Then TRY to refute that Truth either Scripturally scientifically or historically. I know you cannot but go ahead and try and show everyone that you are correct.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
False. This is your interpretation, in no way to be confused with truth.
You preference has no relationship with truth. The Hebrew language is not depended on what you think it means, but what it actually says. Yom is day--beyom is a period of time. Your interpretation of Genesis has never been accurate in any way shape or form. But if that brings you some sort of happiness----whatever---ignorance is bliss they say.
We had dominion over every living thing at creation.
Every thing was vegetarian at creation, that was lost at the fall.
and God Himself, killed the first animal to clothe Adam and Eve and they saw what their sin led to.
The bible is clear, if you would stay away from your false imaginings you would see the clarity.
Then refute me (prove me wrong) either Scripturally scientifically or historically. I will give you an example of how easy it is to refute your view:
Genesis 1:27 shows that God the Trinity is creating Adam (Heb-mankind) in His Image or in Christ Spiritually on the 6th Day. God continues to create mankind in Christ TODAY. The prophecy of Gen 1:28-31 is future to our time as you will see later in this post.
Un-Scriptural since Darkness or Death was upon the heaven (air) earth (ground) and water BEFORE the first Day. Gen 1:2 Hint: The Lion will lay down by the Lamb AFTER Jesus returns at Armageddon. The fulfillment of the prophecy of Gen 1:30 is shown in Isa 11:7 And the cow and the bear shall feed; their young ones shall lie down together: and the lion shall eat straw like the ox.
Correction: Lord God (YHWH/Jesus) made the clothes for A&E. Gen 3:21
Don't get mad and run away and you will learn much. God Bless you
You can not prove any of your theories scripturally or any other way. You never have been able to.
In Gen 6 when it says that the sons of God saw the daughters of man that they were fair---the original wording is once again functional--
"and the sons of the Elohiym saw the daughters of the human, that they were functional, and took for them women from all which they chose."
Amen, not according to your SDA doctrine, but I study to show myself approved unto God, a workman who is not ashamed of rightly dividing the word of Truth.
WHO are the sons of Elohiym or sons of God? WHERE did they come from? Try to be brief in explaining. Amen?
@mmksparbud Well, you have completely sidetracked this thread which, if you have bothered to read the OP would have led you to realise has nothing to do with the Big Bang. Perhaps you can make amends by going to the OP, reading it (reading it properly, if you think you had already done so) then return with an answer to the question I posed within it.
Thank you.
I was once an agnostic and I subscribed to a similar train of thought. And to relieve your disappointment, I'm going to show you something.
To arrive at the YEC position, as I do, takes a literal interpretation of Genesis. It's as simple as that. The concept of YEC is as simple as ABC when you apply the concept of biblical inerrancy. When the Bible is held above all other claims, YEC becomes the model above all other models for the origins of the universe and therefore, life as well.
Biblical inerrancy, as a concept, is ridiculous to those who are liberal in their faith, even more so for those who are atheist/irreligious. I was talking to my mother months ago about Jesus and almost proposed the idea that He was frothing at the mouth and losing His mind in mental delusions as He preached the Word. I was an agnostic then and the idea didn't really bother me.
What spun me back 180 was when, in my belief and my mother's belief, that God prevented my fall into utter immorality and addiction.
I am not angered by those who are disappointed by those who are obstinate in their beliefs in YEC. Being irreligious, you appeal fully to logic and reason, and YEC is by no means logical/reasonable from a secular point of view. I merely hold to YEC because I believe in the perfection of the Biblical account and that's the end of my reasoning. There's nothing else to say.
I hope my response was satisfying in some way.
No, it is not a science book--however, words are very important if accuracy is important to you, it is to me. The word day being discussed has nothing to do with the big bang theory--it has to do with what scripture means when it says day. People insist is can mean eons--when in the original it most certainly does not. But actually--for me-- I very much do believe in a big bang---actually, I believe in 6 big bangs---each time God said "let there be"-----BANG!---the power of His word caused a big bang and what He said, became reality.
Then TRY to refute that Truth either Scripturally scientifically or historically. I know you cannot but go ahead and try and show everyone that you are correct.
This is somewhat off topic, but I must say.... I'm always baffled when people say that God "speaks" things into existance. I mean, what could be more obvious nonsense?
Every time I read such, I can't help but think of a Gandalf/Merlin like charachter who says "abracadabra" followed by *poof*, a bunny.
I think it's the current Pope who once said "God is not a wizard with a magic wand..."
Thank you for your reply. I was not offended, just disappointed that you had not addressed the question that prompted me to start the thread. The disappointment remains, since I see you have no interest in answering it. That's fine. Thanks again for responding.I just answered a couple statements and questions. If my answers were off topic, I assume the statements and questions that I answered were also. Sorry if that offended you.
On the other hand Arthur C. Clarke said, "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." If the universe was created by a conscious entity it would have required very advanced technology, which would be so indistinguishable* from magic that it would have to be considered, by us, to be magic.I think it's the current Pope who once said "God is not a wizard with a magic wand..."
I find it odd that they accept the inflationary phase right after the big bang as scientific. After all, the natural laws had to be different than they are now so that matter could travel much faster than the speed of light. Seems to me the more honest approach would be to say the universe began immediately after the inflationary phase and investigate what it would have looked like, and all the implications of this.BBT will always seem to me ugly; a change of heart on the part of cosmologists would be a surprise.
Thank you for your reply. I was not offended, just disappointed that you had not addressed the question that prompted me to start the thread. The disappointment remains, since I see you have no interest in answering it. That's fine. Thanks again for responding.
Inflation does not require matter to travel faster than light. It is space that is expanding at speed, carrying the matter with it. The natural laws were not different.I find it odd that they accept the inflationary phase right after the big bang as scientific. After all, the natural laws had to be different than they are now so that matter could travel much faster than the speed of light. Seems to me the more honest approach would be to say the universe began immediately after the inflationary phase and investigate what it would have looked like, and all the implications of this.
My sincere apologies. I stopped reading half way through as it seemed to be a discussion of scriptural interpretation. To clarify, are you stating that you accept evolutionary theory, albeit as God's way of "creating" mankind? If so, you have answered my question and I thank you. If not, you have not answered my question.I did respond to i9t--did you read post #39? Or did you just think it was off topic and did not read the whole thing?
The collective genome of all species, show that there never was such a thing as a global flood that killed practically everything. It also shows that all life shares ancestry.
My sincere apologies. I stopped reading half way through as it seemed to be a discussion of scriptural interpretation. To clarify, are you stating that you accept evolutionary theory, albeit as God's way of "creating" mankind? If so, you have answered my question and I thank you. If not, you have not answered my question.
Thank you again for responding. Finally, would you consider now anwering my original question:given that rigorous application of logic, evidence and reasoned argument thoroughly dispute and refute your view of creation, on what basis do you justify an emotive decision in favour of a 6-day creation over a dispassionate and objective intellectual one in favour of evolution?No, I do not. I said there is a time gap--from when the earth was formed--void, shapeless--with water---to the time when creation week was started.
Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
Gen 1:2 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.
Gen 1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
Between the time God created the heaven and earth--to the time He created light---could have been eons. Rocks that are millions of years old doesn't matter to me. Creation itself--when God began the creation week, still only took 6 days.
And scriptural interpretation is what makes a difference in any of this. And words are very important. They are the words of God and we should strive for accurate interpretation of the original words from the original language framed by the way the Jews at the time used those words.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?