Did Joshua Stop the Sun?

[Job 33:6]

"There are; however, PhD scientists whose doctorate was in geology and do believe the is verifiable evidence for a global flood.

Clearly it is not an issue of evidence, but an issue of authority. "

The latest and greatest of weak arguments. There exist a geologist who is a young earth creationist, therefore evidence for a global flood exists.

 

[Job 33:6]

A record of fossil shallow-water whale falls from Italy

Here we have descriptions of fossil whale falls which include the presence of shellfish scavengers.

I just want to point out that if a global catastrophic flood were truly responsible for the burial of whale fossils such as these, things like scavenging snails would not have time to mobilize on whales to feast on their carcass (because snails are slow and the flood is typically considered fast, catastrophic, with acidic and extreme pressures and temperatures because of super fast plate tectonics and the metamorphism of underlying rocks).

Rubyspira, new genus and two new species of bone-eating deep-sea snails with ancient habits. - PubMed - NCBI

If anything, because we have ancient whale fossils with evidence of scavenging by snails, this simply tells us that these ancient fossil whales in the geologic record most likely died and were scavenged by snails much like whales die and are scavanged by snails in todays time.

The catch being that scavengers do not destroy all bones, and some bones do in fact still get buried. But we already know this because studies have been done in which whale bones have been watched, slowly being buried by natural and slow sedimentary deposition, in todays time. Such as described in the following paper:

http://sitkawhalefest.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/Diva_Paper2.pdf

 

[Brightmoon]

A record of fossil shallow-water whale falls from Italy

Here we have descriptions of whale falls which include the presence of shellfish scavengers.

I just want to point out that if a global catastrophic flood were truly responsible for the burial of whale fossils such as these, things like scavenging snails would not have time to mobilize on whales to feast on their carcass (because snails are slow and the flood is typically considered fast, catastrophic, and fast).

Thanks that was interesting!

 

[Job 33:6]

I just added to the post above, but yea thanks.

 

[Brightmoon]

Right at the bottom of page 232! So we know these werent from a global flood !

 

[NobleMouse]

Geologists who are creationists just ignore evidence that they are wrong and then lie about it. Simple hubris! Arrogance mixed with ignorance!

Ah okay, the "no true Scotsman and these Christians who don't agree with Biologos and the rest of the secular scientific community are just liars" perspective. Well then, I guess it's their word... and God's word, against your word. I'll go with God's word.

 

[Job 33:6]

View attachment 250561
Right at the bottom of page 232! So we know these werent from a global flood !

Time and time again, we see evidence that the past was indeed just like the present.

Shark teeth, bite marks, scavenging snails and worms etc. are all present in the fossil record, and they are present in todays time.

Despite scavenging, some fossils still undergo burial in todays time (observed fact), and so it is of no surprise that there are some fossils with evidence of scavenging in the fossil record.



But here, in this very discussion, we have a young earther suggesting that if the earth is old, no whale fossils should exist, as they would all be destroyed by scavengers.

However, this claim directly contradicts observed reality. And not only does it contradict observed reality, but the alternative explanation of a global flood and instantaneous burial, also doesnt make sense because somehow snails and sharks and worms would have had time to mobilize to the carcass and to feast on it, before burial. Sharks arent going to burrow underground to feast on a whale. So sediment deposition and burial of the whale, must have been a gradual process.

 

[Brightmoon]

Ah okay, the "no true Scotsman and these Christians who don't agree with Biologos and the rest of the secular scientific community are just liars" perspective. Well then, I guess it's their word... and God's word, against your word. I'll go with God's word.

if creationists have to lie and obfuscate are you sure that’s coming from God ? After all mainstream scientists only report what nature is telling them . You know Nature aka the Creation by a deity that hates liars

 

[NobleMouse]

"There are; however, PhD scientists whose doctorate was in geology and do believe the is verifiable evidence for a global flood.

Clearly it is not an issue of evidence, but an issue of authority. "

The latest and greatest of weak arguments. There exist a geologist who is a young earth creationist, therefore evidence for a global flood exists.

No. Pay attention, what's it say in the Bible? I (and others) have written it many times. The Bible is the evidence, but for you and others who refuse to believe the Bible as it relates to these topics, one who is logical and rational would naturally have to try to stoop down to your level by citing men who also believe there was a global flood (since you obviously don't believe God's word). And so now you scoff at that too.

Also, since your argument against a global flood is SOLELY based on what is cited by PhD scientists of the present and past, then where do you think that leaves the status of every argument made in favor of never there being a global flood?

What this and every single other thread in CF linked to the events of creation, Joshua stopping the sun, the flood of Noah's time, Jonah in the belly of the great fish, etc... , etc... is doing is revealing the incredulity and lack of faith by some in the word of God. Anything secular science has made a claim about becomes a loophole for looking to do away with what the Bible says (though you'll never do this regarding the death, burial and resurrection of Christ because it's the only way to have your sins forgiven). Funny how eager most are to step forward in admission of this position. There's no shame or sorrow, it's displayed proudly as a "look what I've cleverly discovered!" banner. Ha ha.

It is truly amazing how some Christians here are cited as being so "ignorant" and "foolish" as it pertains to the beliefs of secular science (ironically of things never witnessed by anyone where they could legitimately say they know "better") and that these claims come from those who don't even believe in significant portions of what is written in the Bible. You've made it so easy, too easy in fact to just be dismissed and written off - it really is the same as if an atheist walked up and said to me, "there is no god you fool". As I stated to Brightmoon, it's ultimately man's word against God's word, and I'll go with God's word.

 

[NobleMouse]

if creationists have to lie and obfuscate are you sure that’s coming from God ? After all mainstream scientists only report what nature is telling them . You know Nature aka the Creation by a deity that hates liars

Sorry, if it was a lie it wouldn't be written in God's word now would it? You're losing your footing here, best just to stop, read God's word and maybe start believing it...

 

[Brightmoon]

No. Pay attention, what's it say in the Bible? I (and others) have written it many times. The Bible is the evidence, but for you and others who refuse to believe the Bible as it relates to these topics, one who is logical and rational would naturally have to try to stoop down to your level by citing men who also believe there was a global flood (since you obviously don't believe God's word). And so now you scoff at that too.

Also, since your argument against a global flood is SOLELY based on what is cited by PhD scientists of the present and past, then where do you think that leaves the status of every argument made in favor of never there being a global flood?

What this and every single other thread in CF linked to the events of creation, Joshua stopping the sun, the flood of Noah's time, Jonah in the belly of the great fish, etc... , etc... is doing is revealing the incredulity and lack of faith by some in the word of God. Anything secular science has made a claim about becomes a loophole for looking to do away with what the Bible says (though you'll never do this regarding the death, burial and resurrection of Christ because it's the only way to have your sins forgiven). Funny how eager most are to step forward in admission of this position. There's no shame or sorrow, it's displayed proudly as a "look what I've cleverly discovered!" banner. Ha ha.

It is truly amazing how some Christians here are cited as being so "ignorant" and "foolish" as it pertains to the beliefs of secular science (ironically of things never witnessed by anyone where they could legitimately say they know "better") and that these claims come from those who don't even believe in significant portions of what is written in the Bible. You've made it so easy, too easy in fact to just be dismissed and written off - it really is the same as if an atheist walked up and said to me, "there is no god you fool". As I stated to Brightmoon, it's ultimately man's word against God's word, and I'll go with God's word.

The bible is a Bronze Age publication that has ridiculously inaccurate information about natural phenomena. Believing in arrant nonsense is not about accepting God it’s about being superstitious

 

[Brightmoon]

Sorry, if it was a lie it wouldn't be written in God's word now would it? You're losing your footing here, best just to stop, read God's word and maybe start believing it...

stopping the sun as per the original post really means stopping the earth from rotating . People, animals and objects would fly off the front face of the earth at escape velocity . The people and animals on the back side of the earth would hit the earth so hard they’d turn to bloody mush in less than a second and hard inanimate objects would powder. This story is a myth not an historical fact. So why would I believe this is a fact?

 

[Job 33:6]

No. Pay attention, what's it say in the Bible? I (and others) have written it many times. The Bible is the evidence, but for you and others who refuse to believe the Bible as it relates to these topics, one who is logical and rational would naturally have to try to stoop down to your level by citing men who also believe there was a global flood (since you obviously don't believe God's word). And so now you scoff at that too.

Also, since your argument against a global flood is SOLELY based on what is cited by PhD scientists of the present and past, then where do you think that leaves the status of every argument made in favor of never there being a global flood?

What this and every single other thread in CF linked to the events of creation, Joshua stopping the sun, the flood of Noah's time, Jonah in the belly of the great fish, etc... , etc... is doing is revealing the incredulity and lack of faith by some in the word of God. Anything secular science has made a claim about becomes a loophole for looking to do away with what the Bible says (though you'll never do this regarding the death, burial and resurrection of Christ because it's the only way to have your sins forgiven). Funny how eager most are to step forward in admission of this position. There's no shame or sorrow, it's displayed proudly as a "look what I've cleverly discovered!" banner. Ha ha.

It is truly amazing how some Christians here are cited as being so "ignorant" and "foolish" as it pertains to the beliefs of secular science (ironically of things never witnessed by anyone where they could legitimately say they know "better") and that these claims come from those who don't even believe in significant portions of what is written in the Bible. You've made it so easy, too easy in fact to just be dismissed and written off - it really is the same as if an atheist walked up and said to me, "there is no god you fool". As I stated to Brightmoon, it's ultimately man's word against God's word, and I'll go with God's word.

At the end of the day, it's not about what we as scientists say. It is about what is.

It's true that 99% of geologists support an old earth. But this isn't a valid argument, it's just an appeal to authority.

However, what is significant is what has led us all toward supporting an old earth, which is evidence in creation and physical reality. Something which does not corroborate your view.

And this is demonstrated in your inability to make a scientific argument in favor of yecism.

 

[Job 33:6]

The bible is a Bronze Age publication that has ridiculously inaccurate information about natural phenomena. Believing in arrant nonsense is not about accepting God it’s about being superstitious

Superstitious is actually a very good way to describe yecism. Thanks for sharing.

 

[NobleMouse]

At the end of the day, it's not about what we as scientists say. It is about what is.

It's true that 99% of geologists support an old earth. But this isn't a valid argument, it's just an appeal to authority.

However, what is significant is what has led us all toward supporting an old earth, which is evidence in creation and physical reality. Something which does not corroborate your view.

And this is demonstrated in your inability to make a scientific argument in favor of yecism.

What "is" implies the present, but your view is about the past and things never observed and could only be truly known by God, who was there and knows all things.

Also to clarify since you continue to struggle articulating it objectively/charitably:

Biased and Inaccurate:
"However, what is significant is what has led us all toward supporting an old earth, which is evidence in creation and physical reality. Something which does not corroborate your view."

Objective and Accurate:
"However, what is significant is what has led the majority to supporting an old earth, which is based upon observation of present-day naturalistic processes and what is presently believed to be correct within the scientific community when applying gradualism / uniformitarianism reasoning of said present-day observations. While this is admittedly limited and cannot account for what has not been observed and excludes any intervention by a supreme being, this is believed to be the best explanation for origins, which does not corroborate your view."

It is longer, but is a more objective and accurate assessment. If you continue to go around presenting your view as if it's as clear & concrete as if you had actually been there, but in fact hadn't, then you'll just end up repeating the same cycle of falling flat in your debate reasoning and just being written off (doing the same thing over and over while expecting different results = insanity). In fact, one has to wonder why you would even spend the time here in such a forum. Not trying to discourage you from the discussions that go on here, but you may have a greater impact publishing in mainstream venues rather than some internet forum. Your arguments could hold up well in a secular publication, but not here in Christian Forums where the word of God is held as a higher level of truth than assumptions about the past based on present day rates and processes - it really just comes off as circular reasoning... on top of being unbiblical.

 

[Brightmoon]

You’d fight to the death rather than just admit that you don’t know anything about the subject except what some equally as ignorant preacher told you . If we changed places I’d just admit that I didn’t know and do some additional research

 

[Job 33:6]

What "is" implies the present, but your view is about the past and things never observed and could only be truly known by God, who was there and knows all things.

Also to clarify since you continue to struggle articulating it objectively/charitably:

Biased and Inaccurate:
"However, what is significant is what has led us all toward supporting an old earth, which is evidence in creation and physical reality. Something which does not corroborate your view."

Objective and Accurate:
"However, what is significant is what has led the majority to supporting an old earth, which is based upon observation of present-day naturalistic processes and what is presently believed to be correct within the scientific community when applying gradualism / uniformitarianism reasoning of said present-day observations. While this is admittedly limited and cannot account for what has not been observed and excludes any intervention by a supreme being, this is believed to be the best explanation for origins, which does not corroborate your view."

It is longer, but is a more objective and accurate assessment. If you continue to go around presenting your view as if it's as clear & concrete as if you had actually been there, but in fact hadn't, then you'll just end up repeating the same cycle of falling flat in your debate reasoning and just being written off (doing the same thing over and over while expecting different results = insanity). In fact, one has to wonder why you would even spend the time here in such a forum. Not trying to discourage you from the discussions that go on here, but you may have a greater impact publishing in mainstream venues rather than some internet forum. Your arguments could hold up well in a secular publication, but not here in Christian Forums where the word of God is held as a higher level of truth than assumptions about the past based on present day rates and processes - it really just comes off as circular reasoning... on top of being unbiblical.

I'll let the evidence speak for itself. You can bury your head in the sand if you want to. I and others scientists will keep marching on in discovery. We will keep teaching in classrooms, we will keep launching space missions etc. And I'll continue to watch embarrassing responses of young earthers.

All the best,

 

[Dale]

2 Peter 3:8 also mentions this idea of 1,000 years is a day to the Lord, so there is merit to Psalm 90:1-4 in that this idea of time to us [humans] is a concept where God is not confined to linear time; He is yesterday, today, tomorrow - this is why He can and has numbered our days... He knows the end because He's already there just as He is here with us now in this moment. Given "time" as a framework in which creation exists, I believe God's plans are laid out according to His will and so when these scriptures speak to 1,000 years being a day this is a demonstration that God's will is not "slow" but rather within His perfect plan in which His promises are being (or will yet be) fulfilled. Looking at these texts within their contexts, we can see the intent is not do imbue us with a decoder ring by which we can translate God time to human time, but to reassure that His promises are not slow to be filled, they are in perfect timing with His plan - the vast majority of Bible commentary indicate this is the intent of the message.

I agree with the response from @FEZZILLA where to test whether the 1,000 yrs / day 'conversion' were true as it relates to the creation 'days', then surely we'd know more specifically how to follow the 4th commandment in observing the Sabbath. Exodus 8:20-11; however, makes it clear that the days of creation were normal-length days... imagine if a day was a billion years, what if you were born during this time and could never work and any attempt to get anything done meant breaking this commandment. Doesn't seem reasonable; however, if we think of God working for 6 days and setting aside one normal-length day to make it holy to the Lord, then that is definitely within the realm of human possibility.

As I see it:
- Creation is described in terms of days (yom)
- The days are separated by evening and morning (a concept we associate with a day)
- The 4th commandment indicates the days were days [again] and this provides the framework by when to observe the Sabbath
- God could have created everything in 6 days (He has the power, the wisdom, not confined to the laws of nature we observe today, etc...)

All of this heavily leans in favor of interpreting the days of creation as normal-length days, to me. Rather than look for "loopholes" to try to redefine, I [edit] look to see if the most apparent and logical answer is the one that best explains the meaning of the text.


Thank you for that clarification. I am betting you and I have different 'rules' by which we qualify a piece of evidence as fact. God is who wrote the 10 commandments on the stone tablets (not Moses) - this was directly from God to stone, given to Moses.

NobleMouse: " I am betting you and I have different 'rules' by which we qualify a piece of evidence as fact. God is who wrote the 10 commandments on the stone tablets (not Moses) - this was directly from God to stone, given to Moses."

You are putting the Ten Commandments on a plane even higher than the Bible by saying that God wrote the Ten Commandments, and that alone, directly. That isn't what I was taught. I don't know anyone who would find that credible.

Here is one reason to think otherwise. The Ten Commandments are given in Exodus 20 and again in Deuteronomy 5. The wording is somewhat different in Deuteronomy compared to Exodus. In the NIV translation, the Exodus TC are 321 words while the Deuteronomy TC are 371 words. (Including verse numbers.)

Since you claim that the words of the Ten Commandments are super-absolute, being given directly by God, why are there differences in wording when they are given in Deuteronomy, as opposed to Exodus? You need to rethink this.

 

[Dale]

You quoted from Moses. Now please explain the 4th Commandment using your same analogy. Do you think the Jews were to work for 6-million years and take a Sabbath rest for 1-million years?

Also,

"8 But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. 9 The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. Instead he is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance" (2 Pet.3:8-9).

The Lord is now slow as some understand slowness. But TE would have us believe that Jesus won't return for millions of years from now -- all this despite the current rapid fulfillment of Endtime prophecies happening in our midst.

2 Peter 3:8 also mentions this idea of 1,000 years is a day to the Lord, so there is merit to Psalm 90:1-4 in that this idea of time to us [humans] is a concept where God is not confined to linear time; He is yesterday, today, tomorrow - this is why He can and has numbered our days... He knows the end because He's already there just as He is here with us now in this moment. Given "time" as a framework in which creation exists, I believe God's plans are laid out according to His will and so when these scriptures speak to 1,000 years being a day this is a demonstration that God's will is not "slow" but rather within His perfect plan in which His promises are being (or will yet be) fulfilled. Looking at these texts within their contexts, we can see the intent is not do imbue us with a decoder ring by which we can translate God time to human time, but to reassure that His promises are not slow to be filled, they are in perfect timing with His plan - the vast majority of Bible commentary indicate this is the intent of the message.

I agree with the response from @FEZZILLA where to test whether the 1,000 yrs / day 'conversion' were true as it relates to the creation 'days', then surely we'd know more specifically how to follow the 4th commandment in observing the Sabbath. Exodus 8:20-11; however, makes it clear that the days of creation were normal-length days... imagine if a day was a billion years, what if you were born during this time and could never work and any attempt to get anything done meant breaking this commandment. Doesn't seem reasonable; however, if we think of God working for 6 days and setting aside one normal-length day to make it holy to the Lord, then that is definitely within the realm of human possibility.

As I see it:
- Creation is described in terms of days (yom)
- The days are separated by evening and morning (a concept we associate with a day)
- The 4th commandment indicates the days were days [again] and this provides the framework by when to observe the Sabbath
- God could have created everything in 6 days (He has the power, the wisdom, not confined to the laws of nature we observe today, etc...)

All of this heavily leans in favor of interpreting the days of creation as normal-length days, to me. Rather than look for "loopholes" to try to redefine, I [edit] look to see if the most apparent and logical answer is the one that best explains the meaning of the text.


Thank you for that clarification. I am betting you and I have different 'rules' by which we qualify a piece of evidence as fact. God is who wrote the 10 commandments on the stone tablets (not Moses) - this was directly from God to stone, given to Moses.

Fezzilla and NobleMouse,


Your response to my use of Psalm 90:4 is flippant and cannot be taken seriously.

The first four verses of Psalm 90 deal with the creation of the world. They could be called a recapitulation of the creation story, or perhaps a shorter version of it. I did not lift the Scripture that "a thousand years are a day" out of one context and apply it to another. Psalm 90 itself applies the "thousand years are a day" concept to the creation of the earth by God. Instead of giving a sensible response, we see the "Fourth Commandment" dragged in, although it has nothing to do with the subject at hand.

NobleMouse correctly points out that the "thousand years are a day" idea also appears in 2 Peter 3:8.

The notion that the "day" of the Six Days of Creation are not literal but refer to a longer time period is not a human idea. It is in the Bible, it is mentioned in Psalm 90:4 and that Psalm specifically connects this idea to God's creative power and the creation story.

 

[FEZZILLA]

Fezzilla and NobleMouse,


Your response to my use of Psalm 90:4 is flippant and cannot be taken seriously.

The first four verses of Psalm 90 deal with the creation of the world. They could be called a recapitulation of the creation story, or perhaps a shorter version of it. I did not lift the Scripture that "a thousand years are a day" out of one context and apply it to another. Psalm 90 itself applies the "thousand years are a day" concept to the creation of the earth by God. Instead of giving a sensible response, we see the "Fourth Commandment" dragged in, although it has nothing to do with the subject at hand.

NobleMouse correctly points out that the "thousand years are a day" idea also appears in 2 Peter 3:8.

The notion that the "day" of the Six Days of Creation are not literal but refer to a longer time period is not a human idea. It is in the Bible, it is mentioned in Psalm 90:4 and that Psalm specifically connects this idea to God's creative power and the creation story.

Both passages listed,

Bible Gateway passage: Psalm 90:1-5 - Modern English Version

Bible Gateway passage: 2 Peter 3:1-9 - Modern English Version

...share the same context and interpreted the same way. It does not say that God is slow acting, but rather that from God's Eternal standpoint that time is relative. So with God a thousand years is like a day and a day is like a thousand years.

In Psalm 90:4, the word translated "day" in the NIV is Strong's H865 אֶתְמוֹל ʼethmôwl which means yesterday. These two passages do not define Strong's H3117 יוֹם yôwm, which is used in both Genesis 1 -- days of creation -- and the 4th Commandment. Those two passages also share the same context with the 4th Commandment defining yom in earth standard time. So even if you wanted to claim that each day of creation was a 1000 years you still only get 6000 years of creation week and not millions of years. But as I mentioned before, the Jews worked for 6 days and rested from their labors on the 7th day. Here we are obviously talking about 7 literal days. God's power and promise is not slack/slow. Jesus calmed the storm by His Command. The storm immediately ceased afterword and it did not take days or thousands of years for the storm to respond to His Command. Jesus rose from the dead in three days just as He said He would and as prophesy declared He would rise:

"After two days He will revive us.
On the third day He will raise us up,
that we may live before Him."
~ Hosea 6:2

Here again we are dealing with Strong's H3117 יוֹם yôwm which was meant to mean 3 literal days and not 3,000 years. For if we accept the OEC interpretation then Christ is still dead and has not been raised yet because OEC sees God as slow acting.

So back to our two main passages of discussion:

Bible Gateway passage: Psalm 90:1-5 - Modern English Version

Bible Gateway passage: 2 Peter 3:1-9 - Modern English Version

Many the OEC side go further and claim 2 Peter 3:1-9 includes some mythical Lucifer's flood which has zero support. But they use this in their 3 earth age theory which itself is well refuted in Revelation 21:1,

"Then I saw “a new heaven and a new earth.” For the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and there was no more sea."

We our obviously living in the first earth age. Therefore the Flood mentioned in Psalm 90:5 and 2 Peter 3:5-6 are clear references to Noah's Flood which accounts for "long ago" (2 Peter 3:5) being in connection to "by which the world that then existed" (2 Peter 3:6)..."was flooded with water and perished."

Yet that same world survived with Noah's ark and thus continued the 1st earth age with a history all the ancients would divide by the Flood.

I know all about OEC interpretations of the Bible and just see them as a 20th century compromise with evolution. I see no validity in Scripture for such teachings. I've been YEC for 16 years and have no problem harmonizing Scripture with knowable science. I also do not fears evolution theory nor am I intimidated by the pseudo-intellectuals who so smugly force it on people. I trust God over corrupt minds. I do not even consider atheists intelligent people because they do not behave nor speak intelligently. Even God Himself spoke through the Psalmist and twice called atheists stupid:

Psalm 14:1, "THE fool hath said in his heart, There is no God."

Psalm 53:1, "THE foolish body hath said in his heart, There is no God."

The Apostle Paul further prophesies about atheists in the final days in Romans 1:18-32 and their relativism which comes through accepting evolution. Their foolish is so extreme that they stir up the wrath of God.

People often misinterpret the Antichrist as being super-technological, super-smart, super-advanced -- when in reality the Antichrist will be super-dumb, lacking all knowledge, wisdom and common sense. The Antichrist will merely have power over people as the civilized world fades into a sort of Mad Max type world where lawlessness rules.

Atheists demand that we worship them. I will not worship them as the gods. There are no gods. There is just God. So I refuse to bow and worship foolish men who's words & actions take us backwards instead of forwards. Best evidence against evolution theory is the current state of Europe. Enough said. If evolution were true then evolution run Europe would not ever have fallen to brutal and barbaric Islamic jihad fighters. Buts jihadists have taken Europe without a struggle because atheists gave Europe to the muslims as an apology for Europe's great success when they were still Christian nations.

Furthermore, God spoke through David and once again mentions atheism:

Psalm 100:3,

"Know that the Lord, He is God;
it is He who has made us, and not we ourselves;
we are His people, and the sheep of His pasture."

Atheists believe they are the gods who socially engineer creation through political paradigms that force atheism. Atheism is entirely a man-made religion that goes back to the sun-cults and god-kings, where mere mortal men of corrupt mind desired worship as atheists demand today.

So when you have seen enough lies and mental incompetents from atheists who cannot understand the most elementary Bible verses, who live with no morals and who force theirs lawlessness on to others through one scam after the other, you learn that they are of corrupt minds and there is no truth found in their theory which for them is merely a means of enslaving all humanity with the repeated stupidity of Socialism which, of course, elevates less than 1% of the human race as gods among beggars.

The more you study the ancient world through ancient texts, the more you see the modern world has fallen for the mysticism of the ancient god-kings which today we find in modern evolution theory. There is nothing new under the sun.