If Evolution

[6days]

Yet the second creation story story

Moses, Jesus, Paul and the early church fathers only knew about the creation.

the one beginning in Genesis 2.4b, has a different order and method of creation from the first creation story.

As you were shown, even the NRSV version does not support your beliefs. (Stop relying on footnotes from evutionists). Scripture describes "the creation" in the first chapters of God's Word as one consistent account.


(I can again post scripture without comment. You will again say have no basis for further discussion)

 

[6days]

know Jesus forgave sins before His blood was shed.

We understand why you dont answer the question.


Whose blood cleanses us from sin? The Cross seems to have no meaning to you, as you think shedding of blood ( death) was not necessary for forgiveness of sin. Evolutionists who divorce first Adam from Last Adam don't understand the Gospel. As Jesus said, 'how can you believe in Him, when you don't believe Moses?'

 

[6days]

Suns, moons, planets, and other such things came to be in the creation of the heavens. The Sun was already here when God created this world.

That's not what scripture tells us.

 

[6days]

But I thought the speed of light in the vacuum of space was settled

The 2 way speed is 'settled'. Einstein called The One Way speed a convention because it can't be measured. Also it is not settled if the speed of light was faster in the past. We don't know how fast god spread the Stars. Even some secular astronomers have suggested that the speed of light may have been trillions of times faster in the past.

And God did cause the sun to shine through the clouds which were blocking the sunlight.

That's not what God's Word tells us. See Gen. 1.God made the stars after the earth... opposite of what stellar evolutionists believe.

 

[Lon]

Is radiometric dating still the only science age identification, or main dating means?

 

[George Affleck]

Is radiometric dating still the only science age identification, or main dating means?

No, there's lots of dating sites online.
And you don't have to tune them in on an old style metric radio.

 

[iouae]

The history of science is full of things that were once settled, but later found not to be settled.

Just Google for: the changing speed of light

http://bfy.tw/GE3H

I love the way I clicked on your link, and it was like being in a driverless car.

How did you do that?

But the first Wiki link I clicked on had some really heavy maths which harshed my buzz and the ride.

What Wiki did say in the first paragraph was "A variable speed of light (VSL) is a feature of a family of hypotheses stating that the speed of light in vacuum, usually denoted by c, may in some way not be constant, e.g. varying in space or time, or depending on frequency. A variable speed of light occurs in some situations of classical physics as equivalent formulations of accepted theories, but also in various alternative theories of gravitation and cosmology, many of them non-mainstream."

I stick pretty much to the mainstream science.

 

[George Affleck]

Evolutionists who divorce first Adam from Last Adam don't understand the Gospel.

Truth

 

[iouae]

No, there's lots of dating sites online.
And you don't have to tune them in on an old style metric radio.

Can one meet girls there too?

 

[marhig]

Incorrect.

God experiences time at the same rate we do.

No he doesn't, and we can see this in the Bible. A day to God can be different to our 24 hour days.

John 11

If any man walk in the day, he stumbleth not, because he seeth the light of this world. But if a man walk in the night, he stumbleth, because there is no light in him.

If we walk in the day, we are walking in the light, if we walk in the night we walk in darkness.

And Peter said this

2 peter 3

But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

And don't you think it's strange that the days in Genesis were from the evening to the morning and not morning to evening?

 

[marhig]

There is no one, or not even any cult that says such a thing. (Not that I'm aware of).

So why do you believe that Jesus' natural death saves you?

Sin put Jesus on the cross.

Yes sin, satan through wicked men put Jesus on the cross, not God.

Thanks Marhig. I read your reply twice. But, it seems like you are trying to answer something different from what was asked. I agree, and I think all Christians agree that death does not save. However scripture does Talus that without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sin.The question was "Why couldn't Jesus skip the cross and tell people to just keep sacrificing animals?"

The shedding of the blood is Spiritual not natural, the natural blood that came from Jesus when he died can't save anyone, we are saved by the blood of Christ, the same blood that the Jesus said we must drink to have life in us. And we are to eat his flesh also, this isn't his natural flesh either. It is all spiritual.

John 6

Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me. This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.

And as said before, Jesus forgave sins before he went on the cross, so he didn't have to die to save. He was saving through the gospel by the word of God, through the ministry of reconcilation, and if we truly believe and turn to God when hear the truth, then we will live by the will of God and turn away from this world of sin. We are saved through Christ Jesus by the grace of God through faith.

And Jesus didn't "skip the cross" because the cross was part of the cup that was set before him, and he had to endure whatever was set before him, endure to the end, and overcome Satan and this world. Which he did. And we are saved by the life of Christ, by his life within us, saving us from this world of sin, helping us to overcome the world and the works of the flesh by the power the eternal Holy Spirit.

 

[George Affleck]

I'm arguing that God from the position that He did not create time, because time is only a concept that we use to describe when something occurred. I'm arguing from the position that the future and past don't exist (the past did happen, but no longer exists, and the future hasn't happened yet, nor does it exist), only the present exists, and God is in the present, just like we are.

You need to go further than this and eliminate the present as well. When you use the word "present", it has no meaning except in relation to past and future; it does not stand alone. You need to admit that time is not only a concept but a relative one which breaks down into three mutually dependent propositions. Then you can state that God does not inhabit a concept. But the concept is not "present", it's time.

God "invented" the concept of time in Genesis 1 and created man to understand it and use it as a tool of measurement useful to His ongoing redemptive plan. It's a language of reference and not a dimension. It is the reason we can talk about the flood in the past and heaven in the future. It is a convenience for measuring and understanding the effects of sin, the benefits of righteousness, prophecy and fulfillment, prayer, work, etc.

Time was not created. We were created to understand a concept useful in glorifying Him.

 

[marhig]

Yes, and He specifically stated that He had that authority:

Mark 2 When he returned to Capernaum after some days, it was reported that he was at home. 2 So many gathered around that there was no longer room for them, not even in front of the door; and he was speaking the word to them. 3 Then some people came, bringing to him a paralyzed man, carried by four of them. 4 And when they could not bring him to Jesus because of the crowd, they removed the roof above him; and after having dug through it, they let down the mat on which the paralytic lay. 5 When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, "Son, your sins are forgiven." 6 Now some of the scribes were sitting there, questioning in their hearts, 7 "Why does this fellow speak in this way? It is blasphemy! Who can forgive sins but God alone?" 8 At once Jesus perceived in his spirit that they were discussing these questions among themselves; and he said to them, "Why do you raise such questions in your hearts? 9 Which is easier, to say to the paralytic, "Your sins are forgiven,' or to say, "Stand up and take your mat and walk'? 10 But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins"—he said to the paralytic— 11 "I say to you, stand up, take your mat and go to your home." 12 And he stood up, and immediately took the mat and went out before all of them; so that they were all amazed and glorified God, saying, "We have never seen anything like this!"

6day is under the mistaken impression that Jesus did not have that authority, and that is one reason that he denies what the two creation stories actually say.

He limits the power of Jesus despites the clear declaration of Jesus that He had that authority and proved so with miracles.

Yes Jesus did have the authority, and the power was given to him from the father, Jesus said, as he prayed to the father in John 17 "you have given me power over all flesh"

And there's the centurion, he knew that Jesus had authority he said this

Matthew 8

The centurion answered and said, Lord, I am not worthy that thou shouldest come under my roof: but speak the word only, and my servant shall be healed.

For I am a man under authority, having soldiers under me: and I say to this man, Go, and he goeth; and to another, Come, and he cometh; and to my servant, Do this, and he doeth it.

He knew that Jesus had the authority to just say the word and his servant would be healed. But that authority comes from the father and is given to the son.

 

[George Affleck]

But the first Wiki link I clicked on had some really heavy maths which harshed my buzz and the ride.

I stick pretty much to the mainstream science.

"harshed my buzz"!? :darwinsm:

So, by mainstream you mean goin' with the flow?

 

[Greg Jennings]

Thanks for the rewording. :up:

Simple answer: They are found together.

Can you provide an example?

 

[iouae]

"harshed my buzz"!? :darwinsm:

So, by mainstream you mean goin' with the flow?

Yes, avoiding the reeds, swamps and backwaters where 6days spends so much time. I prefer the channels well travelled by reputable scientists.

 

[Greg Jennings]

See, you are moving the goal post. This wasn't the first find of a dinosaur in a mammal or vice versa. Point? You asked for a broad finding and one is readily available. You, yourself, agreed.

I asked for specific mammals - ones bigger than a small rodent - and I haven't been provided that by anyone.

Lon, I don't see you as an irrational person. Doesn't it bother you a bit (since you believe Dinos lived with all other creatures at the same point in time) that we see humans alongside ALL of the creatures I mentioned, but not one alongside a dinosaur? Or none of the creatures I mentioned alongside a dinosaur? Why would dinosaurs mysteriously be found only with other dinosaurs and small extinct rodents?

 

[JudgeRightly]

No he doesn't, and we can see this in the Bible. A day to God can be different to our 24 hour days.

Not what scripture says.

John 11

If any man walk in the day, he stumbleth not, because he seeth the light of this world. But if a man walk in the night, he stumbleth, because there is no light in him.

If we walk in the day, we are walking in the light, if we walk in the night we walk in darkness.

Duh. But what does that have to do with God experiencing time differently?

And Peter said this

2 peter 3

But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

Ripping a verse out of context is a surefire way of misinterpreting it, and ascribing meaning to it that it does not have.

Here, let's read the verse in context, specifically focusing on the following verse.

Beloved, I now write to you this second epistle (in both of which I stir up your pure minds by way of reminder), that you may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us, the apostles of the Lord and Savior, knowing this first: that scoffers will come in the last days, walking according to their own lusts, 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 creation.” For this they willfully forget: that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of water and in the water, by which the world that then existed perished, being flooded with water. But the heavens and the earth which are now preserved by the same word, are reserved for fire until the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men. But, beloved, do not forget this one thing, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance. - 2 Peter 3:1-9 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2Peter3:1-9&version=KJ21

Verse 8 isn't saying God is outside of time.

"One day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day" is a figure of speech (called a simile, ever heard of those?) that means God is patient and extraordinarily capable, as evidenced by the very next verse: "The Lord . . . is longsuffering toward us".

From Kgov:

"...with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day" (2 Pet. 3:8). Rather than implying that God is outside of time, the passage means that God is patient, and extraordinarily capable. He is patient, as stated in the very next verse, that God "is longsuffering toward us" (2 Pet. 3:9), for God is love, and love is patient. God has wonderful qualities that can only be had if He exists in time, including patience, being slow to anger, and hope. If God were outside of time He Himself could not even exhibit the fruit of the Spirit (Gal. 5:22) nor love (1 Cor. 13:4-7). If atemporal, He could not have expectation or hope, but He does have expectations (e.g., Isa. 5:1-4) and He is a God of hope (Rom. 15:13). The "thousand years" passage shows that God is extraordinarily capable and can do in a single day what men may think would take eons. It is not that God is able to do anything, for He can only do that which is doable. Regardless of how much time was available, He could not make another God just like Himself, nor could He make it a virtue to worship the devil. These are logical and moral impossibilities, and God is good, and rational. For He is truth. On the other hand, a thousand years are not as one day to those of us living on this Earth, because we face death, and we have severe limits to what we can accomplish in a day. (Although in a brief moment we can gain eternal life, by trusting in Jesus Christ.) Consider one example though of what God can do in a single day. Eleven times the Bible says that God stretched out the heavens. Looking at the stars then, it appears that the light of the universe has been traveling for eons, yet God stretched out the heavens in a single day (Gen. 1:14-19). In fact, it was on a Wednesday.

And don't you think it's strange that the days in Genesis were from the evening to the morning and not morning to evening?

Nope. Not at all. God didn't create at night. He created during the day. And the evening and the morning were the [insert ordinal here] day.

It's basically saying that God created during the day, and the evening and the morning ended that day, and brought around the next.

 

[JudgeRightly]

You need to go further than this and eliminate the present as well. When you use the word "present", it has no meaning except in relation to past and future; it does not stand alone. You need to admit that time is not only a concept but a relative one which breaks down into three mutually dependent propositions. Then you can state that God does not inhabit a concept. But the concept is not "present", it's time.

God "invented" the concept of time in Genesis 1 and created man to understand it and use it as a tool of measurement useful to His ongoing redemptive plan. It's a language of reference and not a dimension. It is the reason we can talk about the flood in the past and heaven in the future. It is a convenience for measuring and understanding the effects of sin, the benefits of righteousness, prophecy and fulfillment, prayer, work, etc.

Time was not created. We were created to understand a concept useful in glorifying Him.

Good point.

 

[Stripe]

Can you provide an example?

First, set a level playing field. What conditions are used to separate dinos from other things?