Neanderthals, Dinosaurs?

[Ronald]

No, please use your eyes to read. I said none of the Bible was written to us, try not to be half baked in the future

If the Word is for man, it is to man, all of us. We can go round and round with this and point out specific texts like Deuteronomy or Leviticus that arent applicable to Christians, but over all, we can gain from all. I was saved reading the New Testament, didn't delve into the Old Testament right away and then only portions and gradually.

 

[JacksBratt]

If you think about it, the Bible does NOT say He created eveyrthing in 6 literal days. People make it up to think they understand Genesis because their minds are very limited in knowledge and understanding. The problem is people only think about the English definition of "day" and not the possibiility its meaning may be totally different. God did not write the Bible in English. Moses knew the exact meanings of every word. We have to let go of the easy thought that all Bible text means what we were taught in English classes.

No, God did not write the bible in English.. but we certainly cling to the gospel message in our translations with white knuckle grip..don't we.. Then we toss out the simple written text that describes six literal days....

Sorry, a lot of speculation on your part.."Possibly it's meaning maybe totally different"? Really? So Jesus said:

John 5:45–47, “Do not think that I shall accuse you to the Father; there is one who accuses you—Moses, in whom you trust. For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me; for he wrote about Me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words?”

and:

Exodus 31:17 Exodus 20:11



"For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day and made it holy.

and:



"It is a sign between Me and the sons of Israel forever; for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, but on the seventh day He ceased from labor, and was refreshed."

If you understand this, you will not deny it is possible for a day to mean milllenia.

So..."there was evening, there was morning.. the first thousand years"... LOL that's too funny.

 

[charsan]

If the Word is for man, it is to man, all of us.

While the Bible is for us, on that I agree, the books contained within the Bible are not written specifically to any 21st century man. Now if you want a further discussion start a new topic because this is not the topic of the OP and I will respond no further to any off topic post in this thread.

 

[RTP76]

@JacksBratt
Hi JacksBratt! I too believe the word of God is ultimately true regarding creation--sure not every detail of creation is given (so there certainly is joy to be found in discovering aspects of our creation that is not revealed in scripture), but these additional truths should not give rise to negating what is clearly written.

It is often asked: Were the 'days' of creation actual [ordinary] days?
Genesis indicates so, but this idea of normal/typical days is also corroborated elsewhere in scripture:
Exodus 20:11
Leviticus 23:3
Deuteronomy 5:13
Deuteronomy 16:8

Further, Jesus is quoted in the NT making direct references to the creation account, as it is written:
Mark 10:6
Mark 13:19
Luke 11:50-51
Luke 13:14 (interesting here is that the synagogue official cites working for six days (and that is when healing should be... not on the sabbath is the argument)... so it, again, is clear that days were understood to be ordinary-length days). Never does Jesus make a reference to people/events in the creation account in such a way where it warrants a re-interpretation of days or viewing the people and events as being merely symbolic.

There are, of course, many other references to the creation account by both NT and OT authors - all pointing to Genesis as being a historical, narrative account, given by God, and written down [most likely] by Moses. The Bible is clear on this, and arguments against really are arguments from silence as far as scripture is concerned... they arise from extra-biblical sources where conclusions from indirect observations are made and viewed as more authoritative than scripture.

God bless -

 

[GodLovesCats]

No, God did not write the bible in English.. but we certainly cling to the gospel message in our translations with white knuckle grip..don't we. Then we toss out the simple written text that describes six literal days....

Sorry, a lot of speculation on your part. Possibly it's meaning maybe totally different? Really?

The Biblical text does not tell us God created everything inv six literal days. If it did, nothing He created - rocks, seas, plants, animals, and microscopic things - would have existed 4.6 billion-6 million years ago. I don't know how you can say this and still deny it is possible for what scientists discovered to be proof the Creation did not not happen in six literal days. Why don't you go look up articles about evolution?

If you tihnk it is possible for the Creation to happen in six literal days, there is no reason to doubt it could have been created in a much longer time. No, it is not any speculation on my part because I KNOW THE FACTS.

If you still can't understand it, you just want to be ignorant.

 

[GodLovesCats]

I am convinced most people on CF have this idea that just because the Bible does not mention millions of years before Adam, a day can't mean that. The truth is evolution was simply not mentioned in it, which is totally different from saying it never happend. If evolution never happened, the Earth never would have a climate change or anything that was created after "the sixth day" and no original species would be extinct today. We would not be homo sapiens. Just look around you. Listen to the animals and rain. Smell plants. Go the beach and forest. What you will see are many objects that existed much longer than 6 days before Adam did.

 

[ilovejcsog]

No, a day began to exist when the earth was created and there was nothing else. It rotated once as you said, in 23 hours and 56 minutes. God created the light on the first day and notice the Bible says the night as well. Combining the light and the darkness in one full day. Take a good look at Genesis 1:4 & 5 to see if you can understand what one day is?

Since Gods day can be a thousand years how do you know that after the first day of creation it took more than 24 hrs to 999years to create the second creation, etc?
Just to add more confusion.

 

[joshua 1 9]

I hold to the view that the "sons of God" were fallen angels that took "daughters of man" and had offspring.
That has nothing to do with the deflection of the foot prints being angels instead of human.

We know that humans did not exist along with the dinosaurs. That does not mean the human like footprints are a fake. They are just of unknown origin.

 

[GodLovesCats]

We know that humans did not exist along with the dinosaurs. That does not mean the human like footprints are a fake. They are just of unknown origin.

The fake stuff is any story about humans and dinosaurs living at the same time. Dinosaurs lived 200-65 million years ago.

 

[joshua 1 9]

The fake stuff is any story about humans and dinosaurs living at the same time. Dinosaurs lived 200-65 million years ago.

We are not talking about the "story" or the explanation for the evidence. WE are just talking about the evidence we have. Right how you have nothing to substantiate your hypotheses that the evidence is "fake".

 

[GodLovesCats]

I said the story is fake because evidence disproves it. Evidence certainly is there that dinosaurs died long before the first humans existed.

 

[joshua 1 9]

I said the story is fake because evidence disproves it. Evidence certainly is there that dinosaurs died long before the first humans existed.

Yes we know that humans were not alive at this time. But we still have human looking foot prints. That is why I mentioned one belief that the footprints belonged to angels.

You want to claim they are fake, that should be very easy to prove. Remember the James Ossuary? It was shown that the questionable inscription was recent. If the footprints were fake then that is what the evidence would show. Even 50 years of petunia is pretty conclusive. If someone had carved those human footprints into the rock then the patina would be very different on the human prints compared to the dinosaur prints. It would not look the same at all. My son did that once. He is very good at finding fossils. One day he found a very old fossil and before I know it he was cleaning it up and remove a substantial amount of the petunia, which in this case was iron based that very much dated the item we had. I stopped him from removing the petunia and he had no idea that he should not be cleaning the item up like that.

People do have different opinions about how much to clean an antique. I did renovation and restoration work for many years so I am an expert on this. I have my own way or doing restoration and it is almost an art. To leave enough of the petunia to show the age of the item, but to clean it up to bring out it's natural beauty. I have one objective to sell the item for more money then what I bought it for. There is value in the age but there is also value when the item appeals to the human eye.

 

[The Righterzpen]

This ties in with the Nephilim where they think the Son's of God were angles that produced offspring with the sons of man.

I tend to think the Son's of God were the Godly line of Seth and the sons of man were the ungodly line of Cain. But the angles interpretation is popular and widely accepted.

I think you are right here in the sense of "sons of God" being Godly men; but I don't think Godly men were just confined to the "biological line of Seth" (totally excluding any of Cain's biological decedents). Kind of like the passage: "They are not all Israel who are of Israel..." and neither are the children of the flesh the children of promise but those who are called are the seed of Abraham. (I know I'm verse mashing here.) But I think that fits in more with the principle of God not being a respecter of persons.

Now if you were to say Seth's line is symbolic of Godly men; that I would go with!

 

[The Righterzpen]

Is this what you are referring to?
https://www.dinosaurc14ages.com/mancoal.htm

Interesting article. I've read in other literature that they've found bones in coal seams (both human and "other") but I don't recall ever reading that particular story. That may have been the source material that the other article I read had gotten their information from; but I don't know, because it was more of a generalized article questioning the age of coal, oil and how these fossil fuels are actually formed.

Good article though.

 

[GodLovesCats]

Honestly I don't care about the footprints being close to dinosaur fossils. Their location only matters if the archaeologists studying them can demonstrate humans walked in the region and saw the fossils there.

 

[The Righterzpen]

Gradualism is a valid theory. So is catastrophic theory. They see a lot of catastrophic events in California and if they do not understand the power of these forces then a lot of people are at risk.

Gradualism and catastrophic theory are valid depending on the evidence being looked at.

compare the appearance of these rocks:

clearly - water erosion

Now look at the difference between the top and bottom of this rock:

You can see a distinct difference between the smoothed bottom and the ragged top.

Now look at the Grand Canyon: This is not water erosion; this is a gorge ripped in the earth is what it is.

Now here's an example showing both the river and the craggy rock:

Look; you can see the difference! The river bed, where the rock is smoothed is clearly water erosion; the rock above it though is not. It's an example of where sedimentary rock was pulled apart by earthquakes and obviously water takes the path of least resistance and this is why there's a river in the bottom of the canyon.

Now consider these pictures as comparison: This is the "Little Colorado River Gorge". It's the "feeder" of the Grand Canyon:

Note also; it's in the same rock strata! The rock that makes up the Grand Canyon is no different than the rock that makes up the Little Colorado River Gorge.

Clearly; it's a crack in the ground!

A crack that just keeps getting wider.

And wider......

Folks, this is not water erosion. An earth quake did this!

 

[The Righterzpen]

I hold to the view that the "sons of God" were fallen angels that took "daughters of man" and had offspring.

This thread is about origins. Where did things come from? Where do they fit in the time line.

In order for this hypothesis to be true; all sorts of laws God established would have to be violated and violated by God Himself!

We know one species does not arise from others. Humans did not come from monkeys. All life on this planet did not evolve from some undefined primordial "goo".

Scripture says God made everything after its own kind. Angels and men are not the same "kind". If you can't cross dogs and cats, why would you think you could cross humans and angels?

Scripture also says that angels don't marry or are given in marriage. Jesus says marriage is for the children of this world because death reigns. We also know that angels don't die in the same sense as carbon based life does. The lifespan of angels is from the point they were created until judgement day. Because they don't suffer death in the same way carbon based life does, thus eliminates the need to reproduce. And if a certain form of entity does not reproduce; there'd be no reason for God to give (them) organs to that end.

Angels are also fundamentally different in nature than carbon based life. Thus angels can not create life; only God can do that. Now would God violate the rules that govern His own creation in producing some sort of angelic / human hybrid life form? Does that really make sense?

The only combination Spirit / carbon based life form that ever existed was Jesus Christ. (Who, by the way never reproduced although he was obviously capable of doing so!) So if the only combination Spirit / human life form who was capable of reproducing was restrained from doing so despite the desire to follow the command that said "be fruitful and multiply"; why on earth would anyone ever conclude that God would not only create genitals for entities who could never use them and allow them to violate His own principles (mind you a place He Him/himself wouldn't even go) and allow them to do something only He has the power and authority to do - which is create life.

Think of the implication of that belief.

 

[Neogaia777]

Sorry, there is no need to believe that God needed any more than six literal days.

Can you tell me why He would need more time?

Do you think it is beyond His capabilities?

Do you think He has fed us a false sense of time?

Why do you think He explicitly stated "There was evening, there was morning, the first day" for each and every day?

Do you think that God knew that people would slander His six day creation and fabricate nonsense about His timeline?

I'm saying that if He did create it in a literal six days, which I will not argue He is capable of doing, then why did He do such with the appearance of millions even billions of years...?

It is pretty certainly evident by the evidence that it is millions, to some few billions of years old... And if He did create it in a literal six days, then He also created to deceptively appear millions to billions of years old, or to have happened over millions to billions of years, which my God does not do... He does not deceive or lie, so it must be our interpretations and assumptions that it was done in six literal days, or even 6000 years, that are "wrong" is all...

When He says that one of His days "is as a thousand years", I do not think He meant it literally... but meant it to convey that one of His days is "very, very, very long", beyond comprehension to the ancients of those days back then...

And what is an "evening and a morning" to God anyway, I mean he does not count his days by the light and the dark of the way we do with the way the earth turns and revolves around the sun and has light and dark because of it, etc...

It must mean an era or epoch or an age...

God Bless!

 

[Neogaia777]

Read your post. The long days as epochs of time is not so disturbing - its popular and I'm used to it. What was disturbing is that you think "the Fall of Man, man's first sin that affected the world, was an insignificant blip in the Genesis account! Wow!
The Fall of Man is not only significant to Genesis, but also to the history of mankind. The nature of sin _ that we are born with _ is due to Adam's original sin. We are born blind because of it. All of nature suffered from that curse, the animal kingdom became fearful and at times shows the same evil as man. The botanicals became imperfect, with mutations (defects), bacteria, viruses, illness affecting every living thing.
An insignificant blip? I think you need to reconsider what you've been taught. This is what happens when the Genesis story is misinterpreted/ distorted and turned into some symbolic allegory.

The way God see's it, and the way we will look back on it, yes, it will be and "insignificant blip" compared to the vast stretches of cosmic time...

And is why it is not even mentioned in Genesis 1 to 2:4... Which is the summary of an entire creation from the beginning to and ending of one... Covers billions, possibly even trillions of years...

God Bless!

 

[The Righterzpen]

@Neogaia777 - why is my post #296 "funny"?

The problem you have with "6 eras" as opposed to "6 literal days" is that in order for evolution to be true; there has to be death. The Scripture is very clear that death did not exist until Adam and Eve transgressed.

Now why does it "appear" to be millions of years to you and not others? Would that not be a matter of perception and not an indisputable fact? You are assuming upon everyone else; God and also yourself that you can not be deceived by a belief system that you have bought into.

Again, we are back to people's personal world views and what they choose to believe!