Did God Create Fossils?

[BobRyan]

Assumed authority doesn't convert untruth into truth or inconsistent into consistent.

Which is why having evolutionist come along and "make stuff up" does not transform their many-storied untruth - to truth.

By contrast "Sanctify them in Thy Truth - Thy WORD is Truth" John 17:17.

 

[BobRyan]

The bible never puts a date on "in the beginning" so do not add to scripture = sin.
The evidence is overwhelming for an old earth

Not from the Bible. From the Bible the evidence is all for young earth and direct creation by God.

 

[BobRyan]

Yes, blood atonement is a Pagan influence in Judausm as well. In fact it was common among many religions. In the minds of primitive man something of great value must be exchanged to persuade the Gods. Man finds it difficult to swallow his pride and accept forgiveness born of love, experienced by forgiving in return.

That is an interesting story you have made up - but it glosses over a lot of "details" in a free will universe.

Laws that have no real penalty other than "forgiveness" become "no law at all".

Rom 3:31 Paul asks the question as to whether the Gospel does in fact destroy the Law of God by wiping out the penalty - and Paul's answer is "God forbid! In fact we ESTABLISH the Law of God" Rom 31:31.

The solution that you have "made up" only destroys the Law of the universe - it does not "establish it".

Turns out - God knew what He was doing. But those who simply "make stuff up" are trying their hand at besting God when it comes to His solution and the Gospel - but they will never be able to match Him let alone "best" Him.

God is a person not a law.

God's Word is Law - and as Romans 3 points out - the Gospel establishes that LAW by paying the debt of sin that the LAW of God demands.

The Universe is under universal LAW - and the domain of our Creator - the King and Ruler of the entire universe.

Hence the lake of fire for sinners.

 

[Colter]

The Bible is true and consistent, but you don't want to believe it.

The Bible is true and consistent, but you don't want to believe it.

Apparently not.

 

[Colter]

That is an interesting story you have made up - but it glosses over a lot of "details" in a free will universe.

Laws that have no real penalty other than "forgiveness" become "no law at all".

Rom 3:31 Paul asks the question as to whether the Gospel does in fact destroy the Law of God by wiping out the penalty - and Paul's answer is "God forbid! In fact we ESTABLISH the Law of God" Rom 31:31.

The solution that you have "made up" only destroys the Law of the universe - it does not "establish it".

Turns out - God knew what He was doing. But those who simply "make stuff up" are trying their hand at besting God when it comes to His solution and the Gospel - but they will never be able to match Him let alone "best" Him.



God's Word is Law - and as Romans 3 points out - the Gospel establishes that LAW by paying the debt of sin that the LAW of God demands.

The Universe is under universal LAW - and the domain of our Creator - the King and Ruler of the entire universe.

Hence the lake of fire for sinners.

That's Paul's gospel but he can't be blamed, he never knew Jesus.

The lake of fire was made up by people who have no better ideas than threats of fear and torture. Hell is a fabrication.

 

[ClothedInGrace]

That's Paul's gospel but he can't be blamed, he never knew Jesus.

The lake of fire was made up by people who have no better ideas that threats of fear and torture. Hell is a fabrication.

Yep, and your only evidence for such a claim is that you don't like it. Jesus spoke more about Gehenna fire than anyone else.

 

[Colter]

Yep, and your only evidence for such a claim is that you don't like it. Jesus spoke more about Gehenna fire than anyone else.

I'm certain Jesus never taught about the traditional concepts of Hell for the simple reason that it doesn't exist. He taught life and death. Hell or Gehenna, which has multiple explanations in Jewish Encyclopedia, is a control device, generally taught by people who want others to go there. LOL!

 

[stephen583]

NIV, NASB, YLT, NET... "FILL the Earth". The Hebrew word in Gen 1:28 does not require "replenish".

The Hebrew language (like many other languages, including English) has multiple definitions for the same word. In Hebrew, a word can have a common definition, a secondary more literary definition, and a formal Talmudic definition (many of which include multiple meanings for the same word as well).

So saying the definition "replenish" is not required in a biblical text, is a matter of interpretation, or opinion.. as opposed to a literary fact. That's why the word appears changed in the NIV, NASB, YLT and NET Bibles, yet remains as "replenish" in the KJV. As a consequence, not everyone's Bible reads the same.

 

[stephen583]

IMO, acknowledging the reality humans other than those created in the image of God existed alongside Adam and his descendants, answers a great many questions about the creation story of Genesis that can not be rationalized any other way. Even though the Scripture says Adam and Eve had more sons and daughters, other than the three sons who are named in the Genesis narrative.. The question remains, "Who did Cain marry" whom God banished and cursed ?! He couldn't have married any of Adam's descendants, now could he ?!

There is also the obvious question and problem of who Seth married ? Did he marry one of his own sister ?! Forget about the later biblical prohibition against incest, what about the problem of genetic diversity ?! One couple, a man and a woman, can not constitute a viable breeding population of humans. It's scientifically impossible. Interbreeding between Adam's descendants would have eventually led to a dead end. Adam's offspring would have succumb to genetic abnormality, infant mortality and congenital disease.

In a few more years, there won't be any more tigers in captivity. The captive tiger population has been interbred to the point, the remaining tigers are no longer viable candidates for reproduction. The same outcome would result in a small and isolated population of humans that interbred. There had to be a diverse and unrelated human population available in order for mankind to be "fruitful, to multiple and fill the earth".

Theologians have come up with all kinds of extraneous and erroneous theories to try and answer the question. Everything from proposing God suspended natural law with some miracle, to Adam's descendants having sex with angels. IMO, none of which is explicitly described anywhere in the Genesis narrative.

The existence of non-adamic man, also explains the mystery in the story of the Biblical Flood, where the patriarch Noah (after having followed God's instructions to the letter, and survived the flood), then becomes a drunk and lays naked before God. What is that all about ??? Obviously there was a problem between Noah and God. The problem isn't specifically addressed in the narrative, but it is alluded to in the flood story itself.

What did Noah think when he released a dove and it returned with an "olive twig plucked off a tree" in its' beak ?! Noah would have realized instantly, that twig didn't come off any tree that had been under the waters of the flood. He would have also realized intuitively the flood could not have been a global event, but could only have been local in nature.. and somewhere out there, the descendants of Cain had also survived the flood.

In Noah's mind, the flood and its destruction, had been totally without meaning, so he plants a vineyard and becomes a drunk. Mystery solved.

What Noah didn't understand, was that God had correctly destroyed the segment of humanity that was the problem. It was the descendants of Adam and Cain that had filled the earth with violence and needed to be destroyed... not primordial man. There is no archeological evidence to substantiate any claim homo-sapiens were warlike, or violent creatures. No skeletal remains have ever been found showing evidence of homo-sapiens murdering each other with weapons. It simply doesn't exist.

Homo sapien-sapien (modern man) however is a different story. Our history is a litany of continuous and ongoing violence from the time Cain slew Able, right up until modern times. Now we have developed the weapons to destroy the Earth itself and all the creations therein.. Which will constitute a violation of Gods everlasting covenant with Noah (The Noahic Covenant), in which God promises never again to destroy the earth because of the wickedness of mankind.

 

[Riberra]

IMO, acknowledging the reality humans other than those created in the image of God existed alongside Adam and his descendants, answers a great many questions about the creation story of Genesis that can not be rationalized any other way.

The humans -male and female- created on the 6Th day were created in the image of God (Genesis 1:26-28) but they were not of the Adamic lineage.Adam and Eve were created by God after the 7 th Day of Rest....Genesis 2:5-8 ....and there was no man to till the ground....And the Lord God formed man (Adam)from the dust of the ground...8 And the Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.

Homo sapien-sapien (modern man) however is a different story. Our history is a litany of continuous and ongoing violence from the time Cain slew Able, right up until modern times. Now we have developed the weapons to destroy the Earth itself and all the creations therein.. Which will constitute a violation of Gods everlasting covenant with Noah (The Noahic Covenant), in which God promises never again to destroy the earth because of the wickedness of mankind.

God said that he will not use another flood ....
But...
2 Peter 3:7
7 “But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.”

2 Peter 3

 

[Colter]

IMO, acknowledging the reality humans other than those created in the image of God existed alongside Adam and his descendants, answers a great many questions about the creation story of Genesis that can not be rationalized any other way. Even though the Scripture says Adam and Eve had more sons and daughters, other than the three sons who are named in the Genesis narrative.. The question remains, "Who did Cain marry" whom God banished and cursed ?! He couldn't have married any of Adam's descendants, now could he ?!

There is also the obvious question and problem of who Seth married ? Did he marry one of his own sister ?! Forget about the later biblical prohibition against incest, what about the problem of genetic diversity ?! One couple, a man and a woman, can not constitute a viable breeding population of humans. It's scientifically impossible. Interbreeding between Adam's descendants would have eventually led to a dead end. Adam's offspring would have succumb to genetic abnormality, infant mortality and congenital disease.

In a few more years, there won't be any more tigers in captivity. The captive tiger population has been interbred to the point, the remaining tigers are no longer viable candidates for reproduction. The same outcome would result in a small and isolated population of humans that interbred. There had to be a diverse and unrelated human population available in order for mankind to be "fruitful, to multiple and fill the earth".



Theologians have come up with all kinds of extraneous and erroneous theories to try and answer the question. Everything from proposing God suspended natural law with some miracle, to Adam's descendants having sex with angels. IMO, none of which is explicitly described anywhere in the Genesis narrative.

The existence of non-adamic man, also explains the mystery in the story of the Biblical Flood, where the patriarch Noah (after having followed God's instructions to the letter, and survived the flood), then becomes a drunk and lays naked before God. What is that all about ??? Obviously there was a problem between Noah and God. The problem isn't specifically addressed in the narrative, but it is alluded to in the flood story itself.

What did Noah think when he released a dove and it returned with an "olive twig plucked off a tree" in its' beak ?! Noah would have realized instantly, that twig didn't come off any tree that had been under the waters of the flood. He would have also realized intuitively the flood could not have been a global event, but could only have been local in nature.. and somewhere out there, the descendants of Cain had also survived the flood.

In Noah's mind, the flood and its destruction, had been totally without meaning, so he plants a vineyard and becomes a drunk. Mystery solved.

What Noah didn't understand, was that God had correctly destroyed the segment of humanity that was the problem. It was the descendants of Adam and Cain that had filled the earth with violence and needed to be destroyed... not primordial man. There is no archeological evidence to substantiate any claim homo-sapiens were warlike, or violent creatures. No skeletal remains have ever been found showing evidence of homo-sapiens murdering each other with weapons. It simply doesn't exist.

Homo sapien-sapien (modern man) however is a different story. Our history is a litany of continuous and ongoing violence from the time Cain slew Able, right up until modern times. Now we have developed the weapons to destroy the Earth itself and all the creations therein.. Which will constitute a violation of Gods everlasting covenant with Noah (The Noahic Covenant), in which God promises never again to destroy the earth because of the wickedness of mankind.

Or, the fragments of the more ancient Adamic story, pieced together for Genesis from Mesopotamian lore, are about an incarnate Adam and Eve, two full grown, educated adults, Son and Daughter of God, from another world in Gods creation, who spoke a language understood by the resident but fallen "crafty beast" on a previously populated, evolved earth.

In my understanding all evolved worlds in the Lords creation receive an Adam and an Eve in succession form the 1st spiritual leader, The Planetary Prince. Ordinarily they are to pick up where the last administration left off as the visible representative of the universe government under the Son of God. But a tragedy occurred, "there was war in heaven", an ideological war. Our "prince of this world" fell into rebellion against the rule of the Father, through the Son and on the earth.

Being fully versed and duly warned about the difficulty of the task at hand, Adam and Eve arrived on the fallen, divided earth in the Garden previously prepared for them by the inhabitants who had remained loyal to the rule of the Father. They spent the first 6 days surveying the garden and familiarizing themselves with the people. On the 7th day they rested.

In due time a second default occurred, while not a deliberate, open rebellion such as Lucifer's manifesto, Eve succumb to impatience over the backward and deplorable state of affaires left on the earth in the wake of the Princes fall. Outflanked by the suggestions and trickery of the brilliant "fallen prince", Eve decided that injecting her own plan, her own superior genes into the gene pool, would greatly facilitate the degenerate state of affairs on earth. The deed was done, the result was her second Son Cain who's real father was a Nodite from outside the garden.

Realizing what had occurred and being unable to contemplate being without his life partner, Adam deliberately did the same in order to share Eves fate; loss of immortality status. They became like one of us wherein death is mans normal path.

The administrative affairs of the planet were then put under the receivership of the emergency Sons, The Mechizedeks. It was decided by the creator Son Michael that our fallen world among millions under his creational jurisdiction would be the world of his required incarnation. Jesus aka Christ Michael is now the titular "planetary prince" of our world.

Fairly simple stuff and much more consistent with the fragments we have in Genesis.

 

[BobRyan]

Exactly. But why does God instruct Adamic man to REPLENISH the earth ? You skipped right past that one and didn't explain it at all. The word "Replenish" means to fill again, something that was once full, but is now diminished.

NIV, NASB, YLT, NET, NKJV... "FILL the Earth". The Hebrew word in Gen 1:28 does not require "replenish".

The Hebrew language (like many other languages, including English) has multiple definitions for the same word. In Hebrew, a word can have a common definition, a secondary more literary definition, and a formal Talmudic definition (many of which include multiple meanings for the same word as well).

So saying the definition "replenish" is not required in a biblical text, is a matter of interpretation, or opinion..

And of course NASB and YLT are the most literal translations that we have ... So then insisting that the old english "replenish" is to override the current meaning for phrase "fill the Earth" as given by these more modern AND more literal translations is "a matter of preference and opinion". Thus even NKJV has "Fill the Earth"

 

[BobRyan]

IMO, acknowledging the reality humans other than those created in the image of God existed alongside Adam and his descendants, answers a great many questions about the creation story of Genesis that can not be rationalized any other way. Even though the Scripture says Adam and Eve had more sons and daughters, other than the three sons who are named in the Genesis narrative.. The question remains, "Who did Cain marry"

Which is not at all difficult to see since Adam and Eve were banished from the Garden and then had children all of whom were born from these two parents - both of whom already had sinful natures and thus all the children born in sin - outside the garden , in a fallen condition.

Mixing it up any other way with inventive 'stories' only destroys the Gospel and condemns God.

In Noah's mind, the flood and its destruction, had been totally without meaning, so he plants a vineyard and becomes a drunk.

A wild speculative notion that is not found at all in the text of the Bible. Read Genesis 6.

Mystery solved.

 

[BobRyan]

Or, the fragments of the more ancient Adamic story, pieced together for Genesis from Mesopotamian lore, are about an incarnate Adam and Eve,

There are a great many pagan alternatives to the truths of God's Word -- I think all Christians on the board would agree to that point.

 

[BobRyan]

The humans -male and female- created on the 6Th day were created in the image of God (Genesis 1:26-28) but they were not of the Adamic lineage.Adam and Eve were created by God after the 7 th Day of Rest....

Just not in the actual Bible.

in the actual Bible Adam and Eve are created in Gen 1:26-28

26 Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”
27 So God created mankind in his own image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them.
28 God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.”

In Gen 2 - we get "more detail" including the detail of the name of the man and the woman created in Gen 1:26, details on marriage, details on the tree of knowledge, the tree of life, details about man being created first ... etc.

1 Tim 2
13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
14 And Adam was not deceived; but the woman, being deceived, was in the transgression.

Adam was first formed - from the dust of the ground and from "prior parents"
Eve was formed from Adam's rib - not at all possible in blind faith evolutionism.

 

[Colter]

There are a great many pagan alternatives to the truths of God's Word -- I think all Christians on the board would agree to that point.

Or, the men who wrote Genesis didn't know any better and the shamans of religion created a fetish or golden calf out of those writings preventing any new truth from being accepted.

The so called inspiration of the OT writings were used to reject Jesus Christ in a trumped up trial.

 

[Riberra]

Just not in the actual Bible.

in the actual Bible Adam and Eve are created in Gen 1:26-28

26 Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”
27 So God created mankind in his own image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them.
28 God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.”

Do you notice that in Genesis 1:26-28 the word used is MANKIND. MALE and FEMALE (at the same time) HE created THEM -AFTER- that HE have created the animal kingdom (who were also created male and female)...AND GOD SAID UNTO THEM BE FRUITFULL AND REPLENISH THE EARTH.

In Genesis 2 we have a different account....

In Gen 2 - we get "more detail" including the detail of the name of the man and the woman created in Gen 1:26,

Genesis 2 tell us about the account of a man (ADAM) who was created by God and placed in a Garden ....
Genesis 2:7-8
7 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

8 And the Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.

In other words Adam and Eve were created by God and placed in the Garden of Eden isolated from the humans created on the 6th day for a special purpose ...a test that they have failed ..... described in Genesis 3

details on marriage, details on the tree of knowledge, the tree of life, details about man (IN A GARDEN) being created first ... etc.

1 Tim 2
13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
14 And Adam was not deceived; but the woman, being deceived, was in the transgression.

Adam was first formed - from the dust of the ground and from "prior parents"
Eve was formed from Adam's rib - not at all possible in blind faith evolutionism.

That's right.

 

[Just Ben]

If the flood did not produce the fossil record, then what did in context of a young earth view? I have heard it said that God could have created coal when He formed the world. But coal comes from organic remains, pressurized over long periods of time. Also, coal seams contain fossils, such as the imprints of leaves and other organic structures. If God created this, he is essentially making detailed evidence of something alive that never lived. Would God do this?

I think people should question the scientific method of carbon dating. Did you know there was a mythbuster episode that proved carbon dating to be false/ as in its not accurate. They put a piece of sweaty cloth in an oven at low heat for 3 days, when they carbon dated the piece it showed up as being over 600 years old. So for instance, some fossils contain more carbon than others not because of age but because of the heat, rain, and minerals in certain regions.
There is no proof that carbon dating is dead on accurate yet people seem to throw reason out the window when a super "smart" person just says so. So in theory you have to have faith that scientists are telling the truth making people slaves to scientific reason.

 

[stephen583]

Was there a biblical/worldwide flood around five to seven thousand years ago when Noah would have lived ? The Truth.

Diluvial geology (geologic study based on a biblical worldwide flood), was renounced as pseudoscience, or myth by the 1850's. Archeologists and scientists became aware the sedimentary and fossil evidence of ancient marine life, found even at extreme altitudes, such as in the Himalaya and Rocky Mountains, dated back hundreds of millions of years before modern man ever appeared. Diluvial geology also misinterprets regional glacial melt flooding, which occurred about twelve thousand years ago as evidence of a worldwide/global flood. Today, Diluvial geology is only recognized by religionists. It is not at all considered science, but is considered to be a religious teaching based on pseudoscience, or mythology.

However, in 2012 the renowned underwater archeologist Robert Ballard began the work of documenting a Neolithic community that inhabited the ancient shores of the Black Sea. According to Ballard, at that time the Black Sea was a land locked fresh water sea, surrounded by farmland and inhabited by ancient people. About twelve thousand years ago, as the glaciers of the last ice age melted and filled up the Mediterranean Sea, Ballard contends the narrow isthmus of land separating Europe from Asia collapsed in a catastrophic regional flood that inundated 150,000 square kilometers of land with salt water from the Mediterranean.

A flood of that magnitude would certainly have been viewed by the inhabitants around the Black Sea as a "world ending" event, (their world anyway) and would have been passed down to their ancestors in oral tradition exactly that way. An almost identical account of the biblical flood story appears in the "Epic of Gilgamesh" from Mesopotamia and the ancient civilization of Ur, dating back to around 2100 BC. The two stories share enough similarities, it's reasonable to assume they both originate from a common oral tradition about an epoch world ending flood event.

The whole idea of a global worldwide flood, simple doesn't stand up to scientific scrutiny. If the only surviving creatures on the earth were released from the Arc by Noah seven to twelve thousand years ago, WHY do unique species of animals, specific to different continents, (even islands) appear all over the globe ?!
Why haven't the remains of African lions, or gorillas been found in North and South America ??? Why aren't there any kangaroos, or any other marsupials found in Europe, Africa or Asia ??? The answer is simple, these creatures didn't step out of an Arc twelve thousand years ago and migrate from a common location in the Near East, to where they are located today. The truth is, they evolved exactly where they are found.

 

[alexandriaisburning]

I think people should question the scientific method of carbon dating. Did you know there was a mythbuster episode that proved carbon dating to be false/ as in its not accurate. They put a piece of sweaty cloth in an oven at low heat for 3 days, when they carbon dated the piece it showed up as being over 600 years old. So for instance, some fossils contain more carbon than others not because of age but because of the heat, rain, and minerals in certain regions.
There is no proof that carbon dating is dead on accurate yet people seem to throw reason out the window when a super "smart" person just says so. So in theory you have to have faith that scientists are telling the truth making people slaves to scientific reason.

Who says carbon dating is "dead on accurate"? I think everyone recognizes that there is a manner of variability in the results; however, even a 600 year difference is insignificant on the scale of millions of years.