is creating with age deceptive?

[Assyrian]

You don't create a car to eventually grow into a car, when you create a car, it is a car.

So is making a car completely, deceptive?

Thus making the universe with what we see as age could simply be how God intended the universe to start as.

So it isn't age, it is simply "finished".


I am not a Y.E.C. !!!!!

Just heard this idea against YEC before, and thought this was a major hole.

Does it include a log book with full service history in the glove compartment, 4,567,000,000 on the odometer, worn tyres and brake pads, mud caked inside the wheel arch traceable to three continents, and marks on the bodywork where complete wings had been replaced?

A brand new, pristine car, with a new car smell that does not come from a cardboard pine tree is not deceptive. But antiquing the car with 4.5 billion years worth of wear, tear and parking vouchers is.

Both old and new testaments tell us the nations of the world, who have never heard of God are supposed to be able to see God's handiwork in the universe he made. So it is a problem if the handiwork they see in creation is completely different to what happened.

 

[Tinker Grey]

If God created the earth with age, why are we accused of doing the devil's work if we study the age with which it was created?

 

[archaeologist]

Does it include a log book with full service history in the glove compartment, 4,567,000,000 on the odometer, worn tyres and brake pads, mud caked inside the wheel arch traceable to three continents, and marks on the bodywork where complete wings had been replaced

this analogy presents the idea that evolution is true and has discovered the true facts about the earth. but since evolution came from an unbelieving man and many other unbelieving people why would you take their word for it over God's?

God did not say He created the world with history, secular man and cience is saying that. don't you see the difference?

there are many other options that can bu used to describe the fossils, geologic column, and so on.

what some people describe as mutations can easily be (and is) described asa genetic defect due to the result of the fall. evolution is not the automatic choice here.

So it is a problem if the handiwork they see in creation is completely different to what happened.

that doesn't mean evolution is correct or that the unbelieiving people are looking in the right places. God's work is there but if the secular world decides to ignore God's handiwork and create their own thinking that does not mean they ar e right---no God is right not evolution or secular science.

until you realize that people are deceived and secular science is one of the tools for that deception you will miss out on what God has done .

every con man knows you must put some truth into the con or it won't work, so why do you think science has discovered so many items that are true? so more people will believe the lie and be led astray.

 

[Rudolph Hucker]

So, Archie, how old do YOU think the earth is?

 

[ExpatChristian]

that evolution is true and has discovered the true facts about the earth

Again, you are ascribing agency to evolution. Evolution is a process and other factors like the environment have agency by virtue of their impact in this process. Evolution cannot be ascribed agency. Again. Please read about evolution and understand it first. At the moment you are exposing your hind quarters to the community.

 

[ExpatChristian]

what some people describe as mutations can easily be (and is) described asa genetic defect due to the result of the fall.

And how did the fall do this exactly? Explain the process of how the fall caused genetic defects.

Pretty hilarious stuff really, if I could find a laughing icon.

 

[Critias]

Explain the process of how the fall caused genetic defects.

Has sin affected the world, in your opinion?

 

[archaeologist]

ignore them critias, they are not here for constructive discussion, just to derail posts. stalk and harass me.

they make fun of this forum back where their home base is on another website. they make fun of many of the posters there.

 

[Assyrian]

this analogy presents the idea that evolution is true and has discovered the true facts about the earth. but since evolution came from an unbelieving man and many other unbelieving people why would you take their word for it over God's?

There are two creationist approaches to the geological evidence for the age of the earth and evolution. One is to say science has misinterpreted the evidence and the evidence does not point to an old earth or evolution.

The other is to say that yes the earth appears ancient, but that is because God made it that way. It is called Omphalos or appearance of age, and since it was first suggested by Gosse it has been rejected as making God out to be deceptive. If we are discussing the idea of God creating with age, then that interpretation says the appearances of age are not simply mans idea but the result of God creating the world to look old.

God did not say He created the world with history, secular man and cience is saying that. don't you see the difference?

In this case it is YEC saying God created the earth with (false) history. But I agree the bible does not say that. It does not tell us how old the earth is, or what processes if any God used.

 

[archaeologist]

There are two creationist approaches to the geological evidence for the age of the earth and evolution. One is to say science has misinterpreted the evidence and the evidence does not point to an old earth or evolution.

The other is to say that yes the earth appears ancient, but that is because God made it that way. It is called Omphalos or appearance of age, and since it was first suggested by Gosse it has been rejected as making God out to be deceptive. If we are discussing the idea of God creating with age, then that interpretation says the appearances of age are not simply mans idea but the result of God creating the world to look old

but again you dismiss or omit the mitigating factors of deception done by the evil one. you have yet to answer why you accept secular science's conclusions when they do not follow God and are solely under the control of the devil?

i see no problem with God making things fully mature. we know that adam had intelligence, could speak, could think, could name animals and so on.

you also exclude God's purpose . for Him to wait billions of earth years, would make God look weak, indecisive, unclear in His thinking and so on.

creating as he said in Genesis, in 6 days eliminates and dispells such accusations and shows Him to be who he claims to be.

 

[Assyrian]

but again you dismiss or omit the mitigating factors of deception done by the evil one. you have yet to answer why you accept secular science's conclusions when they do not follow God and are solely under the control of the devil?

You mentioned this idea before. As I recall I asked you how you knew which sciences to reject. Why just evolution and the age of the earth, why not the devil inspired doctrines of Copernicus? Christians used scripture to argue against that teaching too. Earlier still there there were claims that a round earth contradicted scripture and if Christian accepted that pagan philosophy they were partaking of the table of devils.

Then again we are warned of the doctrines of demons inside the church. How do we know that it isn't you that is deceived?

i see no problem with God making things fully mature. we know that adam had intelligence, could speak, could think, could name animals and so on.

There is a difference between mature and apparently showing very drastic wear and tear. That is what 'creating with age' is about.

you also exclude God's purpose . for Him to wait billions of earth years, would make God look weak, indecisive, unclear in His thinking and so on.

Oh dear are you going to have some apologies to make.

creating as he said in Genesis, in 6 days eliminates and dispells such accusations and shows Him to be who he claims to be.

Nah, I'm with Moses on that one. God's view of a day isn't always the same as ours. If they were six literal days why describe it as a day in Gen 2:4?

 

[Rudolph Hucker]

...

creating as he said in Genesis, in 6 days eliminates and dispells such accusations and shows Him to be who he claims to be.

That is a circular argument.

The Hebrew/Arabic word you/yom was translated as "day". But just as in English, the word can mean "24 hour day" or "time" or "age" or "period".

For example, "In Jefferson's day, the USA was a secular state".

(For those who might question the truth of that example, see Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli in which is stated:-

Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

...)

 

[archaeologist]

As I recall I asked you how you knew which sciences to reject

i thought i had posted some tips sometime back.
one of the keys to knowing what to do is search the scripture to find all the verses where God talks about not following the world, being separate and so on.
being honest about one's motivations for studying secular science helps also. as believers we are called to a different set of rules and though secular science does find true things that God did, that doesn't make it okay to follow the world's ways or thinking.

Why just evolution and the age of the earth, why not the devil inspired doctrines of Copernicus?

basically this forum seems to be focused on those topics but again such standards apply to all areas of life and beliefs. even a liar tells the truth sometime and yes, science did discover that the earth revolved around the sun but that doesn't mean that science is always right and the church is always wrong.

what it means is that we take that truth and ask ourselves, why did the bible say the sun stood still...most likely because even today we use such terminology and it is a normal expression to be used. it is not teaching that the sun revolves around the earth.

Christians used scripture to argue against that teaching too. Earlier still there there were claims that a round earth contradicted scripture and if Christian accepted that pagan philosophy they were partaking of the table of devils.

you have to remember that within the church and Jesus warned us of this, that there would be those who are in the body but not of Christ. we have to be discerning in all areas of life not just science but it doesn't mean that all people are wrong because they are in the church.

Then again we are warned of the doctrines of demons inside the church. How do we know that it isn't you that is deceived?

the Bible gives criteria to test others concerning thier validity. i believe Jesus came in the flesh and died for our sins i have no desire to decieve anyone.

There is a difference between mature and apparently showing very drastic wear and tear. That is what 'creating with age' is about.

we do not know all the effects of the fall of man, nor do we know all the devil has done, we DO know that when God finished, it was all good so those wear and tear marks came after the fall.

Oh dear are you going to have some apologies to make

why? if God used a process, then how does He look? if he used His power as describe in all the verses how does He look? there is a difference.

I'm with Moses on that one. God's view of a day isn't always the same as ours. If they were six literal days why describe it as a day in Gen 2:4?

you forget that Moses said in exodus, it was 6 days. i am not at home so i can not get you some quotes that would help discuss this, ask me later please.

 

[Assyrian]

i thought i had posted some tips sometime back.
one of the keys to knowing what to do is search the scripture to find all the verses where God talks about not following the world, being separate and so on.
being honest about one's motivations for studying secular science helps also. as believers we are called to a different set of rules and though secular science does find true things that God did, that doesn't make it okay to follow the world's ways or thinking.

Science does find true things that God did, and in doing so is following what the bible say we are supposed to be doing with God's creation. It is how mankind is fulfilling its creation mandate to have dominion over the earth. We see in Psalm 19 that throughout the world, even in places without the bible, mankind is supposed to be able to learn about God's handiwork. We see it in Solomon's proverb, Prov 25:2 It is the glory of God to conceal things, but the glory of kings is to search things out.

There is no conflict between learning science and following God, because when we learn science we learn truth about God's creation.

basically this forum seems to be focused on those topics but again such standards apply to all areas of life and beliefs. even a liar tells the truth sometime and yes, science did discover that the earth revolved around the sun but that doesn't mean that science is always right and the church is always wrong.

what it means is that we take that truth and ask ourselves, why did the bible say the sun stood still...most likely because even today we use such terminology and it is a normal expression to be used. it is not teaching that the sun revolves around the earth.

Or we can take the truth about the age of the earth and ask ourselves, why did the bible talk about God creating the world in six days... most likely because it was in the middle of a metaphor where God is identifying with the weary foreign labourers and children out in the fields who are to be allowed rest after six days and be refreshed, because God was teaching Sabbath observance.

Or we can take the truth about evolution and ask ourselves, why did the bible talk about God creating Adam from dust... most likely because God as a potter, or making people from dust, (even people who have biological parents), is a really common biblical metaphor.

Basically you approach here is sound. We take the science and ask ourselves why the apparent literal meaning is the wrong interpretation.

Alternatively you can say like you do with evolution, God says the sun rushes around the earth, God says the earth is set on pillars, why do you follow devil inspired secular science and make God out to be a liar?

Christians used scripture to argue against that teaching too. Earlier still there there were claims that a round earth contradicted scripture and if Christian accepted that pagan philosophy they were partaking of the table of devils.

you have to remember that within the church and Jesus warned us of this, that there would be those who are in the body but not of Christ. we have to be discerning in all areas of life not just science but it doesn't mean that all people are wrong because they are in the church.

Cosmos Indicopleustes gave the church the very same 'science is of the devil' message you do, he even describe the round earther Christians as "ye who follow these men and yet wish to be Christians". How are we to tell the difference? How are we to know that Cosmas was wrong and you are right? Isn't it more likely with the same message that was wrong before, that you are both wrong?

the Bible gives criteria to test others concerning thier validity. i believe Jesus came in the flesh and died for our sins i have no desire to decieve anyone.

Not every false doctrine denies the incarnation or Christ dying for our sins. Ananias and Sapphira didn't, yet Satan filled their hearts with a lie. The circumcision party didn't deny these thing either.

Your argument was based on Satan deceiving science how can we trust it. Well Satan has quite happily deceived the church too, how do we know that it isn't the anti science doctrine in the church that is the deception? Especially when condemnation of science in the church has got it so wrong in the past and each time brought the gospel into disrepute?

we do not know all the effects of the fall of man, nor do we know all the devil has done, we DO know that when God finished, it was all good so those wear and tear marks came after the fall.

If you don't know the effects of the fall then you are reading things into the bible that it doesn't say. Any TE will tell you that radioactive decay in rocks has been very good. It keeps the planet's outer core liquid.

why? if God used a process, then how does He look? if he used His power as describe in all the verses how does He look? there is a difference.

For one thing, the verses don't describe how God made things. But the bible often describes God using processes or a long time, it doesn't make him look 'weak, indecisive, unclear in His thinking'. Tell me, Isaiah 54:16 Behold, I have created the smith who blows the fire of coals. Does this describe an instantaneous creating, or a slow process that involved Mr and Mrs Smith and a long apprenticeship at the forge?

you forget that Moses said in exodus, it was 6 days. i am not at home so i can not get you some quotes that would help discuss this, ask me later please.

No I didn't forget. It is precisely because it was Moses that gave us Genesis and Exodus, that I value his understanding what a day is in God's sight, especially when Moses gives this to us in a Psalm (90) telling us about the creation.

 

[archaeologist]

There is no conflict between learning science and following God, because when we learn science we learn truth about God's creation.

i knew you were going to go right to this point. yes there is conflict and without discernment you will be lead astray. read Luke 8:11-12. until yo urealize that allscienceis not of God, you will always miss whatyu want.

why did the bible talk about God creating the world in six days... most likely because it was in the middle of a metaphor where God is identifying with the weary foreign labourers and children out in the fields who are to be allowed rest after six days and be refreshed, because God was teaching Sabbath observance

that idea is a modern church philosophy that has no roots in scripture God doesn't need to identify He is God, he sets the rules, He is not a beggar going around trying to convince people to join Him. it isn't a metaphor but a statement of fact.

Or we can take the truth about evolution and ask ourselves

there is no truth in evolution. God is not with it. it is an enemy of God.

gave the church the very same 'science is of the devil' message you do

that isn't my message. i have been saying that believers are to shun that which is from the secular world as God has said. adopting and adapting it is wrong. secular science is wrong and not of God.

How are we to tell the difference

the criteria is found in scriptures.

Well Satan has quite happily deceived the church too, how do we know that it isn't the anti science doctrine in the church that is the deception

now you are looking for excuses to remain in secular science and ignore God's word. about not following or believing the world.

If you don't know the effects of the fall then you are reading things into the bible that it doesn't say. Any TE will tell you that radioactive decay in rocks has been very good. It keeps the planet's outer core liquid.

not at all. we know sin entered, death entered, and so much more. not reading into the Bible but recognizing the thoroughness of what took place when adam ate the 'apple'. no area of life was unaffected.

For one thing, the verses don't describe how God made things. But the bible often describes God using processes or a long time, it doesn't make him look 'weak, indecisive, unclear in His thinking'. Tell me, Isaiah 54:16 Behold, I have created the smith who blows the fire of coals. Does this describe an instantaneous creating, or a slow process that involved Mr and Mrs Smith and a long apprenticeship at the forge?

sorry but that verse is not proof for a long slow process you are wrong. It describes God 's act of creating, He made it not some process. i have asked for verses several times andno one has provided any that prove God used long slow processes. the one you quote right now has nothing todo with a long slow process. it is a statement of fact from God what He did.

No I didn't forget. It is precisely because it was Moses that gave us Genesis and Exodus, that I value his understanding what a day is in God's sight, especially when Moses gives this to us in a Psalm (90) telling us about the creation.

every progressive creationist, theiostic evolutionist andothers mis-interpret that verse, eventheone in Peter. they read into it what isn't there and try to make those verse prove their alternative thinking. doesn't work as all it is stating is that time means nothing to God and lends no support whatsoever to those who have gone to alternatives. it does not c alter God's act in Genesis.

 

[Assyrian]

i knew you were going to go right to this point. yes there is conflict and without discernment you will be lead astray. read Luke 8:11-12. until yo urealize that allscienceis not of God, you will always miss whatyu want.

Luke 8:11-12, no nothing about science being of the devil there either.

that idea is a modern church philosophy that has no roots in scripture God doesn't need to identify He is God, he sets the rules, He is not a beggar going around trying to convince people to join Him. it isn't a metaphor but a statement of fact.

God would be a beggar if he identified with the downtrodden? You have this strange habit of lining up insults for God if he doesn't fit your expectations.

But in the whole spiel you missed out on my point. You look for a different meaning of scripture to the plain literal one because you accept what science tells us about the shape and movement of the earth. Why not do the same with modern science?

there is no truth in evolution. God is not with it. it is an enemy of God.

So you keep saying. You have not provided any evidence. It is not more an enemy of God than round earth and heliocentrism.

Cosmos Indicopleustes gave the church the very same 'science is of the devil' message you do, he even describe the round earther Christians as "ye who follow these men and yet wish to be Christians".

that isn't my message. i have been saying that believers are to shun that which is from the secular world as God has said. adopting and adapting it is wrong. secular science is wrong and not of God.

That is what Cosmas was saying too. The same message. And even you know Cosmas was wrong.

the criteria is found in scriptures.

That is what Cosmas thought. He was wrong. Even though the round earth science came from pagan Greeks, the science was right and his flat earth interpretation wrong. No matter how he went on about ye who follow these men and yet wish to be Christians, or no man can serve two masters, or cannot be partakers of the table of the Lord, and of the table of devils or be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers; for what fellowship hath righteousness with lawlessness? and what communion hath light with darkness? and what concord hath Christ with Belial?
He was still completely wrong.

Well Satan has quite happily deceived the church too, how do we know that it isn't the anti science doctrine in the church that is the deception

now you are looking for excuses to remain in secular science and ignore God's word. about not following or believing the world.

Deal with the question Archie.

not at all. we know sin entered, death entered, and so much more. not reading into the Bible but recognizing the thoroughness of what took place when adam ate the 'apple'. no area of life was unaffected.

That goes way beyond anything mentioned in the curse in Gen 3. The bible never says animal death is the result of the fall, let alone radioactive decay or the death of stars.

sorry but that verse is not proof for a long slow process you are wrong. It describes God 's act of creating, He made it not some process. i have asked for verses several times andno one has provided any that prove God used long slow processes. the one you quote right now has nothing todo with a long slow process. it is a statement of fact from God what He did.

Are you saying God instantly created a blacksmith?

every progressive creationist, theiostic evolutionist andothers mis-interpret that verse, eventheone in Peter. they read into it what isn't there and try to make those verse prove their alternative thinking. doesn't work as all it is stating is that time means nothing to God and lends no support whatsoever to those who have gone to alternatives. it does not c alter God's act in Genesis.

Sure it does. If God talks of creating the world in six day, or in one day as Genesis 2:4 says, and Moses tells us that a much longer period is as a day in God's sight, then the six day creation, or the one day creation may just be God explaining it from his point of view. Or if time means nothing to God as you put it, why do you insist his days can only mean 24 hours?

 

[archaeologist]

Luke 8:11-12, no nothing about science being of the devil there either

then you missed the point, try 1 peter 5:8.

But in the whole spiel you missed out on my point. You look for a different meaning of scripture to the plain literal one because you accept what science tells us about the shape and movement of the earth. Why not do the same with modern science?

i didn't miss a thing, just because science got it right once does it mean it is immune to the results of the fall or the wiles of the devil.

So you keep saying. You have not provided any evidence

sure i have, you are just not listening. evolution is a construct solely from the imagination of man, unprovable, untestable unobservable it is not of God or God would have written the Bible differently.

That is what Cosmas was saying too. The same message. And even you know Cosmas was wrong.

according to wikipedia there are several Cosmas':
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmas

is this the one you are talking about?

http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/awiesner/cosmas.html

if so,i fail to see the similarities as i never said one could not do science but one had to follow God not the world big difference. following God would have come up with the same result that the earth circled the sun, but leaving God and following evolution is not bring you to the same result as following God and seeing creation.

Even though the round earth science came from pagan Greeks,

you will have to go further backthanthat, from Dr. C. Hapgood's book, 'Maps of the Ancient Sea Kings' we know the idea of a round earth went further back into antiquity and noah and his sons would also know of the round earth because of their origination in the pre-flood civilization.

He was still completely wrong

wow. you just said God was wrong. are you or any human greater than God to be able to make such determinations and judgments?

Deal with the question Archie

why? you are looking for excuses to justify your position that science is greater than the church or the Bible.
Jesus said 'ye shall know the truth and it shall set you free' following the secular world is not following the truth for they are of the devil and the devil is not the truth. Jesus is the truth and you follow Him not science.

you have your answer.

That goes way beyond anything mentioned in the curse in Gen 3. The bible never says animal death is the result of the fall, let alone radioactive decay or the death of stars

again you limit your understanding to justify believing that which is not of God. your extrapolation and interpretation need much work.

If God talks of creating the world in six day, or in one day as Genesis 2:4 says

you are ignoring certain factors here and seek to limit the interpretation to fit your theory when it does not.

and Moses tells us that a much longer period is as a day in God's sight

please quote the whole verse instead of just paraphrasing the parts you want to use for you are missing much.

Or if time means nothing to God as you put it, why do you insist his days can only mean 24 hours?

because God had a purpose for such a time frame.

 

[OnceUponAChristian]

The Bible is an ancient book written by fallible mortal humans with a poor understanding of the world they lived in. It copied from other mythologies prior to it as well as borrowed from contemporaries. Most of its history isn't even supported by external evidence. I don't understand why anyone would quote it to support a position...wait, I forgot........FUNDIESSSSSSSS.........

 

[Assyrian]

then you missed the point, try 1 peter 5:8.

Is this some sort of game? A variation on your verse list games only you do them one at a time? You throw in a reference, I look it up, it doesn't say what you claim, so you throw in another reference for me to look up, and it doesn't support you either. Are you going to give me another verse that doesn't say what you claim now?

i didn't miss a thing, just because science got it right once does it mean it is immune to the results of the fall or the wiles of the devil.

Science got it right and the bible literalist warning the science was of the devil got it wrong. Cosmas was deceived.

Along came Copernicus and what do you know, science got it right again, and the literalists were wrong again. Christians had to find a new way of interpreting the passages.

See a pattern forming? People who take their bible interpretation and fight against science are not immune to their own pride, or the wiles of the devil.

sure i have, you are just not listening. evolution is a construct solely from the imagination of man, unprovable, untestable unobservable it is not of God or God would have written the Bible differently.

I can see you believe evolution is the enemy of God so you deny all the scientific evidence that supports it. You could do the same thing with spherical earth or heliocentrism. If you think the bible supports your interpretation, that you interpretation is what God says, then any evidence is wrong, human imagination, or a lie of the devil.

So how is evolution any different from a spherical earth and heliocentrism? How can we tell you are right in your condemnation of evolution but Cosmas was wrong?

according to wikipedia there are several Cosmas':
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmas

is this the one you are talking about?

http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/awiesner/cosmas.html

That's the bunny.

You should have checked my actual posts rather than just working from the Reply to Thread. I gave his full name Cosmos Indicopleustes complete with a hotlink to the webpage you just mentioned in my last two posts.

if so,i fail to see the similarities as i never said one could not do science but one had to follow God not the world big difference. following God would have come up with the same result that the earth circled the sun, but leaving God and following evolution is not bring you to the same result as following God and seeing creation.

You both reject secular science as not following God and being of the devil. You both say the science of your day contradicts scripture and following it is not following God.

You both reject science as a deception of the devil if it contradicts you interpretation of scripture, so I do not know how your 'following God' science is supposed to work out that the earth circles the sun when the bible say the sun rushes around the earth. We only found out that interpretation was wrong when secular scientific principles told us it was the earth that was moving.

That is what Cosmas thought. He was wrong. Even though the round earth science came from pagan Greeks, the science was right and his flat earth interpretation wrong.

you will have to go further backthanthat, from Dr. C. Hapgood's book, 'Maps of the Ancient Sea Kings' we know the idea of a round earth went further back into antiquity and noah and his sons would also know of the round earth because of their origination in the pre-flood civilization.

What has this to do with the earth being a sphere and the information coming from pagan science? You quote flat maps as evidence the earth is a round ball shape? Flat maps that come from pagan sources to claim Noah knew the earth was a sphere?

But it is irrelevant. Even if you could show the Noah knew the earth was a sphere, in Cosmas's time the idea of a round earth came from Pagan Greek science, not from the bible, and it contradicted his interpretation of the literal meaning of scripture. And if it contradicts what God says, your claim that Noah knew about it wishful thinking and part of the deception.

He was still completely wrong.

wow. you just said God was wrong. are you or any human greater than God to be able to make such determinations and judgments?

Are you saying Cosmas was right and the earth is flat? Round earth science is partaking of the table of devils?

Deal with the question Archie.

why? you are looking for excuses to justify your position that science is greater than the church or the Bible.
Jesus said 'ye shall know the truth and it shall set you free' following the secular world is not following the truth for they are of the devil and the devil is not the truth. Jesus is the truth and you follow Him not science.

you have your answer.

No, no answer there, just more insults to avoid the issue. If Satan is deceiving people, how do we know you and your anti science doctrines are not the Satanic deception? It was the anti science that was led astray in the past.

God created the natural world, when science finds out about the universe God created it is finding out truth. Of course if you deny that information about the world God created is truth, then you are denying God's work of creation.

again you limit your understanding to justify believing that which is not of God. your extrapolation and interpretation need much work.

you are ignoring certain factors here and seek to limit the interpretation to fit your theory when it does not.

Assertions and accusations rather than argument.

please quote the whole verse instead of just paraphrasing the parts you want to use for you are missing much.

I though you knew it? Why not just quote it yourself, that is what I do when you paraphrase verses.

Psalm 90:1 A prayer of Moses the man of God. Lord, you have been our dwelling place throughout all generations.
2 Before the mountains were born or you brought forth the earth and the world, from everlasting to everlasting you are God.
3 You turn men back to dust, saying, "Return to dust, O sons of men."
4 For a thousand years in your sight are like a day that has just gone by, or like a watch in the night.

See the Genesis references in verses 2&3? Then Moses tells us that what seem in God's eyes as a day may be much longer, a thousand years. From the time of the early church people realised this could apply to Genesis and that the days in Genesis may have non literal meanings. Each day could actually refer to a thousand years.

The difference now, is that we still understand Psalm 90 refers to Genesis, and that it still tells us that the days have a non literal meaning, we no longer think it was meant to give a strict conversion scale day:thousand years.

because God had a purpose for such a time frame.

So your interpretation of Psalm 90 that time means nothing to God is wrong?

 

[busterdog]

The Bible is an ancient book written by fallible mortal humans with a poor understanding of the world they lived in. It copied from other mythologies prior to it as well as borrowed from contemporaries. Most of its history isn't even supported by external evidence. I don't understand why anyone would quote it to support a position...wait, I forgot........FUNDIESSSSSSSS.........

You have all of 5 posts. You sure drop the hammer quickly on your brothers and sisters, if that is what we are.

We can reason and bring the evidence with anyone. ANN-EEEE-WUUUUUUUN.

Let me tell you about the literal, inerrant word. It feeds me. Gives me joy. Fills me. Its a light for my path. You think you can overcome that with sarcasm? Happily that isn't happening.

Blessings.