everything in six days or billions years?

[purity2holiness]

the point in this topic is to show or demonstrate that God could have really created everything in six days as the Bible states:

Matthew 15:30-31
30 Great crowds came to him, bringing the lame, the blind, the crippled, the mute and many others, and laid them at his feet; and he healed them. 31 The people were amazed when they saw the mute speaking, the crippled made well, the lame walking and the blind seeing. And they praised the God of Israel.

today' science (doctors) has "solutions" for most lames, crippled, mutes, blinds; these "solutions"(weelchairs, stiks...) don't make most of them whole(please don't take me bad,I am just getting somewhere) as the scriptures state that Jesus did;
with today'science, sick people are prescribed tablets, operations... and they're given few days to recover ;
But, Jesus must have spoken to some of the sick and they got healed instantly; he must have used mud or his saliva for others and they got healed instantly or he must have layed hands on many and they got the same result INSTANTLY!!!
Today's science still can't be compared to Jesus'"science" of 2000 years ago;
Now Jesus said:
John 14:9
Jesus answered: ⿿Don⿿t you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ⿿Show us the Father⿿?

Here it's obvious that Jesus and the Father are very similar;
John 14:30-31
30 I will not say much more to you, for the prince of this world is coming. He has no hold over me, 31 but he comes so that the world may learn that I love the Father and do exactly what my Father has commanded me.
Come now; let us leave.

Jesus makes it clear here in verse 31 that he did "exactly" what the Father has commanded him, meaning that he spoke to the sick exactly as the Father commanded him to and he got the result instantly!
Now my point is this:
If Jesus had spoken(for example) to the sick and they got healed instantly...he says himself in :
John 8:38 "I am telling you what I have seen in the Father⿿s presence, and you are doing what you have heard from your father"
see? he spoke(the teachings, paraboles, healing...) what he SAW when he was in God's presence( for the Father is God), in other words, he spoke what he saw God doing; this means that when God speaks, there is result "instantly";
with all this, we can admit that God could have really said "let there be light" and there was light! just like Jesus said to the blind, lame and others "be healed" and they got healed INSTANTLY; of course there must have been chemical or molecular moves to accomplish all that...but all these moves happened INSTANTLY!!! ; and this is what today' science cannot comprehend;
with science, it's difficult, nearly impossible to admit such molecular or chemical moves in an "instant time", and that is where I believe that scientifics' explanations especially the "datations" of the earth existance have failed, for we just saw(above) with Jesus' healings that IT IS possible...sorry if I am confusing someone, in fact I just tried to show (according to my understanding and belief) that it is "possible" that the earth may have been created in 6 days as the Bible states and not in million or billion years as it usually claimed by scientists... It just that God's ways cannot be compared to actual scientific means... science need to grow and stop reducing God to their level by comparing science and religion the way they do is just "unacceptable" ...

 

[Biblewriter]

the point in this topic is to show or demonstrate that God could have really created everything in six days as the Bible states:

Matthew 15:30-31
30 Great crowds came to him, bringing the lame, the blind, the crippled, the mute and many others, and laid them at his feet; and he healed them. 31 The people were amazed when they saw the mute speaking, the crippled made well, the lame walking and the blind seeing. And they praised the God of Israel.
today' science (doctors) has "solutions" for most lames, crippled, mutes, blinds; these "solutions"(weelchairs, stiks...) don't make most of them whole(please don't take me bad, am just getting somewhere) as the scriptures state that Jesus did;
with today'science, sick people are prescribed tablets, operations... and they're given few days to recover ;
But, Jesus must have spoken to some of the sick and they got healed instantly; he must have used mud or his saliva for others and they got healed instantly or he must have layed hands on many and they got the same result INSTANTLY!!!
Today's science still can't be compared to Jesus'"science" 2000 years ago;
Now Jesus said:
John 14:9
Jesus answered: ⿿Don⿿t you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ⿿Show us the Father⿿?
Here it's obvious that Jesus and the Father are very similar;
John 14:30-31
30 I will not say much more to you, for the prince of this world is coming. He has no hold over me, 31 but he comes so that the world may learn that I love the Father and do exactly what my Father has commanded me.
Come now; let us leave.
Jesus makes it clear here in verse 31 that he did "exactly" what the Father has commanded him, meaning that he spoke to the sick exactly as the Father commanded him to and he got the result instantly!
Now my point is this:
If Jesus had spoken(for example) to the sick and they got healed instantly...he says himself in :
John 8:38 "I am telling you what I have seen in the Father⿿s presence, and you are doing what you have heard from your father"
see? he spoke(the teachings, paraboles, healing...) what he SAW when he was in God's presence( for the Father is God), in other words, he spoke what he saw God doing; this means that when God speaks, there is result "instantly";
with all this, we can admit that God could have really said "let there be light" and there was light! just like Jesus said to the blind, lame and others "be healed" and they got healed INSTANTLY; of course there must have been chemical or molecular moves to accomplish all that...but all these moves happened INSTANTLY!!! ; and this is what our science cannot comprehend;
with our science, it's difficult, nearly impossible to admit such molecular or chemical moves in an "instant time", and that is where I believe that scientifics' explanations especially the "datations" of the earth existance have failed, for we just saw(above) with Jesus' healings that IT IS possible...sorry if I am confusing someone, in fact I just tried to show (according to my understanding and belief) that it is "possible" that the earth may have been created in 6 days as the Bible states and not in million or billion years as it usually claimed... It just that God's ways cannot be compared to actual scientific means... science need to grow, so reducing God to their level by comparing science and religion the way they do is just "unacceptable" ...

But what you don't seem to understand that "science" cannot accept the possibility of a God or god, of any kind whatsoever. Therefore any evidence of any kind whatsoever that casts a doubt on their theories of origins must be ignored at all costs, and suppressed, if possible, by any means necessary, fair or foul.

"The end justifies the means."

 

[mark kennedy]

But what you don't seem to understand that "science" cannot accept the possibility of a God or god, of any kind whatsoever. Therefore any evidence of any kind whatsoever that casts a doubt on their theories of origins must be ignored at all costs, and suppressed, if possible, by any means necessary, fair or foul.

"The end justifies the means."

That's not true James, theology is a science. The word means knowledge and Isaac Newton offers this interesting list of principles for establishing cause and effect relationships with regards to phenomenon.

Rule 1: We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances.
Rule 2: Therefore to the same natural effects we must, as far as possible, assign the same causes.
Rule 3: The qualities of bodies, which admit neither intensification nor remission of degrees, and which are found to belong to all bodies within the reach of our experiments, are to be esteemed the universal qualities of all bodies whatsoever.
Rule 4: In experimental philosophy we are to look upon propositions inferred by general induction from phenomena as accurately or very nearly true, not withstanding any contrary hypothesis that may be imagined, till such time as other phenomena occur, by which they may either be made more accurate, or liable to exceptions.​

(Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy, Issac Newton)

How does that exclude God when God may well be the cause, particularly with regards to origins. Science is a word that simply means knowledge. Now if there is a certainty and credibility in the historical texts then how could it not be scientific?

I think you've bought into the dual definition evolutionists peddle on these boards. Science never rejects God as a cause, if God acted in time and space and that is determined by sound evidence then it is not up to science to fabricate a naturalistic explanation. For that you need a philosophy that imposes an a priori assumption. Never let them equivocate natural science with naturalistic assumptions because they are adept at doing just that.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Biblewriter]

I think you've bought into the dual definition evolutionists peddle on these boards. Science never rejects God as a cause, if God acted in time and space and that is determined by sound evidence then it is not up to science to fabricate a naturalistic explanation. For that you need a philosophy that imposes an a priori assumption. Never let them equivocate natural science with naturalistic assumptions because they are adept at doing just that.

Grace and peace,
Mark

This is entirely true when you are talking about real science. But "science falsely so called" denies the possibility of any kind of a God or god. I have heard it and met up with it many times.

 

[purity2holiness]

But what you don't seem to understand that "science" cannot accept the possibility of a God or god, of any kind whatsoever. Therefore any evidence of any kind whatsoever that casts a doubt on their theories of origins must be ignored at all costs, and suppressed, if possible, by any means necessary, fair or foul.

"The end justifies the means."

my post is mainly destined to christians because I believe that as science has managed to convince many with its theories and methods, christians can also use their faith as a mean of conviction; many people believe in what is writen in the Bible as true without always concret proof(only by conviction) and science can't take that from them; the same, people can have godly, biblical explanations(by faith) of most things that science tries to convince people with by making people deny God;

 

[SkyWriting]

If Jesus had spoken(for example) to the sick and they got healed instantly...he says himself in :
<snips>
and that is where I believe that scientifics' explanations especially the "datations" of the earth existance have failed,

I have just two points. Science cannot prove or work with any past events. It's just not in the Scientific method. Anywhere.

Second, your examples above show us that were God does work, there is no scientific evidence. Limbs are "fully" healed, sight is "fully" restored, everything seems "Normal". An eye examination would find a fully normal eye for a man at say 30 years old. Not an eye 15 minutes old.

So science cannot prove past events, and even if it did, there would be no evidence of anything unusual. Special Creation cannot be "dated".
I do believe in Special Creation just as written. But not a "young earth".
I don't think a "Young Earth" is biblical. But I don't fault YE Creationists. I used to be one.
But as I continued to trust God's word as written, I never found any evidence that God creative power leaves
behind evidence of a "Young Earth" or "young" miracles or hearings.

 

[purity2holiness]

and if we have to consider the 1000 years timing some christians claim that each day of the six days represent( 1000 years for each day), we see in Genesis 2 it says:

5 there was no field shrub on earth and no grass of the field had sprouted, for the LORD God had sent no rain upon the earth and there was no man to till the ground, 6 but a stream was welling up out of the earth and watering all the surface of the ground


how come in 1000 years, God is unable to send the rain?

 

[jilfe]

This is a very beautiful topic you have presented,

To try to explain creation events in scientific terms is impossible, because God spoke the worlds into existence.

The natural phenomena, is the result of God's spoken Word, that's why I believe God had the creation account written down that He rested on the seventh day, not to say "He needed a bereak", but rather to say, that, " from this day forward the seventh day, all natural phenomena has been put into motion,
But before that day, the seventh day, natural phenomena, was waiting in the wings, because everything had to have a Supernatural start, there had to be a begining with all matter, and that matter involves natural phenomena, so for the whole package to come into existance, there had to be a NONnatural phenomena, to bring it all about, that is the Supernatural Word of God spoken.

The creation account needs to be read literally, because God chose to bring everything into existance, Supernaturally, but in an order and a method for each thing that signifies God's character and the salvation that God would bring to us.

For instance Why didn't God speak the man into existance, but instead He chose to create the man (male) from the dust of the ground, could it be that God was signifyiung how the birth of Jesus would take place, as the man came from the ground with no natural seed, but the power of God, and Jesus would come from a virginl as well with no mans natural seed.

God chose to supernaturally create the woman, from the mans rib, as the Bible says, to signify that the man is head over his wife (not man head over woman), but God did this to signify how a marriage relationshiip is established, and that the two become one flesh, that they are equal with eachother in respect.

What other things are read literally in the creastion account that God has chosen would be used to signify great wisdom of God.

Even the literal reading of light being the first thing God chose to create, and then on day four to create the sun and the moon and stars, what does God want to signify there, why the plants and animals before mankind, all His literal chronological creation activities signify things about God's character and wisdom,

There are probably tons of signifying truths in Gods creation activities when read literally.

Instead of us getting into quandries of confusion with the literal readings of the Bible pray about the confusing things aout the creation story and see what God shows to you about it in signifying tearms rather, then trying to explain it in scientific terms.
&#12288;
..
purity2holiness
you have brought up some very good points,.
It was great reading your post
&#12288;

...


&#12288;
&#12288;
&#12288;
&#12288;

 

[SkyWriting]

the point in this topic is to show or demonstrate that God could have really created everything in six days as the Bible states:...

We have a model of a 7 day week. As you point out, God does not do things in human time at all. Human time is the march toward death.
God does not do the march.

From a purely scientific perspective, the creation of matter from nothing would distort time dramatically.