Jerusalem pre flood remains

[dad]

No it measures the rates of processes and the operation of the laws the universe obeyed in ancient stars and ancient rocks.

In no way could that be true UNLESS this state were here! Was it? No. Not from history and the bible, or science. Science does not know, I kid you not.

In fact scientists go out of their way to see if the same laws applied. I really don't know how they would not see a change if the universe had undergone the massive upheaval you claim happened. Instead you cannot provide the slightest shred of evidence for your split.

They go only one way. That way is assuming this state existed to start with! Really. There was no change IN THIS state!!! get it? We are the change.

Not gone. Most of the star and galaxies we see shone the light we are looking at now before Peleg was born, yet they look exactly like the ones we see nearer to us, most of the rock on earth were formed before Peleg or even before Pangaea broke apart, yet the rock formed before Pangaea broke apart look exactly like the ones formed in what you claim has been a very different universe since.

In other words this present states looks like this present state. This is news???? Of course it does, the question is what state was it? Not what state IS it!

If the universe never changed then we can study it using the science we learned in this universe because it follows the laws of this universe unchangingly since the change happened 14.7 billion years ago.

False! This universe never changed since it came to be 4400 years ago. That is ALL they CAN study or see.

The fact you cannot provide a coherent description of what happened to the light of stars galaxies and supernovae from before your split is not a problem for science but is other problem for you split.

False. NOTHING happened to this light! The question is, how long did IT exist!? Science has NO WAY of knowing.

Science provides a coherent explanation of the data, you cannot. But that pales into insignificance alongside the problem that you can provide no evidence whatsoever either scientific or biblical to back up you idea.

No science existes for a same state. Nor any other state! Not within science. The bible supports the FACT we are in a temporal state. And that the future and past are so very different.

Remember you were trying to provide evidence the 'pre split' state of the universe was different from now. The fact that we have water above the earth today shows your claim doesn't hold water.[/quote[ WE do NOT have water above the earth that could flood it, over the highest mountains!!! This is news to you???

But where is the slightest hint this is the result of a the universe being different before Peleg? There are plenty of other explanations much more in line with scripture than a change in the universe that is never mentioned or even hinted at.

NO explanations of any universe state exist in science. And history and the bible are in my pocket.

The whole passage could be figurative, the timescale could be figurative, the passage could be literal, but you miss read a description of a local flood for a global one, the olive tree could have been flooded and God preserved it miraculously, God could have raised it from the dead, he could have made a dormant branch bud like he did with Aaron's rod.

Nonsense! All life had to eat and they ate plants! That is why Noah was happy, and knew it was safe to leave the ark. In the growth rates of today, they woulld all starve.

How long does an olive tree take to bud anyway?

Now, or then? Now it takes a long time. Then....a week.

It is only the creationist claim the flood scoured the surface of the earth to provide the sediment forming most of our geological strata that say any olive trees before the flood would have been uprooted or buried under kilometers of sediment. The bible says nothing of the sort.

I agree. The layers were mostly here pre flood already. So?

The fact you are quoting the book of Revelation to describe the Tree of Life tells us it is symbolic not that it is rapid growing.

No. If a tree grows new and different fruit each month, it is different than now.

The garden is in Genesis 2 not Genesis 1 where creationist interpret their single day trees.

Yes it is. The creation order is in chapter one, through.

But you have made no effort to deal with my two points, the literal interpretation is a mistake to start with as the differences between the two account shows,

False. There is one account, chapter 2 is a recount of what was already done.

but even if you take it literally the text says this is God's work, why do you think God is bound by the whatever state of the universe exists?

He isn't of course. It was meant to bind men.

Gen 2:9 And out of the ground the LORD God made to spring up every tree that is pleasant to the sight and good for food.

You have yet to point any out.

I agree. The plants grew real fast, so when God planted a garden it grew in days. So???

Again animal migration is evidence the global flood is a misinterpretation of the text, not that Pangaea broke up a few thousand years ago.

False. In a different state, evolution happened very very fast.

Even if creationist claims about Pangaea were right it would simply mean the continents broke apart, not that the state of the universe was split apart. Creationist misinterpret the Peleg passage but at least it is based on the text, which says that the earth was divided, not the whole universe.

We also notice that man no longer sees a spiritual level (heaven) up in the sky! We no longer live a 1000 years. Or see trees grow in a week, or star light reach earth in days. So it is the totality of scripture we look at, not one verse. Same with heaven. It simply can't be in a physical only temporal state that must pass away!

Where does the bible say the speed of light changed?

Creation week. Stars were made for signs for men. That means we saw them! But it was not a change IN our light speed.

Where does the bible say plants naturally grew faster before Peleg?

God PLANTED a garden, we all ate the fruits that week! Also Noah sent out a bird. No growth. A week later....a fresh tree twig!!

You brought up long lives before but did not address my reply. The distance of stars and the time it takes light to get here is a problem for creationism, not evidence for your split.

NO. Not if the light was in a different state universe and time and space fabric, with different laws! How long PRESENT light takes is not even relevant!

That must be why there are never any miracles recorded in the bible after Peleg. Where does the bible say the spiritual is separate from the natural in a way that it wasn't before Peleg? You are making this all up.

False! The spiritual added to the physical is the eternal state. Miracles are local additions of the spiritual to the physical. The difference is that it is not universal.

Ever hear of a skyscraper? Deut 11:11

But the land which you are entering to possess it is a land of hills and valleys, drinking water from the rain of the heavens. In biblical language, the heavens start where the clouds are. That would make for a pretty impressive ziggurat, but hardly an impossible one. And remember God's answer was to disperse the builders, not to split the universe part.

Where dues it say He only wanted to disperse the builders? Notice that when the spirit is added, men comprehend tonges, as in Acts! At babel, it was separated, and the reverse was true!

We also must note that it is KNOWN that we are in a universe state that will be no more according to the bible. new ones are coming forever.

How sweet it is!

 

[Assyrian]

Returned to the farm? The new universe state was not at the fall. Noah needed a different state too.

Who said anything about 'returned to the farm'?

I do notice that you do tend waffle on about 'new universe state' thinking that will do instead when you cannot answer a point. Ok so you cannot answer my reply to your claim the ground was changed in the fall

Man was to multiply, so the eternal creature was to spread out. There could be no cursed area to spread to, that is foolish.

That was incoherent. I have no idea what it has to do with my reply.

Yes, but that does not even address what was the nature of Eden, or Noah, or the new heavens coming!

No I was just pointing out how unorthodox your approach to the miracles and the supernatural is. It doesn't matter that you base you ideas on your speculation of the nature of Eden, your ideas are still far from the way believers through the ages have understood God's operating through providence and miracles.

No, it is sillly to imagine sextillions of fairies were needed for constant miracles. A simpler explanation, and one that fits with the future, is that the nature was not as now.

I don't know who you think was imagining sextillion of fairies, but you keep confusing Genesis with the new heavens and the new earth. Wrong end of the bible. wrong time, Genesis is about how God created the heavens and earth we have now, not the new ones that yet to come. I think I pointed this verse out to you before, Rev 21:1 Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and the sea was no more. The heavens and earth we have now are still the first ones. There is no mention in the bible that the heavens and the earth were changed at the fall or in the time of Peleg.

Name 3 miracles before the days of Peleg?

Probably preserving Noah and creating matter and energy in the first place, marking Cain's forehead, if this was literal of course, but most of what God did used natural processes, he used rain and artesian springs to send the flood and wind to abate the water, he commanded the earth to produce plants and living creatures. You find a lot more miracles being claimed by creationists, creating different kinds, moulding Adam from clay, making Eve from a rib keeping the earth from boiling through plate tectonics or accelerated radioactive decay. But both of these approaches fit the traditional understanding of God operating through natural processes or there isn't a natural explanation explanation saying God worked a supernatural miracle. Where you are unique in your theology is insisting that events or interpretations you cannot explain by natural processes we know now, are still explained by natural processes only the universe had a different nature back then. All very deist in a weird sort of way.

The decree was in the form of a 120 year warning, given before the flood.

Yep that is another interpretation, how I read the text myself, but then again I don't take the the age of the patriarchs literally. Taking 120 years as a warning about lifespan is more common among those who take the ages of the patriarch literally, God is proclaiming that the long life spans will come to an end. You on the other hand have to pick and choose your interpretations, the life spans were literally longer, but God did not decree a 120 year maximum lifespan, but even picking and chosing between creationist interpretations, you still have no evidence that the reduction in life spans was the result your claimed change in the state of universe, rather than any of the other Creationist explanations, God changed our genetic code, it was the result of increased solar radiation when the 'vapour canopy' collapsed, the climate was harsher and there was less food after the flood, it was a delayed effect of the fall.

False. SN depend on assuming present light for distance. Redshift is merely light that is affected. A universe change would affect it, be sure of that. You really mean that you think we need to impose the redshift we experience and know here, where our laws apply, to the unknown far far stars. No. Decay is a feature of this state. Don't imagine it into the new heavens! Take away the same state belief that the things you mention rest on, and they are easily explained by the different state.

Then you have to explain why all the processes in supernovae and in the stars around them look exactly the same as processes, radioactive decay rates, emission spectra, laws of gravity and motion we observe in our present universe. If the supernovae occurred in a universe of a completely different state or while the state of the universe was being completely transmogrified, why doesn't the universe back then and the laws it obeyed look completely different? Why does it just happen to look exactly like our present universe?

WQhy must we take your belief?

At least science has evidence backing it and a coherent explanation of our observations. Why accept your ideas that you cannot give the slightest support from either scripture or science?

All you think you see, because all you see is filtered through that lenses! Nothing we see requires a same state.

Scientists don't assume the universe was the same, the measure the rates of processes and constants in the distant galaxies and compare them with what we see now.

Woah!!! No! They would only see this (post Peleg) state. Assuming the universe is this state. But what we see, such as light did not get here in this (post Peleg) state only. The only bits that got here in this (post Peleg) state, are the bits since this (post Peleg)state existed.

That was pretty garbled. You seem to be using the term 'this state' to refer to pre and post Peleg.

No. Present state would be post.

'Not ... only' means 'also', so we do see light from pre Peleg stars. My point stands. The light from pre Peleg stars looks exactly like the light from post Peleg stars.

No! We see light, and assume what we see was the same thing that always existed. If the universe changed, the light changed! That means our light never came before Peleg! The only reason you think that, is because you look ONLY at how it now works!

You just said "light did not get here in this state only" You claim the light changed, but it is still the light from pre Peleg stars. You are faced with a dilemma, either we see light from pre Peleg stars, and you have to explain why it looks exactly like light from stars in our universe, in spite of coming from a completely different state of universe and being completely transmogrified in the split, or we are seeing stars and supernovae in our current universe and they are billions of years old.

NOT if all the universe changed. In that case, all we would see is present light! But I would question if man is certain of even that.

Where do you think the light that just so happens to look like stars and galaxies came from? Is it pretend? God painted a backdrop to look like stars and galaxies when he removed the old one in the split? I though it was the first heavens, the one we read about God creating in Genesis when he created the heavens and the earth, that is going to be rolled up and thrown away, not some later light show he made up to look like stars and galaxies.

Heb 1:10 And, "You, Lord, laid the foundation of the earth in the beginning, and the heavens are the work of your hands;
11 they will perish, but you remain; they will all wear out like a garment,
12 like a robe you will roll them up, like a garment they will be changed. But you are the same, and your years will have no end."
Rev 21:1 Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and the sea was no more.

If God changed the creation state, all man sees would be changed!

And by sheer coincidence in spite of being formed in a completely different state of the universe and completely changed, it just happens to look exactly like unchanged stars and galaxies in a universe our state.

You know I remember hearing of a miraculous statue that would sway or clap its hands as people prayed in front of it. One devotee put a rose between the two hands of the statue. The statue still clapped its hands, but there was an even greater miracle, the rose did not fall down when the statue clapped. Any time people try to convince me of miracles they claim happened and have to call on further miracles to explain away the lack of evidence, I figure there is a simpler explanation.

No! They study rates NOW in effect. If there was no decay, that would and could not apply. Regardless of when the SN happened, the question is hoow long did the light as it now exists take to get to earth? If that change was 4414 years ago, it could not take longer than that.

But they see the radioisotopes decaying in the supernova explosion. Why should ordinary light from a pre Peleg supernova transform itself into a duplicate radioactive emission spectra to radioactive atoms we see today? Why do the spectra follow decay sequences of atoms we see today, the emission spectra of a radioactive isotope followed by emission spectra of its daughter isotopes, whose separation in time happens to match the decay rates of the daughters. If it is just ordinary light from stars being transmogrified by the split, why do we only see that from supernovae and not ordinary pre-Peleg stars? Do you have any reason to think that light should behave this way in your split, or is it simply one more thing you make up without any evidence?

Post too long...try to look at the last bits another time..

We seem to be saying the same thing over and over again, Why don't you try to come up with actual evidence for your split either from the bible or science. I do not see any reason we should just accept it all on you say so.

 

[dad]

..
..Ok so you cannot answer my reply to your claim the ground was changed in the fall

Ge 3:17 -And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life; Sure sounds cursed to me?

No I was just pointing out how unorthodox your approach to the miracles and the supernatural is. It doesn't matter that you base you ideas on your speculation of the nature of Eden, your ideas are still far from the way believers through the ages have understood God's operating through providence and miracles.

Problem is they haven't understood. That is why science is dancing all over them.

I don't know who you think was imagining sextillion of fairies, but you keep confusing Genesis with the new heavens and the new earth.

No, they are similar, if not the same. Even the tree of life is in both.

Wrong end of the bible. wrong time, Genesis is about how God created the heavens and earth we have now, not the new ones that yet to come. I think I pointed this verse out to you before, Rev 21:1 Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and the sea was no more. The heavens and earth we have now are still the first ones. There is no mention in the bible that the heavens and the earth were changed at the fall or in the time of Peleg.

Now, yes. But NOT in creation week, or Noah's time. It would be impossible. Our laws prohibit it.

gotta run, look at the rest later

 

[dad]

Probably preserving Noah and creating matter and energy in the first place, marking Cain's forehead, if this was literal of course, but most of what God did used natural processes, he used rain and artesian springs to send the flood and wind to abate the water,

No. Rain comes from a certain process today, that coulld not have been involved. The rain then was a world of water falling from space.

he commanded the earth to produce plants and living creatures. You find a lot more miracles being claimed by creationists, creating different kinds, moulding Adam from clay, making Eve from a rib keeping the earth from boiling through plate tectonics or accelerated radioactive decay.

Creation was a miracle. But the context of what happened to the earth at the time requires a different state. For example, the separation of land masses from waters. That cannot be done today without killing heat.

........

 

[Assyrian]

In no way could that be true UNLESS this state were here! Was it? No. Not from history and the bible, or science. Science does not know, I kid you not.

The fact the processes we observe are the same tells us the state of the universe was the same, unless you have actual evidence that says otherwise. But don't, do you? If you had you would have mentioned.

They go only one way. That way is assuming this state existed to start with! Really.

How is measuring the universal constants to see if they really were constant assuming the state of the universe hasn't changed? The one assumption scientist make is that the universe we observe around us actually is real and not an illusion or deception. It is pretty amazing to me that science has a much more biblical view of the reality God created than creationists who end up like Hindus or Gnostics in seeing God's creation as an illusion or deceptive.

The bible say when we look at creation we see God's handiwork, that it is there to be seen and its laws understood by people throughout the world. Psalm 19:1 To the choirmaster. A Psalm of David. The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork. 2 Day to day pours out speech, and night to night reveals knowledge. 3 There is no speech, nor are there words, whose voice is not heard. 4 Their measuring line goes out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world.

Rom 1:20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.

Yet you claim we cannot see what God created because it has all be changed by a split you haven't the slightest evidence for.

There was no change IN THIS state!!! get it? We are the change.

In other words this present states looks like this present state. This is news???? Of course it does, the question is what state was it? Not what state IS it!

If there was no change in this state then the stars and galaxies we observe really are billions of years old, because the speed of light hasn't changed.

False! This universe never changed since it came to be 4400 years ago. That is ALL they CAN study or see.

So you claim, but the universe they study turns out to be billions of years old and the laws of physics that all the matter in the universe obey have only changed very very slightly in that time. They have evidence, you don't.

The fact you cannot provide a coherent description of what happened to the light of stars galaxies and supernovae from before your split is not a problem for science but is other problem for you split.

False. NOTHING happened to this light! The question is, how long did IT exist!? Science has NO WAY of knowing.

You see, you seem to keep switching between claiming the light from pre Peleg stars was changed in the split and claiming it hasn't changed. You need to make up you mind. If nothing happened to the light then we can study the rates of radioactive decay in the emission spectra of supernovae and calculate their distance and age, after all if nothing happened the light it is showing us what happened when the star exploded and we can tell how long ago it happened. But then you go back to claiming what we see has been changed by your split, but then you cannot give a coherent description of what happened.

No science existes for a same state. Nor any other state! Not within science. The bible supports the FACT we are in a temporal state. And that the future and past are so very different.

The bible supports a new heaven and earth in the future, but there is nothing about a different state before Peleg, in fact the bible says we are still living on the first earth and the heavens are the first heavens.

WE do NOT have water above the earth that could flood it, over the highest mountains!!! This is news to you???

The bible does not say the highest mountains anywhere aruond the globe were covered, just the highest hills in the land. If they were living in the land of Tibet you might have a point, if they were in the Netherlands or Mesopotamia the hills are not that high. Anyway now that Creationists are abandoning the vapour canopy they try to get around that problem of enough water for the flood by claiming most of it came from the fountains of the deep. The fact is we do have water in the skies above us, and Genesis 1:7 describes God separating the waters below the expanse from the waters above it, there is no mention of how much water God put up there. If don't see how the Genesis account differs from our grey Welsh sky or why you think water in up the sky needs a completely different state of the universe.

NO explanations of any universe state exist in science. And history and the bible are in my pocket.

And there is no explanation or even suggestion of a change in the state of the universe in them either.

The whole passage could be figurative, the timescale could be figurative, the passage could be literal, but you miss read a description of a local flood for a global one, the olive tree could have been flooded and God preserved it miraculously, God could have raised it from the dead, he could have made a dormant branch bud like he did with Aaron's rod.

Nonsense! All life had to eat and they ate plants! That is why Noah was happy, and knew it was safe to leave the ark. In the growth rates of today, they woulld all starve.

Remember Abel sacrificed the fat portions of his sheep to God? What do you think he did with the lean meat left over? And where does it say animals were vegetarian before the flood? Or that there was enough food for all the animals being herbivores because plants grew faster before the flood. Honestly you keep making more stuff up all the time.

How long does an olive tree take to bud anyway?

Now, or then? Now it takes a long time. Then....a week.

Ah you are assuming both birds flew off and searched in the same direction. It was almost two months since the the hill tops began to appear, and we a talking about the bird bringing back a single leaf. Doesn't sound to me like you would need a different universe, and you didn't really deal with the fact there are all the other possible explanations for the olive leaf even if it was miraculous.

I agree. The layers were mostly here pre flood already. So?

So - it would take a creationist version of the flood uproot all the vegetation and grinding down the surface of the earth to make sure you kill of any olive trees. With out this creationist fiction I see no reason an olive tree could not survive the flood and sprout a leaf in the timescale given.

No. If a tree grows new and different fruit each month, it is different than now.

Or figurative, like the seven headed lion leopard bear, or the entire church wearing a single wedding dress.

Yes it is. The creation order is in chapter one, through.

I never understand why Creationist refuse to take Genesis 2 literally.

False. There is one account, chapter 2 is a recount of what was already done.

Who says there is just one account? It does not say it in scripture and Genesis 2 does not simply recount what what was done in Gen 1, it describes it happening only in a completely different order.

He isn't of course. It was meant to bind men.

So God could actually do all the things you claim could only happen if the universe was in a different state?

I agree. The plants grew real fast, so when God planted a garden it grew in days. So???

If you think God did it, why do you insist he needed a different state of the universe to manage it?

False. In a different state, evolution happened very very fast.

You are making that up. The bible doesn't mention evolution and the scientific evidence for evolution say it happened over hundreds of millions of years.

We also notice that man no longer sees a spiritual level (heaven) up in the sky! We no longer live a 1000 years. Or see trees grow in a week, or star light reach earth in days. So it is the totality of scripture we look at, not one verse. Same with heaven. It simply can't be in a physical only temporal state that must pass away!

You have no evidence for any of this. Who says people saw a spiritual heaven up in the sky? Who says the olive tree grew in a week, the bible says it was a leaf (it is the olive tree you are talking about isn't it? You keep these claims very vague.)
The length of time it would take for light from stars to reach the earth is a huge problem for the creationist interpretation of Genesis, but as I said before, this is evidence against creationism, not evidence for your split. Most creationists simply claim the speed of light changed, but like you they do not have any evidence to support the claim, and a change in the speed of light should be very evident in emission spectra from stars and supernovae.

I think the passage about the creation of the sun the moon and stars is very interesting though. Gen 1:14 And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night. And let them be for signs and for seasons, and for days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light upon the earth." And it was so. 'And it was so' tell us all his was happening, the sun moon and stars were marking out signs, season, days and years when God said it was so. And this is supposed to be a a single day in a creation 'week'? There is a simpler explanation to Creationists' 'starlight problem', their interpretation is wrong.

Creation week. Stars were made for signs for men. That means we saw them! But it was not a change IN our light speed.

Creation 'week'. You do realise that as well as giving a different order of creation, Genesis 2 tells us the creation took place in a single day? Gen 2:4 These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens.

But even assuming the speed of light changed, why should we accept your explanation rather than the other creationists? They don't have any decent evidence supporting it, you don't have any, but you claim an awful lot more without evidence than other creationists and at least they try to produce an explanation, you don't.

God PLANTED a garden, we all ate the fruits that week! Also Noah sent out a bird. No growth. A week later....a fresh tree twig!!

Those have been dealt with, you have yet to point out any verses where the bible say plants naturally grew faster before Peleg. How did Adam grow any food if his land kept producing fully grown thorns and thistles overnight?

NO. Not if the light was in a different state universe and time and space fabric, with different laws! How long PRESENT light takes is not even relevant!

Perhaps if you could show some evidence the light was in a different state universe, but so far you cannot produce a shred of scientific or biblical evidence to back up you case. Instead all we see everywhere we look in the universe is the stars the bible tells us God created obeying the same laws of physics we know today, and doing so over billions of years. Since you cannot provide any evidence otherwise, the speed of light is simply evidence against creationism not evidence for your wild conjecture.

That must be why there are never any miracles recorded in the bible after Peleg. Where does the bible say the spiritual is separate from the natural in a way that it wasn't before Peleg? You are making this all up.

False!

Of course. I am simply pointing out the absurdity of you position.

The spiritual added to the physical is the eternal state. Miracles are local additions of the spiritual to the physical. The difference is that it is not universal.

So why couldn't miracles explain your interpretations of Genesis rather than the split, why does it have to be the split? You are assuming the split is the only explanation, and there weren't miracles because in the presplit universe the spiritual was spread throughout the material world, but that is a circular argument. At least the bible does talk about God performing miracles, there is no reference to your split. But the simpler explanation is that you completely misread what Genesis is saying.

But the land which you are entering to possess it is a land of hills and valleys, drinking water from the rain of the heavens. In biblical language, the heavens start where the clouds are. That would make for a pretty impressive ziggurat, but hardly an impossible one. And remember God's answer was to disperse the builders, not to split the universe part.

Where dues it say He only wanted to disperse the builders? Notice that when the spirit is added, men comprehend tonges, as in Acts! At babel, it was separated, and the reverse was true!

I doubt the men building the tower had the Holy Spirit we see in Acts, nor did everyone with the Holy Spirit have a built in translator. Paul and Barnabas certainly didn't understand the Lycaonians in Acts 14. The Holy Spirit is not a babel fish.

Again there is no attempt to address my point about the meaning of heavens, yet you repeat making claims about the people in Babel without addressing this hole in your interpretation.

We also must note that it is KNOWN that we are in a universe state that will be no more according to the bible. new ones are coming forever.

How sweet it is!

And it is seen in passage after passage throughout the bible, unlike your claims of a pre spit state. Odd that. It will be sweet though. You know the bible say there will be no more death mourning crying or pain, because the first things have passed away. Rev 21:4 He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There won't be death anymore. There won't be any grief, crying, or pain, because the first things have disappeared." This is the same word that is used in verse 1 to describe the first heaven and the first earth that passes away when the new heaven and new earth come.

 

[Assyrian]

Ge 3:17 -And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life; Sure sounds cursed to me?

I never said it wasn't cursed, the question is why you should think cursing the ground requires a change in state of the universe? I pointed out the nature of the curse and that it does not even need direct miraculous intervention, just thistle and thorn seed getting rooted deep into the soil.

Job 24:18 "You say, 'Swift are they on the face of the waters; their portion is cursed in the land; no treader turns toward their vineyards.
Isaiah 24:6 On account of this a curse has devoured the land; and they who live in it are held guilty. For this those living in the land are consumed, and few men are left.
Jer 26:6 then I will make this house like Shiloh, and I will make this city a curse for all the nations of the earth.
Jer 44:22 The LORD could no longer bear your evil deeds and the abominations that you committed. Therefore your land has become a desolation and a waste and a curse, without inhabitant, as it is this day.
Mal 4:6 And he will turn the hearts of fathers to their children and the hearts of children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the land with a curse."
Why does a curse in Gen 3 mean the state of the universe was different but not in Job, Isaiah, Jeremiah or Malachi? Does God have to keep changing the state of the universe every time a land or city if cursed?

No I was just pointing out how unorthodox your approach to the miracles and the supernatural is. It doesn't matter that you base you ideas on your speculation of the nature of Eden, your ideas are still far from the way believers through the ages have understood God's operating through providence and miracles.

Problem is they haven't understood. That is why science is dancing all over them.

I get it. You have it right but the church throughout two millennia has got it wrong. Now I don't actually have a problem with people thinking they have a new insight into scripture that no one ever noticed before, but I do think they should come up with a bit of scriptural evidence to back their novel claims.

No, they are similar, if not the same. Even the tree of life is in both.

I agree they are very similar. The creation account in Genesis and the book of Revelation are both highly figurative allegories. There is a difference in subject matter. Genesis describes the creation of the first heavens and earth, while Revelation describes the end of the first earth and first heaven and the coming of the new earth and new heaven. Unfortunately you seem to be confusing the two, mixing up the first heaven and earth with the new heaven and earth that replaces them.

Wrong end of the bible. wrong time, Genesis is about how God created the heavens and earth we have now, not the new ones that yet to come. I think I pointed this verse out to you before, Rev 21:1 Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and the sea was no more. The heavens and earth we have now are still the first ones. There is no mention in the bible that the heavens and the earth were changed at the fall or in the time of Peleg.

Now, yes. But NOT in creation week, or Noah's time. It would be impossible.

You mean we have the first heaven and the first earth now, but in the creation week and Noah's time there was another heaven and earth before the first ones? Do you care at all about what the bible actually says?

Our laws prohibit it.

Our laws prohibit what? The laws of physics? You sound more deist all the time.

gotta run, look at the rest later

No. Rain comes from a certain process today, that coulld not have been involved. The rain then was a world of water falling from space.

I did point out that the bible of rain coming from heaven, of course you ignored the verse. Here are some more.
1Kings 18:45 And in a little while the heavens grew black with clouds and wind, and there was a great rain. And Ahab rode and went to Jezreel.
Isaiah 55:10 For as the rain and the snow come down from heaven and do not return there but water the earth, making it bring forth and sprout, giving seed to the sower and bread to the eater.
Luke 4:25 But in truth, I tell you, there were many widows in Israel in the days of Elijah, when the heavens were shut up three years and six months, and a great famine came over all the land.
James 5:17 Elijah was a man with a nature like ours, and he prayed fervently that it might not rain, and for three years and six months it did not rain on the earth.

If you understood how the bible uses the word heaven you wouldn't make the mistake of thinking rain come from space.

Creation was a miracle. But the context of what happened to the earth at the time requires a different state. For example, the separation of land masses from waters. That cannot be done today without killing heat.

........

Again it is a problem for creationism, not evidence for your split. God could have miraculously taken away all the excess heat. My problem with creationism is that it has to multiply miracles that the bible makes no mention of and even with its multiplied miracles there is no reason for these fixes to just happen to provide a coherent picture of evolution and an ancient earth and universe. However the multiplied miracles are a vastly better answer than your claim God changed the entire universe without giving the slightest hint of it in scripture.

 

[dad]

The fact the processes we observe are the same tells us the state of the universe was the same, unless you have actual evidence that says otherwise. But don't, do you? If you had you would have mentioned.

Let's see where 'processes are the same' now as in Eden!!?? Or the pre flood world??? Or the heaven state? Really. You apparently believe what you said. Look into it, if you don't realize it is false, then list for us 3 things, 3 processes that are the same now!!! Otherwise you are talking baloney.

 

[dad]

I never said it wasn't cursed, the question is why you should think cursing the ground requires a change in state of the universe?

Easy. The surface of the earth was where man was restricted to. There are other indications that the laws had not been changed yet, or light. For example the rapid tree growth was still in place at the time of Noah. The long lifespans also. The laws that would heat up earth in a rapid separation were not here yet (evidence in the migration from the ark, being still a single land mass) etc etc etc.

I pointed out the nature of the curse and that it does not even need direct miraculous intervention, just thistle and thorn seed getting rooted deep into the soil.

No. Mosquitoes and stinging asps, and all sorts of animal changes have to be part of the curse. So does childbearing becoming hard. That means some physical changes and things that affect human life. Planting a few same state weeds just doesn't begin to cut it.

Job 24:18

"You say, 'Swift are they on the face of the waters; their portion is cursed in the land; no treader turns toward their vineyards.
Isaiah 24:6 On account of this a curse has devoured the land; and they who live in it are held guilty. For this those living in the land are consumed, and few men are left.
Jer 26:6 then I will make this house like Shiloh, and I will make this city a curse for all the nations of the earth.
Jer 44:22 The LORD could no longer bear your evil deeds and the abominations that you committed. Therefore your land has become a desolation and a waste and a curse, without inhabitant, as it is this day.
Mal 4:6 And he will turn the hearts of fathers to their children and the hearts of children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the land with a curse."
Why does a curse in Gen 3 mean the state of the universe was different but not in Job, Isaiah, Jeremiah or Malachi? Does God have to keep changing the state of the universe every time a land or city if cursed?

It doesn't. The universe change was after the flood. Man just had his earth surface prison changed at the fall! As best I can tell. The still different light and laws meant all sorts of things, like spiritual beings able to mingle directly, and be seen of men, and marry women, etc. Like plants evolving, and animals, with bad changes as well. Notice the waters above the earth were still up there after the curse!!! That eliminates any possibility that a universe fabric and law change happened at the time. We can't keep a planet full of water up there no, notice!

I get it. You have it right but the church throughout two millennia has got it wrong. Now I don't actually have a problem with people thinking they have a new insight into scripture that no one ever noticed before, but I do think they should come up with a bit of scriptural evidence to back their novel claims.

Defeated people are another matter. If they were on the ball, they would not have lost the fight to science. Don't blame me for pointing out something obvious that was missed that changes everything.

I agree they are very similar. The creation account in Genesis and the book of Revelation are both highly figurative allegories.

No. The symbols in the book of Revelations also stand for a reality. Many things are waved away as symbols that are actually real by most, apparently as well. In Genesis, taking it as less than God's actual creation account equals not believing it.

There is a difference in subject matter. Genesis describes the creation of the first heavens and earth, while Revelation describes the end of the first earth and first heaven and the coming of the new earth and new heaven. Unfortunately you seem to be confusing the two, mixing up the first heaven and earth with the new heaven and earth that replaces them.

Not really. They are so similar, that they are interchangeable almost. The tree of life is in both, man, that is living forever is in both, God, and spirits are in both. Light is different in both....etc. Both are eternal states, and neither physical only!

You mean we have the first heaven and the first earth now, but in the creation week and Noah's time there was another heaven and earth before the first ones? Do you care at all about what the bible actually says?

No. I mean the universe was still in the created state, with the exception of the surface of the earth! Not the interior, not the space above. Just the ground or surface of man. (whether it went a hundred miles down, or 2, etc doesn't matter)

Our laws prohibit what? The laws of physics? You sound more deist all the time.

Our light cannot get here in a week from stars billions of present ly away. A planet full of water cannot sit up above earth. man cannot live a thousand years, animals cannot evolve super fast, continents cannot sepaarate fast without killing heat, etc etc etc.

I did point out that the bible of rain coming from heaven, of course you ignored the verse. Here are some more.

Rain in the time of the flood was not modern rain. The heavens opened, and there was o torrential downpour for 40 days. Don't do violence to the meaning of the text.

If you understood how the bible uses the word heaven you wouldn't make the mistake of thinking rain come from space.

Not at all. Context. A bird can fly in heaven, or we can talk about the stars, or we can talk about where God lives..etc. A bit like the word up. It can mean an attic, or a star, or etc.

[quoote]Again it is a problem for creationism, not evidence for your split.[/quote] No problem at all, unless they tie themselves to the anchor of the present state. None.

God could have miraculously taken away all the excess heat. My problem with creationism is that it has to multiply miracles that the bible makes no mention of and even with its multiplied miracles there is no reason for these fixes to just happen to provide a coherent picture of evolution and an ancient earth and universe. However the multiplied miracles are a vastly better answer than your claim God changed the entire universe without giving the slightest hint of it in scripture.

No. There is more involve3d than taking away heat. Did He send a fairy to each tree so it could grow fast? Or to each photon of light, so it would gidyup? Did he send a fairy every week, to make man live 1000 years? Or a few trillion to hold up the waters over the planet? No. All evidence points to a different nature.

 

[Assyrian]

Let's see where 'processes are the same' now as in Eden!!?? Or the pre flood world??? Or the heaven state? Really. You apparently believe what you said. Look into it, if you don't realize it is false, then list for us 3 things, 3 processes that are the same now!!! Otherwise you are talking baloney.

From what I have read, they have measured the speed of light was travelling at hundreds of million of years ago, same with radioactive decay rates, they measured the constant alpha (which may have undergone a small change early in the history of the universe). Plate tectonics was a little faster but only billions of years ago when the mantle was hotter. We have a very nice piece of evidence from the Pacific looking at the chain of islands from Hawaii to the Emperor seamounts showing a series of volcanic islands that formed as plate tectonics moved the seabed over a mantle plume. The oldest are eroded to seamounts, but the radiometric dating of the series of Islands shows they gradually get older the further from Hawaii they are. The radiometric dates matches the distance they would have travelled at the around the speed Hawaii is moving today. In fact Hawaii is moving slightly faster today. Over the 80 million years since the Emperor sea mounts were formed there hasn't been any significant change in the rate of plate tectonics.

From scripture, plants still needed water to grow Gen 2:5, people, animals and plants reproduced just as they do today Gen 1&2, farmers had to deal with weeds Gen 3:18, columns of air in pipes vibrated to produce musical notes as did lengths of string under tension Gen 4:21, metals like iron could be smelted and bronze alloys formed, and these metals could be made into tools just as they are today Gen 4:22. The laws of buoyancy seem to have applied to wooden boxes as they do today, non polar molecules like pitch repelled polar solvents like water and must have had a very similar melting point to be usable to coat the aforementioned wooden box but remain solid at the temperature range the box underwent afterwards.

Easy. The surface of the earth was where man was restricted to. There are other indications that the laws had not been changed yet, or light. For example the rapid tree growth was still in place at the time of Noah. The long lifespans also. The laws that would heat up earth in a rapid separation were not here yet (evidence in the migration from the ark, being still a single land mass) etc etc etc.

You seem to be trying to support one claim, the cursed ground, with other claims: tree growth, light speed, lifespans, that you are not able to support when we discuss them.

But let's look at the attempt you make to support the cursed ground as evidence for your changed state. Your answer is that the curse was limited to the ground because that is where the man was restricted to. Unfortunately, this is completely irrelevant. The issue is not the extent of the curse, but why the curse implied a change in state. Did the universe or the earth need to be in a different state for God to curse the ground? If a pre Peleg state of the universe was needed to curse the ground, how do all the post Peleg curses on cities and lands work? Why is an entire change in 'state' needed when a few thistle and thorn seeds will accomplish it just as well?

I do agree with you that the curse was limited to the ground, I have pointed out that it was limited to the red soil adamah of the area Adam came from, before God moved him to the garden and that Adam returned to afterwards to farm. But either way, it clearly refers to the ground rather than the entire universe. Here we both disagree with Creationists who claim the curse on the ground described he entire cosmos being effected by the fall.

No. Mosquitoes and stinging asps, and all sorts of animal changes have to be part of the curse. So does childbearing becoming hard. That means some physical changes and things that affect human life. Planting a few same state weeds just doesn't begin to cut it.

The bible does mention childbirth becoming more painful, but even if it is literal that only requires a small change in human physiology, not a change in the state of the universe or the laws of physics. And if childbirth was painful before Peleg too, here is another thing that did not change in your split. As for mosquitoes and snakes, there is no reference to mosquitoes being changed and the only reference to a snake changing was actually an allegorical description of Satan not a literal snake.

It doesn't. The universe change was after the flood. Man just had his earth surface prison changed at the fall! As best I can tell. The still different light and laws meant all sorts of things, like spiritual beings able to mingle directly, and be seen of men, and marry women, etc. Like plants evolving, and animals, with bad changes as well. Notice the waters above the earth were still up there after the curse!!! That eliminates any possibility that a universe fabric and law change happened at the time. We can't keep a planet full of water up there no, notice!

Again a bunch of irrelevant claims you cannot support when we discuss them. Why is the curse of the ground evidence for your split, when there are curses after Peleg too? Or do you want to drop the curse as evidence of your split?

Defeated people are another matter. If they were on the ball, they would not have lost the fight to science. Don't blame me for pointing out something obvious that was missed that changes everything.

So basically trust you and you will give the church victory over science, sell two thousand years of theology and exegesis for an interpretation you cannot show any basis of in scripture because you say they got it wrong. Sounds like a pretty thin soup to buy for that price.

In your fight against science though, you stand in a long tradition of people who believed just that, Cosmas Indicopleustes who claimed the church was following Pagan philosophy when it said the earth was round, or Lactantius who said couldn't prove the earth was round because no one had gone there to describe what life was like in a city on the other side of the world. Then you have the Inquisition's trial of Galileo or Luther calling Copernicus a fool. A great host of witnesses who fought the good faith against science just like you do, but Creationists usually don't like the company. One problem with your claim you can give the church victory over science, according to Cosmas if you accept the pagan philosophy that the earth is round you are already defeated, trying to sup at the table of the lord and the table of demons.

No. The symbols in the book of Revelations also stand for a reality. Many things are waved away as symbols that are actually real by most, apparently as well. In Genesis, taking it as less than God's actual creation account equals not believing it.

Of course biblical symbols stand for reality, but the symbol are still symbolic. Jesus was real but he wasn't really a lamb. I take Genesis as God's creation account, or rather God's creation accounts, just as I take Revelation as God's account of the world to come. I just don't think God's revelations are always literal, in fact they often aren't. And as you pointed out there are deep similarities between Genesis and Revelation I don't see why people insist Genesis has to be literal while Revelation is full of symbolic allegory.

Not really. They are so similar, that they are interchangeable almost. The tree of life is in both, man, that is living forever is in both, God, and spirits are in both. Light is different in both....etc. Both are eternal states, and neither physical only!

You claim this, but Revelation describes the new heaven and new earth as very different from the first heaven and earth.

Who lived forever in Genesis? What spirits are you talking about and why do you keep making these vague claims? What makes you think God is gone? Where does Genesis say it is an eternal state, where does it say the speed of light was different? What makes you think the tree of life isn't symbolic? We read more about it in the book of Revelation than Genesis and the only tree that I know of in the bible that can give everlasting life is the cross, or Jesus Christ who die on it who is the true vine, by whose stripes we are healed. What does it say in Revealtion that the tree of life does? It's leaves are for the healing of the nations. Sure we read about the tree of life in Genesis and in the book of Revelation, and he was walking around this earth for thirty years without any problem from Peleg or your split. As you said 'the symbols in Revelation stand for a reality' and that reality was walking among us two thousand years ago.

No. I mean the universe was still in the created state, with the exception of the surface of the earth! Not the interior, not the space above. Just the ground or surface of man. (whether it went a hundred miles down, or 2, etc doesn't matter)

So no split and the universe is exactly the same as when God created it obeying the same laws, and light from distant supernovae shows us the stars are billions of years old. Your ideas really seems to be falling apart here. Incidentally, I don't see how the change in the surface of the earth extended any deeper than the root of thistles and thorns and involved anything other than thistles and thorns growing the red soil Adam tilled. No great change from the normal state of the universe needed to do that, even locally, just a few seeds. Nor is there any evidence the state of the universe is any different in the earth's topsoil than anywhere else.

Our light cannot get here in a week from stars billions of present ly away.

Yep, real problem for Creationists that. If only you had some evidence light travelled faster in the past. But you don't, nothing in scripture and nothing in science to say that light travelled faster. But then the bible never says the earth is only 6000 years old.

A planet full of water cannot sit up above earth.

And the bible never says that it does.

man cannot live a thousand years, animals cannot evolve super fast, continents cannot sepaarate fast without killing heat, etc etc etc.

You mentioned these before but could not defend the claims, etc. etc.

Rain in the time of the flood was not modern rain. The heavens opened, and there was o torrential downpour for 40 days.

Rain is rain. I am sure it was torrential too, but how is that qualitatively different from the rain we get now? A string of nasty weather systems the monsoon, tropical storms or typhoons coming in and sitting over the area would have done the job.

Don't do violence to the meaning of the text.

That is so funny. What is it you claim Gen 10:25 means, "in his days the earth was divided"?

Not at all. Context. A bird can fly in heaven, or we can talk about the stars, or we can talk about where God lives..etc. A bit like the word up. It can mean an attic, or a star, or etc.

So why insist the rain came from outer space when clouds are described as the heavens? You don't insist that let birds fly across the face of the heavens Gen 1:20 or birds of the heavens Gen 2:19&20 has to mean space travelling birds do you? So why insist the rain came from outer space?

[quoote]Again it is a problem for creationism, not evidence for your split.

No problem at all, unless they tie themselves to the anchor of the present state. None.[/quote]
You mean the universe God created? That is the big problem for creationists, God's creation just doesn't cooperate.

No. There is more involve3d than taking away heat. Did He send a fairy to each tree so it could grow fast? Or to each photon of light, so it would gidyup? Did he send a fairy every week, to make man live 1000 years? Or a few trillion to hold up the waters over the planet? No. All evidence points to a different nature.

Wow you mean there are fairies holding up all the water in the clouds I see outside the window? I didn't know Wales was such a magical place. Tell me, do you think Jesus used fairies for all the fish he multiplied? Did he need more fairies the more fish there was? What about the plagues of Egypt? Did each locust have a fairy riding on it? What about each gnat? Was there a fairy on every boil poking it with a pin?

 

[dad]

From what I have read, they have measured the speed of light was travelling at hundreds of million of years ago, same with radioactive decay rates, they measured the constant alpha (which may have undergone a small change early in the history of the universe).

Nope. Not at all is that remotely true. Look deeper. Show me light measured as you claim? As far as decay, that is merely looking at how it now decays, and assuming it was always so. They generally do that by looking at the parent daughter ratio of isotopes in the material. If the materials got there another way, then assuming present decay always is silly. They don't know.

Plate tectonics was a little faster but only billions of years ago when the mantle was hotter.

Not at all, they simply try to patch and weld current movements and past heat, with same state models of the unknown. If, for example most of the heat was caused at the tail end of the rapid separation of continents, all their dreams of a hot inner earth are naught! It is fables. Right from the godless getgo.
What we know....heat was here and was caused by something. Present continent movement rates. The rest is in your bean.

We have a very nice piece of evidence from the Pacific looking at the chain of islands from Hawaii to the Emperor seamounts showing a series of volcanic islands that formed as plate tectonics moved the seabed over a mantle plume. The oldest are eroded to seamounts, but the radiometric dating of the series of Islands shows they gradually get older the further from Hawaii they are. The radiometric dates matches the distance they would have travelled at the around the speed Hawaii is moving today. In fact Hawaii is moving slightly faster today. Over the 80 million years since the Emperor sea mounts were formed there hasn't been any significant change in the rate of plate tectonics.

I know. In other words heat spurted up some islands in a pattern. The "dates" have no meaning at all. Correlating imaginary dates in an imaginary dreamscape is vain.

At the tail end of the movement, apparently, the present state started to exist. It was the split that likely caused the movement to start with. Of course as this state came to be, great heat would come as well.

From scripture, plants still needed water to grow Gen 2:5, people, animals and plants reproduced just as they do today Gen 1&2, farmers had to deal with weeds Gen 3:18,

That was after the curse, and so why would we not expect weeds? Water was needed, but didn't come as rain.

columns of air in pipes vibrated to produce musical notes as did lengths of string under tension Gen 4:21,

Yes there is mucic in heaven as well, does that make it the same too!? Think.

metals like iron could be smelted and bronze alloys formed, and these metals could be made into tools just as they are today Gen 4:22.

They will also beat the swords into pruninghooks in the future! Now if you had some details, such as how much force and heat were required and produced, we could talk. You don't.

The laws of buoyancy seem to have applied to wooden boxes as they do today, non polar molecules like pitch repelled polar solvents like water and must have had a very similar melting point to be usable to coat the aforementioned wooden box but remain solid at the temperature range the box underwent afterwards.

If it was wood, then tell me what is gopher wood? Man doesn't know. But, for brevity sake, let's assume it was wood. How much water did it displace if you know, compared to present state vessels? Would pitch really keep a wooden boat dry completely for a year in this state?

But let's look at the attempt you make to support the cursed ground as evidence for your changed state.

The curse was something like 16 centuries before the flood, add a century till the split. What are you talking about? The curse was a localized change on the surface of the earth.

Your answer is that the curse was limited to the ground because that is where the man was restricted to. Unfortunately, this is completely irrelevant. The issue is not the extent of the curse, but why the curse implied a change in state.

Focus, man. The universe state change was after the flood. Noo wonder you are confused.

Did the universe or the earth need to be in a different state for God to curse the ground?

The surface of the earth needed to be changed, and obviously was.

I do agree with you that the curse was limited to the ground, I have pointed out that it was limited to the red soil adamah of the area Adam came from, before God moved him to the garden and that Adam returned to afterwards to farm.

Nonsense. Prove it.

But either way, it clearly refers to the ground rather than the entire universe. Here we both disagree with Creationists who claim the curse on the ground described he entire cosmos being effected by the fall.

True. I see no evidence of that.

The bible does mention childbirth becoming more painful, but even if it is literal that only requires a small change in human physiology, not a change in the state of the universe or the laws of physics.

Well, the universe change came later. But the fact that animals and plants and men could evolve rapidly, and change like this shows that this present state could not have been in place.

And if childbirth was painful before Peleg too, here is another thing that did not change in your split.

The universe change was to restrain man further, not lift the curse. Of course woman still had trouble. In fact, I can't prove it directly, but I suspect that gestation for mankind in the pre split world was far less. I guess 3 months. That would really help people multiply. I also suspect that kids came to pubescence much faster. My guess, less than ten years. But thats another story.

As for mosquitoes and snakes, there is no reference to mosquitoes being changed and the only reference to a snake changing was actually an allegorical description of Satan not a literal snake.

No. It was the creature, the serpent that was changed. If the devil possessed it, and was gone, that was the creatures punishment for allowing it.

 

[dad]

...

So basically trust you and you will give the church victory over science, sell two thousand years of theology and exegesis for an interpretation you cannot show any basis of in scripture because you say they got it wrong. Sounds like a pretty thin soup to buy for that price.

Trust God, and forget the defeated nominal compromising laughable stupidity that caused the doubting of the word of the Almighty.

In your fight against science though, you stand in a long tradition of people who believed just that, Cosmas Indicopleustes who claimed the church was following Pagan philosophy when it said the earth was round, or Lactantius who said couldn't prove the earth was round because no one had gone there to describe what life was like in a city on the other side of the world. Then you have the Inquisition's trial of Galileo or Luther calling Copernicus a fool. A great host of witnesses who fought the good faith against science just like you do, but Creationists usually don't like the company. One problem with your claim you can give the church victory over science, according to Cosmas if you accept the pagan philosophy that the earth is round you are already defeated, trying to sup at the table of the lord and the table of demons.

Galileo had a real observed and well based point. The mistake of the religious powers that were, was to assume that the present arrangement meant that things always were this way!

Of course biblical symbols stand for reality, but the symbol are still symbolic. Jesus was real but he wasn't really a lamb.

The title refers to the prophesy of One to be sacrificed from the beginning. He has many titles and names, such as Prince of Peace.

I take Genesis as God's creation account, or rather God's creation accounts, just as I take Revelation as God's account of the world to come. I just don't think God's revelations are always literal, in fact they often aren't. And as you pointed out there are deep similarities between Genesis and Revelation I don't see why people insist Genesis has to be literal while Revelation is full of symbolic allegory.

Not really. Revelation deals in mature and spiritual matters, so some get left in the dust pretty quick. For the spiritual minded, and rest of the bible based believer, it is a piece of cake. The few times that present realities were inadequate to portray the realities of the future, a type was given, that still represented a reality.

You claim this, but Revelation describes the new heaven and new earth as very different from the first heaven and earth.

I agree, but NOT so different from the time of the garden!

Who lived forever in Genesis? What spirits are you talking about and why do you keep making these vague claims?

Adam and Eve were to live forever. All their children also.

What makes you think God is gone?

Nothing. But He sure ain't here in any garden I walked in, chatting it up, making a fur coat, etc etc. Jesus is gone too, notice? Of course they are with us, if we have them in our lives and hearts. In spirit. In heaven it will be right in your face! Same with Eden.

Where does Genesis say it is an eternal state,

If man could have lived forever, such as even after the fall, if he ate the tree of life, that means there had to be a forever state. We are not in one now, notice? Ask science how long the earth and sun could last here!

where does it say the speed of light was different?

Stars were made for us to see as signs. That means the light got here in creation week.

What makes you think the tree of life isn't symbolic?

No reason to think it. In heaven, they grow on both sides of a river, and they have fruits every month, they have leaves. Etc. No more reason to think that they are some elusive, and unreal practical joke, than thinking that the body Jesus has, is an ipod.

We read more about it in the book of Revelation than Genesis and the only tree that I know of in the bible that can give everlasting life is the cross, or Jesus Christ who die on it who is the true vine, by whose stripes we are healed.

Jesus made New Jerusalem. So the trees there are His doing. They seem to have a special purpose for the nations. That means people living on the earth outside. For example the Jews. Maybe when they (or others) visit, that tree will really have a special purpose.

What does it say in Revealtion that the tree of life does? It's leaves are for the healing of the nations.

Bingo!

Sure we read about the tree of life in Genesis and in the book of Revelation, and he was walking around this earth for thirty years without any problem from Peleg or your split.

Yes, and walking in a PHYSICAL body like you and I, if you notice.

As you said 'the symbols in Revelation stand for a reality' and that reality was walking among us two thousand years ago.

True, and the reality is He rose from the dead in a new, spiritual and physical body, that He still has!

 

[Assyrian]

Nope. Not at all is that remotely true. Look deeper. Show me light measured as you claim? As far as decay, that is merely looking at how it now decays, and assuming it was always so. They generally do that by looking at the parent daughter ratio of isotopes in the material. If the materials got there another way, then assuming present decay always is silly. They don't know.

Yet you can never come up with any evidence for other ways the material got there, never any evidence for your split or that the universe was in a different state, instead every where we look in ancient rock laid down before Peleg, we see the results of processes that look exactly like the processes taking place now. Why do isotopes in lower strata have more decay? Why does an ancient natural nuclear reactor like Oklo look exactly like they went critical with radioactive isotopes decaying at the same rate they do now? Why do the products of this decay look as though they have undergone 2 billion years of decay at present rates. If rates were much faster why didn’t every deposit of radioactive isotopes all over the world go critical? Why do decay rates observed in distant supernovae look exactly the same as they do today? Not only can you not give any evidence scriptural or scientific for your supposed split, you cannot explain why science gets such consistent results for a universe that has been ripped apart and completely changed

Not at all, they simply try to patch and weld current movements and past heat, with same state models of the unknown. If, for example most of the heat was caused at the tail end of the rapid separation of continents, all their dreams of a hot inner earth are naught! It is fables. Right from the godless getgo.
What we know....heat was here and was caused by something. Present continent movement rates. The rest is in your bean.

I don’t suppose you have any evidence the heat was caused at the end of the separation? Not that is would make any difference. Geologists do not rely on the earth being hotter billions of years ago to show the continents moved a bit faster, they know from radiometric dating the continents did move a bit faster, a hotter mantle is simply a plausible explanation for the fact they did move faster, Don't forget Pangaea is not the only time the continents were together. Older supercontinents broke apart and the plates had to travel around the globe to join together to form Pangaea. We can date the geological strata that were formed when the older continents were together, and the ones that formed when new ones joined together. So we know how far they travelled and how long it took and it just so happened that the rates of continental drift were the same as we have now for a couple or billion years. It is funny how the figures work out that way, all these coincidences. And all you can offer is the unsupported claim the state of the universe was different, the unsupported claim the tectonic plates moved at vast speeds, no coherent model to explain how the continents whizzed around the earth, no evidence all the heat was released at the end of Pangaea's separation or reason why it should.

I know. In other words heat spurted up some islands in a pattern. The "dates" have no meaning at all. Correlating imaginary dates in an imaginary dreamscape is vain.

If the dates are imaginary why would they correlate? Scientists measure radioactive decay rates in the lab, in ancient supernovae and from ancient nuclear reactors, and for some strange reason get the same rates. When those decay rates are used to date a series of volcanic islands their dates and the distance they are from the currently active volcano matches the rate of continental drift the island is moving at now. What an amazing coincidence for imaginary dates.

At the tail end of the movement, apparently, the present state started to exist. It was the split that likely caused the movement to start with. Of course as this state came to be, great heat would come as well.

Speaking of imaginary dreamscapes… Any reason a change in state of the universe would produce great heat? Why would a split between the physical and spiritual universe move tectonic plates?

That was after the curse, and so why would we not expect weeds? Water was needed, but didn't come as rain.

You know the bible never says it didn’t rain until the flood, that is just another creationist myth. However we are still left with the fact plants needed water before Peleg just as they did afterwards. No change there then. And whether weeds were created as part of the curse, or they were just more abundant in Adam’s farmland as a result, we still have weeds causing problems for farmers before and after Peleg. Again, no change there.

Yes there is mucic in heaven as well, does that make it the same too!? Think.

I am sure there is music in heaven, musical instruments may even work the same way, although we don’t know that they do. But that is irrelevant really. The issue is whether the pre Peleg world was the same as the one we live in now and it seem all the laws of sound and vibration in air and in strings worked the same way it does now. The fact we have description of the same kind of wind and stringed instruments are we read about afterwards tell us the universe worked the same way with sound and vibration too.

They will also beat the swords into pruninghooks in the future!

Is that the millennium or the new heaven and earth?

Now if you had some details, such as how much force and heat were required and produced, we could talk. You don't.

The melting point could not have been too much different, too low and the finished metals would be too soft for making tools, to high a melting point and it would have been much too difficult to produce or work. The physical and chemical properties of metals must be pretty similar or there is no reason copper would be alloyed as bronze while iron is used unalloyed, why not copper and iron, steel and bronze, or steel and copper? The chemistry of the whole periodic table must be pretty similar too. Iron and copper are not the most abundant elements. Iron is pretty abundant though less abundant than aluminium, while copper is less abundant than calcium, sodium, potassium, magnesium, titanium, manganese, strontium, zirconium, tungsten, vanadium, chromium, rubidium, nickel or zinc. Bronze is an alloy of copper and tin, but tin is even less abundant in the earth's crust than copper with cerium, neodymium , lanthanum, yttrium, cobalt, lithium, niobium, gallium, scandium, lead, samarium, thorium, praseodymium, gadolinium, dysprosium, hafnium, erbium and ytterbium. Of all the possible metals and alloys metal workers could have discovered and used before the time of Peleg, they used iron and bronze, metal which in the current state of the universe are tough enough to use as tools, but melt at a temperature that is easily obtainable with simple technology and whose chemistry makes them easy to extract from ore.

If it was wood, then tell me what is gopher wood? Man doesn't know. But, for brevity sake, let's assume it was wood. How much water did it displace if you know, compared to present state vessels? Would pitch really keep a wooden boat dry completely for a year in this state?

Gopher was probably Cyprus or pitch pine from the etymology. It was wood though Gen 6:14 Make yourself an ark of gopher wood. Do we need to know the displacement of the ark? The fact is a hollow box made of wood floated before Peleg just as it floats afterwards obeying the laws of buoyancy of our current universe. Isn’t tar what Columbus and Magellan used to keep their ships waterproof? Otherwise why would Noah have covered the ark with pitch inside and out? Purely symbolic reasons that just happened to match the hydrophilic properties of non polar compounds in today's universe? The coincidences keep mounting up.

The curse was something like 16 centuries before the flood, add a century till the split. What are you talking about? The curse was a localized change on the surface of the earth. Focus, man. The universe state change was after the flood. Noo wonder you are confused.

You brough the curse up. Don’t complain to me if your argument falls apart.

The surface of the earth needed to be changed, and obviously was.

Why do you need a change in state to grow thistles?

Nonsense. Prove it.

God formed Adam in a region with a type of red earth called adamah, God plants a garden to the east of Eden and moves Adam to the garden.

Gen 2:7 then the LORD God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature. 8 And the LORD God planted a garden in Eden, in the east, and there he put the man whom he had formed.

Gen 3:17 And to Adam he said, "Because you have listened to the voice of your wife and have eaten of the tree of which I commanded you, 'You shall not eat of it,' cursed is the ground because of you; in pain you shall eat of it all the days of your life;
18 thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you; and you shall eat the plants of the field.
19 By the sweat of your face you shall eat bread, till you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken; for you are dust, and to dust you shall return."

Gen 3:23 therefore the LORD God sent him out from the garden of Eden to work the ground from which he was taken.

After the fall God sends Adam back to the red adamah ground he was taken from, where he has to work hard farming until he returns to the red dust he was taken from. This is the ground God curses and the curse is that it will produce thistles and thorns when Adam farms it. It is only the ground Adam was taken from, which he returned to to farm after being thrown out of the garden, that God curses.

True. I see no evidence of that.

Yet you think mosquitoes were changed by the fall.

Well, the universe change came later. But the fact that animals and plants and men could evolve rapidly, and change like this shows that this present state could not have been in place.

And you know that the increase in pain is the result of rapid evolution rather than the direct effect of God’s curse? You know that God could not have made that curse if rapid evolution hadn’t been been possible in the state of the universe back then? Do you even have any evidence for this rapid evolution? As I pointed out to you before, the bible doesn't mention evolution and the scientific evidence for evolution say it happened over hundreds of millions of years.

The universe change was to restrain man further, not lift the curse. Of course woman still had trouble. In fact, I can't prove it directly, but I suspect that gestation for mankind in the pre split world was far less. I guess 3 months. That would really help people multiply. I also suspect that kids came to pubescence much faster. My guess, less than ten years. But thats another story.

But I don’t suppose you have any evidence for you shorter gestation period and early puberty, which leaves us only with painful birth, another thing that didn’t change after Peleg.

No. It was the creature, the serpent that was changed. If the devil possessed it, and was gone, that was the creatures punishment for allowing it.

Who says the devil possessed the snake? The bible say the devil was the snake. Rev 12:9 And the great dragon was thrown down, that ancient serpent, who is called the devil and Satan, the deceiver of the whole world--he was thrown down to the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him. Rev 20:2 And he seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years. I pointed this out to you before. Nor does the bible say the snake was punished for allowing Satan to possess it either. It was punished for deceiving Eve Gen 3:13 The woman said, "The serpent deceived me, and I ate." 14 The LORD God said to the serpent, "Because you have done this…

 

[Assyrian]

Trust God, and forget the defeated nominal compromising laughable stupidity that caused the doubting of the word of the Almighty.

So accepting your claim that you cannot back up is 'trusting God'?

Incidentally, Copernicus shook a lot of people's faith too.

Galileo had a real observed and well based point.

Galileo had observations and his analysis of the evidence as do modern scientists. The problem was the scientific evidence contradicted the literal interpretation of a whole series of scriptures, just as the age of the universe and evolution do today. We even have creationist on this forum claiming you can't trust what you see in a telescope. I am sure he could have used that argument for Galileo's evidence too.

The mistake of the religious powers that were, was to assume that the present arrangement meant that things always were this way!

Since the scriptures they interpreted geocentrically come after Peleg, I don't see how your mantra about the present arrangement would have helped. Even if it could, they didn't have you to tell them about how the universe changed with Peleg, and as you cannot back up your claims from scripture, I do not see any reason they would have realised this for themselves.

The title refers to the prophesy of One to be sacrificed from the beginning. He has many titles and names, such as Prince of Peace.

Of course it does. Doesn't change the fact Revelation describes him as a lamb when he wasn't actually a sheep. John the baptist called him a lamb too. So Jesus being a lamb doesn't depend on some change in the universe in Revelation. Lamb is a symbol, like so many other symbols we see in the book of Revelation.

Not really. Revelation deals in mature and spiritual matters, so some get left in the dust pretty quick. For the spiritual minded, and rest of the bible based believer, it is a piece of cake. The few times that present realities were inadequate to portray the realities of the future, a type was given, that still represented a reality.

Not sure why you keep saying the symbols represent reality, I have already agreed that they do. But the book of Revelation is packed full of these symbols, the problem literalists have is that they keep trying to interpret these symbols literally and think it is being mature. Why should the tree of life be any more literal than the seven headed lion leopard bear, a prostitute with a gold cup, the cubic city from space wearing a wedding dress? Why should the tree of life be any more literal than the snake which was also in both Genesis and Revelation and we find out in Revelation it wasn't a literal snake it was Satan?

You claim this, but Revelation describes the new heaven and new earth as very different from the first heaven and earth.

I agree, but NOT so different from the time of the garden!

So why does Revelation describe our heaven as earth as the first one when Eden was allegedly so different and so like the new heaven and new earth? There isn't the slightest hint of your Peleg doctrine in scripture and Revelation contradicts it. You haven't been able to come up with any evidence that it Eden was a different state of the universe, and anyway you claim the real change happened long after the garden. The garden was still the first heaven and earth, the first heaven and earth we read about in Revelation that is different from the New heaven and Earth.

Adam and Eve were to live forever. All their children also.

You don't know that. The bible does not say they were immortal before they fell. They were warned they would die the day they ate the fruit, but the only death they died that day was spiritual. The only reference to Adam and Eve living forever is ascribed to the Tree of Life. But that is a promise given to us too, and we are mortal. Rev 2:7 He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. To the one who conquers I will grant to eat of the tree of life, which is in the paradise of God.' For us the promise of everlasting life comes through the cross, through Jesus the true vine.

Nothing. But He sure ain't here in any garden I walked in, chatting it up, making a fur coat, etc etc. Jesus is gone too, notice? Of course they are with us, if we have them in our lives and hearts. In spirit. In heaven it will be right in your face! Same with Eden.

If your split means God cannot walk on earth any more what was Jesus doing walking on earth for thirty years or so? Who was it who came walking along to chat to Abraham and tell him Sarah was going to get pregnant? Jesus may be gone, but your split argument say he should not have been able to be here at all after Peleg.

If man could have lived forever, such as even after the fall, if he ate the tree of life, that means there had to be a forever state. We are not in one now, notice? Ask science how long the earth and sun could last here!

Seeing as you do not even know what the Tree of Life is, how do you know how it works? Do you think Elijah is dead? If he is not, does that mean the world has to be in a 'forever state'

Stars were made for us to see as signs. That means the light got here in creation week.

Or that the creation 'week' wasn't a week. As I have said many times, evidence against Creationism is not evidence for your split. You need actual evidence for your faster speed of light, either scriptural or scientific, just because you need something like this to rescue your interpretation does not make it so, just wishful thinking.

I dealt with this before, but you did not reply:

I think the passage about the creation of the sun the moon and stars is very interesting though. Gen 1:14 And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night. And let them be for signs and for seasons, and for days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light upon the earth." And it was so. 'And it was so' tell us all his was happening, the sun moon and stars were marking out signs, season, days and years when God said it was so. And this is supposed to be a a single day in a creation 'week'? There is a simpler explanation to Creationists' 'starlight problem', their interpretation is wrong.

Creation 'week'. You do realise that as well as giving a different order of creation, Genesis 2 tells us the creation took place in a single day? Gen 2:4 These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens.
​

What makes you think the tree of life isn't symbolic?

No reason to think it. In heaven, they grow on both sides of a river, and they have fruits every month, they have leaves. Etc. No more reason to think that they are some elusive, and unreal practical joke, than thinking that the body Jesus has, is an ipod.

How about a lamb?

So are all the other symbols in Revelation an unreal practical joke?

Jesus made New Jerusalem. So the trees there are His doing. They seem to have a special purpose for the nations. That means people living on the earth outside. For example the Jews. Maybe when they (or others) visit, that tree will really have a special purpose.

You realise the New Jerusalem is the bride of Christ, the church. We are no more literal buildings than we are going to be literal pillars in the temple of God.

What does it say in Revealtion that the tree of life does? It's leaves are for the healing of the nations.

Bingo!

Bingo indeed. You do realise who the bible says heals us? Isaiah 53:5 But he was wounded for our transgressions; he was crushed for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace, and with his stripes we are healed. The symbolism of the tree of life comes full circle again back to Jesus, the true vine, Jesus whose death on a tree gives us everlasting life.

Yes, and walking in a PHYSICAL body like you and I, if you notice.

He was still walking around which you claim was not possible after Peleg and you have the the question of Abraham's visitors.

True, and the reality is He rose from the dead in a new, spiritual and physical body, that He still has!

Couldn't agree more. But it still doesn't help you argument. The reality is not the same as the symbol. Jesus wasn't actually a lamb, either before or after the resurrection, and Revelation is full of symbols like this. You really haven't come up with any evidence the universe was in a different state before Peleg. What you have shown is that you have a problem recognising symbols and allegories in scripture and tell them apart from more literal passages.

 

[dad]

Yet you can never come up with any evidence for other ways the material got there, never any evidence for your split or that the universe was in a different state,

That is silly. If it got here in another universe state. Just exactly as it is sillly to try to suggest that the new heavens state will keep decaying, and the materials remain as is. The onus is on you to prove it, if you want to cart the evidence here, off to the unknown areas. Which is precisely why you need to prove a present state both in the future, and the far past, or you have no possible case.

instead every where we look in ancient rock laid down before Peleg, we see the results of processes that look exactly like the processes taking place now. Why do isotopes in lower strata have more decay?

They don't. Some of the oldest rock on earth wasn't that far down, now was it? Support your claim with detailed examples.

Why does an ancient natural nuclear reactor like Oklo look exactly like they went critical with radioactive isotopes decaying at the same rate they do now?

Because you use a lot of imagination, mostly! For example, the way that that conclusion is reached requires a lot of miracles. One has to dunk the whole area miles under the earth for I think it is millions of imaginary years, the resurface it, all the way to the surface when cooked! In other words, the whole scenario is same state based, and what 'must have' happened, to make a same state reaction. Prove it! Nonsense.

Why do the products of this decay look as though they have undergone 2 billion years of decay at present rates. If rates were much faster why didn’t every deposit of radioactive isotopes all over the world go critical?

Easy! It wasn't faster, it never existed! The materials were not there engaged in a decay process. You get fooled because the daughter material is NOW produced by decay, so you assume it all got there that way! No. It was there already, I assume, in the non decay different state past.

Why do decay rates observed in distant supernovae look exactly the same as they do today?

You know how they measure the distance to SN1987a? They need three lines, if I recall. Guess what one of them is!? One of the REQUIRED parameters is the present speed of light! How long it took the outer ring to light up, they figure "must" mean that it was so and so far away! The fly in the ointment is that you need a same state past first, you can't assume one first.
So, that knocks out the distance. Which changes everything right there. We could go on, but it would consume the thread. Don't forget to sprinkle stardust or pixie dust to account for a light curve representing the decay, at just the right time now...etc etc! Oh, and remember to pat science on the back for it's great powers of prediction here!! They had NO CLUE there would be rings! They cooked up an explanation after the fact! But they did predict that darn neutron star. (later scrambled out on a limb, changing it to a black hole) Neither have turned up...fancy that! They are a bunch of religious fanatics and jokers, falsely called science.

Not only can you not give any evidence scriptural or scientific for your supposed split, you cannot explain why science gets such consistent results for a universe that has been ripped apart and completely changed

Ripped apart??? Calm down. The separation of the spiritual element did not rip the universe apart. It just left the physical only temporary state bit working as we see it now. It was not an accidental change! It was perfectly planned and executed by no less than the creator Himself, just as the new heavens will be. ALL the ancient records and the bible agree it had to be different. The bible is full of things that REQUIRE a different state past and future. Science gets only same state results, as that is all it uses for any results.

I don’t suppose you have any evidence the heat was caused at the end of the separation? Not that is would make any difference.

Well, deduction, is one way. We know that great heat is not produced in the different state. We have creation week as an example. So that is known, a known quantity. Next, we have evidence, that there was a lot of heat produced somehow. That is a clue. We know heat from friction etc is produced in this state. Therefore the heat for the most part likely was caused in this state, or the process of coming into it as well.

Geologists do not rely on the earth being hotter billions of years ago to show the continents moved a bit faster, they know from radiometric dating the continents did move a bit faster, a hotter mantle is simply a plausible explanation for the fact they did move faster,

Plausible = same state based

Now that opens up a can of worms. See, if the cause of the separation is nothing like they assume, or the timing, that means we need to look at the (possibly residual movements of the last several hundred years) known tiny movements of the present in a new light. I would even ask if the present directions represent the actual directions of the separation itself at the split!? If they are merely settling BACK, for example, a bit, that means they would have come from the opposite direction!

So, actual Pangaea might be a little more like this..??!

Now, someone would have to take into account the axis shift of the earth then, etc. maybe Australia and Antarctica woulld end up with a little more momentum, and touching the main mass, etc? But it is something to consider. Haven't thought it through yet.

Looks like the Euphrates and Tigris and Israel and etc would fit well.

 

[dad]

So accepting your claim that you cannot back up is 'trusting God'?

Incidentally, Copernicus shook a lot of people's faith too.

Galileo had observations and his analysis of the evidence as do modern scientists. The problem was the scientific evidence contradicted the literal interpretation of a whole series of scriptures, just as the age of the universe and evolution do today. We even have creationist on this forum claiming you can't trust what you see in a telescope. I am sure he could have used that argument for Galileo's evidence too.

The tables are turned now. The analysis is shpown to be present state based.

Since the scriptures they interpreted geocentrically come after Peleg, I don't see how your mantra about the present arrangement would have helped. Even if it could, they didn't have you to tell them about how the universe changed with Peleg, and as you cannot back up your claims from scripture, I do not see any reason they would have realised this for themselves.

I wasn't thinking about bible, that seems to be selectively interpreted by some, to make God look silly. If, however, the information of a geocentric system was passed down from ancients, in other records they would have no way of knowing that it did not apply in this state. The case for a major change in the laws of the universe is strong in the bible. The plant growth rates, properties of matter, light, and life spans, for example are simply nothing similar to what they were.

Of course it does. Doesn't change the fact Revelation describes him as a lamb when he wasn't actually a sheep. John the baptist called him a lamb too. So Jesus being a lamb doesn't depend on some change in the universe in Revelation. Lamb is a symbol, like so many other symbols we see in the book of Revelation.

The title of Lamb of God refers to something real, that was here since the garden, and promised. It refers to a Savior, that would be sacrificed for our sins. Reading that to mean an animal is carnal.

Not sure why you keep saying the symbols represent reality, I have already agreed that they do. But the book of Revelation is packed full of these symbols, the problem literalists have is that they keep trying to interpret these symbols literally and think it is being mature. Why should the tree of life be any more literal than the seven headed lion leopard bear, a prostitute with a gold cup, the cubic city from space wearing a wedding dress? Why should the tree of life be any more literal than the snake which was also in both Genesis and Revelation and we find out

in Revelation it wasn't a literal snake it was Satan?

Actually, the rest of the bible explains the symbolic aspect of the way realities are described in the last book. Ask God for His spirit, and maybe listen to Christian radio or something, get some different takes on it.

So why does Revelation describe our heaven as earth as the first one when Eden was allegedly so different and so like the new heaven and new earth?

Fair question. First of all, I don't see Eden here, do you??? Any more than I see heaven here. At the time the new heavens come to repleace what exists, Eden will not be here, of course either. It doesn't say He is replacing the created universe, just the temporary state one that will exist at the time!

 

[The Lady Kate]

forget the defeated nominal compromising laughable stupidity that caused the doubting of the word of the Almighty.

Good idea... welcome to the Ignore List.

 

[dad]

Good idea... welcome to the Ignore List.

No problem, guess someone thought the shoe fit. And I have no time for people that put man's wisdom first, at the expense of God's word. Thank you very much.

 

[Assyrian]

Ironic given that the split you keep preaching is completely the product your own imagination that you are unable to show in God's word.

 

[laconicstudent]

No problem, guess someone thought the shoe fit. And I have no time for people that put man's wisdom first, at the expense of God's word. Thank you very much.

You realize that attitudes like that is the reason Christians have a bad reputation with the rest of the world, right?

 

[dad]

You realize that attitudes like that is the reason Christians have a bad reputation with the rest of the world, right?

That depends on whose attitude you are talking about. What really gives Christians a bad rep is not believing in the bible, as Jesus did. Not believing in creation. Accepting the godless foolishness of man above and beyond the truth of God, for NO reason. You get that, right? Standing up for the truth, and asking hard quaetions of so called science, and it's disciples of the deception, is actually a good thing. Letting them lie, and walk all over you, and steal the faith away in schools is a bad thing.