• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Creation predictions

PsychoSarah

Chaotic Neutral
Jan 13, 2014
20,522
2,609
✟102,963.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
There is NO Yahweh since vowels must be "added to" what is actually written.
We only add the vowels because the exact pronunciation of YHWH has been lost, and the vowel placement represents the best guess.

Elohim is the word used exclusively for "God" in Genesis chapter one.
Elohim is a plural, not a name. It literally means "gods". As far as I am aware, only Mormons treat that as the name of the Christian god. Also, it is used to refer to various gods in the bible, not just YHWH and the trinity (I don't think it is even used in the New Testament), making it all the more obvious that it isn't a name.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Bugeyedcreepy
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,856,079
52,633
Guam
✟5,146,153.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
We only add the vowels because the exact pronunciation of YHWH has been lost, and the vowel placement represents the best guess.
Who is JEHOVAH?
  1. Elohim
  2. El Shaddai
  3. Everlasting Father
  4. None of the Above
 
Upvote 0

Aman777

Christian
Jan 26, 2013
10,351
584
✟30,043.00
Faith
Baptist
I left this thread a bit for what it was.

I see that there still isn't anyone that succesfully met the challenge of sharing clear and unambigous testable predictions of the creation model...

I am, off course, not surprised.

Correction: You ran away because you could not support your rant with actual evidence. Running away BEFORE you tell us How ancient men of more than 3k years ago, KNEW and wrote the correct Scientific Truth in Genesis 1:21 which was announced in 2016. Meet Luca, the Ancestor of All Living Things Is your last name Trump?
Jul 25, 2016
 
Upvote 0

Jimmy D

Well-Known Member
Dec 11, 2014
5,147
5,995
✟277,099.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Correction: You ran away because you could not support your rant with actual evidence. Running away BEFORE you tell us How ancient men of more than 3k years ago, KNEW and wrote the correct Scientific Truth in Genesis 1:21 which was announced in 2016. Meet Luca, the Ancestor of All Living Things Is your last name Trump?
Jul 25, 2016

I can't see any mention of a single-cell, bacterium-like organism in Gen 1:21. :scratch:
 
Upvote 0

Bugeyedcreepy

Well-Known Member
Jun 7, 2016
1,660
1,431
Canberra, Australia
✟95,748.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Correction: You ran away because you could not support your rant with actual evidence. Running away BEFORE you tell us How ancient men of more than 3k years ago, KNEW and wrote the correct Scientific Truth in Genesis 1:21 which was announced in 2016. Meet Luca, the Ancestor of All Living Things Is your last name Trump?
Jul 25, 2016
You're still making up stories Aman, Genesis 1:21is talking about sea life and avian dinosaurs. Land animals don't come about until Genesis 1:25
 
Upvote 0

Aman777

Christian
Jan 26, 2013
10,351
584
✟30,043.00
Faith
Baptist
We only add the vowels because the exact pronunciation of YHWH has been lost, and the vowel placement represents the best guess.

Thanks, but that doesn't change the Scriptural Fact that ONLY Jesus knew the name written, after being in front of all scholar's noses for thousands of years.
Rev 19:12 His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on His head were many crowns; and He had a name written, that no man knew, but He Himself. Rev 19:13 And He was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and His name is called The Word of God.

The ONLY Being who fits that description in the Old Testament is YHWH and He tells us that beside Him there is is NO Saviour. Isa 43:11 Hos 13:4 Jesus is Lord.

Elohim is a plural, not a name. It literally means "gods". As far as I am aware, only Mormons treat that as the name of the Christian god. Also, it is used to refer to various gods in the bible, not just YHWH and the trinity (I don't think it is even used in the New Testament), making it all the more obvious that it isn't a name.

YHWH gave up His Image as God and came to Earth as the man, Jesus Christ.

Phl 2:5 ¶ Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:
Phl 2:6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: Phl 2:7 But made Himself of no reputation, and took upon Him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:
Phl 2:8 And being found in fashion as a man, He humbled Himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.

Jesus and Lord God/YHWH are One. YHWH is the singular name of the only God ever seen and the only Saviour of ALL.

Col 2:9 For in Him dwelleth ALL the fulness of the Godhead bodily.
 
Upvote 0

Aman777

Christian
Jan 26, 2013
10,351
584
✟30,043.00
Faith
Baptist
I can't see any mention of a single-cell, bacterium-like organism in Gen 1:21. :scratch:

Gen 1:21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their (Trinity) kind, and every winged fowl after his (Jesus) kind: and God saw that it was good.

Notice that God created EVERY living creature from Water in total agreement of what Science discovered July 25, 2016. Meet Luca, the Ancestor of All Living Things

Can you explain HOW any man could have possibly known this scientific fact 3k years ago? It's testable evidence of God since NO man could have correctly known this so long ago.
 
Upvote 0

Aman777

Christian
Jan 26, 2013
10,351
584
✟30,043.00
Faith
Baptist
You're still making up stories Aman, Genesis 1:21 is talking about sea life and avian dinosaurs. Land animals don't come about until Genesis 1:25

Only if you use an altered form of Scripture. Here is the KJV before the religionists wrote their own versions. Show me the "sea life and avian dinosaurs". God the Trinity also made some of the creatures, formed the next Day by Jesus and named by Adam, Gen 2:129 eternal creatures.

Gen 1:21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

You have confused Their kind (Trinity kind), made on the 5th Day with His (Lord God/Jesus) kind made from the dust on the 6th Day and named by Adam. Gen 2:19 You know that Jesus makes ONLY temporary kinds? Science calls them the "common ancestors". It's what keeps kinds separated from kinds. It's basic.
 
Upvote 0

Phred

Junior Mint
Aug 12, 2003
5,373
998
✟22,717.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
I would venture that there are NO testable predictions that creation makes. Creation is a failed attempt at validating a literal interpretation of the Bible. The Bible is incorrect from the very first sentence if you take it literally. Trying to conflate "kinds" with common ancestors is just insulting. That's not what it means at all.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Bugeyedcreepy
Upvote 0

Phred

Junior Mint
Aug 12, 2003
5,373
998
✟22,717.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
For instance, the common ancestor between Chimp and Human had many different creatures that existed within and between the species.
evolution-basics-from-primate-to-human-part-1_3.png
 
  • Like
Reactions: tyke
Upvote 0

Phred

Junior Mint
Aug 12, 2003
5,373
998
✟22,717.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
"Kind" is not a valid word in science. It has no meaning. There is no cat-kind or dog-kind. It doesn't mean species or genus or anything. But it's used in the Bible so you keep trying to force it upon us all. Please stop pretending it has meaning.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: tyke
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,856,079
52,633
Guam
✟5,146,153.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
"Kind" is not a valid word in science. It has no meaning. There is no cat-kind or dog-kind. It doesn't mean species or genus or anything. But it's used in the Bible so you keep trying to force it upon us all. Please stop pretending it has meaning.
Kind = Genus
 
Upvote 0

DogmaHunter

Code Monkey
Jan 26, 2014
16,757
8,531
Antwerp
✟158,395.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
  • Agree
Reactions: Bugeyedcreepy
Upvote 0

Bugeyedcreepy

Well-Known Member
Jun 7, 2016
1,660
1,431
Canberra, Australia
✟95,748.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Only if you use an altered form of Scripture. Here is the KJV before the religionists wrote their own versions. Show me the "sea life and avian dinosaurs". God the Trinity also made some of the creatures, formed the next Day by Jesus and named by Adam, Gen 2:129 eternal creatures.

Gen 1:21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

You have confused Their kind (Trinity kind), made on the 5th Day with His (Lord God/Jesus) kind made from the dust on the 6th Day and named by Adam. Gen 2:19 You know that Jesus makes ONLY temporary kinds? Science calls them the "common ancestors". It's what keeps kinds separated from kinds. It's basic.
It isn't me that's confused Aman, it's clearly you. Let me repeat what many, many more Biblical Scholars than you have to say on this (for which I've already posted before, mind you) - This is the HEBREW translation that your KJV is drawn from (i.e. it's the KJV that's the altered form, not the Hebrew originals):

Apart from most other Christians whose Bible study on this reveals a different meaning to yours, a plain reading also indicates something different to you. I'll start at Genesis 1:20 to explain the point.

Genesis 1:20 - And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.​
Many bible studies on this verse indicate an open defiance to the established science of Evolution with the Creation narrative of individually created kinds - again in stark contrast to the contortions of your views to make it fit the Science. I also want to refer you to the Hebrew translations from which the KJV was derivd ( http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/OTpdf/gen1.pdf ), and it says:
Gen1-20.png

First part is: "| and-he-is-saying Elohim | they-shall-roam the-waters |" - which I don't believe means that God is roaming the waters, as it goes on: "| and-flyer he-shall-fly over the-earth|" - which again doesn't point to Jesus flying, but the winged fowls doing that flying. Genesis 1:21 then goes on to affirm what then happens:
Gen1-21.png

First part is: "| and-he-is-creating Elohim | the-monsters the-great-ones and | every-of soul the-living the-moving which they-roam the-waters to-species-of-them |" which says nothing of this nonsense idea of yours that it speaks of the ancestor of all life coming from the water, but that water-bound life is being created according to their species, and not to God's/Trinity's kind..... whatever that means.... it then goes on: "| every-of flyer-of wing to-species-of-him | and-he-is-seeing Elohim that good |" which essentially speaks of all the winged fowl species being specially created, and God saw that it was good.

This is backed up with the Hebrew translation of Genesis 1:24-25 repeating a similar narrative for LAND BASED ANIMALS! as such:
Gen1-24.png

Gen1-25.png

In this case, it seems the Hebrew translates the Earth gender as 'She' or 'Her', which only fortifies the case against your dysfunctional reinterpretation of these verses on review. It again starts out with his 'making of', followed by the narrative (water/air/ or in this case, land) animals being individually and specially created according to their species, then God seeing that it was all Good. Sorry to break it to you, but your modern day reinterpretation of the 400 year old medieval english translation of the 3,000 year old Hebrew writing, doesn't make sense.

and lastly, This Bit I'd like you to address:

Also, you never did properly clarify what your version of "his kind" and "their kind" actually means. It obviously isn't a physical likeness and you seem to indicate some life forms were immortal, and others temporary, or something? Where is this explained in the Bible? How is something non-human immortal, and why the need for it to be immortal anyway? Is livestock required in Heaven?
 
Upvote 0

PsychoSarah

Chaotic Neutral
Jan 13, 2014
20,522
2,609
✟102,963.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Who is JEHOVAH?
  1. Elohim
Not this one, since it is used to refer to other gods as well, making it clear that it's a generic word not specific to the Christian god.
  1. El Shaddai
"He who suffices" is a very strange name to give to a god supposedly of immense power, though other translations have it as "god almighty" or "the god of heaven". Based on how it is used, I'd say it is a term for Yahweh. More of a title than a name, though.

  1. Everlasting Father
More of a title than a name

  1. None of the Above
Actually, three out of four. I hate it when the correct answer isn't an option on multiple choice tests :mad:
 
Upvote 0

Aman777

Christian
Jan 26, 2013
10,351
584
✟30,043.00
Faith
Baptist
It isn't me that's confused Aman, it's clearly you. Let me repeat what many, many more Biblical Scholars than you have to say on this (for which I've already posted before, mind you) - This is the HEBREW translation that your KJV is drawn from (i.e. it's the KJV that's the altered form, not the Hebrew originals):

Apart from most other Christians whose Bible study on this reveals a different meaning to yours, a plain reading also indicates something different to you. I'll start at Genesis 1:20 to explain the point.

Genesis 1:20 - And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.​
Many bible studies on this verse indicate an open defiance to the established science of Evolution with the Creation narrative of individually created kinds - again in stark contrast to the contortions of your views to make it fit the Science. I also want to refer you to the Hebrew translations from which the KJV was derivd ( http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/OTpdf/gen1.pdf ), and it says:
Gen1-20.png

First part is: "| and-he-is-saying Elohim | they-shall-roam the-waters |" - which I don't believe means that God is roaming the waters, as it goes on: "| and-flyer he-shall-fly over the-earth|" - which again doesn't point to Jesus flying, but the winged fowls doing that flying. Genesis 1:21 then goes on to affirm what then happens:
Gen1-21.png

First part is: "| and-he-is-creating Elohim | the-monsters the-great-ones and | every-of soul the-living the-moving which they-roam the-waters to-species-of-them |" which says nothing of this nonsense idea of yours that it speaks of the ancestor of all life coming from the water, but that water-bound life is being created according to their species, and not to God's/Trinity's kind..... whatever that means.... it then goes on: "| every-of flyer-of wing to-species-of-him | and-he-is-seeing Elohim that good |" which essentially speaks of all the winged fowl species being specially created, and God saw that it was good.

This is backed up with the Hebrew translation of Genesis 1:24-25 repeating a similar narrative for LAND BASED ANIMALS! as such:
Gen1-24.png

Gen1-25.png

In this case, it seems the Hebrew translates the Earth gender as 'She' or 'Her', which only fortifies the case against your dysfunctional reinterpretation of these verses on review. It again starts out with his 'making of', followed by the narrative (water/air/ or in this case, land) animals being individually and specially created according to their species, then God seeing that it was all Good. Sorry to break it to you, but your modern day reinterpretation of the 400 year old medieval english translation of the 3,000 year old Hebrew writing, doesn't make sense.

Sorry, but it does little good to present ancient Hebrew views since the leaders of their religion/belief called for the crucifixion of their own God. Jhn 19:15 Also, God tells us that they have "none" understanding". Jer 4:22

For My people is foolish, they have not known Me; they are sottish children, and they have none understanding:

Only Christians, who live in the last days before Jesus returns, with the "increased knowledge" of the end times can possibly understand Scripture. Dan 12:4 No wonder you are so confused. You are following the views of superstitious ancient mankind apart from God.

Also, you never did properly clarify what your version of "his kind" and "their kind" actually means. It obviously isn't a physical likeness and you seem to indicate some life forms were immortal, and others temporary, or something? Where is this explained in the Bible? How is something non-human immortal, and why the need for it to be immortal anyway? Is livestock required in Heaven?

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. Everything "good" about our world will be magnified in the 3rd Heaven. 1Co 2:9
 
Upvote 0

Bugeyedcreepy

Well-Known Member
Jun 7, 2016
1,660
1,431
Canberra, Australia
✟95,748.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Sorry, but it does little good to present ancient Hebrew views since the leaders of their religion/belief called for the crucifixion of their own God.
Sure it does. That's where your religion and KJV ultimately came from. That you don't like it is just too bad, them's the facts.
Jhn 19:15 Also, God tells us that they have "none" understanding". Jer 4:22

For My people is foolish, they have not known Me; they are sottish children, and they have none understanding:

Only Christians, who live in the last days before Jesus returns, with the "increased knowledge" of the end times can possibly understand Scripture. Dan 12:4 No wonder you are so confused. You are following the views of superstitious ancient mankind apart from God.
Well, it certainly isn't YOU who understands scripture, you're getting so much wrong it's a wonder you even recognise your version of Christianity when compared to other forms of Christianity...
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. Everything "good" about our world will be magnified in the 3rd Heaven. 1Co 2:9
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?

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?
 
Upvote 0