Creation predictions

[Aman777]

So let me get this straight, according to your reinterpretation (which I still don't accept) - all creatures were created according to "Their kind", that would mean "all" or is there a special version of "all" that isn't all creatures? According to you, there were other creatures created according to "His kind" over and above "all" creatures already created according to "Their kind", so NOT all creatures were created then, right? Wouldn't that mean the bible contradicts itself according to your reinterpretation?

No, since Their kind is the eternal kind "created" by God the Trinity.
His kind are temporary creatures (common ancestors) made by the Hands of Jesus.

The other thing I have to ask, according to your reinterpretation again, Mankind wasn't created perfect after all since we were made according to "His kind" and not immortal to start with (i.e. when you say:
"His kinds are the kinds which Jesus made and they are all subject to death because they are made from the air, dust and water God created in the beginning. Gen 1:1 They were contaminated with DEATH/darkness since they were made apart from God. Gen 1:2 God's kinds are Eternal kinds or kinds which will be in God's perfect Heaven. This includes Humans who are "His" kind and MUST be born again Spiritually by the Trinity (Their kind) in order to inherit the perfect Heaven.",

God intended us to die/sin/whatever from the beginning). Are you invoking another Bible contradiction to pull off your reinterpretation?

God KNEW that if He made anything in physical form, it would be apart from Himself. To be apart from God is to be subject to death/darkness because ONLY God is good/perfect. Mat 19:17 Mar 10:18 Luk 18:19 Therefore, Jesus/Lord God made Adam Gen 2:7 from the contaminated clay, air, dust and water, which God made in the beginning. Gen 1:1 and mankind was destined to be separated from the perfect God FOREVER. The ONLY way mankind can be "in God" is to be in Christ Spiritually. Most people on Earth are His kind but those who have been "created in God's Image" have been born again Spiritually in Christ, are now Their kind, the eternal kind. That's God's Truth of kinds.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

No, since Their kind is the eternal kind "created" by God the Trinity.
His kind are temporary creatures (common ancestors) made by the Hands of Jesus.

You haven't answered my question - if as you say God made ALL creatures according to Their kind, then Jesus couldn't make anything else, because that would be a contradiction if he did. You also didn't answer why some of the other creatures that were made over and above ALL the creatures already made, are eternal creatures, are they in Heaven? If not, where are they, in Hell with Adam and Eve?

God KNEW that if He made anything in physical form, it would be apart from Himself. To be apart from God is to be subject to death/darkness because ONLY God is good/perfect. Mat 19:17 Mar 10:18 Luk 18:19 Therefore, Jesus/Lord God made Adam Gen 2:7 from the contaminated clay, air, dust and water, which God made in the beginning. Gen 1:1 and mankind was destined to be separated from the perfect God FOREVER. The ONLY way mankind can be "in God" is to be in Christ Spiritually. Most people on Earth are His kind but those who have been "created in God's Image" have been born again Spiritually in Christ, are now Their kind, the eternal kind. That's God's Truth of kinds.

So, explain to me then what God meant with "for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." in Genesis 2:17 if we were already doomed to die? Also, are you saying God didn't create the world Perfect before Sin given "God made Adam Gen 2:7 from the contaminated clay, air, dust and water, which God made in the beginning."?

 

[Aman777]

You haven't answered my question - if as you say God made ALL creatures according to Their kind, then Jesus couldn't make anything else, because that would be a contradiction if he did.

You left out an important word. It is the word "living". God the Trinity makes eternal living creatures. A good example is Eve. She is called the Mother of all "living" Gen 3:20 because she was the FIRST woman created eternally by God the Trinity. Gen 5:1-2

You also didn't answer why some of the other creatures that were made over and above ALL the creatures already made, are eternal creatures, are they in Heaven? If not, where are they, in Hell with Adam and Eve?

Adam and Eve were "created" by God the Trinity. Gen 1:27 Gen 5:1-2 Both were "formed" by the Hands of Jesus and created Spiritually by God the Trinity AFTER Cain killed Abel. Gen 5:1-2 Both are alive eternally with Jesus. Some creatures won't be in Heaven since Jesus made the creeping creatures. We will have to wait to see if God creates Mosquitoes for Heaven. I doubt it.

So, explain to me then what God meant with "for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." in Genesis 2:17 if we were already doomed to die? Also, are you saying God didn't create the world Perfect before Sin given "God made Adam Gen 2:7 from the contaminated clay, air, dust and water, which God made in the beginning."?

God is speaking of the Day of Salvation, Judgment Day, the present 6th Day/Age in the creation of His perfect Heaven. We live today at Gen 1:27 at the end of the 6th Day because God is STILL creating sinners Spiritually in Christ. Genesis 1:28-31 is prophecy of what will happen after Jesus returns at Armageddon, a future event at the end of the present 6th Day. ALL Humans (descendants of Adam) live and die on this last Day of the creation.

 

[Colter]

Hi there folks

I'ld like to know from creationists out there...
What testable predictions does the creation model make?
And how exactly do they naturally flow from the creation model?

What is your, let's say, top 3 of testable predictions?

EDIT: I ask in context of biology.

Born into a mind created by mind we could only speculate.

 

[Ophiolite]

Born into a mind created by mind we could only speculate.

Fair enough. Go ahead and speculate. Many great things have been born of speculation.

 

[dad]

Hi there folks

I'ld like to know from creationists out there...
What testable predictions does the creation model make?
And how exactly do they naturally flow from the creation model?

What is your, let's say, top 3 of testable predictions?

EDIT: I ask in context of biology.

The creation model? What is that, the bible? I do not recall seeing some creation model.


The creation record of God does explain how animals were different a long time ago. It also explains how many animals and man will again be different. Lions eating grass. No more poison snakes. No more eating flesh. Many bible believers assume this was also the case at creation. So the prediction is that it will be that way again.

So here are 3 predictions

Lions and wolves on a grass diet.

Animals being friendly and cuddly

No more stings in bees or poison in snakes etc.

 

[DogmaHunter]

The creation model? What is that, the bible? I do not recall seeing some creation model.


The creation record of God does explain how animals were different a long time ago. It also explains how many animals and man will again be different. Lions eating grass. No more poison snakes. No more eating flesh. Many bible believers assume this was also the case at creation. So the prediction is that it will be that way again.

So here are 3 predictions

Lions and wolves on a grass diet.

Animals being friendly and cuddly

No more stings in bees or poison in snakes etc.

lol

 

[Kylie]

So here are 3 predictions

Lions and wolves on a grass diet.

Animals being friendly and cuddly

No more stings in bees or poison in snakes etc.

Cool. When they happen, let me know.

It's one thing to be able to make predictions. Anyone can do that. It's an entirely different thing to be able to make predictions that actually happen. So far, you're showing a big fat zero there.

 

[dad]

Cool. When they happen, let me know.

It's one thing to be able to make predictions. Anyone can do that. It's an entirely different thing to be able to make predictions that actually happen. So far, you're showing a big fat zero there.

To see predictions happen we need time. The bible has hundreds of predictions already history now. Science hasn't been around very long, so it's ever changing conflation of predictions is quite a shallow pool. When they predict a black hole for a SN, and we do not see one, that is a failed prediction. When they fail to predict or even see the rings of that SN, that is a fail. the predictions of science are often after the fact computer modelling of how things 'must have happened'.

 

[PsychoSarah]

To see predictions happen we need time. The bible has hundreds of predictions already history now.

Name a single one that has passed that follows these guidelines:
1. It pertains to a specific event, not a vague one. A prediction of many people dying from a disease is vague, because epidemics have occurred quite frequently in human history to the point that it would be far more impressive to predict 100 years of no epidemics than to predict that an epidemic will happen within the next 100 years. To be a specific prediction, a small time frame and place of occurrence should be named at a minimum, and the more detailed it is, the better.
2. It can't be a self-fulfilling prophecy. That is, people that believe in the prediction can't be able to force it to happen, nor can it be something inevitable. People spread religions, so predicting that a religion will spread is pointless, because groups of people can actively make it happen if they so desire. Earthquakes are such frequent events that predicting that one will occur at a given location is predicting an event that is often inevitable, especially if it is around a fault line.
3. The fulfillment of the prophecy has to occur outside of the pages of the bible. Most biblical prophecies fail this, and often the claims of fulfillment are unverifiable as a result. The more modern the fulfillment, the better.
4. The fulfillment must be precise. If a prophecy predicts that a disease will kill all people in a specific town within a specific time frame, an event that matches all these conditions EXCEPT the named town doesn't count as a fulfillment of the prophecy, because the exact event predicted did not occur.

 

[dad]

Name a single one that has passed that follows these guidelines:
1. It pertains to a specific event, not a vague one. A prediction of many people dying from a disease is vague, because epidemics have occurred quite frequently in human history to the point that it would be far more impressive to predict 100 years of no epidemics than to predict that an epidemic will happen within the next 100 years. To be a specific prediction, a small time frame and place of occurrence should be named at a minimum, and the more detailed it is, the better.

Jews went into captivity on cue as prophesied, to a specific country for a specific time.

2. It can't be a self-fulfilling prophecy. That is, people that believe in the prediction can't be able to force it to happen, nor can it be something inevitable. People spread religions, so predicting that a religion will spread is pointless, because groups of people can actively make it happen if they so desire. Earthquakes are such frequent events that predicting that one will occur at a given location is predicting an event that is often inevitable, especially if it is around a fault line.

Babylon would not invade Israel to fulfill some prophesy of Jews. Nor would they be able to know it would be 70 years.

3. The fulfillment of the prophecy has to occur outside of the pages of the bible. Most biblical prophecies fail this, and often the claims of fulfillment are unverifiable as a result. The more modern the fulfillment, the better.

Done.

4. The fulfillment must be precise. If a prophecy predicts that a disease will kill all people in a specific town within a specific time frame, an event that matches all these conditions EXCEPT the named town doesn't count as a fulfillment of the prophecy, because the exact event predicted did not occur.

Done.

Now why did the specific black hole science predicted never happen in SN1987a?

 

[Kylie]

To see predictions happen we need time. The bible has hundreds of predictions already history now. Science hasn't been around very long, so it's ever changing conflation of predictions is quite a shallow pool. When they predict a black hole for a SN, and we do not see one, that is a failed prediction. When they fail to predict or even see the rings of that SN, that is a fail. the predictions of science are often after the fact computer modelling of how things 'must have happened'.

And you'll find (as I have pointed out to you before) that the predictions in the Bible fall into one of four categories.

1. almost certain to happen
2. vague enough that they can be interpreted to fit a number of different events
3. written after the events that they allegedly foretold
4. the fulfillment of the prophecies was invented

 

[Kylie]

Jews went into captivity on cue as prophesied, to a specific country for a specific time.



Babylon would not invade Israel to fulfill some prophesy of Jews. Nor would they be able to know it would be 70 years.


Done.



Done.

Now why did the specific black hole science predicted never happen in SN1987a?

I'm sorry, which is the single prophesy that fulfills all the requirements?

 

[dad]

And you'll find (as I have pointed out to you before) that the predictions in the Bible fall into one of four categories.

1. almost certain to happen

A Virgin birth in a certain town is anything but certain to happen, it is impossible.

1. vague enough that they can be interpreted to fit a number of different events

So rather than a black hole I hear some science folks claim a neutron star or some such maybe should exist. Too bad they are all wrong eh? That was not vague, it was just hilariously absolutely wrong.

I see nothing vague about Babylon being predicted to come and destroy Jerusalem and take away captives for seventy years.

1. written after the events that they allegedly foretold

Good luck with that.

1. the fulfillment of the prophecies was invented

Nothing invented about the captivity.

 

[Kylie]

A Virgin birth in a certain town is anything but certain to happen, it is impossible.

And with no evidence outside the Bible to support it, it fails on point 4.

So rather than a black hole I hear some science folks claim a neutron star or some such maybe should exist. Too bad they are all wrong eh? That was not vague, it was just hilariously absolutely wrong.

I'm talking about Biblical prophecies here. It's a bit dishonest of you to try to change the subject, isn't it?

I see nothing vague about Babylon being predicted to come and destroy Jerusalem and take away captives for seventy years.

You still haven't demonstrated that it has passed all the other criteria either.

Good luck with that.

I will take that as an admission that you have no argument against that point.

Nothing invented about the captivity.

Well, look at this, you are absolutely right. The Bible accurately predicts the Babylonian invasion of Jerusalem in 607-605BC!

Unfortunately, the Book of Daniel where the prophecy is made, was written around 167BC! Oh dear! It seems that this prophecy of yours was written about 430 years AFTER the events it prophesied! How very embarrassing! I mean, it wasn't included in the Hebrew Bible's canon of the prophets (which was closed around 200 BC) or the Wisdom of Sirach (a work dating from around 180 BC which drew on almost every book of the Old Testament except Daniel)! Sure sounds like those authors had no idea that the book of Daniel even existed. So, you have failed spectacularly here!

 

[dad]

And with no evidence outside the Bible to support it, it fails on point 4.



I'm talking about Biblical prophecies here. It's a bit dishonest of you to try to change the subject, isn't it?



You still haven't demonstrated that it has passed all the other criteria either.



I will take that as an admission that you have no argument against that point.



Well, look at this, you are absolutely right. The Bible accurately predicts the Babylonian invasion of Jerusalem in 607-605BC!

Unfortunately, the Book of Daniel where the prophecy is made, was written around 167BC! Oh dear! It seems that this prophecy of yours was written about 430 years AFTER the events it prophesied! How very embarrassing! I mean, it wasn't included in the Hebrew Bible's canon of the prophets (which was closed around 200 BC) or the Wisdom of Sirach (a work dating from around 180 BC which drew on almost every book of the Old Testament except Daniel)! Sure sounds like those authors had no idea that the book of Daniel even existed. So, you have failed spectacularly here!

Being unable to deny prophesy you claim some conspiracy con job you have no proof for.

The bible has many hundreds of fulfilled prophesies. One cannot understand history without them. Nor can one understand creation issues without the creator. That's why science is in such a confused, conflicting muddle. They seem desperate to claim credit for as much of creation as possible, and desperate to ignore or deny the predictable progression of false prophesies they make.

 

[Kylie]

Being unable to deny prophesy you claim some conspiracy con job you have no proof for.

The bible has many hundreds of fulfilled prophesies. One cannot understand history without them. Nor can one understand creation issues without the creator. That's why science is in such a confused, conflicting muddle. They seem desperate to claim credit for as much of creation as possible, and desperate to ignore or deny the predictable progression of false prophesies they make.

Oh, here we go again.

You claim I can't do a thing. You then claim the Bible does, and use that to say science is bad. All you ever have is hot air, dad, can't you get anything better? You haven't even addressed the point I raised about your prophecy being written AFTER the event you claim fulfilled it! How is it that you can pretend you've won after I've demolished your claim? You're nothing but bluster.

 

[dad]

Oh, here we go again.

You claim I can't do a thing. You then claim the Bible does, and use that to say science is bad. All you ever have is hot air, dad, can't you get anything better? You haven't even addressed the point I raised about your prophecy being written AFTER the event you claim fulfilled it! How is it that you can pretend you've won after I've demolished your claim? You're nothing but bluster.

Easy to address made up nonsense...prove it?

 

[Kylie]

Easy to address made up nonsense...prove it?

I have done. You just say I'm wrong, without providing any support for your own position. Same old same old, dad, learn a new trick. The old one's bad and boring.

 

[dad]

I have done. You just say I'm wrong, without providing any support for your own position. Same old same old, dad, learn a new trick. The old one's bad and boring.

You have proven Daniel was written after the fact eh? We are supposed to laugh?