Six Day Creation? No Way!

[Oseas]

The LORD will destroy the Wise is a very telling thing you are saying, because you assume true wisdom is evil and I don't because Solomon was wise as were the Prophets, you miss the whole point of the passage. God is saying I will destroy the WISE MEN "who do not trust in me".... just because you post that scripture has ZERO BEARING where I get my Wisdom from. You think you are using it as a weapon against people, but I have been of the Holy Spirit well over 30 years, my wisdom comes from God, and just because you post that scripture doesn't mean that is where you get your wisdom from is of God, it might be, and it might not be, I don't know you, but I do understand you do not understand what that passage means if you think because you posting it means the Universe is 6000 years old. You can posts scriptures until you are blue in the face, and its not going to change the fact that the universe is 13.7 Billion years old and if you think its 6000 years old then you just missed the boat my friend.

This passage proves you are not called to Prophecy it would seem, which is actually my calling. And John 5:43 is not about the Anti-Christ at all. In Matthew 24 Jesus gave us all of the signs we would see before his Second Coming. Verses 1-6 are about the time from Jesus until the 70 AD Destruction. Verses 7-13/14 is about the time from 70 AD until the Rapture. And verses 14/15-27 is about the Tribulation. That is why Jesus mentions false christs/false prophets three times. In verse 5, in verse 11 and in verse 24.

The John 5:43 scripture is speaking about the false christs before 70 AD, the Pharisees though rightly that Rome was the Fourth Beast so they were looking for the "Little Horn" to come forth and therefore they expected the Messiah to show up and save them, thus they put forth messiahs quite a few times and that is what Jesus mean by that Scripture....John 5:43 I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive.

This was the Pharisees who rejected Christ Jesus accepting false messiahs just before Rome destroyed the Temple and the City of Jerusalem.

I point this out because they few I know who think that scripture is an end time scripture think that Israel accepts this false messiah as their messiah when they do no such thing. They accept Jesus as their Messiah see Malachi 4:5-6, Zechariah 12:10 and 13:1)

The supposed falling away from the faith is no such thing, it is the DEPARTURE OF THE CHURCH which the first seven English translations stated it was. There is NO MENTION of faith in the whole passage, but there is a mention of the rapture, the GATHERING TOGETHER UNTO CHRIST.

The Church is in Heaven and RETURNS with Christ Jesus. The other points are obvious !!
Again you posting scriptures proves noting unless you make coherent points.

>>>The LORD will destroy the Wise is a very telling thing you are saying, because you assume true wisdom is evil and I don't ...<<<
Oh you said me: "I don't need to see someone "Quoting Scriptures" without making an intelligent argument for himself. I am a Preacher, I know the scriptures brother. That's the point."

And I said unto you: O you make an intelligent argument for yourself, you are a preacher and you, brother, know Scriptures and that's the point, right? Then you should know what the Lord will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent He will frustrate.
My reply was adressed direct to you, yourself, in response to your arrogance. And now you are trying to get off by the tangent saying that "I assume that the true wisdom given to Solomon and Prophets is evil and you not", when in fact it is the contrary of what you are saying, your wisdom is evil and will be destroyed by the Lord, and not the wisdom of Solomon and the prophets. Once you are twisting my words, saying that I said what I did not say, such spirit is evil really, from where comes your evil wisdom.

.>>>..because Solomon was wise as were the Prophets, you miss the whole point of the passage.<<<
No, I do not miss the point of the passage, my message was adressed direct to you, yourself, in response to your arrogance.

>>>God is saying I will destroy the WISE MEN "who do not trust in me".... just because you post that scripture has ZERO BEARING where I get my Wisdom from.<<<
I know your arrogant spirit and I know where you get your wisdom from. Oh, whence then comes wisdom? and where is the place of intelligence? The fear of the Lord, that is wisdom; and to depart from evil is intelligence. Remember: The Lord will cause the arrogancy of the proud to cease, I will make a man more precious than fine gold; even a man than the golden wedge of Ophir. Oh cease you from man, whose breath is in your nostrils: for wherein are you to be accounted of ? Stop trusting in mere humans, who have but a breath in their nostrils, why hold them in esteem?

>>>You think you are using it as a weapon against people, ...<<<
I do not think what you think that I think, nor I am using a weapon against people, absolutely, what I am doing is to separate the tares from the wheat.

>>>... but I have been of the Holy Spirit well over 30 years, my wisdom comes from God, ...<<<
I know the Holy Spirit, who is not a ghost, much less a holy ghost as is written in the Bible of English language, he is a person and has a name written that no man knows, but he himself, in the other hand I must tell unto you that the number 30 is the number of the betrayers of the Lord JESUS.

>>>... and just because you post that scripture doesn't mean that is where you get your wisdom from is of God, it might be, and it might not be, ... <<<
Friend, that may be aplied also for you, no?

>>>I don't know you, but I do understand you do not understand what that passage means if you think because you posting it means the Universe is 6000 years old.<<<
I did not write or say it anywhere, nor did such a thought ever occur to me. Again you're saying I said what I did not say, that's too bad. I never said or meant that the Universe is 6,000 years old, you're making this up. What I say is that the restoration of all things in accord the plan of God revealed in Genesis is 6.000 years old or six Days of God's work (one Day with the Lord is as a thousand years), Based in the Word of God, the source of the truth, on God's six days of creation and one day of rest (a total of seven days) plus the Scriptures that teach that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years (Psalm 90:4; II Pet. 3:8; Heb. 4:4) so mankind will go through six God days of 1,000 years each (a total of 6,000 years) plus a Millennium of 1,000 years rest (now a total of 7,000 years). This has nothing to do with age of the Universe.

>>>You can posts scriptures until you are blue in the face, and its not going to change the fact that the universe is 13.7 Billion years old <<<
Oh my friend, you can posts scriptures until you are blue in the face, and its not going to change the fact that the Universe is much much more than 13,7 billion years old.
The weak and fragile man must discover more capable sources for measuring hundreds of billions of years to measure the age of the Universe. The Most High God is from Eternity to Eternity, if you try to write the number of an Eternity, you will die before. You have only heard to speak of Him, but you do not know Him.

>>>...and if you think its 6000 years old then you just missed the boat my friend.<<<
I do not think what you think I think. You are very wise in conjectures, evasives, presumptions, twisting my words. That's very ugly.

You wrote: >>>This passage proves you are not called to Prophecy it would seem, which is actually my calling. And John 5:43 is not about the Anti-Christ at all. In Matthew 24 Jesus gave us all of the signs we would see before his Second Coming. Verses 1-6 are about the time from Jesus until the 70 AD Destruction. Verses 7-13/14 is about the time from 70 AD until the Rapture. And verses 14/15-27 is about the Tribulation. That is why Jesus mentions false christs/false prophets three times. In verse 5, in verse 11 and in verse 24.
The John 5:43 scripture is speaking about the false christs before 70 AD, the Pharisees though rightly that Rome was the Fourth Beast so they were looking for the "Little Horn" to come forth and therefore they expected the Messiah to show up and save them, thus they put forth messiahs quite a few times and that is what Jesus mean by that Scripture....John 5:43 I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive.
This was the Pharisees who rejected Christ Jesus accepting false messiahs just before Rome destroyed the Temple and the City of Jerusalem.
I point this out because they few I know who think that scripture is an end time scripture think that Israel accepts this false messiah as their messiah when they do no such thing. They accept Jesus as their Messiah see Malachi 4:5-6, Zechariah 12:10 and 13:1)
The supposed falling away from the faith is no such thing, it is the DEPARTURE OF THE CHURCH which the first seven English translations stated it was. There is NO MENTION of faith in the whole passage, but there is a mention of the rapture, the GATHERING TOGETHER UNTO CHRIST.
The Church is in Heaven and RETURNS with Christ Jesus. The other points are obvious !!
Again you posting scriptures proves noting unless you make coherent points.<<<​

Everything you wrote in your post is tare, you are a sower of tare, I haven't never followed cunningly devised fables as you do. I must tell unto you that you were deceived by the spirit of lie, what you preach is not true, its a corrup fruit. A corrupt tree is known by his fruit.
My Lord JESUS warned severily, saying: Every idle word that men speak, they will give account thereof in the Day of Judgment. For by their words they will be justified, and by their words they will be condemned, so you are condemned by your own words, you believed in lies, and the spirit of lie entered in you and he speaks by you, yourself.

 

[Sapiens]

For starters we understand how long it takes light to travel, thus we can calculate how far it has traveled and thus how long its been traveling. Gen. 1:16 says no such thing, I will not try to explain it again, either you can't grasp it or you aren't reading my posts in full. The earth, Sky and Sun are here on the second day, I will not delve any further into the obvious. {You can't even have a Sky (firmament) without the Sun or water without the Sun creating rain !! }

Again, the Laws of Nature do not work as you imply, just because you can't grasp that the Fourth Day is God CREATING SEASONS meaning he placed the MOON in the perfect position, thus creating CERTAIN TIME PERIODS of Sun/Moon/Night/Day/Seasons etc. etc. For some reason this isn't hitting you square in the face that God created the SEASONS, not the Sun on the fourth day. It boggles my mind why people can't understand that a Sun and its planets all are formed at the same time.

I get it. But that is taking for granted it had to leave from the distance, which we do not know... That also presupposes the truth of the Big Bang and the billions of years.

I agree I might have misread Gen. 1:16 ; the sun, moon, and stars were probably created at the same time, or at least they were created the same day. In any case, I maintain the earth was created before. The light was created on day one and the earth and heaven were also. I don't know what it says in your Bible, but in mine it only says the earth was created. The sun and otherwise celestial bodies are not mentioned. Then grass grows on the earth. Then God created the celestial bodies the next day. It doesn't say "I arranged the already created celestial bodies to produce seasons". It says HE MADE THEM. Made, from the verb to make, as in "it wasn't there before". I think you're making the text say things it doesn't say.

Revealing Times, when your name is God, you can do what you please. You don't have to conform to some people's perceptions of "the laws of nature" of the 21st century... BTW, God made those laws, I understand that. He can manipulate them and change them. I don't know how He did it, but He says He did...

It doesn't hit me square in the face because that's not what it says!!! I can't understand why some people cannot accept God is the creator of all things and that He could do it as He claims to have done it.

I don't know, I haven't looked at it, but I do understand that YOWM has 50 or more meanings, and period of time is one of them and "TO BE HOT" is the original meaning. Not DAY. So it is according to Context what word would be placed in what verse.

Well perhaps you should then. In that context it means day. 24 hour day. 6 days you shall work and the 7th you shall rest. 6 periods of time? God then says "indeed in the same way I made the world..." Is He just purposefully confusing people here?

Then He blessed the day of rest and made it holy... He blessed the day of His rest and that should be also our day of rest. Or do you think he is speaking of two different things here?

I don't have to PROVE ANYTHING, that is just the same thing I tell to atheists, its your soul I tell them, and thus its ON YOU....I will tell you likewise, if you want to believe in this its not going to hurt your Faith in God/Christian Walk, but if you spread untruths, it could keep some others from the understanding of God and His truths, because they might see your Faith as not based in reality, because they might see you as believing untruths in Science and thus see your Faith as baseless (IN THEIR OPINION). That takes away chances to lead men to Christ. (My original reason for studying this IN DEPTH over a two year period of time was to do away with the "Santa Clause Effect" whereas I can get at the truth, no matter what the truth is.)

I am here to offer deep truths instead of the same old arguments from both sides that have failed. The facts are on my side, the science is what it is, but at the same time I allow for God as the Creator, whereas the Atheist doesn't, and by presenting facts I threaten the Atheists lies, and expose them. It's like telling kids there is a Santa Clause then he questions you on Jesus when he gets in college, saying if you lied about Santa you probably lied about Jesus too.

Just like I refuse to lie to my kids about Santa, I also want to give my kids the facts about the universe and how it was Created, so some lying Atheist college professor can't seduce them, thus I seek the facts instead of some fairy tale. That's just me brother.

Well, nobody forces you to prove, or say, or think anything. But when one makes a claim, one ought to back it up...

Honestly, I would tell you the same thing about spreading untruths and all.

So long as you preach there is a creator God, and that we're sinners, and that Jesus is our savior, we're on the same team. I also seek the facts. We just disagree on what they say.

 

[Papias]

"Yes,that's exactly the case. There is a huge difference between arguing in favor of what the experts say and arguing against what the experts say. That's why Revealing Times has a huge pile of evidence supporting him, and you don't."

I beg your pardon? What evidence??? I have adressed every argument Revealing Times has presented me.

No, you ignored them and called them "unconvincing". More importantly, it's not up to Revealing Times to teach you basic science when you are the one disagreeing with the experts, and he is not. There are places set up all over the world, and all over America to help you learn basic science. They are called "universities", where you can learn about the universe. There is probably one near you, where you can learn from an actual expert, instead of a bloke on the internet like Revealing Times or I. The evidence takes years to learn - of course no one, not Revealing Times nor I nor anyone else can teach it to you on the internet in a couple posts. The fact that you would suggest so only shows that you could be underestimating the evidence - this could be related to Dunning-kruger.

Of course, I do not deny what you are saying. I am no expert in the field of astronomy. .....I think it is perfectly appropriate to remain skeptical, especially when I have good resons to be.

Yes, you did just deny that, by saying that it is appropriate to disagree with the experts even if you know a lot less, and further by saying you have good reasons to doubt the experts - what would those be?

So does that mean I have to blindly believe anything that an "expert" tells me??? ... I didn't just discard with a whim of the hand what Revealing Times is saying, I am asking him to vulgarize the evidence or to offer me an external source I can go check out. Is understanding of the evidence and of the theory reserved only for a certain intellectual elite? The rest of us idiots should just shut up and agree?

As I pointed out in the previous post, it means that you actually have to do the work to learn - and stop sitting there and complaining that someone else isn't doing all the work for you. It's not Revealing Times' job to spoon feed you 4 years of college education, even if he or I could do so. One can't "vulgarize" years worth of education to be understood and complete in a few posts - if that was possible, then we wouldn't need universities in the first place.

Yes, there is an external source you can check it out at - your local university (and textbooks also work). If you are quick, you might even be able to get in for the fall semester - but it's seemed to me that most often, those who deny the conclusions of the experts have little interest in putting in the effort needed to actually fully understand it themselves.

Of course I am skeptical of what I don't understand!!!

Oh, so you deny that lead paint causes brain damage, because you don't understand that?
Oh, so you deny that an increased level of certain blood proteins indicates spleen cancer, because you don't understand that?
Oh, so you deny that the critical mass for U235 is under 18 kg, because you don't understand that?
Oh, so you deny that the minority carrier lifetime of your computer chip has to be over 1100 ms for your computer to work, because you don't understand that?
and so on.

No, you fully accept what the experts say in topic after topic - except for evolution, because it is still inexplicably socially acceptable to deny reality there, while it only makes you look like a kook in all other areas of science. A lack of understanding is never an excuse to deny the consensus of the experts - even though this is encouraged in some shrinking subgroups of our culture.

So because they are "experts" means they cannot be wrong??? ...."Expert" does not equal "holder of absolute truth"; It's just someone with a lot of knowldege and/or experience in a certain domain.

No, it means that if you are going to disagree with the general consensus of the experts and have any credibility, you have to be an expert yourself. The same goes for any other field. If I were to go on about how AIDS isn't actually caused by the HIV virus, or how vaccines cause autism, unless I've got a medical degree and am citing data I understand, I'm just a crackpot.

You can be an expert in stupidities. Moreover, I offered you a list of creationist scientists. So no, I am not disagreeing with the experts, or at least not all of them.

What you offered did not show that the creationist position is supported by any significant fraction of experts. First of all, you yourself can see from the page that it only listed 8 people, only 5 of which were actual experts (not "journalists", "speakers", and so on), that list also included the pathological liar Dr. Snelling (Will the Real Dr Snelling Please Stand Up?), and of course, the remaining 5 people out of the several hundred thousand scientists in these fields is only less than 0.001%. The fact that they included non experts (even "speakers" and theologians") when saying they were showing scientists suggests that it was hard to even come up with a handful - which, when we remember that there are thousands of scientists, who are real people with a wide range of beliefs and biases, is pretty pathetic. Actual data on this is very clear - practically all scientists in the relevant fields reject creationism (~98%). Major Gaps Between the Public, Scientists on Key Issues

So yes, you are disagreeing with the experts.

Otherwise, I do not pretend to have more knowledge than them, but I believe the way they interpret the evidence is wrong.

What basis could you possibly have to "believe that the way the interpret the evidence is wrong", when you are clueless about the evidence itself, and they have decades of experience examining it and years of study and experiments? Are you starting to see why that looks arrogant?

Yet I am here. That means I am curious to learn more and am open to be convinced.

You won't take course on it, won't read a textbook teaching the expert consensus, (I'm not even sure you'll admit an expert consensus exists) and then you come on here denying the evidence you don't understand with "I remain unconvinced", and you expect me to think that you are "very open to be convinced, and curious"?

Do you know what section of the website this is? It's the DEBATE section. Your job is to convince me of your stuff. My job is to convince you of MY stuff.

An important part of any rational discussion is what the experts say. If we were to discuss something, say, nuclear physics, and I denied that things were made out of atoms, and you said that they were made out of atoms, we aren't equally likely to be right - because your position is supported by the consensus of practically all the experts, and mine is not. See the difference? Even if I "remain unconvinced" that atoms exist?

How about you, I've presented you with a list of creationist scientist, why do you disagree with the experts? Are you arrogant too?

As I've pointed out, you gave a handful of scientists who support creationism, less than 0.001% of relevant scientists. Scientists are humans - you can find a few of any group of humans who support all kinds of crazyness, like the idea that good Mormons become gods on the planet Kolob. That's why the consensus of practically all the experts is what matters.

Most of whom are believers? Where do you get that idea? Anyhow, it doesn't really matter for this debate. In wouldn't prove or anything anyways.

True, it wouldn't prove anything - but a common "reason" creationists give for ignoring evidence is the false claim that scientists are all atheists who are in some deep dark conspiracy to suppress the truth, which is obviously wrong to anyone who understands how science works. So I mentioned it before it came up. Here's data that most are believers. Scientists and Belief

There are a few differences in your analogy. First of all, someone's life is at stake.

Irrelevant - reality is the same regardless of whether or not someone's life is at stake. Are you saying that other discussion isn't worth having, because no one's life is at stake?

Second of all, surely the person is experiencing some symptoms.

Symptoms don't tell you what the problem is. Chest pains could be from exertion, a pulled muscle, lung cancer, odd sleeping position, or whatever. That's why we go to doctors, after all.

Third of all, the doctor can show him at least one piece of evidence the patient can understand : radio-imagery. You can see the spots that don't belong there.

In some cases, but not all that often. Our bodies have all kinds of splotches and marks that show up from bones, organs, and so on. Which splotches are normal and which are a problem? That's why there are trained radiologists and doctors.

You can see the spots that don't belong there. In any case, the man is still free not to accept the diagnosis or the treatment. Now that would be stupid because plenty of people die of cancer.

Sure. Believing a falsehood and denying reality would be stupid regardless, right?

The mention of scripture in your story is not the same as with this debate we're having here... It's not just that it isn't mentionned in the Bible, it's that the Bible contradicts it blatantly!!!!!!! It's not compatible!!!!!!

My mention of scripture is quite similar. After all, most theologians say that Genesis is fully compatible with evolution, as do the churches that include most Christians. I can provide data if you don't think that's correct.
Secondly, scripture does indeed often give the cause of disease - demons - I can give many verses if you like. Scripture never once says that any disease is cancer. The scriptural case against cancer seems stronger than any scriptural case against evolution.

I would be skeptical of chemotherapy too. Not so long ago "experts", doctors, were bleeding people as a form of treatment. Even less long ago, they took people's teeth out for the same reasons... Wow. Let's trust blindly the experts. It's obvious you haven't spent a lot of time in the medical system. I have. I have also experienced first hand their idiotic mistakes on several occasions. That is mainly where my skepticism of the "experts" arose.

You wrote that in the same post you wrote this:

In any case, the man is still free not to accept the diagnosis or the treatment. Now that would be stupid because plenty of people die of cancer.

BTW, we all have the same evidence, you just put your own story on it. I put the Bible's story on it.

No, we don't "all have the same evidence". The experts have mountains of data, filling thousands of gigabytes. You and I, because we haven't taken the time to go through a degree on any of these topics, don't have that. We might be able to get some of it with some work and time, but we haven't done that. Many of the experts see the Bibles story as compatible with it, such as these experts. Like them, I put the Bible's story on it (using your words).

BioLogos

In Christ-

Papias

 

[Revealing Times]

I get it. But that is taking for granted it had to leave from the distance, which we do not know... That also presupposes the truth of the Big Bang and the billions of years.

We can see the Stars my friend, we know how far away they are and thus how far the light has traveled. That is not in question.

Astronomers can measure a star's position once, and then again 6 months later and calculate the apparent change in position. The star's apparent motion is called stellar parallax. The distance d is measured in parsecs and the parallax angle p is measured in arcseconds.

The idea of the ladder is to start with nearby objects like stars. We can measure their distances using a method called parallax. Back in the 90's a satellite called Hipparcos used parallax to measure the distance to thousands of stars. Once you know how far away a star is you can calculate how bright that star is.

Just throwing this in, do you realize there are more stars in the universe then grains of sand on all the beaches in the world? God Created this VAST UNIVERSE over a vast period of time, Stars are still forming, as well as galaxies. Its not a question in reality. You are just sitting around brother arguing the eath is flat with nothing to back it up.

I agree I might have misread Gen. 1:16 ; the sun, moon, and stars were probably created at the same time, or at least they were created the same day. In any case, I maintain the earth was created before. The light was created on day one and the earth and heaven were also. I don't know what it says in your Bible, but in mine it only says the earth was created. The sun and otherwise celestial bodies are not mentioned. Then grass grows on the earth. Then God created the celestial bodies the next day. It doesn't say "I arranged the already created celestial bodies to produce seasons". It says HE MADE THEM. Made, from the verb to make, as in "it wasn't there before". I think you're making the text say things it doesn't say.

OK, allow me to go over this step by step to explain the finer points of my observations.

Genesis 1:1 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.

God gave the command for the Universe to COME FORTH, he never commanded anything else as per the universe, thus God spoke the Heavens and the Earth into existence, but there was yet (from Gods Point of View) no stars/light, nor any earth yet, thus God says earth was WITHOUT FORM and VOID (Means it was not yet in existence), the COMMAND was given, but it had not yet come into being. VOID means empty or a completely empty space in the dictionary. Then we get the "Darkness was on he face of the Deep" verse. So there was NO STARS EITHER, just like the WMAP Map shows. There was 400 Million years of Darkness after the Big Bang. As per God moving on the face of the waters, light needs to be reflected, I think this is the purpose of water in our hemisphere, notice in space it is much darker? The water reflects light thus its not just a beam of light. GOOGLE THAT SOMETIMES, its way cool. God doesn't call this a Day up to this point in time because a day has to be a full day, we need Darkness and Light to complete the "cycle" and in this day that cycle is 9.2 Billion years. God wants another event before Day 2 starts, and of course that would be in relation to us humans, who He designed the universe for. 1. Universe comes forth Day One. 2. Earth/Sun come forth Day Two. Notice both relate to us, we get TWO DAYS !! Grass coming, we get Day Three etc. etc.

Gen. 1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. 4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. 5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

There was NO EARTH on the first day. The first day was about a 9.2 Billion year period before the earth ever existed. God commanded it to come forth ONLY ONCE, but God is now giving us the creations "Time-line" so to speak. The First day was EVENING and MORNING. 400 Million years of Darkness, then almost 9.2 (minus the 400 Million of course) Billion years of Stars coming forth from Gods original command (thus the Trillions upon trillions of stars we have). The first day is about DARKNESS then LIGHT (YOWM=Too be hot).

Gen. 1:6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters(our Atmosphere), and let it divide the waters from the waters. 7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. 8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.

The "Firmament" of course is our Sky Dome or our Atmosphere, it is a Heaven, then you have Space Heaven and you have the Heaven where God resides. (Third Heaven which Paul described). Notice the Sky/Atmosphere is supposed to divide the waters, so I think thus when the sun evaporates the waters they then of course come back down via rain from the clouds. So we have on the Second day, the Earth/Sun/Rain, you can not have rain without the Sun. THAT IS THE WHOLE POINT !!! So we know on the second day the Sun (star) and its planets all formed. (GRASS NEEDS SUN.....The sun is here now.....No doubt, Grass coming soon. )

Gen. 1:9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so. 10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good. 11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so. 12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good. 13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.

So this day is fairly easy, we see the trees, grasses, fruits, herb type of plants coming forth, no doubt God is brilliant (LOL of course), He knew the animals He was going to create would need these staples of life to live on this earth so He brought them forth first, most professors would say the animals were just lucky the trees/grasses/fruits came first, UMMMMM NO. God had a plan.

Gen. 1:14 And God said, Let there be lights in the FIRMAMENT of the HEAVEN (SKY) to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: 15 And let them be for lights in the firmament(our Sky) of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so. 16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also (After thought OF COURSE He did). 17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, 18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good. 19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

This is rather hard to understand, but you seem to be coming around. Firstly, we know the Grass had to have sunlight on the third day. Secondly we know there is no Evaporation happening without the sun. So the Sun and Earth was created before this day, I say on the Second Day. It seems obvious to me. This day here is about the lights as pertaining to our Atmosphere, without the water in our atmosphere there would not be the amount of light we have, it would not be reflected. That is one of the keys here. The Signs part, in my opinion, is us using the Stars for Navigation. The Seasons/Days/Years is the way God set the Moon/Earth in juxtaposition to each other to create orderly days and nights all over the world. The moon is the Lesser light via Reflection at Night. Thus the Evening and the Morning was the Fourth Day.

The rest of course is the Sea Animals/Birds that came forth first, the birds spread the seed around the world and the cycle was started. Then the Land Animals were created along with man on the 6th Day. GOD RESTED..............But the Universe is still COMING FORTH/Expanding, or being created, how can this be !! God rested !!

No God CEASED CREATING (God doesn't need to rest), but his very first command remember was to the Universe and Earth to COME FORTH......In the beginning God created the Heaven and the earth, which is why when I stated it took the earth 9.2 Billion years for the earth to come forth, many say WHAT??? But the original command is still going forth, as proven by the fact God has RESTED but His COMMAND is still bringing forth new Creation all the time. So God Ceased CREATING, but the command that went forth 13.7 Billion years ago is still bringing forth His beautiful creation. The Earth came forth 4.5 Billion years ago.

Man was created 6000 Years ago, then God rested (Ceased Creating) from His creation.

 

[Revealing Times]

Revealing Times, when your name is God, you can do what you please. You don't have to conform to some people's perceptions of "the laws of nature" of the 21st century... BTW, God made those laws, I understand that. He can manipulate them and change them. I don't know how He did it, but He says He did...

You then need to explain WHY God would change the laws of Nature when He doesn't need to. REMEMBER, God lives in the past, present and future all at once, so please tell me WHY God needs to change the laws of nature, when He creates the Universe, and lives in it at the very same moment He creates it !! There is no time for God, His laws of nature are constant, He doesn't need to make things appear to be old, He created the universe AS IT APPEARS, you just can't grasp that it seems for whatever reason.

The facts are the facts, God created the universe under His laws of nature and as soon as God spoke the creation, He lived in the future, that is why He knows the Future via prophecy.

It doesn't hit me square in the face because that's not what it says!!! I can't understand why some people cannot accept God is the creator of all things and that He could do it as He claims to have done it.

Now get this, you would rather change the whole dynamics of the laws of nature, WHICH IS GOD by the way, He is the Set of Forces that created the Universe so HE IS the Laws of Nature !! But you would rather change all of that, instead of understanding that the Hebrew language was a primitive language with only 4000 words and NO VOWELS, compared to our English language with 500,000 words. And there is another point of emphasis I don't usually mention, but have thought about. God confused our languages at Babel for a reason, He thought we were getting to wise too soon and thus confused our languages and thus our cooperation with each other. The Computer has allowed us to come together as a united world with basically no barriers in this day and age. Look at what we are doing with DNA, they say we could resurrect the Dinosaurs if we wanted to, or create weird animals/humans. (Scary).

So lets say maybe (probably) God at that time did not exactly want mankind to know everything He knew for His own reasoning, so he was VAGUE about the Days of creation etc. etc. Or He knew primitive man would never understand what 13.7 Billion years were so He gave them Days as Periods of Time, which is what He did. Whoever wrote Genesis had ZERO CLUE what 13 Billion years was. Either instance would suffice as being the correct answer, what is not correct and never will be is that God hanged the laws of Nature to DECEIVE MAN, that makes absolutely no sense at all. The Universe is 13.7 Billion years old, and nothing is ever going to change that fact. He never claimed He created the universe in Six days, that just your perception. Lookm up the Hebrew word YOWM and see how many different meanings it has. TO BE HOT, A Period of Time, years, x long, Chronicles, etc. etc.

Well perhaps you should then. In that context it means day. 24 hour day. 6 days you shall work and the 7th you shall rest. 6 periods of time? God then says "indeed in the same way I made the world..." Is He just purposefully confusing people here?

Then He blessed the day of rest and made it holy... He blessed the day of His rest and that should be also our day of rest. Or do you think he is speaking of two different things here?

The point was, it would be a waste of time, I know better, thus will not spend the effort on it. The First day had no earth nor sun, why would anyone believe it was based on a 24 hour cycle? The Six days in Genesis are periods of time, as is 6 Periods of times God in which God created the Universe. 6 = 6. Its symbolism. God worked for 6 Periods and Rested and thus YOU WORK for 6 periods and rest.

If I have a school where the periods are two hours and we go to six classes we will have to go to class for 12 hours, if you have a school where the periods are one hour your school day will be for 6 hours.

Both are periods of time. The Seventh Period will be to go home and rest for the night.

Well, nobody forces you to prove, or say, or think anything. But when one makes a claim, one ought to back it up...

Honestly, I would tell you the same thing about spreading untruths and all.

You are allowed to be wrong.....but I am not, if I doubt anything I have to say its just my understanding. In this instance I wouldn't tell people that the universe is 13.7 Billion years old without hearing from the Lord. As per the timings as being set in stone on each day, that is a little different. But the universe is very old, not 6000 years old, this I know from God. He led me to study ths for two plus years and that is what I did.

This isn't even my forte, I am called to prophecy, I have blogs on Babylon/Harlot. I have a blog telling where the Anti-Christ is born, and why. Who the Seven Headed Beast is. Those are much more interesting to me anyway. This is more of a hobby. SMILE...........

 

[Papias]

But the original command is still going forth, as proven by the fact God has RESTED but His COMMAND is still bringing forth new Creation all the time. So God Ceased CREATING, but he command went forth 13.7 Billion years ago. The Earth came forth 4.5 Billion years ago.

One could also look at this another way, God did rest, but Jesus' words may suggest He went back to creating:

John 5:17-

Jesus said to them, "My Father is always at his work to this very day, and I too am working."​

In Christ-

Papias

 

[Revealing Times]

One could also look at this another way, God did rest, but Jesus' words may suggest He went back to creating:

John 5:17-

Jesus said to them, "My Father is always at his work to this very day, and I too am working."​

In Christ-

Papias

We are just speaking of the Creation. Of Course God doesn't need rest, that part of Scripture when translated properly would mean/should mean God CEASED CREATING. Not rested.

God never ceases BEING God, so of course hes always active, thus in our lives he is continually active also. You are correct.

 

[Papias]

We are just speaking of the Creation. Of Course God doesn't need rest, that part of Scripture when translated properly would mean/should mean God CEASED CREATING. Not rested.

God never ceasing BEING God, so of course hes always active, thus in our lives he is ontinually active also. You are correct.

Yep.

Heb 1:2-3 is relevant too.

...he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom also he made the universe. The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. ​

This seems to be saying that not only did God make the Universe through Jesus, but also that through Jesus God directs and sustains the natural laws we see acting all the time. It seems to fit well with John 5:17.

 

[Queller]

The Bible declares that all God created was completely good. That means it was without the violence associated with the laws of tooth and claw and required death.

This is man's interpretation of God's Word. If there was to be no death, then God's plan would to be have the earth over run with life in relatively short order. Imagine "go forth, be fruitful, and multiply" if there was no death to keep the population manageable.

 

[Queller]

The Hebrews did not write the book of Genesis. Moses did as directed by God.

Moses wasn't Hebrew?

God explained everything in language that those reading it would be able to understand. That doesn't make His word any less true.

And that includes the beginnings of creation.

You're straining at gnats and swallowing camels. God had a very specific reason for the six day creation and for describing it as He did.

Yes, He did. As you stated above it was to explain things so that those reading it would be able to understand.

He wanted even those of us in modern times to appreciate His creation, even though we would have boundless information as to why it should not have happened that way. He expects us to have faith in Him and His word.

That "boundless information" that you refer to is what better enables us to appreciate His creation.

I have faith in His Word. I don't necessarily have faith in any one interpretation of His Word, especially one that goes against the fingerprints He left behind in His creation.

 

[Marvin Knox]

This is man's interpretation of God's Word. If there was to be no death, then God's plan would to be have the earth over run with life in relatively short order. Imagine "go forth, be fruitful, and multiply" if there was no death to keep the population manageable.

It is man's interpretation based on a sound systematic theology of the entire Word of God. Death is the enemy.

You have no information regarding what God had planned for humanity.

God is well able to "manage" the population of His creation without tearing them limb from limb and feeding them to each other.

Not that I believe it is what He had planned - but God has shown that He is well capable of creating more living space and in fact I read somewhere that He plans to create a new earth in the near future for example.

 

[Queller]

I don't see how starlight would tell you that the universe is billions of years old...

Because to even see the light from distant stars that light has to have had time to get here. We know the speed of light, therefore we have a hard limit on how old something must be for us to see it.

The closest star to earth is Proxima Centauri. It is 4.23 light years from earth, a distance which has been measured via parallax. That means that if Proxima Centauri suddenly vanished tomorrow, we wouldn't know it until Dec. 2021.

Many stars and other stellar objects are much farther away from us. That we can see them at all means the light has had time to reach us, sometimes taking hundreds of millions or even billions of years.

You can argue that God created the light "on it's way" and some do. But while you're at it, why not argue that God put fossils in the earth or created meteor craters from impacts that never happened? That kind of explanation means God is deliberately deceiving us about the age of the universe. I'm not sure I can accept an explanation that make God deceptive. Can you?

 

[Queller]

It is man's interpretation based on a sound systematic theology of the entire Word of God. Death is the enemy.

And many theologians, who have conducted sound systematic study of the Word of God, believe the death referred to in Genesis 2 is that of spiritual death, not physical.

You have no information regarding what God had planned for humanity.

I have the same information you do.

God is well able to "manage" the population of His creation without tearing them limb from limb and feeding them to each other.

How so? Cite Scripture to support your claim.

Not that I believe it is what He had planned - but God has shown that He is well capable of creating more living space and in fact I read somewhere that He plans to create a new earth in the near future for example.

Where did you read that?

 

[Queller]

Ok. Everything you quoted takes for granted the Big Bang happened and that's exactly what I DON'T believe... I think God created things just the way He wanted them... The problem with the Big Bang theory is exactly this: it works with natural processes.

Who do you think created those natural processes?

 

[Marvin Knox]

And many theologians, who have conducted sound systematic study of the Word of God, believe the death referred to in Genesis 2 is that of spiritual death, not physical.

So do I.

You don't agree that the N.T. statements about physical death being an enemy are true?

Interesting.

How so? Cite Scripture to support your claim.

Cite Scripture to support the claim that God is able to and does manage the population of His creation?

You've got to be kidding, right?

Where did you read that?

The Bible.

You don't know that God is going to create a new earth?

Seriously?

Again - you've simply got to be kidding.

Before we continue I must ask you a question. Do you believe that the Bible as we have it is the Word of God? Because if you don't we might as well end this here and now.

 

[Queller]

There are a few differences in your analogy. First of all, someone's life is at stake. Second of all, surely the person is experiencing some symptoms. Third of all, the doctor can show him at least one piece of evidence the patient can understand : radio-imagery. You can see the spots that don't belong there.

And how does the person know those spots don't belong there? Because the doctor tells him so.

In any case, the man is still free not to accept the diagnosis or the treatment. Now that would be stupid because plenty of people die of cancer. The mention of scripture in your story is not the same as with this debate we're having here... It's not just that it isn't mentionned in the Bible, it's that the Bible contradicts it blatantly!!!!!!! It's not compatible!!!!!!

No, some interpretations of the Bible make it incompatible.

 

[Queller]

So do I.

Then why do you have trouble believing that physical death existed prior to sin?

You don't agree that the N.T. statements about physical death being an enemy are true?

An enemy? Sure. But that doesn't mean that physical death didn't exist before sin.

Interesting.

Cite Scripture to support the claim that God is able to and does manage the population of His creation?

You've got to be kidding, right?

No, I'm not kidding. Where is there scriptural support for the idea that God was going to micromanage His creation so that, for example, rabbits didn't over-reproduce and overrun the world?

ETA: that scenario doesn't sound like the result of a "very good" creation to me.

The Bible.

Again - you've simply got to be kidding, right?

You said the "near future" Where does the Bible define that?

 

[Queller]

Otherwise, I do not pretend to have more knowledge than them, but I believe the way they interpret the evidence is wrong. Yet I am here. That means I am curious to learn more and am open to be convinced.

What would it take to convince you that deep time and evolutionary theory is correct?

 

[Marvin Knox]

Then why do you have trouble believing that physical death existed prior to sin?...... An enemy? Sure. But that doesn't mean that physical death didn't exist before sin.

"But in fact Christ has been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive. But each in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, then at his coming those who belong to Christ. Then comes the end, when he delivers the kingdom to God the Father after destroying every rule and every authority and power. For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is death." 1 Corinthians 15:20-26

Where is there scriptural support for the idea that God was going to micromanage His creation so that, for example, rabbits didn't over-reproduce and overrun the world?

I didn't say how He was going to do it before the fall. I merely said He is well able to do it and does do it.

You said the "near future" Where does the Bible define that?

"He who testifies to these things says, "Yes, I am coming soon." Amen. Come, Lord Jesus." Rev. 22:20

Our conversation is over here.

 

[Queller]

"But in fact Christ has been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive. But each in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, then at his coming those who belong to Christ. Then comes the end, when he delivers the kingdom to God the Father after destroying every rule and every authority and power. For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is death." 1 Corinthians 15:20-26

And why exactly could this not be referring to spiritual death? After all Christ's sacrifice does not save those who accept Him as Savior from physical death, does it? No, it saves them from spiritual death.

I didn't say how He was going to do it before the fall. I merely said He is well able to do it and does do it.

He does do it? How does He do it and what is your evidence?

"He who testifies to these things says, "Yes, I am coming soon." Amen. Come, Lord Jesus." Rev. 22:20as

That was 2,000 years ago. Define "soon".

Our conversation is over here.

Something usually said by those who realize they have been called out on something that they can't support.