Do you trust God or Man when it comes to the creation?

[Strong in Him]

But a historical textbook.
So just trust the first hand eye witness account.

What first hand eye witness account?

 

[Strong in Him]

Agreed, we do not know the hour or day of His return, however we are given many prophecies and are told these things so we know what to look for and so we are not deceived.

But people interpret those prophecies in different ways. The only thing I've learnt about End Times on these forums is - that no one can agree about End Times.
There is/isn't a "Rapture".
The AOD has/hasn't come.
Some prophecies were about the destruction of the temple in AD 70/no, they weren't.

One of the first debates I had on these forums was with someone who was "98% certain" that X was the antichrist - due to a certain series of events - and when he got a certain political position, there would be 7 years left before the end. That was around 20 years ago; X never did get the political position and we didn't hear from this forum member again.
2012 was supposed to have been a significant date, with folk posting "evidence" from YouTube that there would be some sort of end times event at the London Olympics. There wasn't.
Harold Camping was adamant that Jesus would return on a certain day. He didn't. Camping then said that he had returned, but only spiritually - the real return would be 6 months later. It wasn't.
There have been blood moons, birds falling from the sky and no doubt other phenomena which have all "been significant in end times" - except that they weren't.

God the Father would be perfectly capable of announcing the date of his Son's return/the dates that certain signs will be fulfilled, if he wanted us to know. He doesn't. The message of parables on this subject is, "be ready; you do not know when the Lord/King/bridegroom will return."
And he certainly doesn't say anything about a "figurative 3rd day."

 

[dwb001]

What first hand eye witness account?

God's

 

[Strong in Him]

God's

God is telling us that he created the world - not how, not in any scientific detail and not giving us a timescale.
That is not the purpose of Genesis 1.

 

[dwb001]

God is telling us that he created the world - not how, not in any scientific detail and not giving us a timescale.
That is not the purpose of Genesis 1.

Correct... not scientific detail... but historical detail.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Funny how God speaks of Himself in the 3rd person.

Like Akita Suggggaki posted, "Funny how God speaks of Himself in the 3rd person."

Akita has bene on this forum a long time now.

 

[Diamond72]

Seems like rather a pointless exercise.

π practically is a growable programming language, a language design tool, a hyper-language and a philosophy of how to design software. π technically is a fully reflective dynamically both semantically and syntactically extensible programming language (thus a macro language, as well).

My son is a specialist at this point in time. I told him to be careful because if a different programming language were to come along the older you get in life the more difficult it is to learn something new.

 

[Diamond72]

Science is still lying about God's creation

Science does not talk about God. Science is agnostic. There are atheists out there, but they do not represent Science.

 

[d taylor]

Science does not talk about God. Science is agnostic. There are atheists out there, but they do not represent Science.

-
​

No, science tries to convince people that the creation God created is the one they proclaim as fact/truth. When in reality, that may be fine for unbelievers to fall for their creation deception. But a sad/bad precedent when believers also fall for sciences creation deception.

 

[d taylor]

-
​

There is a tactic used in Biblical debates when people who oppose a belief. Held by other people about specific beliefs, about certain Biblical beliefs/areas of non direct mention.

The tactic used by these people, is to say The Bible never says anything about the certain area being debated.

Examples of beliefs held by people where this non Bible mentioning tactic is used. Here are three i have came across over the years
1. The Bible never uses the word trinity 2. The Bible never uses flat earth to describe God's creation 3. The Bible never uses the term 7 year tribulation.

I will add another one, about the flood covering the whole earth. I have heard people say this before that the flood did not cover the whole earth.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

-
​

No, science tries to convince people that the creation God created is the one they proclaim as fact/truth. When in reality, that may be fine for unbelievers to fall for their creation deception. But a sad/bad precedent when believers also fall for sciences creation deception.

Science is only a process and conclusions of the process.

 

[Strong in Him]

-
​

No, science tries to convince people that the creation God created is the one they proclaim as fact/truth. When in reality, that may be fine for unbelievers to fall for their creation deception. But a sad/bad precedent when believers also fall for sciences creation deception.

There are scientists who are Christians, and have no conflict between their faith and their job (studying science.)

 

[Strong in Him]

Correct... not scientific detail... but historical detail.

God created the world; I agree and have always said that.
Genesis cannot tell us HOW he created (beyond saying "God spoke"). It does say WHY; the world came into being because God said it should be so.
Science can tell us HOW the world came into being, but not WHY.

 

[dwb001]

God created the world; I agree and have always said that.
Genesis cannot tell us HOW he created (beyond saying "God spoke"). It does say WHY; the world came into being because God said it should be so.

That is a HOW.
Could you please show the Genesis verse that explains the WHY?
Because God said is a HOW.

Science can tell us HOW the world came into being, but not WHY.

Really?
What does science say?
I didn't know an abstract concept could speak.
Or are you saying that scientists interpret the data of certain evidence to mean a particular thing?
Are there no contrary opinions?
If there is one contrary experiment then and entire theory is invalidated.
Speak o great science.

 

[Strong in Him]

That is a HOW.

No, it isn't.
"God said, 'let the land produce living creatures ....... and it was so. God made the wild animals ... the livestock", Genesis 1:24-25.
Yes. HOW did he make them?
It does not say, "God said, 'let there be living creatures', and they appeared - immediately and fully formed." If you assume that, you are reading into the text.
God said - then God made. HOW did he make?

Could you please show the Genesis verse that explains the WHY?
Because God said is a HOW.

No, it's WHY.
God said "let there be ......" Why did he say that? Presumably he had a reason for wanting to create. True, it does not say "then God wanted to create ...." - but why would he do something if he did not want to do it?

Really?
What does science say?

Scientists, science books, scientific data etc say, and tell us, lots of things.

Or are you saying that scientists interpret the data of certain evidence to mean a particular thing?
Are there no contrary opinions?
If there is one contrary experiment then and entire theory is invalidated.

I doubt that.
I would imagine that scientists formulate a theory, test it through an experiment and repeat that experiment many times so that they can say, "On 12 out of 15 occasions, this was the result."
If an experiment fails once, it does not mean the theory is incorrect - if it fails 101 times for the same reason; it might be. (Unless the equipment were faulty or some other reason.)

 

[dwb001]

No, it isn't.
"God said, 'let the land produce living creatures ....... and it was so. God made the wild animals ... the livestock", Genesis 1:24-25.
Yes. HOW did he make them?

By the Word. That is a HOW... maybe not the HOW you wanted but it is the HOW you get.

It does not say, "God said, 'let there be living creatures', and they appeared - immediately and fully formed." If you assume that, you are reading into the text.
God said - then God made. HOW did he make?

By His Word.

No, it's WHY.
God said "let there be ......" Why did he say that? Presumably he had a reason for wanting to create. True, it does not say "then God wanted to create ...." - but why would he do something if he did not want to do it?

WHY is motivation.
What verse in Genesis addresses the motivation God had in creation?
You yourself just asked the question "why did God do it?' and that is the why question.

Scientists, science books, scientific data etc say, and tell us, lots of things.

Scientific data does not tell us anything.
Science books are written by scientists (directly or indirectly) and are interpretations of the data.

I doubt that.
I would imagine that scientists formulate a theory, test it through an experiment and repeat that experiment many times so that they can say, "On 12 out of 15 occasions, this was the result."
If an experiment fails once, it does not mean the theory is incorrect - if it fails 101 times for the same reason; it might be. (Unless the equipment were faulty or some other reason.)

One verifiable refutation of a theory makes the theory false.
Scientists might argue over the validity of the refutation but that again is the scientists opinions(right or wrong).

I am not talking about an error in experimentation... but rather a refutation of the theory that holds up after its own testing.

 

[d taylor]

Science is only a process and conclusions of the process.
View attachment 335657

May be in areas where the creating of structures or machines, etc.. That have to actually work science is treated this way.

But when it comes to science and the attempt at giving an account of the creation, that God's created, that is not the case. But that can not be the case, as God's creation simply can not be understood outside of God's given accounts in The Bible.

It can be faked like science does, but really they are not describing God's creation but the one they have created. The one they can use to draw in people, who believe in their creation. Science is doing the same as George Lucas did with Star Wars. He created a world and a time people love to know about and more than likely fantasize about.

So science has created a world people want to believe in. They want to believe in an outer space and an earth magically flying around in this outer space. With everything else science has come up with to inhabit their creation.

 

[Strong in Him]

By the Word. That is a HOW... maybe not the HOW you wanted but it is the HOW you get.

Because the purpose of the word is not to give us a HOW.
People who are curious have studied and discovered how - using the minds, the gifts and the talents that Our Creator God gave them.

The OP says that the world is 6000 years old. Genesis says God created in 6 days and Peter says that a day, to the Lord, is LIKE 1000 years - 6 x 1000 = 6000. Would you agree with that?
Leaving aside the issue of whether or not a "day" is exactly 1000 years, God created different things on different days - vegetation, plants etc were made on day 2.
That means, when God created trees, plants, vegetation in a day, the reality was it took 1000 years. They cannot have appeared instantly, because if they had, he would have created the universe in around 6 hours, not 6000 years.
So did God make the seeds, which grew, saplings which grew stronger or did he produce 30 year old trees which, by the end of the "day" had become 1030 year old trees?
No one can answer that, because the Bible does not tell us HOW.
Scientists, curious people and others have studied and discovered how a tree is made, or grows - using the gifts, minds and talents that God gave them.

I was asking YOU why you thought God created; I said that he had a reason for it, which was most probably because he wanted to.

 

[dwb001]

Because the purpose of the word is not to give us a HOW.

Not "the word" but "the Word".

People who are curious have studied and discovered how - using the minds, the gifts and the talents that Our Creator God gave them.

But many persons have gotten it wrong.

The OP says that the world is 6000 years old. Genesis says God created in 6 days and Peter says that a day, to the Lord, is LIKE 1000 years - 6 x 1000 = 6000. Would you agree with that?

Yes.

Leaving aside the issue of whether or not a "day" is exactly 1000 years, God created different things on different days - vegetation, plants etc were made on day 2.
That means, when God created trees, plants, vegetation in a day, the reality was it took 1000 years. They cannot have appeared instantly, because if they had, he would have created the universe in around 6 hours, not 6000 years.

Sorry that is not it.
First 7 days are 24 hours each.
The days is a "type" that maps onto the 1000 years formula.
So the life expectancy of the Earth is 7000 years... with the last 1000 being the Millennium Kingdom of Rev 20.

So did God make the seeds, which grew, saplings which grew stronger or did he produce 30 year old trees which, by the end of the "day" had become 1030 year old trees?

First days of Creation were 24 hours each.

No one can answer that, because the Bible does not tell us HOW.

By the Word of the Lord.
You want details but that is not included.
You want a better answer but you get the answer God gives you.

Scientists, curious people and others have studied and discovered how a tree is made, or grows - using the gifts, minds and talents that God gave them.

Nope. Please show me where people discovered how a tree is made.
Not how a tree reproduces, but how was the first one made.

I was asking YOU why you thought God created; I said that he had a reason for it, which was most probably because he wanted to.

I don't know why God created everything.
And if I gave that answer you would ask me why He wanted to.

Did He want to, need to, desire to.... I don't care.
For me those sort of questions are not something I care about.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

First 7 days are 24 hours each.
The days is a "type" that maps onto the 1000 years formula.
So the life expectancy of the Earth is 7000 years... with the last 1000 being the Millennium Kingdom of Rev 20.

How do id you derive that "life expectancy of the Earth"?