Creation vs. Evolution

[MichaelCadry]

Now you mention it, I've definitely knowingly and intentionally blasphemed against the holy ghost.

Stuart

Dear Stuart,

That is a real shame. You shouldn't have. You're hopeless on purpose.

Michael

 

[freelight]

Thought is the common denominator in this silly debate, even an atheist would have to concede that thought drives their existence in this material world of experience.

O perish the thought :jolly:

 

[DavisBJ]

Dear Hedshaker,

I never use Google.

Michael

Why?

 

[patrick jane]

Dear Hedshaker,

I never use Google.

Michael

do you use godaddy ?

 

[Interplanner]

How can that be if God destroyed the world that was in Noah's flood about 4500 years ago.
A few things to consider
* You common sense says 9000 years.
* Evolutionists say its hundreds of millions of years old.
* God's Word tells us the world that was, was destroyed in Noah's flood about 3500 years ago. (Based on genealogy from Noah to Jesus)

Let's start by assuming God's Word to be true and see if the evidence fits...ok?

Based on CURRENT erosion rates, the falls are more than 7,000 years old. But... does science indicate that different conditions cause different erosion rates? *Yes! We know increased water and sediment flow increases the erosion rate.

Does God's Word *tell us of any incident that would have greatly increased erosion rates in the past? Yes!! The warm oceans after the flood would have provided perfect conditions for the ice age. As the ice melted the flow of water and sediment would have been substantially more than today's rate. Erosion would have been much faster in the past.*

Start with the absolute truth of God's Word.... not your own 'common sense'. Niagra Falls is evidence for the truth of God's Word



Not familiar with that one... but again you should start with the truth of God's Word and the creation and flood model of an ice age occurring after Noah's Flood.


Already answered several times.

Jeremiah describes the utter destruction of a city with the phrase from Genesis " formless and void". That's how God described the earth before he formed it and filled with life. Your belief in a mysterious murky pre-existing creation is not supported by Scripture.



I have no idea what you are talking about but it seems you are trying to create some type of a straw man argument.

Ask Stripe...he knows better than I but I believe it's mostly from meteorite *bombardment at the time of the flood.*

re Niagara,
the dating I'm referring to is the rate since the ice age, from c. 9000 ago. That's the only rate change that is discussed. So you rather missed the point there. There wouldn't be increased ones because there were none at all before the flood cataclysm. It started at that point and has been continuous.

Thanks for the reference to Stripe.

I don't think you realized what you just said about 'formless and void' but at least it is all in the same paragraph. Soon you might see it all in one proposition. 100% of the other references about 'formless and void' refer to the destruction of a place that was going wrong, so that's what it means in Gen 1:2, the site in question. With lots of backstory. I don't know what the mystery is about that. And it is also murky due to having the previous undone. Or possibly by being one of the 'blackest darknesses' that Peter and Jude mention.

The pre-existing condition is supported by the NT commentary on it, which is worth more than other human comment. It was formed through water and out of water near the same time frame as the world Noah flood. That world is called the 'archeia' but the 'ekpalai' goes much further back, and Peter compares it to Tartarus time frame.

Btw, the KJV has a good way of distinguishing between the two times: the heavens were of old, the earth ... (it is not a good translation on the verb 'sunestosa') etc. Meaning the heavens (not the local orbs) were there from further back, as 2 Pet 2 is saying about the blackest darkness. But the earth was formed more recently in the 'archeia' timeframe. I must guess that you just do not have the Greek experience to realize the difference Peter is making.

 

[Interplanner]

How can that be if God destroyed the world that was in Noah's flood about 4500 years ago.
A few things to consider
* You common sense says 9000 years.
* Evolutionists say its hundreds of millions of years old.
* God's Word tells us the world that was, was destroyed in Noah's flood about 3500 years ago. (Based on genealogy from Noah to Jesus)

Let's start by assuming God's Word to be true and see if the evidence fits...ok?

Based on CURRENT erosion rates, the falls are more than 7,000 years old. But... does science indicate that different conditions cause different erosion rates? *Yes! We know increased water and sediment flow increases the erosion rate.

Does God's Word *tell us of any incident that would have greatly increased erosion rates in the past? Yes!! The warm oceans after the flood would have provided perfect conditions for the ice age. As the ice melted the flow of water and sediment would have been substantially more than today's rate. Erosion would have been much faster in the past.*

Start with the absolute truth of God's Word.... not your own 'common sense'. Niagra Falls is evidence for the truth of God's Word



Not familiar with that one... but again you should start with the truth of God's Word and the creation and flood model of an ice age occurring after Noah's Flood.


Already answered several times.

Jeremiah describes the utter destruction of a city with the phrase from Genesis " formless and void". That's how God described the earth before he formed it and filled with life. Your belief in a mysterious murky pre-existing creation is not supported by Scripture.



I have no idea what you are talking about but it seems you are trying to create some type of a straw man argument.

Ask Stripe...he knows better than I but I believe it's mostly from meteorite *bombardment at the time of the flood.*

re Lake Morse.
It is just another dating tool for the end of the ice age. There is no trick about it. Also, it is not as though the people dating it are talking in terms of billions of years. It was only 9000 ago.

re starting with the Word of God first
But as soon as you shield or protect the Bible from other information you have ruined its standing. Our information must integrate, not separate. Please, please get Lewis 'Horrid Red Things' in GOD IN THE DOCK and read it. We, Christians, are not trying to go about defending the 'horrid red things'! We are defending the view that HRTs was about harm and danger, which shows that the material in the Bible is not time-bound, to be discarded as a primitive view from back then.

While I'm fascinated that you shield or protect the Bible, our friend Alwight is doing the same 'shielding' of a closed system of natural causes and effects from the glaring light beaming out of Gonzalez and Richards THE PRIVILEGED PLANET. My point: 'shielding' discredits the view.

 

[DavisBJ]

Alwight asked:

What specifically do you think has no natural explanation?

6days offered:

* life from non life

I agree. If you like, until science shows that life can be made from non-life, you made hide your God in that gap is sciences’ knowledge.

* self creating DNA code

Essentially same as previous answer.

* laws without a law giver.

As far as the way that nature operates, nature cares little for man’s philosophy about the need for law-givers.

* everything from nothing / no first cause

Resurrecting (again) an idea you failed to answer a couple weeks ago? Just to refresh your memory:

Define what preexisting means without implicitly or explicitly invoking time – because remember, time has not yet come into existence.

Until that response is satisfactory presented, any talk of something necessarily pre-existing to “cause” the universe is still just childish babble.

* complex, sophisticated design without a designer.

A huge percentage of scientists think Darwin falsified that claim almost 150 years ago.

 

[alwight]

* life from non life
* self creating DNA code
* laws without a law giver.
* everything from nothing / no first cause
* complex, sophisticated design without a designer.

Can you show that life from non life (abiogenesis) could not have begun naturally and doesn't therefore have a natural explanation albeit unknown at the moment?
Laws are human definitions of what happens to be.
I don't know that anything ever came from nothing but that would equally have to apply to any supernatural cause.
Complexity doesn't have to indicate any design.

 

[Interplanner]

Can you show that life from non life (abiogenesis) could not have begun naturally and doesn't therefore have a natural explanation albeit unknown at the moment?
Laws are human definitions of what happens to be.
I don't know that anything ever came from nothing but that would equally have to apply to any supernatural cause.
Complexity doesn't have to indicate any design.

"Unknown at the moment"? Is that a scientist speaking or a follower of a religion that is determined to believe no matter what?

From nothing. You missed the point. The divine cause as defined in Scripture exists from everlasting to everlasting. There is no other way it could be. There is no use in a created god, only in Yahweh, the name which is also the present, continuous tense of 'to be.'

Complexity doesn't have to indicate any design. Right. Katrina and the Euro accelerator in France are the exact same thing.

 

[kdull]

Let's start by assuming God's Word to be true and see if the evidence fits...ok?

#science

a straw man argument

Never heard that one from you before

Ask Stripe...he knows better than I but I believe it's mostly from meteorite *bombardment at the time of the flood.*

Stripe knows nothing except for how to convince other fundamentalists of his lies. Case and point: http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=108259

 

[6days]

Can you show that life from non life (abiogenesis) could not have begun naturally and doesn't therefore have a natural explanation albeit unknown at the moment

Can you show that the flying spegetti monster doesnt have a natural explanation albeit unknown at the moment?

Laws are human definitions of what happens to be.

Que sera sera?

I don't know that anything ever came from nothing but that would equally have1to apply to any supernatural cause.

We agree. Everything we know of which has begun to exist has a cause. So, our experience and logic suggests that the first cause of everything has existed uncaused throught eternity.

Complexity doesn't have to indicate any design.

True, although something can even be complex AND have design, but without a designer, such as a cave. But what I had said was that complex sophisticated design suggest a designer. A watch is built with sophistication...intelligence...it required information.

 

[6days]

What specifically do you think has no natural explanation?

life from non life

I agree. If you like, until science shows that life can be made from non-life, you made hide your God in that gap is sciences’ knowledge.

If scientists someday create 'life' in a lab... The couple hundred years and millions of hours of research will likely be evidence of the level of extreme intelligence invincolved.*

laws without a law giver.

As far as the way that nature operates, nature cares little for man’s philosophy about the need for law-givers.

Nature does not care of course. But nature and our universe operate in an orderly fashion according to rules / laws. Likewise we have traffic laws, or moral laws to help us operate in an orderly fashion.*

everything from nothing / no first cause

Resurrecting (again) an idea you failed to answer a couple weeks ago? Just to refresh your memory..."Define what preexisting means without implicitly or explicitly invoking time – because remember, time has not yet come into existence."

I didn't answer?

If time has not yet come into existence.... and suddenly time starts...Then something which exists outside of time, (eternal) had caused time to begin.*

Our Creator...the God of the Bible is a logical and even a scientific explanation of what caused time to begin.

BTW.... the question was about things which don't have a natural explanation.

complex, sophisticated design without a designer.

A huge percentage of scientists think Darwin falsified that claim almost 150 years ago.

I agree that a majority believe they can explain sophisticated design without a designer... but they really can't. They all rely on pre-existing sophisticated mechanisms and the pre-existing DNA code.

To resurrect an idea you failed to answer a couple weeks ago ..... how did complex sophisticated vision systems evolve in the geological blink of an eye. IOW, without evidence?

 

[Interplanner]

If scientists someday create 'life' in a lab... The couple hundred years and millions of hours of research will likely be evidence of the level of extreme intelligence invincolved.*



Nature does not care of course. But nature and our universe operate in an orderly fashion according to rules / laws. Likewise we have traffic laws, or moral laws to help us operate in an orderly fashion.*


I didn't answer?

If time has not yet come into existence.... and suddenly time starts...Then something which exists outside of time, (eternal) had caused time to begin.*

Our Creator...the God of the Bible is a logical and even a scientific explanation of what caused time to begin.

BTW.... the question was about things which don't have a natural explanation.



I agree that a majority believe they can explain sophisticated design without a designer... but they really can't. They all rely on pre-existing sophisticated mechanisms and the pre-existing DNA code.

To resurrect an idea you failed to answer a couple weeks ago ..... how did complex sophisticated vision systems evolve in the geological blink of an eye. IOW, without evidence?

6days is quite right about design. I guess that's why Alwight mocks the Rembrandt analogy each time. I use it to say that the Artist, not the paint, gets the credit for the magnificence of the finished product. Alwight finds that silly, daft. I have no idea why. Ever since they appeared, no one I know praised the paint materials. They praised the artist.

 

[6days]

Re Nagara,
the dating I'm referring to is the rate since the ice age, from c. 9000 ago. That's the only rate change that is discussed. So you rather missed the point there.

What I said was that the evidence is consistent with God's Word of the flood of 4500 years ago.

100% of the other references about 'formless and void' refer to the destruction of a place that was going wrong, so that's what it means in Gen 1:2, the site in question.

You have it backwards.*

The verse in Jeremiah borrows the phrase from a Genesis to describe earth on day 1 before God gave it form and filled it with life.

The pre-existing condition is supported by the NT commentary on it, which is worth more than other human comment. It was formed through water and out of water near the same time frame as the world Noah flood. That world is called the 'archeia' but the 'ekpalai' goes much further back, and Peter compares it to Tartarus time frame.

It has been demonstrated from scripture that the word 'ekpalai' simply means long ago. Other than in your imagination, it never refers to a pre-existing time. The word in the OT is associated with human endeavors.*

Btw, the KJV has a good way of distinguishing between the two times: the heavens were of old, the earth ... (it is not a good translation on the verb 'sunestosa') etc.

Again... your imagination...or perhaps a desire to pervert/ add secular ideas and time to scripture. Here are the KJV verses which say nothing about a previous creation.

2 Peter 3:3 "Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, 4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:*6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished"

Notice it uses the phrase " from the beginning of the creation". Did you know that Jesus also used that same phrase referring to Adam and Eve? *Your beliefs about a previous creation or unscriptural and bordering on heresy.

Meaning the heavens (not the local orbs) were there from further back, as 2 Pet 2 is saying about the blackest darkness. But the earth was formed more recently in the 'archeia' timeframe. I must guess that you just do not have the Greek experience to realize the difference Peter is making.

It's not about having 'Greek experience'....I'm sure the KJV translators, and all newer translation teams had the 'Greek experience'.*

BTW... the Greek word in no way suggests millions of years, nor a previous creation. The same word is used in 2 Peter 2 refering to a time about years earlier. The examples Peter gives are the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, and the flood both events a couple of thousand years earlier

re Lake Morse.
It is just another dating tool for the end of the ice age. There is no trick about it. Also, it is not as though the people dating it are talking in terms of billions of years. It was only 9000 ago.

Already answered this... see Niagra.

re starting with the Word of God first
But as soon as you shield or protect the Bible from other information you have ruined its standing.

God's Word doesn't need shielding... and it doesn't need you spinning Scripture to try make it fit the flavor of the day in secular opinions. *The Word of our Lord stands forever.... as it is written.

Our information must integrate, not separate.

Pffffft.....

If we integrate scripture to today's science, we will be left with a widow tomorrow. Science textbooks contain mistakes, and are based on man's opinions, and *rapidly go out of date. The Word of our Lord contains no mistakes and never goes out of date.

 

[alwight]

Can you show that the flying spegetti monster doesnt have a natural explanation albeit unknown at the moment?

No one is seriously claiming to know that the FSM is anything other than imaginary, therefore no one is obliged to propose an explanation for something that can only be presumed by all not to exist. If however you are claiming otherwise or perhaps a supernatural entity is somehow a more likely explanation than something natural, if currently unknown, then the onus and the ball is firmly in your court.

Que sera sera?

Certainly. Perhaps however you have an omnipotent being in mind creating magnificent things called "laws"?
But a natural reality rather only suggests a human definition of natural physics because that is simply how it is.

We agree. Everything we know of which has begun to exist has a cause. So, our experience and logic suggests that the first cause of everything has existed uncaused throught eternity.

What an agreeable fundie you are 6days.
Speculating on a first cause not needing a first cause itself is a pretty pointless exercise imo. It's an apparent paradox, an unknown only, not evidence of a supernatural Creator.

True, although something can even be complex AND have design, but without a designer, such as a cave. But what I had said was that complex sophisticated design suggest a designer. A watch is built with sophistication...intelligence...it required information.

A cave might have "design" conferred upon it, after the fact, but the truth is that any "design" utilised was never designed into it. A watch doesn't self replicate and is created as is by a human designer, while complex life has apparently evolved it's complexity gradually through the process of natural selection. Unless of course an omnipotent designer created everything with an illusion of evolution and great age.
But since we can't apparently detect the effects of a supernatural then personally I at least don't presume any such thing as at all likely until we can.

 

[Interplanner]

What I said was that the evidence is consistent with God's Word of the flood of 4500 years ago.


You have it backwards.*

The verse in Jeremiah borrows the phrase from a Genesis to describe earth on day 1 before God gave it form and filled it with life.


It has been demonstrated from scripture that the word 'ekpalai' simply means long ago. Other than in your imagination, it never refers to a pre-existing time. The word in the OT is associated with human endeavors.*


Again... your imagination...or perhaps a desire to pervert/ add secular ideas and time to scripture. Here are the KJV verses which say nothing about a previous creation.

2 Peter 3:3 "Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, 4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:*6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished"

Notice it uses the phrase " from the beginning of the creation". Did you know that Jesus also used that same phrase referring to Adam and Eve? *Your beliefs about a previous creation or unscriptural and bordering on heresy.


It's not about having 'Greek experience'....I'm sure the KJV translators, and all newer translation teams had the 'Greek experience'.*

BTW... the Greek word in no way suggests millions of years, nor a previous creation. The same word is used in 2 Peter 2 refering to a time about years earlier. The examples Peter gives are the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, and the flood both events a couple of thousand years earlier


Already answered this... see Niagra.

God's Word doesn't need shielding... and it doesn't need you spinning Scripture to try make it fit the flavor of the day in secular opinions. *The Word of our Lord stands forever.... as it is written.


Pffffft.....

If we integrate scripture to today's science, we will be left with a widow tomorrow. Science textbooks contain mistakes, and are based on man's opinions, and *rapidly go out of date. The Word of our Lord contains no mistakes and never goes out of date.

That is exactly the reason Lewis did not distance himself from science. If you know that about science then there is nothing to worry about if it is only a fad this year. There are other substantial things that are common sense, such as the length of time set for Niagara's falls, being 9000. Or the pocking and smattering of the moon. These are not optical illusions. They are tracks of real events, and the Bible is about reality. So we have to join them, like Ps 19 says. Both the written and the non-spoken communication (of the natural universe) glorify God.

 

[Interplanner]

What I said was that the evidence is consistent with God's Word of the flood of 4500 years ago.


You have it backwards.*

The verse in Jeremiah borrows the phrase from a Genesis to describe earth on day 1 before God gave it form and filled it with life.


It has been demonstrated from scripture that the word 'ekpalai' simply means long ago. Other than in your imagination, it never refers to a pre-existing time. The word in the OT is associated with human endeavors.*


Again... your imagination...or perhaps a desire to pervert/ add secular ideas and time to scripture. Here are the KJV verses which say nothing about a previous creation.

2 Peter 3:3 "Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, 4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:*6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished"

Notice it uses the phrase " from the beginning of the creation". Did you know that Jesus also used that same phrase referring to Adam and Eve? *Your beliefs about a previous creation or unscriptural and bordering on heresy.


It's not about having 'Greek experience'....I'm sure the KJV translators, and all newer translation teams had the 'Greek experience'.*

BTW... the Greek word in no way suggests millions of years, nor a previous creation. The same word is used in 2 Peter 2 refering to a time about years earlier. The examples Peter gives are the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, and the flood both events a couple of thousand years earlier


Already answered this... see Niagra.

God's Word doesn't need shielding... and it doesn't need you spinning Scripture to try make it fit the flavor of the day in secular opinions. *The Word of our Lord stands forever.... as it is written.


Pffffft.....

If we integrate scripture to today's science, we will be left with a widow tomorrow. Science textbooks contain mistakes, and are based on man's opinions, and *rapidly go out of date. The Word of our Lord contains no mistakes and never goes out of date.

You missed the point about the shielding. That's what you're doing. You're trying to protect it from fairly obvious periods of time, even though as I have said, there is no reason after those periods why God can not form this earth as is in 6 days. We already know there is a "placement" of the sun and moon on the 4th day, and this is God acting in an open system which otherwise continues on in natural cause and effect.

Greek experience means years in the language. You are just obnoxious on certain points. 'estin' and 'sunestosa' are simply not in the same category and the KJV did well on that. It's right there in plain English.

So I ask again: is chaining up demons ordinary human activity, because that is what 'ekpalai' refers to in 2 Pet 2 and Jude and in connection with Tartarus which you still have not discussed.

Yes, S&G are mentioned as destroyed, but not as being the ones ekpalai in blackest darkness like wandering stars.

What awful reading of 2 Pet 2:4-6. He is moving through history from the rebellion of angels forward. You could say Jude is out of sequence of course, but it comes down to when such an event took place. The clues from Peter are the most helpful; the parallel in ch 3.

Yes, I know of Jesus saying from the beginning of creation. It has to be relevant doesn't it? There is nothing about marriage before day 6 so, like Ex 20, it is not a proof text that nothing pre-existed. The pre-existence is the complexity of 'formless and void' which is the final chapter of something else going on. Satan had his issue with the "stars of God" Is. 14:13 and was taken down. There is nothing heretical about saying that rebellious angels have been confined in dark places in the universe.

I don't think you answered anything about Niagara because there is essentially one change: it starts. The geologic record is that it started at the point and has been predictable since.

 

[Interplanner]

What I said was that the evidence is consistent with God's Word of the flood of 4500 years ago.


You have it backwards.*

The verse in Jeremiah borrows the phrase from a Genesis to describe earth on day 1 before God gave it form and filled it with life.


It has been demonstrated from scripture that the word 'ekpalai' simply means long ago. Other than in your imagination, it never refers to a pre-existing time. The word in the OT is associated with human endeavors.*


Again... your imagination...or perhaps a desire to pervert/ add secular ideas and time to scripture. Here are the KJV verses which say nothing about a previous creation.

2 Peter 3:3 "Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, 4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:*6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished"

Notice it uses the phrase " from the beginning of the creation". Did you know that Jesus also used that same phrase referring to Adam and Eve? *Your beliefs about a previous creation or unscriptural and bordering on heresy.


It's not about having 'Greek experience'....I'm sure the KJV translators, and all newer translation teams had the 'Greek experience'.*

BTW... the Greek word in no way suggests millions of years, nor a previous creation. The same word is used in 2 Peter 2 refering to a time about years earlier. The examples Peter gives are the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, and the flood both events a couple of thousand years earlier


Already answered this... see Niagra.

God's Word doesn't need shielding... and it doesn't need you spinning Scripture to try make it fit the flavor of the day in secular opinions. *The Word of our Lord stands forever.... as it is written.


Pffffft.....

If we integrate scripture to today's science, we will be left with a widow tomorrow. Science textbooks contain mistakes, and are based on man's opinions, and *rapidly go out of date. The Word of our Lord contains no mistakes and never goes out of date.

Just a word about Jer 4:23 again. If there are two usages of an expression and we are trying to figure out what one means, there is only one to took to for definition, right? there is nothing backward about that.

I think it will help you if you slow down and get calm about your effort to protect the Bible and just let it express itself. You're reacting antagonistically no matter what.

 

[zookeeper]

Can you show that the flying spegetti monster doesnt have a natural explanation albeit unknown at the moment?


Que sera sera?



We agree. Everything we know of which has begun to exist has a cause. So, our experience and logic suggests that the first cause of everything has existed uncaused throught eternity.

True, although something can even be complex AND have design, but without a designer, such as a cave. But what I had said was that complex sophisticated design suggest a designer. A watch is built with sophistication...intelligence...it required information.

What is your explanation for an acacia tree being eaten by a giraffe that then emits chemical signals that elicit an unpleasant taste (for giraffes) among other acacia trees that will receive these signals in the area of the tree being harvested? Even more importantly, the acacia has been known to communicate amongst its own kind to poison kudus to death (https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg12717361-200-antelope-activate-the-acacias-alarm-system/). In fact, a movie (a bad one) called The Happening was based on exactly this premise applied to mankind.

Do you see this as being designed to help plants survive? Because in your scenario of creation, plants are only in existence as food for animals. They have no need to look out for their own survival, right?

 

[Interplanner]

What I said was that the evidence is consistent with God's Word of the flood of 4500 years ago.


You have it backwards.*

The verse in Jeremiah borrows the phrase from a Genesis to describe earth on day 1 before God gave it form and filled it with life.


It has been demonstrated from scripture that the word 'ekpalai' simply means long ago. Other than in your imagination, it never refers to a pre-existing time. The word in the OT is associated with human endeavors.*


Again... your imagination...or perhaps a desire to pervert/ add secular ideas and time to scripture. Here are the KJV verses which say nothing about a previous creation.

2 Peter 3:3 "Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, 4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:*6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished"

Notice it uses the phrase " from the beginning of the creation". Did you know that Jesus also used that same phrase referring to Adam and Eve? *Your beliefs about a previous creation or unscriptural and bordering on heresy.


It's not about having 'Greek experience'....I'm sure the KJV translators, and all newer translation teams had the 'Greek experience'.*

BTW... the Greek word in no way suggests millions of years, nor a previous creation. The same word is used in 2 Peter 2 refering to a time about years earlier. The examples Peter gives are the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, and the flood both events a couple of thousand years earlier


Already answered this... see Niagra.

God's Word doesn't need shielding... and it doesn't need you spinning Scripture to try make it fit the flavor of the day in secular opinions. *The Word of our Lord stands forever.... as it is written.


Pffffft.....

If we integrate scripture to today's science, we will be left with a widow tomorrow. Science textbooks contain mistakes, and are based on man's opinions, and *rapidly go out of date. The Word of our Lord contains no mistakes and never goes out of date.

Who puts Niagara that short? I've not heard that in 20 years of passive collecting information about things like this, it's always 9000 something. Biblical truth is not a separate kind about a separate world.