way? I don't care whether it's a day, a month, a year, or ten trillion years - a person is a monster if he knows his baby is in AGONIZING pain or hunger and yet sits idly by doing nothing about it unless there is some NECESSARY or VITALLY EXPEDIENT justification for this apparent negligence. THAT was the point of the ten trillion years - it was merely to open your eyes to the injustice of innocent suffering but your eyes are obviously still closed to it when you say, "No child is tortured for 10 trillion years, and God does not interfere unless He performs a Miracle." Yes, duh, a miracle is needed but the whole point is WHY does He sit idly by instead of performing a miracle. Neglecting to do so, if those babies are innocent, would make Him a monster! You yourself admit, "More than 20k children died of hunger Today."
Suppose your children were sick or starving and you needed a miracle to obtain some food or heal them. And let's suppose you had the ability to do miracles but abstained without any VITALLY EXPEDIENT justification for your abstention. That would make you a monster! So why the double standard? You say that I'm poisoning the well, but fail to see that YOUR theology is poison because it has been insulting God for 2000 years. I SINCERELY believe that one of the REASONS that God doesn't do more to help the church in its efforts to end world hunger and suffering is that it has been insulting Him, instead of honoring Him, for the last 2000 years with its ridiculous theology. (Traditional theology insults God in a VARIETY of ways that I probably won't cover on this thread).

Let's suppose you are correct. Does it do ANYthing about the children who die of hunger today? All it does it tell us they deserved to die because they descended from Adam, who sinned. It does NOTHING to save them and declares them GUILTY and sends them to suffer for Eternity in Hell. Right?

JAL:>>Aman, here's your vitally expedient reason, "IF He did [do miracles all the time], we would not be allowed to live out our lives on this Earth." Just be consistent - no double standards. Again, imagine your babies are sick or starving, and you have the ability do miracles, yet you abstain, saying, "If I do miracles, people would not be able to live out their precious lives on earth." How would that NOT make you a monster? Here again you'd have to appeal to that ridiculous double-standard - which does nothing but insult God.

I think it insults God more to imply that He is a monster who sits by and watches thousands of babies die every day because Adam disobeyed.

Aman:>>"Then YOU are saying that all of us, including innocent children, deserve our suffering because Adam disobeyed ONCE. How many times have YOU disobeyed and missed the mark?"

JAL:>>If you're going to parrot my position, Aman, please don't use the word innocent (after all, innocence is the one thing I've been objecting to this whole discussion). YOU are Adam (in my view) even from childhood and therefore you were never innocent. YOU (your soul) is a subdivision of the original Adamic soul created in Genesis. You understandably ask why would that one sin in the garden warrant God in allowing 100 billion people to suffer and die? Good question. The answer is actually quite simple. The gravity of a crime - and hence the severity of the penalty - is in accordance with the intentionality. Let me explain. Suppose you were raised by a terrorist organization that recently obtained a nuclear bomb capable of killing 100 billion people. And suppose a paperclip is currently used to hold the bomb-trigger at bay. Now suppose you need a paperclip to do some paperwork in your office. Normally stealing a paperclip isn't a very serious crime, but if you grab THIS paperclip knowing full well the potential destruction, you are now responsible for 100 billion deaths. In order for you to PAY for that crime, God might have you to suffer and die 100 billion times (I'm sorry to say). What I am suggesting to you is that in the garden God gave Adam a mental picture/vision of what the world might look like (a 100 billion people suffering and dying) if he partook of the fruit. And yet he partook of it anyway. The penalty? Adam's soul has been made to suffer and die 100 billion times! That penalty is actually quite appropriate in view of the crime.

I'm just happy that YOU are not the Judge. Do you ever condemn Satan for lying to Eve? Can you support your views with Scripture? I don't think so.

JAL:>>FURTHERMORE we really don't know (given the brevity of Scripture) all the specifics of what transpired in the garden. We don't really know for sure how many times Adam and Eve partook of the forbidden fruit before the hammer dropped.

Sure we do. Adam lost his Shekinah Glory when he sinned. That's how he knew he was naked. So, your verdict is that 100 Billion people should die because Adam disobeyed ONCE. Right?

Aman:>>"The suffering would have been over when Jesus paid the penalty for Adam's sin, and our's."

JAL:>>Aman, that objection is a good one and deserves attention, but it would get me into a slough of theological issues that I don't care to delve into here. For one thing, you're theology is oversimplified, for instance you fail to consider the doctrine of limited atonement. My version of limited atonement is very different from, and much more complex, than Calvin's version. (I am not a Calvinist). One way for you to begin escaping your oversimplified theology is to simply ask yourself, why would God create a world like this in the first place? Why create a world where there even the POTENTIAL for sin and suffering? (And please don't rest content with the traditional pat answers that aren't satisfactory responses).

God didn't create a world of sin and suffering. He is STILL creating a world with NO sin, sickness, nor death. It's the one you don't want innocent babies to live in. There's the Love. No matter what happens to the innocent (whether babies or born again forgiven Christians) God has made a perfect heaven for us to live for Eternity with Hm.

JAL:>>It's like this. Suppose a man commits murder and then God moves his soul into the bod of an infant. Is that an innocent babe? Hardly.

Aman:>>"Give us chapter and verse of God moving a murderers soul into an infant. I don't believe you can, since it is not in God's Holy Word."

JAL:>>Aman, I DID give you chapter and verse. I began with Romans 3:23 and moved on to Romans 5. In so many words Paul IMPLIED that God moved Adam's soul into our bodies. (No theologian has come up with an alternative view that does justice to these verses in the last 2000 years). Here's you'll say, "Show me where Scripture states it, not just 'implies' it." Ok, show me where Scripture STATES the word Trinity instead of just implying it.

Sure. The Trinity is three. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The Trinity is present when Jesus is Baptized.
Matthew 3:16 And Jesus, when He was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto Him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon Him:
17 And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

Aman:>>"It is Satan who brings sickness, disease and death upon us, and we should give him the credit, instead of blaming God, who has always shown His love and kindness to us."

JAL:>>Again, if you had the power to do miracles to save your sick and starving children, would you abstain saying, "It's not my fault, it is Satan's fault". That would make you a monster!
__________________

I STILL cannot agree since God is NOT a man. God knows that He will take innocent children to live in a better place. They do NOT die. Sinners die, and babies do NOT sin. They do NOT miss the mark and disobey the Law. ONLY accountable humans do. Give God the Glory for saving us all and taking us away from the god of this world, who brings evil upon us all. It is Satan who is the Monster, and NOT Jesus.

In Love,
Aman

 

[Laurabenson]

Dear Readers, God has but 7 Days and today is the 6th Creative Day. We live today at Genesis 1:27 since God is STILL creating mankind in His Image or In Christ, who is the only Image of the invisible God. Genesis 1:28-31 is prophecy of events which will soon take place at the end of the present 6th Day or Age.

At that time mankind will be given dominion over every other living creature and every living creature will become a vegetarian. Isaiah 11:7 tells us of that time and it is AFTER Jesus returns to this Planet. Then and only then God will say it is very good. God would NOT have said this in the past since He can see the end from the beginning.

When God finishes His work of filling heaven with newly created mankind, He will cease creating and ALL of His work of building a perfect eternal heaven and filling it with perfect mankind will be brought to perfection. Then God will cease from ALL of His work and celebrate with His children on the 7th Day which has not evening, and no ending. Genesis 2:2-3

In Love,
Aman

You mean of a 2nd set of 7 days, correct?

The first set of 7 days was complete at the time of the fall of mankind.

We're in day 13 of 14 days.

 

[JAL]

jal>>Again, Aman, you say that God's ways are unknown mortals, that w cannot understand what He does, but you keep insisting we have hope in Christ! This is one of several contradictions you've failed to resolve.

aman>> Dear JAL, I didn't say that. I posted the LORD's word which say that. Here it is again:. Isaiah 55:8. For My thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways My ways, saith the Lord. 9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are My ways higher than your ways, and My thoughts than your thoughts.
Actually, Aman, if this scripture implied that we can't undrstand God's ways, it would prove too much, as I've already pointed out about a half-dozen times, because we would then have no hope in Christ. The main problem with traditional theology is that it refuses to fully submit itself to the test of internal logical consistency. There is this somewhat ubiquitous tendency to draw a series of conclusions from Scripture without regard to whether they mutually conflict. If we stay within the bounds of internal consisentcy, the most likely interpretation is that God is referring to how holy His thoughts our compared to ours (verse 7 talks about wickd thoughts and then your verse (8) is contrasting this with God's thoughts).

jal>> Suppose your children were sick or starving and you needed a miracle to obtain some food or heal them. And let's suppose you had the ability to do miracles but abstained without any VITALLY EXPEDIENT justification for your abstention. That would make you a monster! So why the double standard? You say that I'm poisoning the well, but fail to see that YOUR theology is poison because it has been insulting God for 2000 years. I SINCERELY believe that one of the REASONS that God doesn't do more to help the church in its efforts to end world hunger and suffering is that it has been insulting Him, instead of honoring Him, for the last 2000 years with its ridiculous theology. (Traditional theology insults God in a VARIETY of ways that I probably won't cover on this thread).

aman>> Let's suppose you are correct. Does it do ANYthing about the children who die of hunger today? All it does it tell us they deserved to die because they descended from Adam, who sinned. It does NOTHING to save them and declares them GUILTY and sends them to suffer for Eternity in Hell. Right?

Wrong. I just explained the relevance above. Here you are now resorting to a kind of polemic. It won't do, for example, in a debate between creationists and evolutionists, to accuse the other doctrine of irrelevance midway through the debate. That has the appearance of cheap tactics. Furthermore my understanding of Adam's soul has potentially IMMENSE relevance for our whole view of sanctification. To date traditional theology has assumed that the soul is immaterial and thus most Chrisians rest content with a daily non-physical experience of God. The acknowledgement of a physical soul could dramatically alter the church's understanding of spiritua maturity. I'll give you a few verses to wet your appetite a bit. "You have never heard the Father's voice, nor seen His form" (John 5:37). "With [Moses] I speak face to face, clearly and not in riddles; he sees the form of the Lord (Num 12:8). "The Lord spoke with Moses face to face, as a man speaks with a friend (Ex 33:11)". "The Holy Spirit descended upon him in BODILY FORM like a dove" (Luke 3:22). "You shall see heaven open, and the angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of Man" (Jn 1:51). " "I SAW the Spirit come down from heaven as a dove and remain on him" (Jn 1:32). I would submit to you that the church doesn't have CLUE about sanctification and, as a result, this is the REASON we are ineffective in healing the sick and ending world hunger. But to go into proof of concept here would take me way off topic.

JAL:>>Aman, here's your vitally expedient reason, "IF He did [do miracles all the time], we would not be allowed to live out our lives on this Earth." Just be consistent - no double standards. Again, imagine your babies are sick or starving, and you have the ability do miracles, yet you abstain, saying, "If I do miracles, people would not be able to live out their precious lives on earth." How would that NOT make you a monster? Here again you'd have to appeal to that ridiculous double-standard - which does nothing but insult God.

aman>> I think it insults God more to imply that He is a monster who sits by and watches thousands of babies die every day because Adam disobeyed.
Ok, Aman, now you are getting realy bizarre. That's preposterous and internally inconsistent. You are saying it makes more sense for a holy God to visit harm upon INNOCENT babies (your position) than GUILTY ones (my position) ????

Aman:>>"Then YOU are saying that all of us, including innocent children, deserve our suffering because Adam disobeyed ONCE. How many times have YOU disobeyed and missed the mark?"

JAL:>>If you're going to parrot my position, Aman, please don't use the word innocent (after all, innocence is the one thing I've been objecting to this whole discussion). YOU are Adam (in my view) even from childhood and therefore you were never innocent. YOU (your soul) is a subdivision of the original Adamic soul created in Genesis. You understandably ask why would that one sin in the garden warrant God in allowing 100 billion people to suffer and die? Good question. The answer is actually quite simple. The gravity of a crime - and hence the severity of the penalty - is in accordance with the intentionality. Let me explain. Suppose you were raised by a terrorist organization that recently obtained a nuclear bomb capable of killing 100 billion people. And suppose a paperclip is currently used to hold the bomb-trigger at bay. Now suppose you need a paperclip to do some paperwork in your office. Normally stealing a paperclip isn't a very serious crime, but if you grab THIS paperclip knowing full well the potential destruction, you are now responsible for 100 billion deaths. In order for you to PAY for that crime, God might have you to suffer and die 100 billion times (I'm sorry to say). What I am suggesting to you is that in the garden God gave Adam a mental picture/vision of what the world might look like (a 100 billion people suffering and dying) if he partook of the fruit. And yet he partook of it anyway. The penalty? Adam's soul has been made to suffer and die 100 billion times! That penalty is actually quite appropriate in view of the crime.

aman>> I'm just happy that YOU are not the Judge. Do you ever condemn Satan for lying to Eve? Can you support your views with Scripture? I don't think so.
Aman, my views are internally consistent, and do not contradict Scripture. I am aware of no other intepretation of he Fall in the last 2000 years that so succeeds. I've provided plenty of biblical basis for my position, and there's more I haven't mentioned. For example there is a solid case in the gospels for the idea that God moves the souls of men (of one generation) into the bodies of infants (of another generation). Maybe I'll share those verses with you soon.


JAL:>>FURTHERMORE we really don't know (given the brevity of Scripture) all the specifics of what transpired in the garden. We don't really know for sure how many times Adam and Eve partook of the forbidden fruit before the hammer dropped.

Aman>> Sure we do. Adam lost his Shekinah Glory when he sinned. That's how he knew he was naked. So, your verdict is that 100 Billion people should die because Adam disobeyed ONCE. Right?
Aman, it's your position that 100 billion innocent people should die for no good reason, right?

Aman:>>"The suffering would have been over when Jesus paid the penalty for Adam's sin, and our's."

JAL:>>Aman, that objection is a good one and deserves attention, but it would get me into a slough of theological issues that I don't care to delve into here. For one thing, you're theology is oversimplified, for instance you fail to consider the doctrine of limited atonement. My version of limited atonement is very different from, and much more complex, than Calvin's version. (I am not a Calvinist). One way for you to begin escaping your oversimplified theology is to simply ask yourself, why would God create a world like this in the first place? Why create a world where there even the POTENTIAL for sin and suffering? (And please don't rest content with the traditional pat answers that aren't satisfactory responses).

aman>> God didn't create a world of sin and suffering. He is STILL creating a world with NO sin, sickness, nor death. It's the one you don't want innocent babies to live in. There's the Love. No matter what happens to the innocent (whether babies or born again forgiven Christians) God has made a perfect heaven for us to live for Eternity with Hm.
Aman, that's a double standard, as I have shown over and over again. If there are no rules for God - if He gets to define "love" and "kindness" in ways OTHER than we define them - then the bible verses promising us His 'kindness' should only serve to terrify us. Thus the promises become logically self-contradictory because they purport to comfort us. Again, if theologians would simply hold to internal logical consistency we wouldn' have all this bad theology is the church.


JAL:>>It's like this. Suppose a man commits murder and then God moves his soul into the bod of an infant. Is that an innocent babe? Hardly.

Aman:>>"Give us chapter and verse of God moving a murderers soul into an infant. I don't believe you can, since it is not in God's Holy Word."

JAL:>>Aman, I DID give you chapter and verse. I began with Romans 3:23 and moved on to Romans 5. In so many words Paul IMPLIED that God moved Adam's soul into our bodies. (No theologian has come up with an alternative view that does justice to these verses in the last 2000 years). Here's you'll say, "Show me where Scripture states it, not just 'implies' it." Ok, show me where Scripture STATES the word Trinity instead of just implying it.

Aman >> Sure. The Trinity is three....
Nope, Aman, the word Trinity isn't in the Bible. It's an inference - and one that not all readers would agree to. For instance some Christians understand such verses as three manifestations of one Person (rather than 3 persons). Other readers regard the Holy Spirit as the force/power of God, not as a Person.
17 And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

Aman:>>"It is Satan who brings sickness, disease and death upon us, and we should give him the credit, instead of blaming God, who has always shown His love and kindness to us."

JAL:>>Again, if you had the power to do miracles to save your sick and starving children, would you abstain saying, "It's not my fault, it is Satan's fault". That would make you a monster!
__________________

aman >> I STILL cannot agree since God is NOT a man. God knows that He will take innocent children to live in a better place. They do NOT die. Sinners die, and babies do NOT sin. They do NOT miss the mark and disobey the Law. ONLY accountable humans do. Give God the Glory for saving us all and taking us away from the god of this world, who brings evil upon us all. It is Satan who is the Monster, and NOT Jesus.

Aman, double standard. You're glad i'm not the judge? With your attitude toward innocent babes, I'm beginning to hope you're not a parent... I'll remind you of the passage YOU brought up (1Cor 13) which says that love ALWAYS protects. So why let innocent children starve to death. You keep mentioning scripture and yet your views contradict it AT EVERY TURN. Nice.

 

[Joshua0]

Genesis 1:28-31 is prophecy of events which will soon take place at the end of the present 6th Day or Age.

The church age began in the year 29 ad. So 6,000 years would be in 2029 ad. 2,000 years from Adam to Abraham, 2,000 years from Abraham to Christ, then some believe the church age is 2,000 years. Then we will have the 1,000 year reign of Christ. When man will rest from his works.

 

[Aman777]

Originally Posted by Aman777

Genesis 1:28-31 is prophecy of events which will soon take place at the end of the present 6th Day or Age.
​

Josh:>>The church age began in the year 29 ad. So 6,000 years would be in 2029 ad. 2,000 years from Adam to Abraham, 2,000 years from Abraham to Christ, then some believe the church age is 2,000 years. Then we will have the 1,000 year reign of Christ. When man will rest from his works.

Dear Josh, Your theory is that the morning of the first Day was some 6,000 years ago. The Jewish theologians taught this and so did Archbishop James Ussher of Armaugh, Ireland. This theory was written in the margins of the KJV of Scripture for some 300 years from 1650 until the 1950s. So your theory is the traditional religious view of many other Christians.

The problems with this view are many. The theory was made by pre scientific men who had no idea that the Pyramids were built BEFORE their dating of the Flood. This would mean that the Pyramids would have been destroyed in the Flood, since the dating of Adam's world before the Flood was some 1672 years, placing the Flood's date at about 4300 years ago. The Pyramids were built some 4560 years ago.

Measuring the distance to the oldest Stars shows that it took some 13.7 Billion years for the light to reach us and our Earth is some 4.53 Billion years old, in man's time. Life first appeared on our earth some 13.7 Million years ago and has been found here ever since. My point is that your theory does NOT agree with the actual discoveries of Science and History.

IF God's Truth is the Truth, and it is, then it MUST agree, in every way with every other discovered Truth, and it does, IF you have the proper interpretation of Genesis. Your view is called the Young Earther view, and I am also the Youngest of the Young Earthers. I believe that the first Day of Creation was some 6 Days ago and NOT 6,000 years ago. It all depends on whose time you study.

God has but 7 Days and we live today on the 6th Creative Day because God is STILL creating mankind in His Image or In Christ. This means that we live today at Genesis 1:27 and we will not advance to Genesis 1:28 until AFTER Jesus returns to this Planet, at the end of time.

I believe that Genesis shows that the first day of Creation was some 25 Billion years ago, which is Billions of years BEFORE the Big Bang of our Cosmos which took place on the 3rd Day. Genesis 2:4 Each of God's Days or Ages is some 4.5 Billion years in length and the beginning of the present 6th Day was when the LORD made the beasts of the field and the fowl of the air, and brought them to Adam who named them. The present 6th Day will not end for at least another one thousand years.

So, believe what you will, but remember that the important thing is that you believe that Jesus died for your sins, was buried but arose the 3rd day according to the Scriptures. The Gospel of Jesus Christ is what is important. Believing it, will make it possible for you to ask Jesus for His Truth when He returns to our world. God Bless you.

In Love,
Aman

 

[SkyWriting]

...which is Billions of years BEFORE the Big Bang of our Cosmos which took place on the 3rd Day. ...

It was a singularity, so it was one point so small it had no dimensions.
And it took place in empty space so there was no sound.
And that's just that facts as they pertain to the fantasy of the event.
I can't imagine what really happened, except what God says about it.

 

[Aman777]

Originally Posted by Aman777

...which is Billions of years BEFORE the Big Bang of our Cosmos which took place on the 3rd Day. ...
​

Sky:>>It was a singularity, so it was one point so small it had no dimensions.
And it took place in empty space so there was no sound.
And that's just that facts as they pertain to the fantasy of the event.
I can't imagine what really happened, except what God says about it.

Dear Sky, God tells us the beginning of our Universe was on the 3rd Day, the SAME Day the first Earth was made. Genesis 2:4 I love how Billy Graham refers to it. He says he would have loved to have been there when Jesus scattered the Stars throughout the Universe. Me too.

In Love,
Aman

 

[Joshua0]

Dear Josh, Your theory is that the morning of the first Day was some 6,000 years ago.

Not a theory, that is what the Bible says. I did the math myself and the math is very easy from Adam to Abraham. It's a little more difficult after Abraham, so at that point we look to the Hebrew people to help us out with that. Also the genealogy or generations are repeated in the New Testament, so we have that for a confirmation. I think maybe you need to read your Bible. Your going to need to learn the Bible sooner or later. The sooner you learn the better. Because then you have the rest of your life you can apply what you have learned from God's word. Also as far as Bishop Ussher is concerned. He had books available to him that are no longer available to us today. Of course there is no need for them because we have the information in his book. Do you have a copy of the Bishops book? Have you ever read any of his book? Or are you again offering opinion on something you have not studied or read?

 

[SkyWriting]

Not a theory, that is what the Bible says. I did the math myself and the math is very easy from Adam to Abraham. It's a little more difficult after Abraham, so at that point we look to the Hebrew people to help us out with that.

Then you shouldn't be doing math. Origins is important enough to
trust God and Jesus and the disciples with doing the math. There
were some people in those days who did math for a living. Don't
you think Jesus knew how much time had passed? Don't you
think Jesus would have mentioned it? Lets give the Creator of the
world some credit, eh? Let's not look to "the Hebrew people"
for help on this issue that Jesus seems to have overlooked, in your view.

 

[SkyWriting]

Dear Sky, God tells us the beginning of our Universe was on the 3rd Day, the SAME Day the first Earth was made. Genesis 2:4 I love how Billy Graham refers to it. He says he would have loved to have been there when Jesus scattered the Stars throughout the Universe. Me too.

So now it's not big and it's wasn't a bang.
As long as you and Billy Graham are making
stuff up, I guess the details don't matter.

That's why I absorb little from preachers like you and Mr. Graham.
In context, I'm sure he said it better cause you are always making stuff up.

 

[Aman777]

Originally Posted by Aman777

Dear Josh, Your theory is that the morning of the first Day was some 6,000 years ago.
​

Josh:>>Not a theory, that is what the Bible says.

Dear Josh, I don't believe you. Your figure also doesn't agree with the Jewish dating since today is the Hebrew year 5773. Of course this means that the Flood was 4,000 years ago, some 500 years AFTER the Pyramids were built. Can you tell us WHY they were not destroyed in the Flood?

Josh:>>I did the math myself and the math is very easy from Adam to Abraham. It's a little more difficult after Abraham, so at that point we look to the Hebrew people to help us out with that. Also the genealogy or generations are repeated in the New Testament, so we have that for a confirmation.

Archbishop Ussher did the same, but admitted that he could have made an error. Did you count the names of people who had been born Spiritually? How about the ones who were NOT born Spiritually? They aren't listed you know? A good example is Cain, since his lifetime, nor any of his descendants, is listed in any of the geneaologies.

Josh:>>I think maybe you need to read your Bible. Your going to need to learn the Bible sooner or later. The sooner you learn the better. Because then you have the rest of your life you can apply what you have learned from God's word. Also as far as Bishop Ussher is concerned. He had books available to him that are no longer available to us today. Of course there is no need for them because we have the information in his book. Do you have a copy of the Bishops book?

No. I don't pay much attention to people with obvious dating errors. He made the SAME mistakes you have. This is WHY you must believe that there is one Truth for God and another for Science and History. IOW, you used a "plain" reading of Scripture for your dating and ignored the Scriptural fact that God tells us that unbelievers cannot understand His Truth. A plain reading is available to any unbeliever, but ONLY those who have been born Spiritually can understand Scripture. 1Cr 2:14

Josh:>>Have you ever read any of his book? Or are you again offering opinion on something you have not studied or read?

There is no need, since there would be NO Pyramids for they would have been destroyed in the Flood. How did you date the length of years on the first Earth, the world of Adam? Was it the same as our's? How did you date the first 3 Days since there was NO Sun, Moon, nor Stars on Adam's world? How do you explain away the ruins of ancient cities which are more than 9k years old, on this Earth? Is Science searching for a Lie? Is History also searching for Lies? Can you explain WHY the some Stars are so far away it takes Millions of light years for their light to reach us? Is there any wonder why scientists ignore such thinking and refuse to teach it as fact?

There is much wrong with such dating and one MUST believe it by Faith only since it is impossible to confirm. We are told in Scripture that we must believe in the Gospel of Jesus Christ, by faith, but NOT the Truth which is shown throughout the rest of the Bible, which agrees in every way with the discoveries of mankind.

In Love,
Aman

 

[Joshua0]

today is the Hebrew year 5773.

I read somewhere that was a number someone came up with around 300 ad. So I would not consider it to mean anything. If it were accurate, then that would mean Jesus will not return for another 200+ years.

There is no need,

I agree, there is no need for me to have a conversation with you about something you have not read, studied and know nothing about.

 

[Aman777]

Josh:>>Have you ever read any of his book? Or are you again offering opinion on something you have not studied or read?

Aman:>>There is no need, since there would be NO Pyramids for they would have been destroyed in the Flood. How did you date the length of years on the first Earth, the world of Adam? Was it the same as our's? How did you date the first 3 Days since there was NO Sun, Moon, nor Stars on Adam's world? How do you explain away the ruins of ancient cities which are more than 9k years old, on this Earth? Is Science searching for a Lie? Is History also searching for Lies? Can you explain WHY the some Stars are so far away it takes Millions of light years for their light to reach us? Is there any wonder why scientists ignore such thinking and refuse to teach it as fact?

There is much wrong with such dating and one MUST believe it by Faith only since it is impossible to confirm. We are told in Scripture that we must believe in the Gospel of Jesus Christ, by faith, but NOT the Truth which is shown throughout the rest of the Bible, which agrees in every way with the discoveries of mankind.

Josh:>>I agree, there is no need for me to have a conversation with you about something you have not read, studied and know nothing about.

Dear Josh, I do know something about Ussher. You don't have to read his book to know that his dating was completely wrong and unsupported. For one thing, Ussher falsely assumed that a generation was some 40 years. Do you agree?

I notice also that you didn't answer any of my questions about your dating. Did you also assume a genearation was some 40 years since you arrived at the same answer Ussher did? Where do you get the idea that Jesus will not return for 200+ years just because the Jewish theologians didn't come up with the same answer you and Ussher did until 300 AD? I noticed also that if you add 300 years to the Jewish calendar you come close to the same dating as you and Ussher did. Coincidence?

In Love,
Aman

 

[SkyWriting]

Dear Readers, God has but 7 Days and today is the 6th Creative Day.

You're still making that stuff up?

 

[Aman777]

Originally Posted by Aman777

Dear Readers, God has but 7 Days and today is the 6th Creative Day.
​

Sky:>>You're still making that stuff up?

Dear Sky, Hbr 4:8 For if Jesus had given them rest, then would he not afterward have spoken of another day. Hbr 4:9 There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God.

It's your time to show us that you know more than Jesus, who tells us the 7th Day is Future, confirming the Scriptural Fact that Today is the 6th Day or Age in the Creation.

BTW, You have NEVER refuted a single word I have posted. If you could, you would have already done so, but you obviously cannot. No need to get nasty, just study harder and realize that If your Truth doesn't agree with every other discovered truth, then you have NOT found God's Truth. God's Truth agrees with EVERY other discovered Truth.

In Love,
Aman

 

[Joshua0]

Archbishop Ussher did the same, but admitted that he could have made an error.

I go by Bishop Ussher date. The main date is for the beginning of the Church and the pouring out of the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost when Peter was preaching in the upper room. I believe that was in the year 29. So the year 2029 will be the 2,000 year anniversary of the Church. I believe the Church age is 2,000 years. Other names for this is the time of the gentiles.

I don't pay much attention to people with obvious dating errors.

Then don't pay any attention. I do not care. It is up to you to be lead by the Holy Spirit of God. He is your teacher. It is up to you to see God and to find truth for yourself.

 

[Aman777]

Originally Posted by Aman777

Archbishop Ussher did the same, but admitted that he could have made an error.
​

Josh:>>I go by Bishop Ussher date. The main date is for the beginning of the Church and the pouring out of the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost when Peter was preaching in the upper room. I believe that was in the year 29. So the year 2029 will be the 2,000 year anniversary of the Church. I believe the Church age is 2,000 years. Other names for this is the time of the gentiles.

Aman;>>I don't pay much attention to people with obvious dating errors.

Josh:>>Then don't pay any attention. I do not care. It is up to you to be lead by the Holy Spirit of God. He is your teacher. It is up to you to see God and to find truth for yourself.

Dear Josh, I already have. Jesus is the Truth, and He is in me and I in Him. I thought we were discussing the Creation, which began some 25-30 Billion years ago. I suppose you're not interested because you know, way down deep in your heart, that our Cosmos is much older. So be honest, and quit being so gullible.

If your dating was correct, then the Pyramids have survived the Flood. Alert the Press, for YOU have proven God to be in error. The Pyramids survived, even though an Atomic Submarine imploded at 450 feet. The Pyramids made it through some 30,000 feet of water pressure which would have cooked the crust of our Earth.

Josh and Archbishop James Ussher agree. Josh has now reached the 17th Century in his formal education. Congratulations Josh. You sure have impressed me.

In Love,
Aman

 

[SkyWriting]

Originally Posted by Aman777

Dear Readers, God has but 7 Days and today is the 6th Creative Day.
​

Sky:>>You're still making that stuff up?

Dear Sky, Hbr 4:8 For if Jesus had given them rest, then would he not afterward have spoken of another day. Hbr 4:9 There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God.

It's your time to show us that you know more than Jesus, who tells us the 7th Day is Future, confirming the Scriptural Fact that Today is the 6th Day or Age in the Creation.BTW, You have NEVER refuted a single word I have posted. If you could, you would have already done so, but you obviously cannot.

I deny that the rest you point to above is connected in any way with Creation week.
The proof of the point is that God did rest on day Seven.
And if you read you passage above, there is no reference of Jesus or God resting.
So your passage is not connected in any way.
Your making stuff up and adding your own words to scripture that do not belong.
If I was being nasty, I'd invent reasons about why you're doing it.

 

[Aman777]

Aman:>>It's your time to show us that you know more than Jesus, who tells us the 7th Day is Future, confirming the Scriptural Fact that Today is the 6th Day or Age in the Creation.BTW, You have NEVER refuted a single word I have posted. If you could, you would have already done so, but you obviously cannot.

Sky:>>I deny that the rest you point to above is connected in any way with Creation week.

Dear Sky, Thanks for making your position clear. This means that you believe that God has already rested from ALL of His work of creating. Correct?

Sky:>>The proof of the point is that God did rest on day Seven.

Why? Was He tired? Remember that Jesus is God. Did He rest? Remember that the Holy Spirit is God. Did He rest? Your idea that God rested for 24 hours thousands of years ago, then went back to work, and hasn't rested since, is silly. Tell us of your God who needs 24 hours of rest.

Sky:>>And if you read you passage above, there is no reference of Jesus or God resting.
So your passage is not connected in any way.
Your making stuff up and adding your own words to scripture that do not belong.
If I was being nasty, I'd invent reasons about why you're doing it.

Then REFUTE me, Sky, and quit keeping your reasons to yourself. I understand that you don't agree, but I do not understand WHY you do not agree. I think it's because your religion has been questioned by the actual words of Scripture. There is not another reason WHY you would get so bothered.

So, go ahead and explain WHY the Supreme, Almighty God needed to rest for 24 hours and then go back to work. I don't think you can.

In Love,
Aman