Age of the earth.

[Job 33:6]

These claims are, of course, untrue. Genesis 1-11 is a unique body of literature written a genre of literature that is not found anywhere else in the Bible. However, that genre of literature is found elsewhere. Genesis 1-11 is a series of stories written in a genre of literature very similar to the genre of literature in which ancient epic tales, sagas, myths, and legends are written.

The Hebrew Masoretic text of Genesis 1:6-8 expressly describes the creation of a flat earth covered with a dome that “separated the waters that were under the dome from the waters that were above the dome.”

1:6 ויאמר אלהים יהי רקיע בתוך המים ויהי מבדיל בין מים למים׃
1:7 ויעשׂ אלהים את־הרקיע ויבדל בין המים אשׁר מתחת לרקיע ובין המים אשׁר מעל לרקיע ויהי־כן׃
1:8 ויקרא אלהים לרקיע שׁמים ויהי־ערב ויהי־בקר יום שׁני׃

The Septuagint concurs:

Gen 1:6 Καὶ εἶπεν ὁ θεός Γενηθήτω στερέωμα ἐν μέσῳ τοῦ ὕδατος καὶ ἔστω διαχωρίζον ἀνὰ μέσον ὕδατος καὶ ὕδατος. καὶ ἐγένετο οὕτως.
Gen 1:7 καὶ ἐποίησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸ στερέωμα, καὶ διεχώρισεν ὁ θεὸς ἀνὰ μέσον τοῦ ὕδατος, ὃ ἦν ὑποκάτω τοῦ στερεώματος, καὶ ἀνὰ μέσον τοῦ ὕδατος τοῦ ἐπάνω τοῦ στερεώματος.
Gen 1:8 καὶ ἐκάλεσεν ὁ θεὸς τὸ στερέωμα οὐρανόν. καὶ εἶδεν ὁ θεὸς ὅτι καλόν. καὶ ἐγένετο ἑσπέρα καὶ ἐγένετο πρωί, ἡμέρα δευτέρα.

The Latin Vulgate also concurs:

6. dixit quoque Deus fiat firmamentum in medio aquarum et dividat aquas ab aquis
7. et fecit Deus firmamentum divisitque aquas quae erant sub firmamento ab his quae erant super firmamentum et factum est ita
8. vocavitque Deus firmamentum caelum et factum est vespere et mane dies secundus

The Wycliffe Bible also concurs:

6 And God seide, The firmament be maad in the myddis of watris, and departe watrisfro watris.
7And God made the firmament, and departide the watristhat weren vndurthe firmament fro these watris that weren on the firmament; and it was don so.
8 And God clepide the firmament, heuene. And the euentid and morwetid was maad, the secounde dai.

The best Roman Catholic translation in English (NAB) also concurs:

6. Then God said, "Let there be a dome in the middle of the waters, to separate one body of water from the other." And so it happened:
7. God made the dome, and it separated the water above the dome from the water below it.
8. God called the dome "the sky." Evening came, and morning followed-the second day.

The best Protestant translation in English (NRSV) also concurs:

6. And God said, "Let there be a dome in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters."
7. So God made the dome and separated the waters that were under the dome from the waters that were above the dome. And it was so.
8. God called the dome Sky. And there was evening and there was morning, the second day.

Even the KJV of 1611 concurs:

6. And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters: and let it diuide the waters from the waters.
7. And God made the firmament; and diuided the waters, which were vnder the firmament, from the waters, which were aboue the firmament: and it was so.
8. And God called the firmament, Heauen: and the euening and the morning were the second day.

Needless to say, as more and more Christians came to believe that the earth is round rather than flat, they invented out of thin air a new definition for the word firmament—but that new definition in no way changes what the inspired word of God really says.

The Lord God is not in subjection to anyone or anyone’s preferences, and He was free to give His people His word in genres of literature in which they could understand the truths contained in the Bible. The Israelite people did not need to know the age or the shape of the earth, and God spoke to them through His word within their cultural beliefs.

What do you think of John Walton's 7-day temple inauguration view? Do you have an opinion?

 

[BNR32FAN]

YOU are guilty of what YOU accuse others of. Period the end. That is all there is to it. As you judge... This is in the sermon on the mount. If we only read this sermon we will have all the teachings of Jesus.

"For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you." MATTHEW 7:2

Only God can judge us. God does not give us the ability to judge others. Even the police are trained to get people to confess. It is very difficult to get a conviction without a confession.

Ok first of all as expected you failed to produce any evidence that I’m “mixing scripture” with anything, because you can’t, because I’m not mixing scripture with anything.

Second, that’s not what Jesus was teaching in Matthew 7. He wasn’t teaching us not to judge others, He was teaching us not to be hypocrites.

”“Do not judge so that you will not be judged. For in the way you judge, you will be judged; and by your standard of measure, it will be measured to you. Why do you look at the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ and behold, the log is in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye.“
‭‭Matthew‬ ‭7‬:‭1‬-‭5‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

Just 10 verses later He tells us how to identify false prophets. That’s making a judgement on them.

”“Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits. Grapes are not gathered from thorn bushes nor figs from thistles, are they? So every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot produce bad fruit, nor can a bad tree produce good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. So then, you will know them by their fruits.“
‭‭Matthew‬ ‭7‬:‭15‬-‭20‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

So why would Jesus tell us not to judge others then turn around just a few sentences later and tell us how to judge others?

 

[BNR32FAN]

The Sea of Galilee is fresh water, not salt water. So it does form ice. Most likely Peter did not know how to balance himself on what we call an ice berg. A hypothesis is a possible answer to a question. Clearly science tells us we can walk on water. Or even ice skate. I also remember the ice breaking and people going into the water when I was a kid skating on a pond near our house.

Ahh so your explanation is that Jesus didn’t actually walk on water, thanks for exposing that. What your saying is that Jesus didn’t perform a miracle it was all just a hoax intended to deceive everyone into thinking He was performing a miracle.

 

[BNR32FAN]

The oceans have a salinity (salt content) of 35ppt. The Dead Sea has an average salinity of 290ppt, almost nine times saltier than the oceans. If a meteor hit the dead sea and caused a tsunami then science does support that she could have been turned into a pillar of salt.

Yeah well the human body is only composed of 0.4% salt so that’s not enough salt to make a pillar.

 

[BNR32FAN]

The oceans have a salinity (salt content) of 35ppt. The Dead Sea has an average salinity of 290ppt, almost nine times saltier than the oceans. If a meteor hit the dead sea and caused a tsunami then science does support that she could have been turned into a pillar of salt.

Are you suggesting that Lot’s wife was hit by a meteor and that’s what caused her to turn into a pillar of salt?

 

[BroRoyVa79]

I went to Bible College also. Although I study a lot the Bible from the Rabbi on You Tube when they teach us the oral tradition vs the written Bible and the Hebrew Language.

Some of the oral traditions of the Rabbis is just stuff they came up with and not necessarily biblical in anyway or applicable to the Hebrew language in any way.

Genesis chapter one does not talk about a man and a women. They talk about a male and a female.
1 Corinthians 11:12 (NIV), Paul writes: "For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God

You're arguing semantics. We know that man = male, and female = woman. Aside from that, I already pointed out that Genesis 1 uses man/Adam, אָדָם, in Genesis 1:27 and ha'adam, הָאָדָם אָדָם, "the man" in Genesis 1:27. In 1:27 it uses "female," נְקֵבָה, which can also be translated as "woman." But like I said in 1:27 you have to wrestle with the fact that the passage goes from God creating male (in the singular) to God creating male/man and female/woman (in the plural). There's no getting around that context. Oddly, you agreed with me about the switch and translation when it goes from singular to plural in the forms and context, but you seem to conveniently ignore it here.

Science says that man goes back hundreds of millions of years.

Science doesn't really say anything. Scientists do by way of interpreting information, etc. that they acquire through the scientific method. The scientific method as we know it cannot be applied to origins. It can be applied to things that we can touch, witness, etc. with today. We can't do any of that with stuff millions or even hundreds of thousands of years ago. The problem today is that too many people think that scientists and by extension science is an answer to all of the questions in the universe about everything when it's really not.

The evidence is overwhelming for this.

Not really. Both sides are working with the same evidence and come to different conclusions. The only difference is one side, that believes in the universe coming along by way of non-theistic assistance (that for some odd reason theists adopt) has been pushed in every facet of society and academia. No other interpretations of the evidence has been allowed. We did this once where one interpretation of the evidence was considered the crème de le crème of everything and that didn't go so well with geocentrism versus heliocentrism and a lot of scientists, and theologians I might add, that put all of their stock in the views and musings of man came away with egg on their face.

This isn't even getting into the plethora of other things scientists have been wrong on because fallible man is musing about it nor the things scientists have lied about to prop up their origins story. So no, simply because scientists say something and by extension science pushes it, I do not necessarily deem it an official absolute truth of reality. Especially when its something that we cannot directly observe and verify as a fact of reality but it's something that becomes more of a philosophical belief that we try to erroneously claim we found by way of empiricism when we really didn't.

This does not even get into what the Bible says about how we come from the stars. Science goes a long way to helping us understand our Bible. I do not know why God wants us to know, but He does.

People can say the Bible says a lot of things when it's taken out of context.

Also you know the Rabbi teach that God used the Hebrew Language to create the Universe.

Again, simply because a Rabbi teaches something, doesn't make it truth. Jesus got into it with Rabbis when He walked the Earth who taught a lot of things that were not true. Aside from this, an honest consideration of the situation would lead one to determine that the language spoken prior to Babel was likely none of the languages spoken post-Babel. Along with this, you have pictographic prehistoric Hebrew (which is pretty much hieroglyphics), Paleo-Hebrew (earliest form of familiar alphabet), Ancient Hebrew (which is Biblical Hebrew) and Modern Hebrew. While the language has evolved from its early form to now, I still would not hold a view that Hebrew was the original language spoken in the early chapters of Genesis when Genesis tells us that language, was at worse, lost to us when the world was given multiple languages.

Again, He wants us to know what He did and How He created the Universe we live in.

I agree he wants us to know what He did, and He had what he did written down. The problem today is a lot of people who didn't believe in the Bible came along making up an explanation for how it possibly (to them) didn't happen without God and as I said, for some odd reason, believers have adopted that by way of being awestricken by the claims and "evidence" and interpretation of said evidence when believers didn't have access to said data, "evidence" etc. to counter claim. Now believers do. Now many are making counter claims and poking holes in theories, but the rot has lasted too long and too many people have been duped by the whole thing. Yes, even well meaning people.

I even had a dream where God showed me the universe when I was around 8 years old. Long before I learned about this from science.

I'm reluctant to put any stake in dreams that don't align with scripture which is God's revelation about Himself to us and the way He has chosen to reveal Himself to us who did not have the luxury of being born thousands of years ago when He walked the Earth or did His miracles, etc.

not at all. There is a huge amount of information condensed down to very little. As you know every letter has profound meaning. If every book in the worlds talked about Genesis Chapter one we would still only be getting started in our understanding and we still would have a long way go. Yet there is speculation that all the information of the universe is contained within every proton of every atom in the Universe. That is why we are all one with the universe. This is what entanglement theory is based on.

First, my full statement that you seem to be responding to here is this: "The early chapters of Genesis are pretty repetitive and clear in indicating that the history of mankind goes from God to Adam & Eve to their children to Noah to us."

Second, again, I believe I already stated this, but the only version of the Hebrew language where letters had meaning is pictographic Hebrew. Where, again, like the Egyptian Hieroglyphs or any alphabet/language system of severely early times were developed based on giving a recognizable meaning to the alphabet. For example, the Aleph came from what appears to be an Ox head and so means Ox/Leader/Strength in this old form. While, yes, we can claim the letters still mean that, doing so will ignore the overall context in which later forms of Hebrew are used and that nearly all language moved from its earlier form into a more refined form and misses the point that many of the words still retain their original meaning even without the pictograph form. Just makes it seem unnecessary to do.

Third, none of this is really so complicated that we need to find esoteric meanings in the text. It's all pretty straightforward in regard to understanding until we (humans) come along and make it complicated. Same with the rest of the Bible, same with the Gospels.

 

[Diamond72]

Some of the oral traditions of the Rabbis is just stuff they came up with and not necessarily biblical in anyway or applicable to the Hebrew language in any way.

Some of it. The Bible is like lyrics to a song. Esp. the Psalms are a song to be sung. The music itself was not written down. That was a part of the oral tradition. Somewhere long the way they did punctuate the Bible to create the chapters and verses we see today. That was added much later and are not a part of the written Bible that we receive from Moses.

We may not agree with the Rabbi but we still depend on them to teach us Hebrew so we can better understand our Bible. Even the conservative Rabbi have some very strange beliefs today. Like the women have to wear wigs and things like that. The men do not shave their beard and wear funny looking clothing a lot like the Amish people. To preserve their heritage and culture.

They are open to teaching non "Jewish" people who are wanting to learn their beliefs.

 

[BroRoyVa79]

Some of it.

Yes, some of it is why we have Jewish Mysticism in things like the Talmud, etc. And again, some of it is why Jesus contended with the Rabbis of his time because they added too much to the law, creating traps and problems. (I'm over simplifying).

The Bible is like lyrics to a song. Esp. the Psalms are a song to be sung. The music itself was not written down. That was a part of the oral tradition. Somewhere long the way they did punctuate the Bible to create the chapters and verses we see today. That was added much later and are not a part of the written Bible that we receive from Moses.

Yes, the Talumd & Mishna and things before that. They are not necessarily biblical. At best, it could be considered the equivalent of Bible commentary, at worst, just the musings of Rabbis that some take too seriously. There's a lot of weirdness in some of it. While, yes, much of it is built on the foundation of the Tanakh, the vast majority of it is simply Rabbi's philosophizing and commentating on existing scripture. While you could argue some of it may be insightful from their perspective as Jews and direct descendants of Abraham, it does not make anything they say true. It's true if it aligns with scripture.

We may not agree with the Rabbi but we still depend on them to teach us Hebrew so we can better understand our Bible.

Maybe centuries ago Western believers had to go to Rabbis to learn Hebrew. Today, there are enough experts in the West that we do not have to depend on Rabbis to better understand our Bibles.

Additionally, while yes, I would agree and support an argument that Western believers should better learn about the ancient languages which constructed the scriptures, it is also not necessary. That's why God has blessed people with the ability to become Linguists and learn ancient languages and translate those languages into whatever modern language is needed. While, yes, I would agree that there can be bad or misguided translations, usually the overall message is not lost.

Plus, this is not even getting into the fact of reality that for many centuries there were many cultures across the globe that only had fragments of scripture in their native languages, yet they somehow got the message. Yes, often through missionaries, etc. Point still stands about not needing "the Rabbi [to] still depend on...to teach us Hebrew..."

Again, ultimately I agree as I see a lot of nonsense getting taught to people by way of someone claiming "the original Hebrew really says this" or "the original Greek really says that" when it doesn't. So, it returns to my admission that I would agree and support an argument that believers should, at the very least, learn some of the basics so they can be aware and not be deceived.

Even the conservative Rabbi have some very strange beliefs today. Like the women have to wear wigs and things like that. The men do not shave their beard and wear funny looking clothing a lot like the Amish people. To preserve their heritage and culture.

They are open to teaching non "Jewish" people who are wanting to learn their beliefs.

This is fine for them. But again, none of this necessarily makes their beliefs true unless they align with the scriptures passed down to us.

There's one thing to learn about Ancient Jewish and Israeli culture and maybe to some degree even current Orthodox Judaism culture and beliefs to understand context of some things in the Bible and where some things have gone wrong for them, etc. There's another thing to think just because a Rabbi says means it must be so. The two are not the same.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Third, none of this is really so complicated that we need to find esoteric meanings in the text. It's all pretty straightforward in regard to understanding until we (humans) come along and make it complicated. Same with the rest of the Bible, same with the Gospels.

Amen you don’t need an ancient secret decoder ring to comprehend the Bible. No doubt studying Greek & Hebrew does help a bit because some words can’t be accurately translated to a single English word but when you have so many overlapping biblical texts about creation it’s not really necessary to understand what the Bible is teaching about it. The Bible says the heavens and the earth and the seas and everything in them was created in 6 days in 3 different chapters and in two different books. The Bible gives us a genealogy from Adam to Christ with a specific number of years between each descendant. Those years are included for a reason. You don’t have to include the years in order to establish a family tree, they were included to be used as time stamps. The Bible says death didn’t come into the world until after Adam sinned. The Bible says all nations came from Adam. The Bible also says all nations came from Noah. The Bible says man was created in the beginning. OEC contradicts all of these pieces of information the Bible gives us.

 

[Diamond72]

Yes, some of it is why we have Jewish Mysticism in things like the Talmud, etc. And again, some of it is why Jesus contended with the Rabbis of his time because they added too much to the law, creating traps and problems. (I'm over simplifying).

Same problem we have today. Look at the people that reject Science because it contradicts their traditions. Jesus clearly wants us about this.

Amen you don’t need an ancient secret decoder ring to comprehend the Bible

All you need is the Holy Spirit of God to be your guide and your teacher. We do not need man to teach us.

Jeremiah 31:33 " 33“But this is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the LORD. I will put My law in their minds and inscribe it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they will be My people. 34No longer will each man teach his neighbor or his brother, saying, ‘Know the LORD,’ because they will all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest, decla

res the LORD. For I will forgive their iniquities and will remember their sins no more.”…"

The Bible says the heavens and the earth and the seas and everything in them was created in 6 days in 3 different chapters and in two different books.

I believe that a day is literal 24 hour day. A day is 1,000 years and a day can be 6 billion years depending on your perspective. Time is relative. According to Science In essence, the relativity of time means that there is no absolute, universal time that ticks away uniformly for all observers. Instead, time is intertwined with space in a dynamic fabric that can stretch, contract, and warp depending on the conditions of motion and gravity. The main consideration is God's perspective is from the beginning and our perspective is from the present looking back. \

The amazing thing is the people that can not pass a fifth grade science test but think they know more then someone with a Phd in Science.

 

[Diamond72]

The Bible says death didn’t come into the world until after Adam sinned.

The Bible in Romans 5:12 in the New Testament states, "Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned" Why do you remove the word through sin? We are told do not add to the word of God or take away from the word of God. (Deuteronomy 4:2) Of course it would be impossible to add to the Bible because the Bible covers everything. John in Revelation talks about this also.

Revelation 22:19
And if anyone takes away from the words of this book of prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and the holy city, which are described in this book

The Bible says death through sin. Clearly there was death in the world before sin. In fact it was exactly what Cain said: Gensis 4:15 "I will be a fugitive and a wanderer on the earth, and whoever finds me will kill me.” Who was Cain talking about that would kill him. Every body we find before Adam the people were beaten to death. Or we find an arrow or spear head in them.

how did cheddar man die? His remains are from about 5,000 years before Adam.
The skeletal remains date to around the mid-to-late 9th millennium BC, corresponding to the Mesolithic period, and it appears that he died a violent death. A large crater-like lesion just above the skull's right orbit suggests that the man may have also been suffering from a bone infection.

Cheddar man still has living descendants today. Despite the over 10,000 years which have passed since his death, descendants still populate the island. About 10% of the modern British race can trace their ancestors to the genetic European population of which Cheddar Man was a member.

 

[BNR32FAN]

The amazing thing is the people that can not pass a fifth grade science test but think they know more then someone with a Phd in Science.

Yeah well I’m still trying to find out how someone who claims to have extensive study in genetics, the Hebrew language, and attended seminary school suggests that a meteor played a role in Lot’s wife turning into a pillar of salt. Still waiting on a “scientific explanation” from you about that one.

The oceans have a salinity (salt content) of 35ppt. The Dead Sea has an average salinity of 290ppt, almost nine times saltier than the oceans. If a meteor hit the dead sea and caused a tsunami then science does support that she could have been turned into a pillar of salt.

 

[BNR32FAN]

All you need is the Holy Spirit of God to be your guide and your teacher. We do not need man to teach us.

The Holy Spirit teaches us God’s Law but not events that took place in the past. That’s what the scriptures are for. You expect me to believe that the Holy Spirit taught you that Jesus didn’t walk on water, instead He walked on ice?

Same problem we have today. Look at the people that reject Science because it contradicts their traditions. Jesus clearly wants us about this.

Jesus never warned anyone about rejecting science that’s just a false statement without a single scripture to support it.

 

[BNR32FAN]

The Bible says death through sin. Clearly there was death in the world before sin. In fact it was exactly what Cain said: Gensis 4:15 "I will be a fugitive and a wanderer on the earth, and whoever finds me will kill me.” Who was Cain talking about that would kill him. Every body we find before Adam the people were beaten to death. Or we find an arrow or spear head in them.

Obviously it would’ve been family members because no one else would’ve cared enough about Able to kill Cain over it. The Bible never says Cain was Adam’s first born. Do you think Adam & Eve being created as adults only had 3 children in 130 years after God told them to go forth and multiply?

 

[BNR32FAN]

Why do you remove the word through sin?

Because I was paraphrasing.

The Bible says death didn’t come into the world until after Adam sinned.

Every body we find before Adam the people were beaten to death. Or we find an arrow or spear head in them.

We don’t find anyone even existing before Adam, that’s your science contradicting scripture. It’s ironic that you mention putting man’s traditions over God’s word because that’s exactly what your doing here and throughout this entire discussion.

So far we have you claiming the following

Genesis 1:26 is about the creation of Neanderthals who don’t have a soul, even though I specifically pointed out that the exact same Hebrew word used in Genesis 1:26 is the exact same word used in 1 Chronicles 1:1 which translates as “Adam” and specifically mentions him as the father of Seth.

Jesus didn’t walk on water He walked on ice.

Lot’s wife was somehow turned into a pillar of salt by a meteor.

The flood didn’t cover the entire earth and it didn’t kill all land dwelling creatures on earth.

Jesus taught us not to put our traditions over science.

Death came into the world before Adam sinned.

Man came from woman in Genesis chapter 1.

“The hunter gatherer created in Genesis 1 is the father of Adam” So now Adam isn’t even a created being he was born.

This is quite a load of contradictions for someone who claims to believe in a literal translation of the Bible.

 

[Diamond72]

We don’t find anyone even existing before Adam, that’s your science contradicting scripture.

Science does NOT contradict scripture. The only thing getting contradicted are your opinions. Because you do not align your opinions with science.

Yeah well I’m still trying to find out how someone who claims to have extensive study in genetics, the Hebrew language, and attended seminary school suggests that a meteor played a role in Lot’s wife turning into a pillar of salt. Still waiting on a “scientific explanation” from you about that one.

That is something I just read on the internet. It is a scientific explanation for the Bible. Otherwise we would have a contradiction if it were shown that it is not possible for a person to be turned into a pillar of salt. Perhaps all of this needs to be taken with a grain of salt.

Sodom Meteor Strike Claims Should Be Taken with a Pillar of Salt - Asteroid Day

This article was originally published in Skeptical Inquirer Volume 46, No. 1 on January/February 2022. Written by: Mark Boslough On September 20, 2021, the open access journal Scientific Reports posted […]

asteroidday.org

Jesus didn’t walk on water He walked on ice.

Water is ice. The Bible clearly says the earth was covered with water but we know that water was frozen. The ice age ended 13,000 years ago. There was a major extinction and the beginning of the world we now live in. When people say the end of the world they are really talking about the beginning and the end of an age. The church age is going to end very soon and the kingdom age or the 1,000 year reign of Christ will begin. I am not sure how we will transition from one to the next. If anyone will even notice. The Bible clearly tells us a day is 1,000 years. The seventh day will be a sabbath where man will rest from his works.

Death came into the world before Adam sinned.

Death entered the world from the beginning. The universe is expanding but eventually the whole universe will come back together again. The universe began in a trillionth of a second. With waves and particles. In verse 3 of Genesis chapter one: "3And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light." You know light can not escape a black hole. Only at the event Horizon.

So now Adam isn’t even a created being he was born.

I tend to be TE and that tells us HOW God created man. The main thing I am looking at is the DNA and the Cohan gene. (Cohen modal haplotype) We can get into a discussion about haplotype but I doubt if your interested. In Revelation 7 we read about the 144,000 "virgins" 12,000 from each tribe that are undefiled. God has kept their DNA pure all of these generations.

In Genesis chapter 6 we read about "sons of God went to the daughters of humans". This was the reason for the flood so that God could keep HIS people pure. The "sons of God". He did not want his people to intermarry with the gentiles. Even Jesus called the gentiles dogs. The disciples were very surprised that the gentiles could be saved.

Matthew 15:24 "“I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel.” Israel is a grandson of Abraham.

 

[Diamond72]

This is quite a load of contradictions for someone who claims to believe in a literal translation of the Bible.

Every single day we go over this again and again. How to interpret the Bible. The literal Bible is what we teach the students in Bible School. They learn about allegories when they are old enough to graduate from Bible School and enter into the Sanctuary to learn from the Pastor, Reverend, Priest. Whatever you call them in your church.

• Literal: What the passage says about past events.
• Allegorical: What the passage can tell us about Christ.
• Moral: What the passage can teach us about how to live.
• Anagogical: What the passage tells us about our ultimate fate.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Every single day we go over this again and again. How to interpret the Bible. The literal Bible is what we teach the students in Bible School. They learn about allegories when they are old enough to graduate from Bible School and enter into the Sanctuary to learn from the Pastor, Reverend, Priest. Whatever you call them in your church.

• Literal: What the passage says about past events.
• Allegorical: What the passage can tell us about Christ.
• Moral: What the passage can teach us about how to live.
• Anagogical: What the passage tells us about our ultimate fate.

Ok maybe I’m just not understanding it correctly the way you’re explaining it. Perhaps if you could share the contact information for this church that teaches these doctrines I could contact them and they could explain it to me in a way that I can understand. Can you please share their website or email so I can contact them?

 

[BNR32FAN]

Science does NOT contradict scripture. The only thing getting contradicted are your opinions. Because you do not align your opinions with science.

Correction, I don’t twist the scriptures out of context to coincide with science because science hasn’t proven anything to be incorrect in the scriptures.

That is something I just read on the internet. It is a scientific explanation for the Bible. Otherwise we would have a contradiction if it were shown that it is not possible for a person to be turned into a pillar of salt. Perhaps all of this needs to be taken with a grain of salt.

There’s nothing scientific about that explanation at all, it’s beyond ridiculous. She would’ve been turned into ash not a pillar of salt and she would’ve had to be about a half mile away from Lot and the others for them not to have serious burns.

Water is ice. The Bible clearly says the earth was covered with water but we know that water was frozen. The ice age ended 13,000 years ago. There was a major extinction and the beginning of the world we now live in. When people say the end of the world they are really talking about the beginning and the end of an age. The church age is going to end very soon and the kingdom age or the 1,000 year reign of Christ will begin. I am not sure how we will transition from one to the next. If anyone will even notice. The Bible clearly tells us a day is 1,000 years. The seventh day will be a sabbath where man will rest from his works.

What does an ice age 13,000 years ago have to do with Jesus walking on water 2,000 years ago?

Death entered the world from the beginning. The universe is expanding but eventually the whole universe will come back together again. The universe began in a trillionth of a second. With waves and particles. In verse 3 of Genesis chapter one: "3And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light." You know light can not escape a black hole. Only at the event Horizon.

Not according to the scriptures it didn’t. Death came into the world as a result of Adam’s sin. You seem to get very side tracked in your replies. You make one statement about the topic then veer off on something that has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion.

I tend to be TE and that tells us HOW God created man. The main thing I am looking at is the DNA and the Cohan gene. (Cohen modal haplotype) We can get into a discussion about haplotype but I doubt if you’re interested. In Revelation 7 we read about the 144,000 "virgins" 12,000 from each tribe that are undefiled. God has kept their DNA pure all of these generations.

The Bible says several times that Adam was the first man and all man came from him.

In Genesis chapter 6 we read about "sons of God went to the daughters of humans". This was the reason for the flood so that God could keep HIS people pure. The "sons of God". He did not want his people to intermarry with the gentiles. Even Jesus called the gentiles dogs. The disciples were very surprised that the gentiles could be saved.

Actually it doesn’t say anything about God being angry about the sons of God going into women or that having anything to do with why He flooded the earth. Did you read Genesis 6 before you came to this conclusion?

”Now it came about, when men began to multiply on the face of the land, and daughters were born to them, that the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves, whomever they chose. Then the Lord said, “My Spirit shall not strive with man forever, because he also is flesh; nevertheless his days shall be one hundred and twenty years.” The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men, and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown. Then the Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. The Lord was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart. The Lord said, “I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the land, from man to animals to creeping things and to birds of the sky; for I am sorry that I have made them.”“
‭‭Genesis‬ ‭6‬:‭1‬-‭7‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

This doesn’t say anything about God being angry about the sons of God taking women as wives or that having anything to do with why He flooded the earth.

 

[Diamond72]

I don’t twist the scriptures out of context

Can you give me an example of scripture being twisted out of context?