DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
Renewable Revolution
HTML https://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Sound Christian Doctrine
*****************************************************
#Post#: 441--------------------------------------------------
Intelligent Design
By: AGelbert Date: November 24, 2013, 10:38 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
2 Peter 3:8—‘one day is like a thousand years’
by Jonathan Sarfati
[quote]This is the pre-publication version which was
subsequently revised to appear in Creation 31(4):16.
Question: Doesn’t 2 Peter 3:8 indicate that the days of creation
might not be literal, but thousands of years long?
Answer: 2 Peter 3:8–9 reads:
‘But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a
day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a
day. The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some
understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone
to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.’
The first thing to note that the context has nothing to do with
the days of creation.
HTML http://www.coh2.org/images/Smileys/huhsign.gif
Also, it is not
defining a day because it doesn’t say ‘a day is a thousand
years’. The correct understanding is derived from the context
???—the Apostle Peter’s readers should not lose heart because
God seems slow at fulfilling His promises because He is patient,
and also because He is not bound by time as we are.
The text says ‘one day is like [or as] a thousand years’—the
word ‘like’ (or ‘as’) shows that it is a figure of speech,
called a simile, to teach that God is outside of time (because
He is the Creator of time itself). In fact, the figure of speech
is so effective in its intended aim precisely because the day is
literal and contrasts so vividly with 1000 years—to the eternal
Creator of time, a short period of time and a long period of
time may as well be the same.
HTML http://www.freesmileys.org/emoticons/tuzki-bunnys/tuzki-bunny-emoticon-026.gif
The fact that the passage is actually contrasting a short and
long period can be shown by the fact that Peter is quoting Psalm
90:4 (Peter’s statement ‘do not forget’ implies that his readers
were expected to recall something, and this passage has this
very teaching). This reads:
‘For a thousand years in your sight are like a day that has just
gone by, or like a watch in the night.’
This is synonymous parallelism, ::) where a long period of a
thousand years is contrasted with two short periods: a day, and
a night watch. But those who try to use this verse to teach
that the days of Genesis might be 1000 years long forget the
additional part in bold. For if they were consistent, they would
have to say that a watch in the night here also means 1000
years. It’s difficult to imagine that a Psalmist (Psalm 63:6) is
thinking on his bed for thousands of years or that his eyes stay
open for thousands of years (Psalm 119:148). :P
The immediate context of the Psalm is the frailty of mere mortal
man in comparison to God. This verse amplifies the teaching,
saying that no matter how long a time interval is from man’s
time-bound perspective, it’s like a twinkling of an eye from
God’s eternal perspective.
In any case, the meaning of ‘day’ in Genesis 1 is defined by the
context there—the Hebrew word for day, yōm יום
, is used with the words ‘evening’ and ‘morning’, and the days
are numbered (first day, second day, etc.). Whenever yōm is used
in such a context, it is always an ordinary day, never a long
period of time. The meaning of the days of creation as ordinary
days is also affirmed by Exodus 20:8–11, where God told the
Israelites to work for six days and rest on the seventh because
God had made all things in six days and rested on the seventh.
HTML http://www.smileyvault.com/albums/stock/thumb_smiley-sign0105.gif
For more information, see other articles in Q&A: Genesis under
‘Days of Creation’.
(Available in Russian)
Related Articles
Distant starlight and the days of Genesis 1
Further Reading
Creation at the academy
Creation and Change" href="/book-review-creation-and-change"
abp="524"Book review: Creation and Change
HTML http://creation.com/2-peter-38-one-day-is-like-a-thousand-years[/quote]
Agelbert Comment:
I am a Christian. I disagree with your 6 literal day
interpretation of Creation.
I agree with 2 Peter 3:8–9. I realize Peter was urging patience
but that doesn't mean he had forgotten what the length of a 24
hour day is or the tremendous difference with one thousand
years.
I read your article by Jonathan Sarfati. His claim that Peter's
words were out of context in regard to Creation, "The first
thing to note that the context has nothing to do with the days
of creation." is an interpretation known as Procrustean Bed
logic. When a Scripture passage has the expression, "To this
Day", you, of course, are not talking about the year 2013 in
regard to whatever was being discussed, are you?
Jonathan wants to take the words of Moses, inspired by the Holy
Spirit about Creation, literally but refuses to do so for
Peter's words, inspired by the same Holy Spirit, because "as"
is a simile? I'm sorry, that is an interpretation that I cannot
agree with.
I agree, as a Christian, that God Created us intact, there is no
evolution and we were Created less than a few hundred thousand
years ago. I believe this because of all the accurate scientific
data you have provided about radioisotope dating techniques.
That said, the radiocarbon-14 dating of Egyptian mummies gives
us a pretty accurate metric for gaging and confirming the
accuracy of C-14 dating. All the other dating methods look
severely flawed. But the ice man from the alps is about 6,000
years old and I really think we were around for quite a while
before that.
I think you should go where the science leads you because, after
all, God is the author of all truth and all science. Don't box
yourself into a Procrustean Bed. You do not need a six literal
day interpretation of Creation to confirm the inerrancy of God's
word.
#Post#: 450--------------------------------------------------
Re: Intelligent Design
By: AGelbert Date: November 25, 2013, 9:10 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Sarfati responds
But you can't derive from God's word anything other than that He
created about 6,000 years ago. Instead you use fallible ‘dating’
methods to override the clear
HTML http://www.coh2.org/images/Smileys/huhsign.gif
teachings.
It's not ‘my’ interpretation that Peter is using a simile; it's
the grammatical-historical or originalist interpretation of the
text.
Also, as explained, Peter did not have creation week in view.
Exodus 20:8–11 did, [img width=140
height=080]
HTML http://drphilyerboots.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/cherry-picking.jpg[/img]
and<br
/>there is no doubt that the creation days were the same length
as
that of the working week. Indeed, why not instead use Jesus'
words “Are there not twelve hours in the day?” (John 11:9)
because at least this is the same kind of day as in Genesis 1:5.
[img width=140
height=080]
HTML http://drphilyerboots.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/cherry-picking.jpg[/img]
Also note that “to this day” is yet another contrast with the
Creation Days, which had both evening + morning and a number.
HTML http://www.coh2.org/images/Smileys/huhsign.gif
HTML http://creation.com/gods-days
#Post#: 451--------------------------------------------------
Re: Intelligent Design
By: AGelbert Date: November 25, 2013, 9:42 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you for posting my comment. Dr. Jonathan's reply evaded
the answer by appealing to the interpretation that Genesis is
literal and other portions of the Scripture are not. Like
typology and Dispensationalism, that too is more interpretation
references used as authority to cherry pick what is literal and
what is not.
Dr. Jonathan's claim that Peter was not thinking about creation
is an interpretation, not a fact.
Furthermore his fixation on the Exodus passage as giving weight
and credence to the Genesis "day" length (work six days and rest
on the Sabbath) lacks Scriptural weight. Why? As the Apostle
Paul makes quite clear in Galatians, the entire purpose of the
giving of the Law was to expose the futility of attempting to
obey it. The Ten Commandments and all the multiple laws and
regulations in Leviticus and Deuteronomy as well as Exodus are
an ADJUSTMENT by God for man's stubborn and stiff necked nature,
certainly not a period to look upon with admiration and
affirmation of the Genesis 6 "day" literal interpretation.
Exodus marks the acts of a graceful God and a willful and
disobedient people. Only when Christ finally came and told them
in no uncertain terms that the bottom line is Loving Your
Neighbor As Yourself and dying for our sins were we out of
danger of perdition.
I could make a case for arguing that since we are urged to "pray
without ceasing" and to evangelize "in season and out of it"
that the traditions and rigidity associated with Jewish laws and
customs are, like the path to hell, covered with good intentions
but not a source of spiritual growth. ;D I won't because only
God can do anything at all 24 hours a day.
The Holy Spirit knows this so nobody should attempt to put a
guilt trip on Christians because they don't literally "pray
without ceasing". Others might jump in and interpret that phrase
to mean being in a state of grace. But then we are back at the
interpretation minefield that is often the Devil's workshop.
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-311013201314.png
Back to God, the Creator of this universe and time also. What do
you suppose He was doing between those Genesis "days"? Or do you
believe one 12 hour "day" was followed by the next one with no
"watch" or "night". ???
Of course Almighty God knew the length of a day since He is the
Creator of time as well as space. But why doesn't Genesis
address what God did each night? He doesn't sleep or need to
sleep. The "morning and evening" are defining a 12 hour DAY.
That is not really debatable.
It is clear in Genesis that, even though there was no light at
all, God Created nothing at all in the dark. Why? Because He did
everything between the "morning and evening", period. And yet we
know darkness was upon the earth until the fourth "day". :o
How do we "know" that? ;D
Dr. Jonathan does not wish to discuss the lamps in the sky
called the sun and moon that were placed there to divide the
day from the night. That is the key to what the length of a day
is as is reaffirmed by Jesus with his "12 hour" comment.
You have written correctly that the early church had no doubts
about the literal length of the days of creation. The Apostle
Peter had no doubts. When he urged patience with his comparison
of a day to a thousand years, he had no knowledge of the 93
million miles we are from the sun, the fact that light takes
about 9 minutes to get here from the sun and such other
unnecessary knowledge required to evangelize and grow the
Christian Church. The Holy Spirit allowed that bit of prose
about a day and one thousand years to remain there because it is
true, not something to be discarded because of the Procrustean
Bed arbitrary 6 literal days of Creation.
Furthermore, since a 24 hour "day" is actually composed of the
12 hour day and the 12 hour "watch" or "night" or whatever one
wishers to call that period when the main lamp (the sun) isn't
visible, you must then ask, if you are literally interpreting
Genesis, if those first six days were 12 hour "days" or 24 hour
"days".
[quote]Genesis 1:4-5
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.[/quote]
So there is a 12 hour day (morning and evening) for the first
"day", there is light and darkness in the universe, but not upon
the earth. Why do I say this?
Because it isn't until some Genesis "days" later that God
actually sets lamps in the sky to divide the day from the night.
[quote]Genesis 1:14-15
14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the
heaven 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 of the heaven to
give light upon the earth: and it[size=14pt] was
so.[/size][/quote]
That means, necessarily, that WASN'T SO prior to the fourth
day. There was LIGHT, but not upon the earth, until the fourth
day.
[quote]Genesis 1:16-19
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.
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 [size=14pt]fourth
day.[/size][/quote]
The sun ("the greater light") did not divide the light from the
darkness upon the earth until the fourth day.
Consequently, the expression, "And the evening and the morning
were the first day." cannot be taken literally as to actual
length of that "morning and evening"..
However, we must take literally the facts of the fourth day
because, to this day, the sun does divide the light from the
darkness. That is not debatable.
There is more that indicates those first three "days" in
particular, were quite lengthy, to put it mildly.
The third "day" is a perfect example.
[quote]Genesis 1:12-13
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.[/quote]
The plant life Created on the third "day" grew, including the
trees, to produce fruit all over the earth during a period when
there was no sunlight upon the earth. Plant life, even before
the mankind's fall from disobedience in the Garden of Eden, was,
and still is, photosynthetic.
Again, God could certainly have miraculously accomplished all
the above in a 12 hour "day" without the existence of the sun,
but God's plan for plant growth argues that the "day" (It is
true that the Hebrew word yom, translated "day," can have a
variety of meanings. By far its most common is a literal day,
but it can mean "age."
HTML http://www.icr.org/article/3228/
) is
more of an "age" (as in at least a thousand years when some dim
light source other than the sun nourished the plant life) than a
12 or 24 hour day.
Your concern with the "slippery slope" of Christians
reinterpreting the Scripture in terms of trying to fit the facts
to the evolutionary Procrustean Bed is quite valid and I support
your efforts to enlighten people as to the folly of the pseudo
scientific claim that we are products of a random universe.
However, by fixating on the words of Moses when God inspired him
to write Genesis and the rest of the Pentateuch as to the length
of those first 6 "days", you are forced to de-emphasize Holy
Spirit Inspired Scripture from the New Testament like that of
the Apostle Peter. That's why I am being such a pest about your
Procrustean Bed logic. ;D That's a slippery slope too. ;)
Your concern that a many thousand year interpretation of the
Genesis Days leads to a loss of Faith is not warranted. Already
you have made great strides in exposing the massive "scientific"
dating technique errors and inaccuracies and how the dates are
cherry picked to defend the multi-million year evolutionists'
view of our existence.
I am concerned that if you actually run into some dating
technique that indicates we are, say, 14,527 years, 2 hours and
47 minutes old on a given date due its established inerrancy in
objects up to 6,000 years old, you will reject the data just as
the evolutionists reject C-14 in diamonds and coal. Unlike the
evolution supporting pseudo scientists, who have a Godless
agenda and will lie and twist the facts to support it,
Christians must follow the truth, period.
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/301.gif
Your Brother in Christ,
A. G. Gelbert
#Post#: 524--------------------------------------------------
Re: Intelligent Design
By: AGelbert Date: December 8, 2013, 6:13 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote]Thank you for your comment (see below) about the article
on creation.com titled Do you really believe God?.
Your objections are answered in detail on creation.com, which
you could find by using the search engine. I suggest you read
the following (but there is much more if you are still not
convinced):
How could the days be literal before the sun was created? and
Six days: really?.
But God's personal commentary on the creation week in Exodus 20
should have been sufficient for you.
Kind regards,
Don Batten[/quote]
This guy above is STUCK on Exodus. It's typical of rigid minded
legalistic tradition worshippers that Jesus Christ and, later
on, the Apostle Paul, railed against. I sent the last message
below today to give them a bit of heartburn. ;D Those silly
stuffed shirts go bonkers when the written words in the bible
are questioned. It seems they are happy with ANY dating method
that shows a 6,000 year old earth (so far they haven't found
one. LOL!) but would immediately reject one that produced any
greater length. That's as agenda laced as the evolutionist true
believers they correctly criticize. Legalism is an old
Luciferian trick. It makes the "in group" look like idiots and
undermines the entire purpose of the Gospel of Jesus Christ in
regard to human relations (the Golden Rule) by harping on
ridiculous, unfollowable rules.
SO-o-o-o, I let them have it when they answered someone who
stated, CORRECTLY, that, as a Christian, he had to accept the
validity of Islam's words of Mohammed claiming he had revelation
from God too. They claimed he could ASSUME the bible was the
INERRANT WORD OF GOD and therefore ISLAM and Mohammed are making
the stuff up!
I also am a Christian and understand the difference between an
assumption and Faith. You are clearly confusing the two. Yes, if
you BELIEVE something, it follows that you will SUBSEQUENTLY
ASSUME it is true, but you are still left in exactly the same
circular logic position as anyone claiming revelation from God.
No the bible does NOT HAVE 100% ACCURACY. The moon (see Genesis)
is not now, or ever was, a LAMP. The MOON produces NO LIGHT, it
reflects solar light, period. And don't try to go to Hebrew for
your own interpretation of the word "lamp". The sun IS a lamp,
and it is ridiculous to put the sun and the moon in the same
category unless you think (erroneously as Moses did) that they
were both about the same size.
Yes, I know you are going to bring up Exodus and the 6 day week,
For what it's worth, Galatians makes it CLEAR that Exodus and
the LAW was a response to a stiff necked, disobedient and
rebellious people; it was given to PROVE TO MAN that he was
incapable of keeping the LAW. Yet you seek to glorify the Law
and the tradition of the six day week and the Sabbath day of
rest as confirmation of Genesis days. You have it exactly
backwards. The 6 day week and Sabbath was made for man, not
because God was confirming Genesis. The rigidness of your
position is testament to the Procrustean Bed logic you refuse to
let go of.
I can see you questioning some new dating method if it proves we
have been here 8 thousand, four hundred and 24 years because it
doesn't jive with your 6,000 year interpretation.
You are on as slippery slope as the evolutionists. They are
wrong but you are wrong as well to fall into your rigid
legalistic, tradition celebrating view of Christianity that
SATAN so LOVES and the Apostle Paul clearly warned against in
Galatians.
I REBUKE YOU!
#Post#: 529--------------------------------------------------
Re: Intelligent Design
By: AGelbert Date: December 9, 2013, 8:47 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
The stuffed shirt legalists respond with standard boiler plate.
It is fascinating in a sick sort of way to see these paragons of
rigidity and closed mindedness ASSUME that I am an Atheist
because I told them that baloney about the sun and moon being
two lamps made on the same day proves that verse is inaccurate
because the moon is NOT a light source (the FOURTH day, no less!
The third day all those plants, trees and foliage grew without
the sun! LOL!).
If their comment space wasn't so limited, I would have explained
that because God is everywhere, He is certainly not going to
perceive the sun and the moon as a couple of LAMPS. Only Moses,
sitting on planet Earth, could get that FALSE impression and
write it down as if God told him to.
I'm certain God guided Moses but not in the writing of Genesis.
That's just an allegory the legalists want to cling to in order
to avoid REAL issues like Loving thy Neighbor and how the
allegedly "Christian" Church has turned its back on the
Commandment Jesus Christ made.
They piss and moan about how Darwin took everybody for a sucker
but fail to notice the established, super rigid and NON
CHRISTIAN behavior of mainline Christian Churches of Darwin's
epoch paved the way for most people to believe a pseudo
scientific charlatan. People SAW the hypocrisy of the wealth
worshipping church and were easily swayed to the evolutionary
tom foolery.
Enjoy the uptight response making ME out to be the bad guy. ;)
[quote]Your original comment:
I also am a Christian and understand the difference between an
assumption and Faith. You are clearly confusing the two. Yes, if
you BELIEVE something, it follows that you will SUSEQUENTLY
ASSUME it is true, but you are still left in exactly the same
circular logic position as anyone claiming revelation from God.
No the bible does NOT HAVE 100% ACCURACY.The moon (see Genesis)
is not now, or ever was, a LAMP. The MOON produces NO LIGHT, it
reflects solar light, period. And don't try to go to Hebrew for
your own interpretation of the word "lamp". The sun IS a lamp,
and it is ridiculous to put the sun and the moon in the same
category unless you think (erroneously as Moses did) that they
were both about the same size.
Yes, I know you are going to bring up Exodus and the 6 day
week, For what it's worth, Galatians makes it CLEAR that Exodus
and the LAW was a response to a stiff necked, disobedient and
rebellious people; it was given to PROVE TO MAN that he was
incapable of keeping the LAW. Yet you seek to glorify the Law
and the tradition of the six day week and the Sabbath day of
rest as confirmation of Genesis days. You have it exactly
backwards. The 6 day week and Sabbath was made for man, not
because God was confirming Genesis. The rigidness of your
position is testament to the Procrustean Bed logic you refuse to
let go off.
I can see you questioning some new dating method if it proves
we have been here 8 thousand, four hundred and 24 years because
it doesn't jive with your 6,000 interpretation.
You are on as slippery slope as the evolutionists. They are
wrong but you are wrong as well to fall into your rigid
legalistic, tradition celebrating view of Christianity that
SATAN so LOVES and the Apostle Paul clearly warned against in
Galatians.
I REBUKE YOU!
I am not publishing your comment because it is not on the topic
of the article.
I started to write a detailed response to your claims, but I
decided against it. The thing that disturbs me about your
message is that you claim to be a Christian, but you sound like
an atheist. I don't know if you're lying about being a
Christian, or whether you simply didn't think very well about
your message.
I would love to hear where you think there is legalism on our
site. If you read articles like the ones I'm going to put below,
you'll see that creation is not just in Genesis and in the Ten
Commandments, but literally woven into the fabric of Scripture.
HTML http://creation.com/genesis-new-testament
HTML http://creation.com/genesis-ot
HTML http://creation.com/yahweh-creator-god-israel
Sincerely,
Lita Cosner
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/gen152.gif
[/quote]
Su-u-u-re you would "love to hear" from me.
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/ugly004.gif
Not ONE WORD about Galatians and the law as to legalism. Not ONE
WORD about the PURPOSE of the LAW (to prove it was impossible to
keep it). No, just that I am supposedly an atheist because I
deny the accuracy of Genesis. What an illogical and hysterical
straw grasping NON-response.
None so blind as those who refuse to THINK, let alone see!
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/301.gif
#Post#: 660--------------------------------------------------
Re: Intelligent Design
By: AGelbert Date: January 5, 2014, 4:42 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Agelbert Gets spanked by 6 day Creationist Whako with CIRCULAR
ILLOGIC!
Agelbert says:
I will make this short because you consistently refuse to argue
point by point about Genesis FLAWS due to the fact that Moses
was sitting on planet earth when he wrote it. God would NEVER
have said those things about the "lamps" in the sky (sun and
moon) from His perspective but never mind that.
It's a waste of time to argue with you. My question is, what
sort of a conundrum will you find yourself in IF the Earth,
forget the rest of what is out there for a moment, is found to
be 140,000 years old along with evidence that no evolution ever
occurred and all life forms here were created in a series of
events after catastrophes like the flood and volcanic eruptions
and meteors in different time periods along those 140,000 years?
Will you just pretend it didn't happen? The bible doesn't tell
people to brush their teeth but science has taught us that it's
a good idea to do so. That proves that TRUTH is the final
authority. The bible does NOT have a monopoly on it as you
claim. Jesus Christ is NOT the Bible. YET, He IS the TRUTH. He
is the cornerstone, not the old testament. The bible has a
purpose but you pretend no other authority is valid if it
contradicts the idea that the sun stood still for an hour or
more? That's just silly.
And that is just one example. I am a 'whatever the age of earth
non-evolutionary hard science comes up with' Christian. Instead
of addressing issues point by point, you point to "we already
answered that" type NON answers or worse, accuse us of being
apostates or atheists! May God have mercy on your willful
rejection of empirical evidence and reveal to you that the
legalistic, pharisaic path you or on is a stumbling block to the
Gospel of Jesus Christ. I don't believe you will print this but
if you do, thank you.
[quote]Gary Bates responds
I will publish your comments on this occasion so that readers
can see for themselves the type of unbiblical arguments that you
continually send to our site. It appears that you must have some
sort of special revelation that God has not seen fit to also
inform us about, moreover, stuff that also contradicts what is
written in His Word.
So, respectfully,
HTML http://www.coh2.org/images/Smileys/huhsign.gif
with such a view
it would be actually impossible to have a reasonable debate with
you because your authority is just whatever you decide to come
up with. As such, we would be arguing past each other.
However, be aware that because of your insults
HTML http://www.coh2.org/images/Smileys/huhsign.gif
and condemning
attitude
HTML http://www.coh2.org/images/Smileys/huhsign.gif
at the
end, this will be the last comment to be posted by you on
creation.com. :icon_mrgreen: BTW we are not obliged to answer
every email point by point so your emotional manipulation with
not gain any traction here. At the time of writing we have over
9,500 free articles on our site as a service to readers that can
also deal with your unbiblical claims.
The onus is upon you. [img width=220
height=120]
HTML http://www.yellowdoggereldemocrat.org/images/20071010_GraspingAtStrawsSign.jpg[/img]
For example, you should probably deal with the reasoning in
articles like Did God create over billions of years?. The only
reason you are trying to argue for long periods of time is
because of secular science, but that shouldn't be surprising
given your low view of Scripture.
[/quote]
Agelbert NOTE: Wasn't that fascinating? Notice how he turned the
140,000 year question into billions of years and branded science
based teeth brushing as a LOW OPINION OF SCRIPTURE. These guys
are a riot! They break the "stuffed shirt" meter readings!
Knocking down their arguments is like shooting fish in a barrel.
That's why they huff and puff and hem and haw about Bible =
AUTHORITY = 100% TRUTH
HTML http://www.smileyvault.com/albums/stock/thumb_smiley-sign0105.gif.<br
/>It's a game of pretense to adhere to truth UNTIL Moses or some
other imaginative fellow in the bible decides the moon and the
sun are both "lamps" because "God" told him so.
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/2rzukw3.gif
HTML http://creation.com/old-earth-no-answer
HTML http://creation.com/old-earth-no-answer
#Post#: 668--------------------------------------------------
Re: Intelligent Design
By: Surly1 Date: January 6, 2014, 5:32 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Fascinating thread, with a predictable result.
Very few people bought into a belief system are willing to go
where the facts lead when the facts collide with an established,
bought-into world view. Little wonder that the Christian
mainline churches are sloughing off into irrelevancy. And I say
this as an ordained elder in the Presbyterian church.
Am sure you saw this--
Billionaire threatens charity donations if Pope continues
support for the poor
HTML http://www.examiner.com/article/billionaire-threatens-charity-donations-if-pope-continues-support-for-the-poor
#Post#: 817--------------------------------------------------
Re: Intelligent Design
By: AGelbert Date: February 27, 2014, 6:07 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Surly,
No, I hadn't read about the Home Depot Hypocrite. What an ARSE
HOLE!
I'm sure the pope is shaking in his boots (NOT!).
These 1%ers are delusional to the point of lunacy in the service
of predatory profit.
But you know, the bible has always taken pains to show that
irrationality of that sort is exactly what results from
rejecting God and embracing greed.
[font=times new roman]
Isaiah 57
20
But the wicked are like the tossing sea,
which cannot rest,
whose waves cast up mire and mud.
21
“There is no peace,” says my God, “for the wicked.”[/font]
Evil behavior doesn't just make people lose all respect for
their fellow man; it drives people insane.
#Post#: 1854--------------------------------------------------
Re: Intelligent Design
By: AGelbert Date: September 9, 2014, 8:31 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
HTML http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s9_o7NGTkJc&feature=player_embedded
This scientist STARTED OUT as an Atheist working for NASA. But
EVIDENCE of Creation changed his mind! ;D
#Post#: 1912--------------------------------------------------
Re: Intelligent Design
By: AGelbert Date: September 22, 2014, 9:58 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
HTML http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v90KVFIIOTA&feature=player_embedded<br
/>
*****************************************************
DIR Next Page