Observable evidence for evolution?

[In-Christ-Alone]

Keep in mind.. God hates a false witness.

Evolution does exist! Exists in a limited form. But, not like the evolutionists promote.

To state what you do?

..."all forms of "evolution" in Creation is utterly DEMONIC!"

If I were still a baby Christian? And, thought what you believe was what I need to believe? I would have become depressed and walked away from Christianity. It would make God's work of drawing me closer to Him harder than need be. For its blatantly wrong what you are saying. Its false. Its a lie. Darwin saw something really change, but ran with it out of bounds and way off the playing field.

What you proclaimed makes you look ignorant in the evolutionists eyes, and makes their choice for rejecting Christ seem better justified. For they want no part of such closed minded ignorance.

You are doing no one favors by defying reality, by throwing out the baby with the bathwater.. Micro evolution is a reality. Do you know what that is? Its what Darwin witnessed to. Macro evolution is what catches the evolutionist in his imagination (which he takes pride in) and that form of evolution is DEMONIC! Macro evolution contrives ways to say the dog, cat, and cow all came from a common ancestor. That the chicken came from a dinosaur. That's when it becomes demonic...

Please? Stop giving those who reject the Lord any excuse to do so by being a false witness.

In Christ, GeneZ

The Bible is very clear, that God CREATED the entire universe, and everything that is seen and unseen. There is ZERO Bible evidence that God used any method that is taught in science. Period!

 

[chad kincham]

Let's test that assumption. Is a human higher or lower than a giraffe?

Then we can look for that "quantum-leap increase."

If you think mammals are all about the same, then let's do a human compared to a reptile. Would that work better for you?

Let me know about that.

Meantime, it might be good to find out what "information" means in genetics. Every new mutation will increase the genetic information of a population. Would you like to see some numbers for that?

And sometimes, evolution involves a decrease in genetic information. We can talk about some of those cases if you like. Let me know.

If you don’t think vertical evolution requires a quantum leap in DNA information, then you are seriously deficient in knowledge.

Mutations filtered through survival of the fittest, can’t provide that much change.

 

[coffee4u]

The Hebrew noun שָּׁמַ֖יִם is masculine in gender, and plural in number, "HEAVENS". The Hebrew lexicon by Brown, Driver and Briggs lists "universe" also as a meaning, among many other things, like the "starts", the "abode of God", etc, etc. and for the whole of Creation under the Heavens!

That depends what Lexicon you use. The one I looked up had heaven/sky which is why I went with sky. If Browns has as many as Strong's (although I don't think Strong's is as reliable a resource)

Strong's has 1) heaven, heavens, sky 1a) visible heavens, sky 1a1) as abode of the stars 1a2) as the visible universe, the sky, atmosphere, etc 1b) Heaven (as the abode of God)

There does not seem to be one definitive answer.

So while we all agree it is the creation under heaven, is it the creation under the sky, the universe, the heavens as (God's abode) Or all of them collectively. I think it could be any one or all of them quite easily.

 

[The Barbarian]

Yes. Changes in allele frequencies, but few really new genes. In fact, relatively few genes that control timing and duration of gene function can account for the differences. Most of the differences in face and skull are neotonous, that is, humans have delayed maturation,and never change to the degree that other apes do.

Not quite. Even within fish, there are differences in scales. But mostly it works as you suggest.

Changes add information to a population. If an allele no longer occurs in the population, that's loss of information. It's important to remember that "information"applies to populations, not individuals.

well depends on wich squirly definition of information they are using hehe :> Creationists like to use multiple.

Yep. The scientific definition doesn't give them much to work with. So they make up their own. I will avoid calling that "squirly", but maybe that's not completely off base.

If were talking genes it's bits.

There is a standard way population geneticists consider information in a population. You seem to know something about information theory. Do you know how it applies to genes and mutations?

A mutation is on the gene level,

Most commonly. Point mutations involve one gene. But there are other ways mutations work as well. Most drastic involves aneuploidy, where the number of chromosomes change. But there are other changes more drastic than point mutations,but less than aneuploidy. And while most mutations don't do much of anything, some can have drastic and widespread effects, if they change genes that deal with development or timing.

 

[coffee4u]

You should include a disclaimer and a personal statement of what you believe then. Have it on file and copy and paste it to the posts about evolution to show us how you see evolution. Otherwise you will only make the confusion spin faster. For micro evolution is accepted by many young earth creationists who understand it.

Micro evolution is God's omniscience being bannered on high when it appears, showing how God always anticipated what would be needed to survive some unforeseeable and unexpected event.

As it stands with some here.. Evolutionists are going to be content and feel secure with their position as long as young earth creationists keep lapsing into rigid thinking when they can not deal with REAL facts.

Keep in mind. Glorifying Christ does not have to mean winning the opposition to Christ. It can also mean leaving them to be without excuse. When they appear before Jesus they will be shown that they willfully lied against the facts they wanted to deny. Yet, with the simpleminded stubbornness that certain ones here utilize that will be impossible. Their stand does not glorify Christ. Though emotionally they feel unmovable.

Whoever loves discipline loves knowledge,
but whoever hates correction is stupid." pr 12:1
​

We all need correction from time to time.

I do since I don't want any misunderstandings to what I mean. Although for the most part I am discussing scripture and doctrine not science. I mainly post here in the Christian section hoping for some discussion on doctrine and scripture but still get mostly science debates.

 

[In-Christ-Alone]

That depends what Lexicon you use. The one I looked up had heaven/sky which is why I went with sky. If Browns has as many as Strong's (although I don't think Strong's is as reliable a resource)

Strong's has 1) heaven, heavens, sky 1a) visible heavens, sky 1a1) as abode of the stars 1a2) as the visible universe, the sky, atmosphere, etc 1b) Heaven (as the abode of God)

There does not seem to be one definitive answer.

So while we all agree it is the creation under heaven, is it the creation under the sky, the universe, the heavens as (God's abode) Or all of them collectively. I think it could be any one or all of them quite easily.

Strong's is not an authority on Hebrew or Greek just basic stuff. Brown Driver and Briggs is on of the best authorities on Hebrew

 

[The Barbarian]

The Barbarian said: ↑
Let's test that assumption. Is a human higher or lower than a giraffe?

Then we can look for that "quantum-leap increase."

If you think mammals are all about the same, then let's do a human compared to a reptile. Would that work better for you?

Let me know about that.

Meantime, it might be good to find out what "information" means in genetics. Every new mutation will increase the genetic information of a population. Would you like to see some numbers for that?

And sometimes, evolution involves a decrease in genetic information. We can talk about some of those cases if you like. Let me know.

If you don’t think vertical evolution requires a quantum leap in DNA information, then you are seriously deficient in knowledge.

There is no "vertical evolution." It's just evolution. A change in allele frequencies in a population over time. For example, a group of lizards transported to a different environment in an island in the Adriatic Sea, evolved a number of adaptations, including a new digestive organ, in just a few years. They also evolved larger and stronger jaws to accommodate more plants in their diet, (which is also why the digestive organ evolved) and became less territorial and aggressive with others of their species.

And yet, they are still genetically very close to others off the island. A rather large change in phenotype, but no "quantum leap." Macroevolution is most often like that; relatively small changes in genes can produce new species.

Mutations filtered through survival of the fittest, can’t provide that much change.

See above. That's a bad assumption, demonstrably so.

 

[The Barbarian]

Micro evolution is God's omniscience being bannered on high when it appears, showing how God always anticipated what would be needed to survive some unforeseeable and unexpected event.

Do you think that God can put microevolution into His creation to do His will, but that macroevolution is beyond His capabilities?

Why would He not be able to foresee that speciation would be a useful thing to populate His world, and to help His creatures to survive?

 

[coffee4u]

Strong's is not an authority on Hebrew or Greek just basic stuff. Brown Driver and Briggs is on of the best authorities on Hebrew

That's why I said I don't find it to be a reliable resource. Is Brown Driver and Briggs online?

Also you might want to think about not using exclamation points when talking to other creationists, we are not here to fight you, or I am certainly not. d taylor is also a creationist not an evolutionist, but from memory I think he is a flat earth believer so his take is going to be different because he does not believe in the universe at all.

 

[In-Christ-Alone]

That's why I said I don't find it to be a reliable resource. Is Brown Driver and Briggs online?

Also you might want to think about not using exclamation points when talking to other creationists, we are not here to fight you, or I am certainly not. d taylor is also a creationist not an evolutionist, but from memory I think he is a flat earth believer so his take is going to be different because he does not believe in the universe at all.

Brown Driver and Briggs is freely available online you can try archive.org but you will need to read Hebrew

 

[The Barbarian]

There is ZERO Bible evidence that God used any method that is taught in science.

Genesis 1:24 And God said: Let the earth bring forth the living creature in its kind, cattle and creeping things, and beasts of the earth, according to their kinds. And it was so done.

It's not part of evolutionary theory, but abiogenesis says that life came from non-living matter of this planet, as God says.

 

[GenemZ]

I do since I don't want any misunderstandings to what I mean. Although for the most part I am discussing scripture and doctrine not science. I mainly post here in the Christian section hoping for some discussion on doctrine and scripture but still get mostly science debates.

Bible scholars who studied the Scriptures hundreds of years before Darwin was yet born...Long before the theory of evolution was dreamed of. Could not figure out why it says that the earth was found in a chaotic tumultuous, destroyed state. They had no iron in the fire (no debate about the theory of Evolution). So, they pretty much left noted it, but after doing so.. left it alone. It was just a matter of fact for them.

What happened when Darwin made his offensive was not as Young Earth Creationist lie about. The GAP theory was not "invented" as a stop gap measure to ward off Evolutionists. The GAP theory (as uniformed YEC's make claim) was nothing new. ... For some Bible scholars in the days of Darwin were merely rediscovering the works of Bible scholars done centuries earlier. We have been fed a lie to say the GAP theory was invented at the time of Darwin. And, its also a lie to say it makes Evolution theory to appear to be true. Its just the opposite. It shows how Evolutionists are thge ones who are fabricating, and the Bible was ahead of them long before they armed themselves with data to concoct notions to try to make their theory work.

During the late 50's to the early 70's Christian Scholar, Arthur Custance took the time to write a book to show how a good number of early church fathers discovered the GAP found in Genesis 1:2. That it says something in the Hebrew that mainstream conventional thinking, for some reason, wants to deny and run away from.

It perplexes me for what the Hebrew states lines the Theory of Evolution right in the crosshairs of our periscope. I remain baffled how so many refuse to think with the facts and continue to deny the facts while blindly clinging to their traditional thinking.


Here is a good (free) read. Look at what the early church fathers were saying long before Evolution became a controversial theory. Evolution theory was designed to give non believers the excuse they were craving, and a place to hide from shame in a religious world.

We as believers in Jesus Christ have been blowing the opportunity to freeze the Evolutionist in their tracks. Instead, too many young earth creationists keep feeding them the kind of misinformation they crave. For when Christians get it wrong and stick to their traditions of men, they are making the evolutionist feel smugly secure in their belief that Christians believe what they do because they are incapable of objective analytical thinking...

Free read here - Without Form and Void - Frontpage

Make sure to read fist chapter - "Long held view."

We are being lied to. the GAP understanding is much older than Darwinism.

grace and peace,

 

[FreeinChrist]

ADVISOR HAT

The Statement of Purpose for this forum includes:
​

• If you would be offended by a word or phrase applied to your viewpoint, then someone of the opposing viewpoint would be offended as well.

We shouldn't have to spell it out that calling a view point as from Satan is offense to the other member.

This thread is having a clean up. ​

 

[The Barbarian]

Here is a good (free) read. Look at what the early church fathers were saying long before Evolution became a controversial theory. Evolution theory was designed to give non believers the excuse they were craving, and a place to hide from shame in a religious world.

Well, let's check that belief...

There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.
Charles Darwin, last sentence of On the Origin of Species, 1872

So no, that's not the case.

 

[coffee4u]

Bible scholars who studied the Scriptures hundreds of years before Darwin was yet born...Long before the theory of evolution was dreamed of. Could not figure out why it says that the earth was found in a chaotic tumultuous, destroyed state. They had no iron in the fire (no debate about the theory of Evolution). So, they pretty much left noted it, but after doing so.. left it alone. It was just a matter of fact for them.

I does not say the earth was in a 'destroyed state'

1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
The lexicon says
formlessness, confusion, unreality, emptiness

To destroy would indicate that God took something that already had form and then leveled/dismantled/destroyed it. Giving a completely different picture to what the scripture says. That before God began creating upon it, the earth at the very start was without its proper form and void of life.

I see no mystery to that at all. Anyone who has ever done pottery will know you start with a random lump of clay and shape it. God is the potter and we are the clay.

What happened when Darwin made his offensive was not as Young Earth Creationist lie about.

Calling me a liar is quite offensive.

The GAP theory was not "invented" as a stop gap measure to ward off Evolutionists. The GAP theory (as uniformed YEC's make claim) was nothing new. ... For some Bible scholars in the days of Darwin were merely rediscovering the works of Bible scholars done centuries earlier. We have been fed a lie to say the GAP theory was invented at the time of Darwin. And, its also a lie to say it makes Evolution theory to appear to be true. Its just the opposite. It shows how Evolutionists are thge ones who are fabricating, and the Bible was ahead of them long before they armed themselves with data to concoct notions to try to make their theory work.

During the late 50's to the early 70's Christian Scholar, Arthur Custance took the time to write a book to show how a good number of early church fathers discovered the GAP found in Genesis 1:2. That it says something in the Hebrew that mainstream conventional thinking, for some reason, wants to deny and run away from.
It perplexes me for what the Hebrew states lines the Theory of Evolution right in the crosshairs of our periscope. I remain baffled how so many refuse to think with the facts and continue to deny the facts while blindly clinging to their traditional thinking.

There is no gap found in Genesis 1 to be discovered. There are simply verses one after the other describing how God created. No destroying, no recreating. Someone might try and make a gap between verses 1/2/3 but that is not what the gap theory is about at all.
When we go over to Exodus this puts paid to any idea that there may have been a gap between God creating the heavens and the earth with the creation upon it.
Exodus 20:11
For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.
Since the heavens is included within the 6 days. It is all one sequence of events.

Now if the heavens had not been included within the 6 days an argument could be made for a gap, a gap where the null and void earth simply sat for an undetermined amount of time, but that is not the gap theory that you or others mean who hold to the 'gap theory'.

Here is a good (free) read. Look at what the early church fathers were saying long before Evolution became a controversial theory. Evolution theory was designed to give non believers the excuse they were craving, and a place to hide from shame in a religious world.

We as believers in Jesus Christ have been blowing the opportunity to freeze the Evolutionist in their tracks. Instead, too many young earth creationists keep feeding them the kind of misinformation they crave. For when Christians get it wrong and stick to their traditions of men, they are making the evolutionist feel smugly secure in their belief that Christians believe what they do because they are incapable of objective analytical thinking...

Free read here - Without Form and Void - Frontpage

Make sure to read fist chapter - "Long held view."

We are being lied to. the GAP understanding is much older than Darwinism.

grace and peace,

You are free to believe in whatever gap you want, I looked into this some years ago and strongly disagree with it. I have no need to revisit it.

 

[GenemZ]

I does not say the earth was in a 'destroyed state'

1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
The lexicon says
formlessness, confusion, unreality, emptiness

To destroy would indicate that God took something that already had form and then leveled/dismantled/destroyed it. Giving a completely different picture to what the scripture says. That before God began creating upon it, the earth at the very start was without its proper form and void of life.

I see no mystery to that at all. Anyone who has ever done pottery will know you start with a random lump of clay and shape it. God is the potter and we are the clay.



Calling me a liar is quite offensive.



There is no gap found in Genesis 1 to be discovered. There are simply verses one after the other describing how God created. No destroying, no recreating. Someone might try and make a gap between verses 1/2/3 but that is not what the gap theory is about at all.
When we go over to Exodus this puts paid to any idea that there may have been a gap between God creating the heavens and the earth with the creation upon it.
Exodus 20:11
For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.
Since the heavens is included within the 6 days. It is all one sequence of events.

Now if the heavens had not been included within the 6 days an argument could be made for a gap, a gap where the null and void earth simply sat for an undetermined amount of time, but that is not the gap theory that you or others mean who hold to the 'gap theory'.



You are free to believe in whatever gap you want, I looked into this some years ago and strongly disagree with it. I have no need to revisit it.

You can pick and choose what you want. Yet, Jeremiah knowing the Hebrew of Genesis 1:2, and more important... the rebellious Jews he was prophesizing against, knew the Hebrew intent.

Jeremiah quoted Genesis 1:2 Hebrew to tell them how they were to be judged. He needed to add that in their case they will not be utterly destroyed. Why? For Genesis 1:2 spoke of an utter destruction.

Now can you try reasoning with the Word of God, and stop defending tradition of men? For the Word of God says one thing. You keep saying what you have been told to believe and is now being shown to not agree with God's Word.

Here is Jeremiah quoting Genesis 1:2, and describing what had happened to the old earth, as a warning of how severely God was about to judge rebellious Israel...

YET! Jeremiah in verse 27 adds that in their case, unlike Genesis 1:2.. there world will not be utterly destroyed!


Jeremiah 4:23-27

I looked at the earth,
and it was formless and empty; (same Hebrew as Genesis 1:2!)
and at the heavens,
and their light was gone. (we see light already missing in Genesis One)
I looked at the mountains,
and they were quaking;
all the hills were swaying.
I looked, and there were no people;
every bird in the sky had flown away.
I looked, and the fruitful land was a desert;
all its towns lay in ruins
before the Lord, before his fierce anger.

This is what the Lord says:

“The whole land will be ruined,
though I will not destroy it completely.​

Jeremiah had to alter what Genesis 1:2 says, to let Israel know that it will not be utterly destroyed like the old world was speaking about in Genesis 1:2!

“The whole land will be ruined,
though I will not destroy it completely." (like the old earth was destroyed!)​

The Jews and Jeremiah both knew what the Hebrew of Genesis 1:2 indicated. Its when Gentile believers later on tried to translate that they missed what was being intended. Jews at the time of ancient Israel, when Genesis was read to Jews (knowing Hebrew) had no problem knowing what was indicated. Utter destruction! And, after Jeremiah prophesied against them Israel was soon destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar. Destroyed as the words in Genesis 1:2 spoke of!

The traditions of men teachings are a real snare to those wanting truth, because the traditions have a loyal following in the emotions of those accepting the tradition without the facts.

If Genesis 1:2 meant what you claim it to be? The warning giving by Jeremiah to the Jews about to be judged by God would have seemed lame and silly...

Standing on His Word! GeneZ

 

[The Barbarian]

No one here, AFAIK, is lying about anything. People may be confused, mistaken, or otherwise missing the truth, without lying.

Or maybe they just disagree.

 

[coffee4u]

You can pick and choose what you want.

How is the plain reading of Genesis 1 picking and choosing?
There is no word saying God destroyed and remade the world in there.

Yet, Jeremiah knowing the Hebrew of Genesis 1:2, and more important... the rebellious Jews he was prophesizing against, knew the Hebrew intent.

Jeremiah quoted Genesis 1:2 Hebrew to tell them how they were to be judged. He needed to add that in their case they will not be utterly destroyed. Why? For Genesis 1:2 spoke of an utter destruction.

Yes he quoted Genesis, they were to be judged but saying this means there is a gap in Genesis and two creations is a huge leap. No where does it indicate that.
Again the Lexicon says
formlessness, confusion, unreality, emptiness for Genesis 1.

Jeremiah is the exact same.
formlessness, confusion, unreality, emptiness.

It is a good picture of how they will be left in confusion and emptiness.

Now can you try reasoning with the Word of God, and stop defending tradition of men?

So reading the scripture as it plainly says and double checking the word meaning with a Lexicon is the 'traditions of men'?

For the Word of God says one thing. You keep saying what you have been told to believe and is now being shown to not agree with God's Word.

Not sure where you get that idea from. I believe in sola scriptura.

Here is Jeremiah quoting Genesis 1:2, and describing what had happened to the old earth, as a warning of how severely God was about to judge rebellious Israel...

Nothing in there says that there was an old earth and a second earth, not in the English or in the Hebrew.

YET! Jeremiah in verse 27 adds that in their case, unlike Genesis 1:2.. there world will not be utterly destroyed!

Please find and show me the word 'destroyed' in Genesis 1:2

Jeremiah 4:23-27

I looked at the earth,
and it was formless and empty; (same Hebrew as Genesis 1:2!)
and at the heavens,
and their light was gone. (we see light already missing in Genesis One)
I looked at the mountains,
and they were quaking;
all the hills were swaying.
I looked, and there were no people;
every bird in the sky had flown away.
I looked, and the fruitful land was a desert;
all its towns lay in ruins
before the Lord, before his fierce anger.

This is what the Lord says:

“The whole land will be ruined,
though I will not destroy it completely.​

Jeremiah had to alter what Genesis 1:2 says, to let Israel know that it will not be utterly destroyed like the old word was in Genesis 1:2!

“The whole land will be ruined,
though I will not destroy it completely." (like the old earth was!)​

The Jews and Jeremiah both knew what the Hebrew of Genesis 1:2 indicated. Its when Gentile believers later on tried to translate that they missed what was being intended. Jew at the time of ancient Israel when Genesis was read to Jews (knowing Hebrew) had no problem knowing what was indicated. Utter destruction! And, Israel was soon destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar as the words in Genesis 1:2 speak of!

The nations was devastated but not destroyed. If it was destroyed it would be no more, but the Jewish nation is still with us and 1/3 will come and turn at the end. .

The traditions of men are a real snare to those wanting truth, when the traditions have a loyal following in the emotions of those accepting the tradition without the facts.

You must not have read many of my posts if you think I follow the traditions of men. I know very little about most church tradition. I became a christian through reading the scriptures.

If Genesis 1:2 meant what you claim it to be?

1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.


2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

It says in the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
it then goes on to say the state of the world was without form, void of life and dark.
And that God's Spirit moved upon the water

That is what it says and that is what it means. No less no more.

The warning giving by Jeremiah to the Jews about to be judged by God, would have seemed lame and silly...

Standing on His Word! GeneZ

Having your nation devastated is not lame or silly. And if they were destroyed as you claim the earth was, then they would have been wiped out, they were not.

Yes I stand on his word too, but that does not mean everyone thinks exactly the same as you.

 

[GenemZ]

How is the plain reading of Genesis 1 picking and choosing?
There is no word saying God destroyed and remade the world in there.



Yes he quoted Genesis, they were to be judged but saying this means there is a gap in Genesis and two creations is a huge leap. No where does it indicate that.
Again the Lexicon says
formlessness, confusion, unreality, emptiness for Genesis 1.

Jeremiah is the exact same.
formlessness, confusion, unreality, emptiness.

It is a good picture of how they will be left in confusion and emptiness.



So reading the scripture as it plainly says and double checking the word meaning with a Lexicon is the 'traditions of men'?



Not sure where you get that idea from. I believe in sola scriptura.



Nothing in there says that there was an old earth and a second earth, not in the English or in the Hebrew.




Please find and show me the word 'destroyed' in Genesis 1:2




The nations was devastated but not destroyed. If it was destroyed it would be no more, but the Jewish nation is still with us and 1/3 will come and turn at the end. .



You must not have read many of my posts if you think I follow the traditions of men. I know very little about most church tradition. I became a christian through reading the scriptures.


1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.


2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

It says in the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
it then goes on to say the state of the world was without form, void of life and dark.
And that God's Spirit moved upon the water

That is what it says and that is what it means. No less no more.



Having your nation devastated is not lame or silly. And if they were destroyed as you claim the earth was, then they would have been wiped out, they were not.

Yes I stand on his word too, but that does not mean everyone thinks exactly the same as you.

If you are in totally disagreement? How can we both be standing on the Word?

My job is over.

The job of convincing comes not from man. Look how Jeremiah could not convince them. And, he was perfectly clear and both spoke the Hebrew he quoted from Genesis 1:2. You are not able to see what you have been shown at this time. Maybe later on.

Keep this one thing in mind. God is not the author of confusion. God does not create confusion. What appears in Genesis 1:2 was a mass of confusion and chaos.

Have a nice day, sir. grace and peace....

 

[coffee4u]

If you are in totally disagreement? How can we both be standing on the Word?

My job is over.

The job of convincing comes not from man. Look how Jeremiah could not convince them. And, he was perfectly clear and both spoke the Hebrew he quoted from Genesis 1:2. You are not able to see what you have been shown at this time. Maybe later on.

Keep this one thing in mind. God is not the author of confusion. God does not create confusion. What appears in Genesis 1:2 was a mass of confusion and chaos.

Have a nice day, sir. grace and peace....

Because I don't believe in two creations but only 1?

You really think those two verses, Genesis 1 and Jeremiah are enough to build such a doctrine on? Of a gap and two worlds? I am flabbergasted.

Also I am a woman, but have a nice day.