- This topic has 2,076 replies, 12 voices, and was last updated 2 years, 2 months ago by
.
- Posts
LU: Mike,
You said: but where did the water come from?
Perhaps this river of the water of life supplied the water that covered the earth.
We’re just moving the problem further into the past. 🙂 And what was the river of life made FROM? Kathi, I believe that God is the only thing that is from eternity. Do you also believe that? Or do you believe that both God AND water/particles/dust/soil/whatever are from eternity?
My argument is that unless the building blocks of our world were also from eternity along with God, then at some point God had to make some building blocks – and He would have had to make them out of nothing – since the only thing in existence up to that point was God Himself.
What say you?
LU: Regarding COVID, I haven’t partaken of the jab, nor have I had the dreaded virus but most of my family has had it. I don’t believe it is the mark of a beast but I am suspicious of the onset and the agenda. I had a doctor friend die of it. He was brilliant.
I’m so happy you weren’t injected with that untested experimental gene-altering spike-producing code. Keep some Ivermectin on hand in case you catch a bad bout of it.
LU: Btw, I don’t believe that before God said “let there be light” that light didn’t exist. I just believe that it didn’t enter this created realm until that instant.
Why do you believe that? Where was light existing before the creation of the earth? And if it was existing elsewhere, why would God purposely create the earth in a spot where there was no light – just to shine the spotlight in that direction later in the same day? Why not just create the earth where light already was?
Mike: The point was to show you that just because you see an image of a ball earth doesn’t mean the image is a real photograph – and therefore doesn’t prove that we live on a ball.
Proclaimer: Likewise, when I post a photo of kangaroos jumping, that doesn’t prove that Australia exists.
The word “likewise” is the equivalent of you acknowledging my point that an image of a ball doesn’t mean we live on that ball. Thank you.
And I also agree with your point that images don’t prove Australia exists. Here’s the difference: There is a ton of evidence besides images to prove that Australia exists – and nobody has any valid reason to think Australia doesn’t.
On the other hand, there is no actual, bonafide, empirical scientific evidence that we live on a spinning ball orbiting the sun in a vast vacuum – except for those images that we can’t confirm as valid. And there are too many valid reasons to count for believing that the heliocentric model – and outer space in general- is as phony as it gets.
But this discussion is focused on finding out whether the Biblical model of our world and the BIG SCIENCE model of our world align – and if not, which of those models is the truth.
The word “likewise” is the equivalent of you acknowledging my point that an image of a ball doesn’t mean we live on that ball. Thank you.
You catch on fast Mike. Lol. Now listen up.
It also doesn’t mean that the ball doesn’t exist. The same thing applies if I photoshopped a photo of some kangaroos. That wouldn’t mean Australia doesn’t exist.
Clap clap. We have progress.
Comprehend?
It seems that you agree with MY point that an image of a ball doesn’t mean we live on a ball. Clap clap.
Now listen up… In the future, please refrain from posting images of the earth as a ball (with or without volcanoes erupting) as if it proves we live on a ball – because, as we both agree, it clearly doesn’t. Comprehend?
In return I promise to never post an image of the earth as a ball to prove that we don’t live on a ball. 🙄🤣
I’ll get to your other responses soon.
It seems that you agree with MY point that an image of a ball doesn’t mean we live on a ball. Clap clap.
Dude, a two year old knows that.
What you do not seem to comprehend is that photoshopping an image doesn’t mean the place you took the photo is fake.
I have a couple of photo websites and have enhanced nearly all the photos. (Yes they are photoshopped because they have to be). In many cases, it was done to make the photos more real. I mostly used the saturation tool which sometimes is lost when you take the photo.
As for satellites, they are not high enough to see the whole blue marble. But they cover the marble so you simply stitch the photos together. Comprehendo or is this too complicated?
Now listen up… In the future, please refrain from posting images of the earth as a ball (with or without volcanoes erupting) as if it proves we live on a ball – because, as we both agree, it clearly doesn’t. Comprehend?
In return I promise to never post an image of the earth as a ball to prove that we don’t live on a ball.
Lol. You want photo evidence removed. So when we send up objects into space, we cannot admit these photos as evidence because they show the ball, the curve, and never show the edge of the disc. It favors the globe 100%, therefore you need this unfair advantage to just be deleted. Got it. Makes perfect sense. Bwahahaha!
But does this include photos you say are impossible on a curved earth?
So we are stuck with what we only observe and if we take a photo, then that is non-admissible. Dang!
So I am allowed to say I saw the curve, but cannot show the photo.
Likewise, you go to the Antarctica. Penetrate the 10,000 boat army undetected. Scale the ice wall without falling. Walk further out on the ice sheet and battle through 1500 angry penguins. Reach the edge of the disc. Take a photo, but you cannot submit a photo or video because Photoshop.
Yeah right.
Mike, if I don’t think that Australia exists and others are not allowed to show photos, videos, or audios, then what?
Let’s imagine that getting to Australia was as hard as getting to the moon.
Then I guess that Australia wouldn’t exist because there would be no proof.
Lol. #5yearoldmentality
Hi Mike,
YOU: Hi Carmel,
Job 38:7 doesn’t say the morning stars and the sons of God MADE the earth.
OK Mike,
So if we take what it says literally we can conclude that the morning stars and the sons of God simply watched God creating the world RIGHT?
SO THEY NEVER PARTICIPATED AT ALL IN CREATION!
GOD, INVISIBLE AND MYSTERIOUS SIMPLY CREATED THE WORLD OUT OF NOTHING IN FRONT OF THE MORNING STARS AND THE SONS OF GOD, CAN YOU IMAGINE THIS?
GOD CREATED FIRST THE HEAVENLY REALMS AS WATCHERS, AND THEN THEY SAID
WOW!!! WHAT A GOD?
HE SIMPLY DID THAT TO SHOW HOW GREAT HE IS! NO?
IT WOULDN’T HAVE BEEN MORE OF A GOOD GOD RATHER THAN GREAT IF HE FIRST CREATED THE WORLD AND THEN THE HEAVENLY REALMS AFTERWARD IN ORDER TO HAVE A PLACE READY FOR THEM TO ADMINISTER AS HE DID IN GENESIS 1 WHEN HE CREATED EVERYTHING BEFORE HE CREATED ADAM?
Now, according to you, literally speaking, as soon as God in a twinkling of an eye did all that
the morning star ONLY,
were stunned and praised God, “TOGETHER” while ALL the sons of God ONLY,
were simply likewise stunned and made a joyful MELODY?
IS THAT RIGHT Mike?
NOW DON’T YOU THINK THAT THAT VERSE IS NOT MEANT TO BE LITERALLY ONLY, BUT THERE’S ALSO BEHIND IT A MESSAGE HIDDEN?
FOR INSTANCE, CAN YOU TELL ME HOW MANY MORNING STARS ARE MENTIONED THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE SCRIPTURE AND WHY ONLY THE MORNING STARS PRAISED GOD “TOGETHER”?
THE SONS OF GOD WERE NOT ALSO “TOGETHER” WHEN THEY MADE A JOYFUL “MELODY”?
AREN’T THE MORING STARS ALSO SONS OF GOD? AND MADE ALSO A JOYFUL MELODY?
THE FACT THAT IT SAYS “ALL”
WHAT ARE THEY IF THEY ARE NOT SONS OF GOD?
WHAT ACTUALLY IS THE TRUE MEANING BEHIND THE WORD
“TOGETHER”
THEY NEVER REMAINED TOGETHER AT A CERTAIN MOMENT IN TIME AFTER GOD CREATED THE WORLD?
THE FACT THAT GOD SAID SO ONLY WHEN HE MENTIONED THE MORNING STARS?
WHAT IS BEHIND THE PHRASE:
“MADE A JOYFUL MELODY”
HOW DID ALL THE SONS OF GOD, INCLUDING ALSO THE MORNING STARS,
MAKE THIS JOYFUL MELODY?
IN WHAT MANNER?
WHAT IS BEHIND THE WORD
“MELODY”? IF WE DON’T TAKE IT ONLY LITERALLY?
COULDN’T IT BE BY ANY CHANCE
THE ACTUAL WORLD?
THE VERY FIRST EVER WORLD WHICH HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH
OUR WORLD?
SINCE IT WAS IN GOD’S FULL HARMONY? NOT BETWEEN GOOD AND EVIL?
CREATED WITHIN A FULLY LUMINOUS INFINITE EXISTENCE,
SINCE GOD IS LIGHT
WHERE THE SUN WAS NOT EVEN IN THE MIND OF ALL THE HEAVENLY REALMS?
THE FACT THAT
THE MORNING STAR LUCIFER!!!
THE BEGINNING WAS
THE CARRIER OF LIGHT,
THE LIGHT BRINGER?
Peace and love in Jesus Christ
THE BRIGHT MORNING STAR
Mike: It seems that you agree with MY point that an image of a ball doesn’t mean we live on a ball.
Proclaimer: Dude, a two year old knows that.
Mike: In the future, please refrain from posting images of the earth as a ball (with or without volcanoes erupting) as if it proves we live on a ball – because, as we both agree, it clearly doesn’t.
Proclaimer: Lol. You want photo evidence removed…
I see. So you want to keep using images of a ball earth as if they are evidence – despite acknowledging that even a two year old knows that they aren’t? Got it.
Let’s get back to the Bible…
Mike: I was hoping you’d accept the water world account because it’s the account that GOD gave us.
Proclaimer: Already accepted. God created all the land the terrafirma / rocks / dirt / however you want to explain it. That which is below our feet. It seems that all of that was covered in water and the Spirit of God hovered over the deep. The land which was submerged emerged above water when that water receded. Could have been freezing water at the poles…Okay, I understand that you and Gene believe that God created the “terra firma” part of the earth in the beginning, and the terra firma part was simply underwater. Let me address this…
1. You did not arrive at that understanding from anything written in the Bible. You have that understanding simply because BIG SCIENCE does not allow for a heaven and earth formed entirely from water as their primary building blocks.
2. A straightforward reading of Genesis 1:1-2 makes it clear that both the heaven AND the earth were initially comprised of nothing but water.
3. A straightforward reading of 2 Peter 3:5-6 offers a second witness to that effect…
5But they deliberately forget that long ago by God’s word the heavens came into being and the earth was formed out of water and by water. 6By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed.
Here we have a second scriptural witness that not only was God’s word all that was needed to bring the heaven and the earth into existence (as opposed to being formed from some “eternal elements” that have existed as long as God has), but that the waters from which the earth was formed are the same exact waters that flooded the earth in Noah’s day. And we are told in Genesis 7:11 what that water was, and where it came from…
7In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life… all the fountains of the great deep were broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.
So not an unfreezing of polar ice caps. And not an expansion of the waters that made up the normal oceans of Noah’s day. This water came from below the earth, and through the windows of heaven.
The scriptures testify against your (and Gene’s) “terra firma was simply underwater” explanation, but it gets worse…
The Bible says that the terra firma parts of earth appeared before God created the stars. BIG SCIENCE says that the terra firma parts of earth were formed from elements that were produced by stars.
This is another clear contradiction between the Bible and BIG SCIENCE. Which account is the truth?
Mike: Now it should be clear to anyone that this decades old BIG SCIENCE account doesn’t align with the Biblical account, right?
Adam: Yes this is what I am also questioning here. Which one is correct?The Bible is the correct account… on EVERYTHING. But as you can see and attest, it is very hard to get people who believe in both BIG SCIENCE and the Bible to even acknowledge that there are any contradictions. They go out of their way to purposely misunderstand the obvious meaning of many scriptures in their attempt to align dark with light. They forget that the two have no fellowship according to Jesus.
Carmel: So if we take what it says literally we can conclude that the morning stars and the sons of God simply watched God creating the world RIGHT?
SO THEY NEVER PARTICIPATED AT ALL IN CREATION!
This commentary on Genesis 1:26 (“Let us make man in our image…”) is from the 25 Trinitarian scholars who produced the NET Bible…
In its ancient Israelite context the plural is most naturally understood as referring to God and his heavenly court (see 1 Kgs 22:19-22; Job 1:6-12; 2:1-6; Isa 6:1-8). The most well-known members of this court are God’s messengers, or angels. In Gen 3:5 the serpent may refer to this group as “gods.” If this is the case, God invites the heavenly court to participate in the creation of humankind (perhaps in the role of offering praise, see Job 38:7), but he himself is the one who does the actual creative work (v. 27).
https://classic.net.bible.org/verse.php?book=Gen&chapter=1&verse=26
Offering praise could be considered participating. This is also how Jesus described his own participation in God’s creation in Proverbs 8:22-31. And Jesus is the brightest of all the morning stars, right?
But we aren’t told everything, Carmel. Perhaps God allowed His sons to offer suggestions too as part of their participation. For example, maybe one of them suggested that God make a four-legged creature with a very long neck, and God obliged by creating the giraffe. Who knows?
Gene: So your false “assumptions” that “all” the scientific communities doesn’t believe in a Creator is false.
I never said any such thing, Gene. In fact I’ve been learning science from Godly organizations like Answers in Genesis and Creation Ministries International for years. But there is a big difference between these organizations and BIG SCIENCE. Gene, BIG SCIENCE isn’t “science” at all. It’s scientism. It’s a cult where you either toe the anti-God line or your papers don’t get accepted into the fancy peer-reviewed publications.
For example, here’s a short article on how the Bible clearly contradicts the “millions of years” that BIG SCIENCE applies to our world…
But the bottom line is simple, Gene… you either believe the BIBLE that the earth is about 6000 years old – or you believe BIG SCIENCE that the earth is 14 billion years old. Only one of them is true – and try as you might, you’ll never be able to twist the scriptures enough to make them align. But more on that later. Right now there is a question waiting for your answer three posts above this one.
1. You did not arrive at that understanding from anything written in the Bible. You have that understanding simply because BIG SCIENCE does not allow for a heaven and earth formed entirely from water as their primary building blocks.
Wrong! The bible clearly states that God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was void. Then he got to work terraforming the planet. He hovered over the deep / waters. From there he separated night and day and sea and land.
The fact that science thinks the earth was an ocean world is a recent development. The bible said this thousands of years ago
The Bible is the correct account… on EVERYTHING. But as you can see and attest, it is very hard to get people who believe in both BIG SCIENCE and the Bible to even acknowledge that there are any contradictions.
I’ve found the opposite. People think science has disproved the bible and God. In actual fact the two agree more than you believe. The complication with science is that it is in a continual process of investigation. On the other side, the problem is with chritians who are determined to read biblical accounts incorrectly.
The scientific method and other scientific breakthroughs came from great men of God. If course lots of deceivers and fools will unconsciously try and destroy that. The flat earth is part of that plan if you can call it that.
Satan hates truth and it can be discovered or revealed. Science discovered elements and DNA and through math, 1 + 1 = 2. These are true, but not directly taught in scripture. Revelation also leads to truth. Creation shows us there is a God and God reveals his existence to us personally when he intervenes in our lives.
I love God and science is one way to understand him more.
Yes there are atheist scientists who have a lot of power and do not allow the bible as evidence. So what. Science is not faith. Yet it still arrives at God, given the fine tuning of the universe that they have discovered. Yet, if they hate God, they are free to not give him the glory. That is a personal decision made by each scientist, but many still have faith.
Be a truth seeker and you will love God and science. But if you want to be ignorant, then hate one of those or both.
But let revelation be revelation and science be science. To a reasonable man, they will agree when both have arrived at a truth.
Truth will be no matter what.
Only one of them is true – and try as you might, you’ll never be able to twist the scriptures enough to make them align
Hi Mike
God through Jesus Christ CREATED EVERYTHING (as far as our earth is concerned) in SIX DAYS of 24 hours, and he rested on the seventh day.
Do You agree?
Genesis 2
Thus were finished the heavens and the earth, and all their host.
2:2 On the seventh day God finished his work which he had made: and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.
2:3 God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it, because on that day he rested from all his work which he had created by doing it.
But the bottom line is simple, Gene… you either believe the BIBLE that the earth is about 6000 years old – or you believe BIG SCIENCE that the earth is 14 billion years old. Only one of them is true – and try as you might, you’ll never be able to twist the scriptures enough to make them align. But more on that later. Right now there is a question waiting for your answer three posts above this one.
This is the reality of the matter. Many Christians want to align them both and fail miserably.
‘Yom’ is the Hebrew word for day but it does have varying meanings.
It can be a 24 hour period. Or can be the 12 hours or so of daylight as opposed to night. I just think of day as a stage that depends on the context. I might say that back in my mothers day, they didn’t have the internet. That context obviously means a time period.Two things you need to consider.
- Why would a strict 12 or 24 hour period be used before there is even a sun by which we derive our 24 hour cycles from? We know that God is not constrained by time parameters dictated by his own laws and creation. We have already been taught this when it says that one day is as a thousand years and a thousand years as one day. It seems that many assume that God is subject to his own creation.
- In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. So the universe already exists before the day accounts even start. When you understand that, the days are then more about terraforming earth into a habitable place than the act of creating them from nothing.
To recap, we read in Genesis 1, that God called the cosmos into existence. Then the rest of Genesis is an account of making that formless and void earth a habitable planet.
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep.
The first verse is not subject to any time constraints whatsoever and the second verse tells us the state of the earth before his Spirit moves across the waters and starts his work. But that doesn’t stop fools making a hash of interpreting Genesis, so Atheists can continue to write off the bible as a book for fools.
Go into all the world and discredit your faith so you cannot make disciples.
Hi Proclaimer
In the end, WHAT do you believe in?
I BELIEVE THAT THE DAYS MENTIONED IN GENESIS 1 INCLUDE 24-HOUR DAYS, LIKE WE HAVE NOW.
And I believe that is THE TRUTH.
That is assuming too much.
I can agree that there are 6 stages and the 7th is when God rested from his work.
It could be 6 literal 24 hour periods, but it may not be either.
While a virtual world for example could be created in 6 literal days, and an AI looking from inside may come to the conclusion that is impossible for that time period, we know it is possible because the creator is outside his own creation and not subject to the laws and timing from within that world. I think the real world is conceptually similar. There is a creator outside the universe who is not subject to his own laws and thus, can do anything. Who knows what he could accomplish in a 24 hour period.
That said, I do not think it is 6 literal days but 6 stages. But I only agree it is possible if you start with the heavens and earth already created as it says in Genesis 1:1. And the days being the stages of the earth preparing the way for life. I happen to think each stage took a very long time. But to God, that is nothing. Time is nothing to him. A day to him can be a very long time and a very long time can be a day.
As Christians, I think it is not wise to alienate many other people over a personal view you might hold about the time period required. Because of science, many think your view is foolish. But even if it were right, why alienate your faith from others by making such demands that we believe this view when it is not a requirement? Jesus never taught this requirement.
Be wise. Accept that it could be or it might not be. Science say it isn’t and it could be right and Genesis could agree with that. You just need to drop the Sunday school class that taught you that and read what it actually says. I just wish people would be more wise than they are. Putting stumbling blocks in people’s way for no good reason.
The bible in no way is telling us that we need to believe that God created the whole universe in 6000 years. That is ridiculous man. Read it properly. God created the heavens and the earth. Then read what God did in 6 stages after that. Yes, you are entitled to your view, I just ask that you read the scriptures correctly and do not make it a requirement for truth because we are not taught to do this by anyone prophet, nor the messiah. Further, it is arrogant to assume too much and turns people off the faith by laying a stumbling block.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
