• 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.

Hello everyone, here is an article about Jesus not returning, is it true? I hope not.

Status
Not open for further replies.

Faith 03

Faith
Oct 17, 2003
5
0
41
Brooklyn
✟22,615.00
Faith
Christian
Hello, fellow Christians. Here is a link to an article about Jesus not returning again. Can it be true? I hope not. I believe Jesus shall return and reign in his holiness for good.

Since I do not have 15 posts, I will try to post the link in a different way. I hope this works.

www-2think-org/hundredsheep/bible/notcoming.shtml

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Biblical Proof that Jesus is not Coming Again


For almost two thousand years now, certain sects of Christianity have been continuously preaching that Jesus, the rejected messiah, is about to return in all his glory, to rain judgment upon the unbelievers, and institute the millennial kingdom. A very popular "proof text" for this doctrine is the so-called "little apocalypse", found in Mark 13 and in the parallel passages Matthew 24 and Luke 21. This piece of text, also known as the Olivet Discourse, records the lengthy answer of Jesus to the question posed by his disciples: "When shall these things be, and what shall be the sign of your coming?"

Jesus puts forth a series of signs and predictions: wars, earthquakes, famine, false Messiahs, all culminating in the "sign of the Son of Man" in Heaven, followed by his long promised Return (Matthew 24:30).

There have been no shortage of amateur exegetes who have always sought (and, predictably, found) these very same signs in their own generation. Thus assured that the Return of Jesus was just around the corner, a whole slew of silliness has ensued, all the way from William Miller's wretched followers awaiting Jesus on their rooftops, to Miller's modern counterparts, Jack Van Impe, John Hagee, Hal Lindsey, and a whole array of earnest soothsayers, breathlessly exhorting their wide-eyed followers to stand firm, for the hour is now upon us.

What makes this situation even more ironic is that it can be easily shown from this same proof-text that Jesus will not return. This is due to the simple fact that Jesus himself put a time-limit on his predictions. "Verily I say unto you", declares the would-be Messiah, "This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled" (Matthew 24:34).

It hardly needs to be noted that Jesus' generation is very long gone, and with it the deadline for his return. He is now more than 1,900 years overdue, with no end in sight.

Not surprisingly, pre-millennial scholars have been aware of the problem, and have proposed a range of imaginative "solutions" to this minor inconvenience. All of these solutions involve charging that Jesus did not really mean what he plainly said.

There are generally two popular solutions expounded by present-day prophets: first, that Jesus meant to indicate that the Jewish race itself would not cease to exist until the end, or that the phrase "this generation" refers to a far future group of peoples, those who would be alive to see the first Signs of His Coming. As Gleason Archer claims, in a wonderful piece of circular logic:

"Obviously these apocalyptic scenes and earth-shaking events did not take place within the generation of those who heard Christ's Olivet discourse. Therefore Jesus could not have been referring to his immediate audience when He made this prediction..." (Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, pg 338).

Archer then goes on to propose two possible solutions, as already noted. He claims first that "...genea ('generation') was used as a synonym of genos ('race', 'stock', 'nation' , 'people'). This would then amount to a prediction that the Jewish race would not pass out of existence before the Second Advent." (ibid, pg 338-339) Archer appeals to Herodotus and Plutarch for support, but fails to take into account how the word is used in the New Testament itself. A quick glance through any Greek lexicon or concordance of the New Testament will quickly show that genea is always used in the sense of a generation in a specific point in time. Nowhere is this usage more obvious than in the Gospels themselves.

Matthew, for example, uses the word in 1:17, where he counts "fourteen generations from Abraham to David". The word is again used in Matthew 12;41, where we are told that "The men of Nineveh shall rise in judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: because they repented at the preaching of Jonas; and, behold, a greater than Jonas is here." It should be fairly obvious that "this generation", in this context, is the one to which Jesus appeared.

The second solution that Archer proposes to the problem is to claim that "this generation" means (in the face of all common sense) a different, far future generation. "The other possibility is that genea does indeed mean 'generation', in the usual sense of the word, but refers to the generation of observers who witnessed the beginning of the signs and persecutions with which the Tribulation will begin." (ibid, pg 339) To be fair, Archer expresses some doubt about this solution, and with good reason: the context of Mark 13, Matthew 24 and Luke 21 will quickly show that such an interpretation cannot be correct.

We simply need to ask the question" "To whom was Jesus speaking?" in order to ascertain the meaning of "this generation". It will quickly be noted that this discourse was delivered to Jesus' own disciples, whom he directly addresses throughout the text. "And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately..." begins Matthew's version of the Discourse. (The other two parallel passages concur). Note how many times Jesus states that his own disciples would be witness to these very signs:

"Take heed that no man deceive you." (Matt 24:4)
"...ye shall hear of wars, and rumours of wars..." (Matt 24:6)
"Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted..." (Matt 24:9)
"When ye therefore shall see the the abomination of desolation..." (Matt 24:15)
"But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter..." (Matt 24:20)
"Behold, I have told you before." (Matt 24:25)

The clincher, of course, is to note that Jesus' statement about "this generation" is actually the tail end of a longer quote. When read in context, there can be no doubt about the import of Jesus' prediction: "So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors. Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled." (Matt 24:33-24)

There is no need to twist the words of Jesus in order to get around this problem. We simply need to note that the New Testament itself indicates that there was a widespread belief among the early Church that the return of Jesus was very near.

I Thessalonians 4:15-17 "...For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout...Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air..."
I Corinthians 15:51,52 "...We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump..."
Romans 13:11-12 "And that, knowing the time, that now it is high time to awake out of sleep: for now is our salvation nearer than when we believed. The night is far spent, the day is at hand..."
James 5:8 "Be ye also patient; establish your hearts: for the coming of the Lord draweth nigh."
I John 2:18 "Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time."
I Peter 4:7 "But the end of all things is at hand: be ye therefore sober, and watch unto prayer."
Revelation 22:20 "He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly...."

Obviously, these people were wrong. Jesus did not return for his disciples, nor at anytime since. We can therefore only assume that Jesus made a false prophecy, and he will not be returning for his Church at any time.

By the time that the book called II Peter came to be written, the apostolic fathers had all died, and Jesus' return was nowhere in sight. Pseudo-Peter thus laments "...there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation."

To which we can only add that the "scoffers" have apparently always been correct.
 

Atkin

Well-Known Member
Jun 29, 2003
428
1
✟573.00
Faith
Christian
Faith 03 said:
Hello, fellow Christians. Here is a link to an article about Jesus not returning again. Can it be true? I hope not. I believe Jesus shall return and reign in his holiness for good.
Humans will be judged all right... no escaping that
The percentage of oxygen in the atmosphere could not have been set and tightly controlled by chance ...

Otherwise Earth would have been replicated in other celestial "rocks"

in other words, the planet is too precise for the concept

of non return of Christ... since for Christ not to return, it means Christ was not who he said he was which further forces a liar to say Christ NEVER had a first advent and that means God did not create oxygen (or exist) WHICH IS

IMPOSSIBLE since oxygen CANNOT be instantiated and controlled by Planetary cosmic valves under mere foolhardy chance mutations..
 
Upvote 0

leastone

Regular Member
Oct 13, 2003
104
99
75
Texas
Visit site
✟24,117.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Hi Atkin:

I apologize ahead of time, because I do not have time today to examine this article point by point, so this is just off the top of my head...

First, words are merely symbols we humans use to respresent things and ideas of reality; they are never the reality in themselves. We use words as a kind of shorthand, which gives us the ability to abstract from lesser "things" to develop and speak of greater "things". Thus, the use of words puts us in a catch-22, as it were: on the one hand they are our primary form of communication; on the other hand, they are inherently ambigious - which is why any writing can be interpreted in a variety of ways. Legalists spend their lives arguing over the "intent" and meanings of various points of law, for example.

Words about time are extremely vague, because time itself is an unknown; truly, the only One Who knows what time it is, is God Himself. We all "know" what time is, until we examine the concept closely, and then it slips away. The word translated "generation" in this passage is one dealing with time, and therefore is not quite that precise; it could just as accurately be translated "age". In another passage, Jesus recognized the slippery nature of time, by saying that even He did not know "when" the end would come; that only the Father knows (because only He knows what time it is - and what "time" is).

Jesus spoke in Aramaic; Matthew wrote in koinea Greek. Just as words in one's native language are ambigious, translating from one language to another is not a particularly exact science. Plus the author's insistance that every use of the word "generation" is always the same in every passage is very presumptuous. Example: I just told my wife I would be done here in a minute. Do I really mean exactly 60 seconds, or a few minutes? Since she knows me well, she knows that could be up to 15-20 minutes. Again, words - especially about matters of time - are necessarily vague.

Bible interpretation is also not an exact science, humanly speaking. The only One Who knows what is meant in every passage in Scripture is the Holy Spirit, since it is He Who inspired each human writer. Therefore, reading and accurately understanding each of those passages cannot be done apart from the Spirit. Even Jesus said He only spoke what He heard: the words given Him by the Holy Spirit Who dwelt within Him. Our interpretations - what we understand and especially what we say about those words - should also follow suit.

Finally, do not let articles like this weaken your own faith by causing you doubts about what you believe. The Word of God must be taken as a whole, and there are too many passages stating the Jesus will return again, to be Glorified in His Body of believers on earth, and that everyone on earth will see Him. Yes, the early believers were looking for His return - as have believers of every generation and age - and so should we; acting in our daily lives as if He could return any moment.

The truth is, the Truth is a Person, not a concept; all the words in the world can never convey the reality of any person. This is never truer than when speaking of the Person of Jesus, Who perfectly demonstrates God come as a man.
 
Upvote 0

christianbeginning

Active Member
Sep 28, 2003
161
3
Visit site
✟309.00
Faith
Christian
hi leastone - good post and you have one vote of agreement here.

hi Atkin

Atkin said:
the planet is too precise for the concept

turn it around for a moment and consider....

instead of saying the the planet was precisely made for life, consider the fact that life was precisely made for the planet.

...if conditions on the earth were different, life would have been different...but still alive, still worthy of salvation, still being loved by God, still in need of Holy Guidance...


the things you said about oxygen are simply not true. no offense meant, but if you study the physical world around you then you will have a greater appreciation of what God has created and has shown us through HIS WORKS and also through what is revealed to us in Holy Text.

science does not contradict faith, faith does not contradict science - there is no reason for them to be mutually exlusive. it seems more likely that the conflict exists in some human minds - one side is steeped in their form of understanding, the other side steeped in their understanding - and never bother to realize that both forms of understanding are essentially describing the same thing.

To study mathematics is to study the Mind of God. So to with the Holy Text.
 
Upvote 0

Atkin

Well-Known Member
Jun 29, 2003
428
1
✟573.00
Faith
Christian
christianbeginning said:
hi leastone - good post and you have one vote of agreement here.

hi Atkin



turn it around for a moment and consider....

instead of saying the the planet was precisely made for life, consider the fact that life was precisely made for the planet.

...if conditions on the earth were different, life would have been different...but still alive, still worthy of salvation, still being loved by God, still in need of Holy Guidance...


the things you said about oxygen are simply not true. no offense meant, but if you study the physical world around you then you will have a greater appreciation of what God has created and has shown us through HIS WORKS and also through what is revealed to us in Holy Text.

science does not contradict faith, faith does not contradict science - there is no reason for them to be mutually exlusive. it seems more likely that the conflict exists in some human minds - one side is steeped in their form of understanding, the other side steeped in their understanding - and never bother to realize that both forms of understanding are essentially describing the same thing.

To study mathematics is to study the Mind of God. So to with the Holy Text.
Your response did not address any of my points hence what exactly

did you claim is untrue about my post?

Fact- God created our oxygen based atmosphere (with other gases)
Fact- No human being can explain the entire set of reactions that keep the controlled existence of the accurate levels of gases in the atmosphere that sustain life on earth

Fact- humans cannot supply their own atmospheric gases to sustain life

The term science merely describes the very limited knowledge of human

beings and hence what we term science, is merely a speck of knowledge

compared to God.

Human knowledge is very limited though.

That is why no human can ever convince anyone that Christ will not return.

Earth did not evolve by chance... and neither did oxygen.
 
Upvote 0

leastone

Regular Member
Oct 13, 2003
104
99
75
Texas
Visit site
✟24,117.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Hi All:

First: Atkin, my total apologies...I was in a hurry Saturday, so I mistakenly thought you had originally posted the article, rather than Faith03. I am sorry.

To buttress your oxygen argument though - scientifically, the odds against there being life on earth at all is tremendous. And why there is life is the unanswered question for scientists, philosophers and other "rational" people of our time; a question for which they have no answer, since they will not believe in a personal God.

And to be a true atheist - really believing in no God - truly requires a great deal of faith in the face of the overwhelming evidence of design in every facet - large and small - of the known universe.
 
Upvote 0
No man on this earth or teaching on this earth Knows when Jesus is coming back so let every christian not be decieved about his return, he can if he chooses come back at any moment, Jesus said no man knows the day or the hour only the father knows the day and the hour, so we better be living like hes coming in the next couple of seconds and quit playing games of when is Jesus going to return, do we believe in the rapture or not, Jesus on his choosing not ours will come when he comes period..
 
Upvote 0

Linda8

Active Member
Aug 10, 2003
326
1
South West
✟471.00
Faith
Messianic
Atkin said:
Your response did not address any of my points hence what exactly

did you claim is untrue about my post?

Fact- God created our oxygen based atmosphere (with other gases)
Fact- No human being can explain the entire set of reactions that keep the controlled existence of the accurate levels of gases in the atmosphere that sustain life on earth

Fact- humans cannot supply their own atmospheric gases to sustain life

The term science merely describes the very limited knowledge of human

beings and hence what we term science, is merely a speck of knowledge

compared to God.

Human knowledge is very limited though.

That is why no human can ever convince anyone that Christ will not return.

Earth did not evolve by chance... and neither did oxygen.

You are implying that a Planet like Jupiter has a different relationship

with God in that God has set the gases at a different level on Jupiter

and humans cannot live there.

Would God change the levels of gases in our atmosphere to that of
Jupiter or Mars gradually, to see whether we could create our own
oxygen in our atmosphere??:rolleyes:

Goodness, that would give our scientists a lot of work.
Christ would hear our cries....
 
Upvote 0

christianbeginning

Active Member
Sep 28, 2003
161
3
Visit site
✟309.00
Faith
Christian
Hi Atkin - thanks for your post - your response is appreciated and below I have attempted to clarify my original post as it relates to your original.

Atkin said:
The percentage of oxygen in the atmosphere could not have been set and tightly controlled by chance ...

The atmosphere and the physics behind it are well understood...indeed - "chance" -by the very nature of chance - allows all things that are physically possible...

And you are assuming that life needs an environment just like that present on the earth - we have no reason to believe that - none at all. And if you place the greatest part of your POV on oyxgen - then you are ignoring the myriad other life forms right here on earth....

Atkin said:
Otherwise Earth would have been replicated in other celestial "rocks"

Astronomical evidence suggests that planetary systems are quite common. When I have some more time I will post some interesting numbers for you...

Atkin said:
in other words, the planet is too precise for the concept

Or, looked at another way - LIFE is "too precise" for this planet - the meaning here is that life on earth came after the formation of the planet and was tailor made to the Planet - not the other way around - while to me it seems that the planet came first and then life arose on it seems to make more sense - even if you ignore all of the physical evidence and physical laws that we know of, there is NO reason to believe that the planet was created for life rather than saying that life arose and tailored itself to the conditions on the planet...

Atkin said:
of non return of Christ... since for Christ not to return, it means Christ was not who he said he was which further forces a liar to say Christ NEVER had a first advent and that means God did not create oxygen (or exist) WHICH IS

1) never said Christ never was here on earth
2) never said anything about his return either
3) God had no need to create oyxgen at all... just a few fundamental particles, a force or two and thats all you need for O2 (find out what makes up an Oxygen molecule and how it stays together)

Atkin said:
IMPOSSIBLE since oxygen CANNOT be instantiated and controlled by Planetary cosmic valves under mere foolhardy chance mutations..

Oh! but it can....assuming you are saying what it seems you are saying by "instantiated and controlled......foolhardy chance mutations"

But - the main thing is that it is not necessary or even wise to turn your back on the scientific legacy that our ancestors left us.

Consider...

1) God created humans
2) He gave humans a mind

Therefore, he also gave us:

3) The means through which to understand HIS CREATION - THE UNIVERSE.
4) And the means through which to better ourselves and help the less fortunate...

Why do you turn your back on this knowledge?? Why do you turn your back on science?

Did you know that...

Isaac Newton - famous for classical gravitation, the laws of motion, geometric optics, calculus....

was also a devout student of the Bible and was one of the FIRST people to calculate the Biblical age of the world (the 6,000 figure).....

Is it so hard to believe that GOD wants us to know about HIS CREATION and gave us the tools to do it?

The Bible - franky - has nothing to say about the physical world...
and it may be - just maybe - that THAT was Gods' intent -

Most scientists are not at all athiests...the one's that I have known have all believed in God...it's so hard not to when you see the harmony of the universe expressed - for one thing - in an equation...
 
Upvote 0

Atkin

Well-Known Member
Jun 29, 2003
428
1
✟573.00
Faith
Christian
christianbeginning said:
3) God had no need to create oyxgen at all... just a few fundamental particles, a force or two and thats all you need for O2 (find out what makes up an Oxygen molecule and how it stays together
.
Hi christianbeginning,

Actually, I support human study of the universe. The common error there is that many so called scientists get carried away and assume the universe was not created...which makes mockery of their supposed "intelligence"....

Regarding oxygen., It is not as simple as that..I am not referring to elementary laboratory oxygen analysis and small scale oxygen study-production as in oxygen supplies for a few astronauts.
If it were that elementary to supply Oxygen to a PLANET.humans would not have immense difficulty in replicating Earth's atmosphere around the Moon or some other Planet.

Imagine the effort involved....

Of course even pre high school students can dabble in oxygen theory/labwork
but I am talking about celestial dimensions and Planet supply of oxygen
for the sustenance of lives of billions or trillions of humans.

I will provide feedback to your points but I have an interesting question first.


How easy would it be for humans to create a backup of atmospheric gases to support human life on Earth if the gases in our atmosphere were to start varying and taking up the form of the gases around Uranus or Neptune?:)

 
Upvote 0

christianbeginning

Active Member
Sep 28, 2003
161
3
Visit site
✟309.00
Faith
Christian
Hi Atkin - answering your second post...
3rd later..


Atkin said:
Fact- God created our oxygen based atmosphere (with other gases)

As far as creation is concerned - this is not a fact - its a matter of faith - since there is no way to prove it or test the hypothesis....and is really not even necessary, since simpler scenarios fit just as well and allow for prediction to.

Note, however. that this does not require an implicit or explicit rejection of God or the concept of God as creator.

All God had to do was play the role of the "prime mover" and set the laws.

Atkin said:
Fact- No human being can explain the entire set of reactions that keep the controlled existence of the accurate levels of gases in the atmosphere that sustain life on earth
Its really well understood - sufficiently well to make predictions and create similar environments on smaller scales.

Atkin said:
Fact- humans cannot supply their own atmospheric gases to sustain life
Humans can create the same gases in the lab. We know enough about chemistry to create pretty much any molecule - especially one as basic as oxygen gas. Our knowledge of quantum mechanics allows us to create and study even smaller things like neutrinos and mesons (electrons and protons too!).

Atkin said:
The term science merely describes the very limited knowledge of human beings and hence what we term science, is merely a speck of knowledge compared to God.

No suggestion is being made to compare human knowledge to God's knowledge. This is not a comparison that can be rightly made. Its a non-starter and has no realy basis - like that question about can God create a rock so heavy he can't lift - by the very nature of the definitions used - this makes no sense to even ask.

Atkin said:
Human knowledge is very limited though.
Compared to what - we don't have a viable reference frame to make comparisons with (animals??). How is this a significant point?

Atkin said:
That is why no human can ever convince anyone that Christ will not return.

This is again a matter of faith - you can't convince someone who doesn't want to believe - unless you can supply evidence - however, the nature of the claim is not one that can be proven until it happens so we have another non-starter.

Atkin said:
Earth did not evolve by chance... and neither did oxygen.

1) How do you know that?
2) What does this have to do with understanding the physical universe?

What does the Bible say about the physical world?

Do you realize that even Christ's mission depended upon technical know-how.

Do you realize tha crucificion could not have happenend if the Romans were not technically proficient in metallurgy and the scient of static structures.

Do you realize that the main pillar of the cross was under compressive stress and bending stress, while the arms were surely under bending stress.

Do you realize that the nails were under shear stress.

Do you realize that this method of execution was perfected over time and the executors had learned how to do it right?

Christ's mission of salvation depended upon the Romans having scientific understanding.

The printing press that spread the word also dependend on technical knowledge...
 
Upvote 0

christianbeginning

Active Member
Sep 28, 2003
161
3
Visit site
✟309.00
Faith
Christian
thanks for your thoughtful questions...

Atkin said:
How easy would it be for humans to create a backup of atmospheric gases to support human life on Earth
[\QUOTE]

Not easy at all - when you get down to the nitty gritty of it all - it's basically about energy. We don't yet know how to harness enough energy for such an undertaking.

But there is a nascient science commonly referred to as "terraforming" that deals with such things.

Its entirely within the scope of our knowledge to transform the atmosphere of Mars to sustain human life....it would take a long time to do and require alot of energy....but it can be done and probably will one day.

Atkin said:
if the gases in our atmosphere were to start varying and taking up the form of the gases around Uranus or Neptune?


There is no reason for this to happen without outside nudges.
Our atmosphere is essentially in a state of static equilibrium. However, if this were to happen - for some reason & very rapidly - lets say in one years time - we could not do much but perhaps attempt to move our civilization into enclosed environments before we could attempt to make the atmosphere breathable again.

But there is no reason to suppose that life requires O2 as found in our atmosphere for life to exist.


It seems that the major chink in the Christian armor is on the insistance on the validity of everything in the Old Testament (literal validity). As a piece of supporting text - as far as prophesies go - its good and so too as far as moral teachings, etc - but as far as how the world came into being - it seems to be sorely lacking and exposes Christians to the slings and arrows of those who can't believe because of those weaknesses (while its one thing to believe or not believe in Christ - which requires faith and nothing more - the OT requires beliefs in things we really know can't be true).

Consider that the events in the New Testament do not at all go against what we know of the physical world - save for resurection but this is not an issue as long as you accept the central tenant of the faith (Christ) - whereas the Old Testament goes against alot of what we know about the physical world.....

Resurection either happened or it didn't and will happen or it won't - its a matter of faith and easily believable if we accept that Christ was...well Christ. It does not require changing or ignoring what we know of the physical world (evidence wise), whereas OT events do require we ignore what our eyes and minds tell us (let him who has eyes, see....right?).

Strict realiance on the Old Testament as literally true (in the physical realm) has been a nasty thorn in the side of Christianity.
 
Upvote 0

christianbeginning

Active Member
Sep 28, 2003
161
3
Visit site
✟309.00
Faith
Christian
sorry - some of the quotes didn't work right.


some of your points were addressed in the quote box along with your original points. Tried those parts again below.


Atkin said:
How easy would it be for humans to create a backup of atmospheric gases to support human life on Earth
[\QUOTE]

Not easy at all - when you get down to the nitty gritty of it all - it's basically about energy. We don't yet know how to harness enough energy for such an undertaking.

But there is a nascient science commonly referred to as "terraforming" that deals with such things.

Its entirely within the scope of our knowledge to transform the atmosphere of Mars to sustain human life....it would take a long time to do and require alot of energy....but it can be done and probably will one day.
Atkin said:
if the gases in our atmosphere were to start varying and taking up the form of the gases around Uranus or Neptune?
 
Upvote 0

christianbeginning

Active Member
Sep 28, 2003
161
3
Visit site
✟309.00
Faith
Christian
again didn't work!! trying again....

Atkin said:
How easy would it be for humans to create a backup of atmospheric gases to support human life on Earth

Not easy at all - when you get down to the nitty gritty of it all - it's basically about energy. We don't yet know how to harness enough energy for such an undertaking.

But there is a nascient science commonly referred to as "terraforming" that deals with such things.

Its entirely within the scope of our knowledge to transform the atmosphere of Mars to sustain human life....it would take a long time to do and require alot of energy....but it can be done and probably will one day.
Atkin said:
if the gases in our atmosphere were to start varying and taking up the form of the gases around Uranus or Neptune?
 
Upvote 0

Pericles

Christian
May 21, 2002
428
1
Dayton, Ohio
Visit site
✟702.00
Faith
Christian
The author of this article is making some excellent points, points which are mostly IGNORED by today's Christians. [as noted in the responses to the first post, NOBODY so far answered the criticism in the article] On the other hand, Preterism swiftly and biblically deals with these points and shows why Jesus DID keep his word, he was NOT a false prophet, and his prophecies took place exactly when and how he said:

http://planetpreterist.com/outline
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.