# dinasours explained..



## emtguy (Jun 30, 2010)

Ok first off i never arrgue politics or religion...i have read these postin this forum for some time and never replied but here goes...stay with me, this gets deep and NO i dont have scripture to back this up b/c im to lazy to get up and find exact text but i can if need be...

First off the earth is billion of years old, sceince is correct! The first verse in the bible is " In the beggining God created the heavens and the earth"....does everyone agree?

Now the 2nd verse is " And the earth was without form and void and darkness was upon the face of the deep"

See the major thing is There is no time limit mentioned between the first and 2nd verse. We all take it as it happened right then but it didnt...the earth was here, God just looked down and said let me go clean that place up(in lay terms) and he did....it mighta been 2 million years between creation of earth and the restoration of earth...

See God did not create ANYTHING until the 6th day...the first 5 days he restored things, read your bible. On the 6th day he made GIANT WHALES.

Now if there where no time period between verse one and two why would it take him 5 days to restore the earth..

God also told adam and eve to go replenish the earth....now if nothing was ever here before why would he tell them to REPLINISH the earth instead of plenish the earth....i can get the exact scriptures if ya'll dont beleive me.

Dinasaours and cave men were here on earth, they were just satans attempt at creating himself subjects to worship him, ever notice how all dinasaurs are reptiles? Even the birds!!! What did satan come into the garden as?....A reptile
These creatures had no souls not even the cave men...see satans one goal is to be worshipped and when god through him  out of heaven he tried to create his own subjects...

Now the above paragraph i have no scripture to back this up, its just me putting 2 and 2 together...i think the dinasaurs were here before God decided to come restore the earth...

Now have you ever wandered where the giants came from in the bible...david killed the 5th one left on earth....see he picked up 5 stones from the brook not b/c he thought he was going to miss BUT b/c Goliath had 4 brothers....he got one stone for each of them incase the brothers tried to retaliate!!!!

Did you know " IF " is in the bible 1522 times and every promise God made to us is contingent on us doing something....God does nothing unless we do something...

Ever wana know why jesus didnt reply to pilate at his trial?
Ever wana know why Noah and just his 7 family was saved from the flood?
Ever wana know why the anti-christ will be of middle eastern decent, 33 when he comes onto the world stage 
Ever wana know why of all the lepers Jesus healed that day only one was made whole?
Ever wana know why Jesus had to pray twice to heal ths blind man in bethesida, why did his prayer not work the first time?

I really meant to get deeper into the dinasaur thing but i am getting bored...i just fussed with a fellow today that said the earth was only 6k years old i why i am even typing this...i didnt know everyone really thought that! Sceince is Sceince...i mean i got arrowheads older than that in my living room

oh yeah....the bible does mention dinasaurs one time in one verse, i will have to find it this week if i get time and post it for yall.


----------



## ambush80 (Jun 30, 2010)

emtguy said:


> Ok first off i never arrgue politics or religion...i have read these postin this forum for some time and never replied but here goes...stay with me, this gets deep and NO i dont have scripture to back this up b/c im to lazy to get up and find exact text but i can if need be...
> 
> First off the earth is billion of years old, sceince is correct! The first verse in the bible is " In the beggining God created the heavens and the earth"....does everyone agree?
> 
> ...



AMEN!!!! Preach on!!!!  That's the old time religion that I'm talkin' 'bout.

Why will the anti-Christ be gay?


----------



## emtguy (Jul 1, 2010)

Sorry, was a typo...meant to end that sentence the word stage. Has someone talking in back ground and i typed what i was hearing!! Im a tard

Heres one thought...the bible says the anti christ will be mortally wounded, which means he is killed....ever thought about how he is ressurected...hard to think god would do it and the devil cant create humans with spirits and souls ....i think he will be cloned, sceince will have gotten that far by then...have no proof of this, just my opinion.


----------



## Havana Dude (Jul 1, 2010)

emtguy said:


> First off the earth is billion of years old, sceince is correct! The first verse in the bible is " In the beggining God created the heavens and the earth"....does everyone agree?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



So which is it?


----------



## Madman (Jul 1, 2010)

emtguy said:


> First off the earth is billion of years old, sceince is correct! The first verse in the bible is " In the beggining God created the heavens and the earth"....does everyone agree?



I don't.


----------



## rjcruiser (Jul 1, 2010)

emtguy said:


> First off the earth is billion of years old, sceince is correct! The first verse in the bible is " In the beggining God created the heavens and the earth"....does everyone agree?





Havana Dude said:


> So which is it?





Madman said:


> I don't.



yup...you lost me right there.  I'm with Madman....we don't agree.


----------



## emtguy (Jul 1, 2010)

ok let me rephrase it... the 7 days of creation that we have all heard of  is wrong(he didnt create for 7 days)....he only created on the 5th and 6th day....he could have created the earth 20 billion years before he came and began restoring the earth ( the first 4 days were restoration...the 5 and 6 day he created things...the 7th day he rested) read your bible its in black and white.

There is no time mentioned between verse one and two...ya'll just assume it all happened at once...it didnt!

someone prove me wrong....the first thing he created after he began restoring earth was great whales and that was the 5th day!!!

Dont take a rocket sceintist to figure this out, just someone who can read


----------



## SneekEE (Jul 1, 2010)

EMTGUY are you referin to the Gap Theory?


----------



## emtguy (Jul 1, 2010)

i dont know what its called...i just know there was no time mentioned between verse one and two...coulda been trillions of years


----------



## SneekEE (Jul 2, 2010)

EMTGUY thiss is the Gap Theory......lost the Web page this came from................... . __________________


Genesis 1:1: In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. 
First of all, if you look at the sentence and can believe exactly what it says, then you should come to the conclusion that 'In the beginning "means" at the first'. The beginning here refers to the earth as it was first created. Now, of course you know that there was God before anything and that there were other beings created before the earth of Genesis 1:1. God already had a throne and there were "morning stars" and "sons of God"; Job 38:6,7 Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof; 7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy? 
In the above verses it should be plain to most anyone that God is talking about creating the earth of Genesis 1:1. Notice it had foundations, a corner stone and verse 5 says that a line was stretched upon it. So it was created by design. . __________________

_

OK, we'll go on to the rest of the verse. "In the beginning God created", Since God was there and He always is or the "I am that I am" and had already created the "morning stars" and "sons of God"; Job 38:6,7, He decided to create something else. __________________

Well now let's see what God "created"! 'In the beginning God created the "heaven" and the "earth"'. Now let's see here, this "heaven" couldn't be the "heaven" of Genesis 1:7,8 because there are nineteen "Ands" from Genesis 1:1 when God created the "heaven" and when He said "God called the firmament Heaven. Also this "earth" couldn't be the exact same "earth" of Genesis 1:9 because there's twenty two "Ands" from our first verse in Genesis to verse 9 when God said "let the dry land appear". The "Ands" refer to something new each time it's used, not what already happened. __________________

Here's verse one again. 
Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. __________________

Before we go to verse two, I want you to notice that there's a "period" at the end of verse one. "For you 'ns that has studied English too much, a period is a little dot at the end of a group of words that means to stop because we've done said what we meant to say". __________________

So, if you'd look at verse one again you'd see that God has finished what He intended to do. He created the heaven first and then the earth. God always does stuff right when He does it. __________________

For example; When God created great whales, Gen. 1:21 and this the first time "created" is used since Genesis 1:1. Notice God didn't say in verse 21, "God created great whales And they were a big mass of blubber and then He formed them into whales. __________________

Also, God didn't make man out of the dust of the ground without form and void, did He? Nope, He sure DIDN'T! all right, why would some of you educated folk then think that Gen. 1:1 was just a statement on what God was about to do in the rest of the chapter? __________________

Let's see what verse 2 SAYS now! 
Gen 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. 
(I'm gonna take the first group of words to the second "and" and comment on them.) 
" And the earth was "without form and void" __________________

Since I believe exactly what God says, then He had already created a perfect earth. (see comments above) Something had to happen in order for God's earth to be "without form and void". Since God said in Isa 45:18 that he created the earth not in vain and he formed it to be inhabited, then I believe that something was on the perfect earth before Genesis 1:2.
The only beings it could have been were the morning stars and the sons of God. 
Job 38:4-7 Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding. 5 Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it? 6 Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof; 7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy? __________________

What was the reason for the earth being "without form and void"? 
Well, the only explanation is in Ezekiel 28:11-19 and Isaiah 14:12. To be as brief as possible, in Isaiah 14:12, Lucifer is a son of the morning, (see above "morning stars"). Evidently Lucifer was the head music director up in the third Heaven, (see Ezekiel 28:13), his coverings were musical instruments and the morning stars sang together at the creation of the Earth. He then was put over the Earth of Gen. 1:1 after it was created and he had a throne, Isaiah 14:13; __________________

Isa 14:13 For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: __________________

He was a king over the first earth and he had a throne to sit on until: Ezek. 28:15, till iniquity was found in him. 
The iniquity was that he wanted God's place, Isaiah 14:14 ...I will be like the most High. When that happened God knocked him down and the earth with him and drowned out the whole earth by dropping it from the first Heaven into the "waters", verse two. __________________

Now here is verse two again: 
Gen 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. 
Now we come to the next part of verse two: 
"and darkness was upon the face of the deep." 
We know that the Deep is plainly water by the rest of the verse that says: And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. __________________

Now lets see what 2 Peter says about this catastrophe and notice the context is the "creation", verse 4, NOT Noah's flood! 
Let's go verse by verse in 2 Peter 3:3-7, my comments will be in (parenthesis) 
3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, (These scoffers not only are making fun of the Second Coming, but they don't believe in a gap between Gen. 1:1 and 1:2) 
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. (these scoffers don't believe there's a gap) 
5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, (they want to be ignorant of the fact that the earth was sunk under the water) and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: (Now where else in the bible did the earth "stand out of the water and in the water"? It sure didn't during Noah's flood. During Noah's flood the whole earth was covered with water, NOT sunk down into the water.) 
6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: 
(Here's what happened and it's the only answer to the question; "What was the reason for the earth being "without form and void"? The earth of Gen. 1:1 had to be setting up in the Heaven of Genesis 1:1 and above the top of the "deep"  like a big ball suspended up in Heaven. When Lucifer decided to "be like the most high"; Isaiah 14:14, God let the earth drop from the Heaven of Genesis 1:1 into the Deep verse 2 and it floated a while out of the water and in the water and then sunk down into the deep and it became without form and void and there was darkness all through the deep.) 
7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men. (From the last part of Gen. 1:2 ... "And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters." to Gen. 1:25, God restored the earth and it's inhabitants, then put Mr. and Mrs. Adam on the earth. The earth as it is now will continue until it is destroyed by fire right before the Great White Throne Judgment, Rev. 20:11-15.)


----------



## emtguy (Jul 3, 2010)

ok  2 long for me to read right now


----------



## Israel (Jul 3, 2010)

As for everything...from A to Z that seems to testify against the truth of God...and also from A subprime to Z subprime...

2 Th 2:11
And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: 
That they all might be Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ---- who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.


Does unrighteousness please you?
If so...you have very little time. Use it well to repent.


----------



## emtguy (Jul 4, 2010)

Israel said:


> As for everything...from A to Z that seems to testify against the truth of God...and also from A subprime to Z subprime...
> 
> 2 Th 2:11
> And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
> ...



ummm...what?


----------



## Israel (Jul 4, 2010)

emtguy said:


> ummm...what?


sorry for the confusion the auto censor creates.
Those who receive not the love of the truth are subject to strong delusions...and what do any of us know at all, if we do not know the love of God?

Pigs and wings, and dinosaur bones, 
the prudence of CD's and low interest loans, 
a job and a wife and some kids on their own
the hope from clean x-rays till a plane hits your home.


Unless our hope is the Lord...it's all vain...and deceiving.


----------



## gtparts (Jul 5, 2010)

Israel said:


> As for everything...from A to Z that seems to testify against the truth of God...and also from A subprime to Z subprime...
> 
> 2 Th 2:11
> And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
> ...



I like how the Message puts it.

*The Message (MSG)*
 



 <sup class="versenum" id="en-KJV-en-HCSB-en-MSG-12588">9-12</sup>The  Anarchist's coming is all Satan's work. 

All his power and signs and  miracles are fake, evil sleight of hand that plays to the gallery of  those who hate the truth that could save them. 

And since they're so  obsessed with evil, God rubs their noses in it—gives them what they  want. Since they refuse to trust truth, they're banished to their chosen  world of lies and illusions. 



(The NIV and HSCB are quite similar and much easier for me to grasp the meaning than the KJV.)


Let those who take pleasure in being deceived, be deceived.


Mick was partially correct. "You don't always get what you want..."
And sometimes you do! 

Sometimes you get what you want and not what you need.


----------



## ted_BSR (Jul 5, 2010)

I am OK not knowing how old the earth is.  Science is nothing more than an educated guess.

The scientific method:
1. Formulate a hypothesis (educated guess).
2. Test the hypothesis.
3. Accept or reject the hypothesis.
4. Repeat

Science proves nothing.


----------



## emtguy (Jul 5, 2010)

ted_BSR said:


> I am OK not knowing how old the earth is.  Science is nothing more than an educated guess.
> 
> The scientific method:
> 1. Formulate a hypothesis (educated guess).
> ...



pretty strong statement that sceince proves nothing....you only accept a hypothesis if its true which means the theory was proven which means sceince proved the theory....wouldnt you agree?


----------



## Ronnie T (Jul 5, 2010)

emtguy said:


> pretty strong statement that sceince proves nothing....you only accept a hypothesis if its true which means the theory was proven which means sceince proved the theory....wouldnt you agree?




Here's the problem.    
Many proven hypothesis' have been disproven decade or centuries later.
That's the way it is with hypothesising.


----------



## emtguy (Jul 5, 2010)

yup...but many still stand today

i was just pointing out that saying sceince proves nothing is dumb...i mean come on...didnt sceince prove just last year there was another planet farther than pluto?


----------



## Bottle Hunter (Jul 5, 2010)

ted_BSR said:


> I am OK not knowing how old the earth is.  Science is nothing more than an educated guess.
> 
> The scientific method:
> 1. Formulate a hypothesis (educated guess).
> ...



 ......and I thank you Lord you give me the mind to not be narrow minded and ignorant.


 "Science proves nothing" I can't belive someone could say something like that. Burn any witches latly?


----------



## ted_BSR (Jul 5, 2010)

Bottle Hunter said:


> ......and I thank you Lord you give me the mind to not be narrow minded and ignorant.
> 
> 
> "Science proves nothing" I can't belive someone could say something like that. Burn any witches latly?



I'm a scientist.  It is merely a language used to describe things.  Proof positive does not exist.


----------



## ted_BSR (Jul 5, 2010)

emtguy said:


> yup...but many still stand today
> 
> i was just pointing out that saying sceince proves nothing is dumb...i mean come on...didnt sceince prove just last year there was another planet farther than pluto?



And it also "proved" that Pluto is not a planet.  Which it "proved" was a planet a long time ago.

Thank you for "proving" my point for me.


----------



## ted_BSR (Jul 5, 2010)

emtguy said:


> pretty strong statement that sceince proves nothing....you only accept a hypothesis if its true which means the theory was proven which means sceince proved the theory....wouldnt you agree?



Science has a way of disproving itself.  For many years atoms were "proven" to be the smallest particle in the universe.  Then the discovery of protons, neutrons and electrons disproved what was proven.  Then quarks were discovered.  Science was running out of names, so they were assigned flavors instead.  Now String Theory has replaced the whole idea of sub and sub sub atomic particles.  See the pattern?


----------



## ted_BSR (Jul 5, 2010)

ted_BSR said:


> And it also "proved" that Pluto is not a planet.  Which it "proved" was a planet a long time ago.
> 
> Thank you for "proving" my point for me.



Thought this might help.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/08/060824-pluto-planet.html


----------



## ted_BSR (Jul 5, 2010)

emtguy said:


> pretty strong statement that sceince proves nothing....you only accept a hypothesis if its true which means the theory was proven which means sceince proved the theory....wouldnt you agree?



Incorrect.  You accept the hypothesis if the results of your experiment support it.  Then you repeat.  No mention of "truth" exists in the scientific method.


----------



## emtguy (Jul 5, 2010)

ted_BSR said:


> I'm a scientist.  It is merely a language used to describe things.  Proof positive does not exist.



so  for every action there is a opposite and equal reaction...in the sceince world that is not proof positive?

oil and water dont mix...thats not proof positive?

im really asking this b/c you have mr curious...didnt sceintist,no matter how old or rudementry, come up with these points?

I mean aint it pretty proof positive the world is not flat?

really, im asking b/c u got me confused saying there is no proof positive


----------



## ted_BSR (Jul 5, 2010)

emtguy said:


> so  for every action there is a opposite and equal reaction...in the sceince world that is not proof positive?
> 
> oil and water dont mix...thats not proof positive?
> 
> ...



It used to be common knowledge that the world was flat.  The most fundamental scientific notion is dashed with the latest information.  Truth is far more complicated than science.


----------



## ted_BSR (Jul 5, 2010)

emtguy said:


> oil and water dont mix...thats not proof positive?



emulsification


----------



## emtguy (Jul 6, 2010)

so youre saying nothing in the sceince world or realm is proof positive???? 

sceince has not proven one thing thats always going to be true?

im really intersted in this...please explain in detail the theory.


----------



## emtguy (Jul 6, 2010)

I mean no one has ever seen a dinasaur but couldnt the bones that are in the museums that sceintiest found whenever be proof positive that they did roam the earth???

Im not fussing or arguing, im intrigued by this " there is no such thing as proof positive" statement.

Am i looking at it to shallow with my examples?


----------



## ted_BSR (Jul 6, 2010)

emtguy said:


> I mean no one has ever seen a dinasaur but couldnt the bones that are in the museums that sceintiest found whenever be proof positive that they did roam the earth???
> 
> Im not fussing or arguing, im intrigued by this " there is no such thing as proof positive" statement.
> 
> Am i looking at it to shallow with my examples?



No, your examples are what you have been taught, like many others.  The fact of science is that it does not attempt to prove things.  It is a system of language used to describe things.  By its own definition, it only offers a means to support hypotheses.  Like many scientists I know, you have been mislead about the method and purpose of science.  It is just a manmade system of language and explanation.  The truth (proof positive) is far more elusive.  I do not claim to know the answers, I only know that the truth is beyond science.


----------



## Dominic (Jul 7, 2010)

<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/BDqlwrFupyU&hl=en_US&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/BDqlwrFupyU&hl=en_US&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>


----------



## Bottle Hunter (Jul 7, 2010)

ted_BSR said:


> No, your examples are what you have been taught, like many others.  The fact of science is that it does not attempt to prove things.  It is a system of language used to describe things.  By its own definition, it only offers a means to support hypotheses.  Like many scientists I know, you have been mislead about the method and purpose of science.  It is just a manmade system of language and explanation.  The truth (proof positive) is far more elusive.  I do not claim to know the answers, I only know that the truth is beyond science.



 What? 

 "I'm a scientist" no your not. I don't know who you are, but getting a "Gilbert Chemistry Set" for Christmas when you were 7 does not make you a scientist.


----------



## Randy (Jul 7, 2010)

It is an arguement that continues to tear christians apart and it DOES NOT MATTER.  It has always amazed me that we take Genesis literally yet are very willing to take Revelations metaphorically.  The begining was the begining how ever it happened and the end will be the end how ever it happens.  What matters is what is happening in your life NOW.  Unless you were here in the beging it has nothing to do with your salvation and unless the end comes in our lifetime, it will have nothing to do with your salvation.  Why argue over what has happened or what might happen?  The only important thing is what is happening, well with the exception of the resurrection of Jesus of course.


----------



## dawg2 (Jul 7, 2010)

Randy said:


> It is an arguement that continues to tear christians apart and it DOES NOT MATTER.  It has always amazed me that we take Genesis literally yet are very willing to take Revelations metaphorically.  The begining was the begining how ever it happened and the end will be the end how ever it happens.  What matters is what is happening in your life NOW.  Unless you were here in the beging it has nothing to do with your salvation and unless the end comes in our lifetime, it will have nothing to do with your salvation.  Why argue over what has happened or what might happen?  The only important thing is what is happening, well with the exception of the resurrection of Jesus of course.



Therein lies the problem.


----------



## Inthegarge (Jul 7, 2010)

Let's look at "proof positive".... A hundred years ago certain things were declared by (some) scientist to positively proven. Today, with more information, we know they were not. Evoluation says everything is getting better ( survival of the fittest) but the 2nd Law of Thermo Dynamics says everything is breaking down... It can't be both but both are proclaimed by scientist to be "proof positive". I think Ted gave very good and understandable examples already....

And what right to you have to challenge anyones profession. I take him at his word until proven (there's that word again) otherwise. Scientist come in many different variety's just like Psychologists....RW


----------



## Dominic (Jul 7, 2010)

Inthegarge said:


> Let's look at "proof positive".... A hundred years ago certain things were declared by (some) scientist to positively proven. Today, with more information, we know they were not. Evoluation says everything is getting better ( survival of the fittest) but the 2nd Law of Thermo Dynamics says everything is breaking down... It can't be both but both are proclaimed by scientist to be "proof positive". I think Ted gave very good and understandable examples already....



Evolution and "survival of the fittest" are not the same thing.



Inthegarge said:


> And what right to you have to challenge anyones profession. I take him at his word until proven (there's that word again) otherwise. Scientist come in many different variety's just like Psychologists....RW




He has every right, it's the internet, I could question how many toes you have if I wished.


----------



## Madman (Jul 7, 2010)

Randy said:


> It is an arguement that continues to tear christians apart and it DOES NOT MATTER.



Really?  I don't understand why it would tear Christians apart.  The Holy Scriptures are perfectly clear as to the creation account.



> It has always amazed me that we take Genesis literally yet are very willing to take Revelations metaphorically.



Jesus took Genesis literally why shouldn't I?




> What matters is what is happening in your life NOW.



Good point



> Unless you were here in the begining it has nothing to do with your salvation and unless the end comes in our lifetime, it will have nothing to do with your salvation.  Why argue over what has happened or what might happen?



You will get no argument from me.  I know how it happened because I know someone who was there and He told me how it happened.


----------



## Randy (Jul 7, 2010)

Madman said:


> Really?  I don't understand why it would tear Christians apart.  The Holy Scriptures are perfectly clear as to the creation account.


If it was so perfectly clear we would not be having this discussion now would we?


----------



## Madman (Jul 7, 2010)

Again I will ask "Jesus took Genesis literally why shouldn't I?"

If it was clear to Christ why is it not clear to the rest of Christianity?


----------



## Randy (Jul 7, 2010)

Madman said:


> Again I will ask "Jesus took Genesis literally why shouldn't I?"
> 
> If it was clear to Christ why is it not clear to the rest of Christianity?



what, who says Christ took it literally?  I am not aware of a debate where Christ said "I believe it happened just as Genesis says it did."  As I have said before, I think God told whomever wrote Genesis that we were formed from dirt because had he told him how we were developed from DNA over many thousands of years the guy would have been totally lost.  Same as the metophors in Revelations.  Had God told John about a country named China and Russia and atomic bombs and airplanes and such he would have been lost.

As this thread started off about dinasours.  Had God tried to explain dinasours to the guy who wrote Genesis there would have had to have been a science lesson longer than Genesis.  Again though, christians get hung up over literal interpretations and fight over literal words and miss the whole point of the Bible some time.

Another example is food.  I was brought up with the teaching that the foods that the Bible says not to eat on the Old Law was no longer applicable to us.  Well after having a heart attack and reading about what I shoudl be eating and not eating, it turns out had I followed teh Bible and left all that cloven hoof animals out of my diet, and all those bottom dwelling shellfish out of my diet and stuck with those seeds and fruits and fish, I would have been better off.   I have found, after all my study, that the Bible is a guide and a darn good one as to how we should live our lives, eat, relax (rest on the sabbath is important) and worship.  If we follow it and not try and literally interpret it we will have a better life with better health, greater happiness, less stress, and live longer.


----------



## Madman (Jul 7, 2010)

Randy said:


> what, who says Christ took it literally?  I am not aware of a debate where Christ said "I believe it happened just as Genesis says it did."



 "And He answered and said to them, “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,"  
                    Matthew 19:4

If you don't think that the creation account is important that is fine, but apparently God thought it important enough that He put it in and Christ thought it important enough to reference as a REAL event.

Healthy eating is important but Christ said not to be so concerned with what we eat as to what we are inside.

"Not what goes into the mouth defiles a man; but what comes out of the mouth, this defiles a man.”
Matthew 15:11


----------



## Madman (Jul 7, 2010)

Randy said:


> As this thread started off about dinasours.  Had God tried to explain dinasours to the guy who wrote Genesis there would have had to have been a science lesson longer than Genesis.



Why would God have had to "explain" dinosaurs to "the guy who wrote Genesis" aka Moses?

In the book of Job God mentions them and we don't read anything about Job being bewildered by the description, apparently Job knew what a dinosaur was.

The only Christians who have a problem with Genesis are those who believe in billions of years and death and dying before Adam and Eve.

As I said I have no problem.

Peace


----------



## ted_BSR (Jul 7, 2010)

Bottle Hunter said:


> What?
> 
> "I'm a scientist" no your not. I don't know who you are, but getting a "Gilbert Chemistry Set" for Christmas when you were 7 does not make you a scientist.



That's funny, my diploma and my job title say I am.


----------



## ted_BSR (Jul 7, 2010)

Dominic said:


> <object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/BDqlwrFupyU&hl=en_US&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/BDqlwrFupyU&hl=en_US&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>



ROFLMAO!!!!!

I AM a scientist, but I am also a redneck!!! Love it!!!


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Jul 7, 2010)

Israel said:


> sorry for the confusion the auto censor creates.
> Those who receive not the love of the truth are subject to strong delusions...and what do any of us know at all, if we do not know the love of God?
> 
> Pigs and wings, and dinosaur bones,
> ...


 
emtguy, first off, welcome to the spiritual forum. I always enjoy reading others points of view. Anything that gets us to thinking and studying is worth time well spent. 

That being said, Israels post is very well stated and to the point. What was and what might be is all irrelevant, what is important is that your heart is focused on what shall be.


----------



## ted_BSR (Jul 7, 2010)

Miguel Cervantes said:


> emtguy, first off, welcome to the spiritual forum. I always enjoy reading others points of view. Anything that gets us to thinking and studying is worth time well spent.
> 
> That being said, Israels post is very well stated and to the point. What was and what might be is all irrelevant, what is important is that your heart is focused on what shall be.



Well Said, and well said by Israel.


----------



## Inthegarge (Jul 7, 2010)

Dominic said:


> Evolution and "survival of the fittest" are not the same thing.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Survival of the fittest" is a phrase which is commonly used in contexts other than intended by its first two proponents: British polymath philosopher Herbert Spencer (who coined the term) and Charles Darwin.

Herbert Spencer first used the phrase - after reading Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species - in his Principles of Biology (1864), in which he drew parallels between his own economic theories and Darwin's biological ones, writing “This survival of the fittest, which I have here sought to express in mechanical terms, is that which Mr. Darwin has called 'natural selection', or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life."[1]

Sounds to me like they are same.  Additionally, just because it's the internet, it doesn't give one the "right" to belittle someone else. Where I live a Jacka$$ is still a Jacka$$.....................RW


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Jul 7, 2010)

emtguy,

Been thinkin about your faith in science. Science and math are closely intertwined. One cannot exist without the other. To that point, and relative to theories, one of my favorite Architects was Buckminster Fuller (never really cared for the arrogant overbearing attitude of Frank Lloyd Wright). Mr. Fuller, during a long period of self imposed reflection and going without talking, one day was observing the bubbles washing ashore in the seafoam. It was at that moment that he came up with the idea for the Geodesic Dome. His revelation, as he was a contrary opponent to PI, just as I am, was that PI is not necessary to create a sphere. After all, his reasoning was that surely God did not need PI to create a sphere. 

Even to this day, in my use of AutoCad, there is no finite theorum to create a perfect sphere. AC uses a series of control segments to generate a circle. Mr. Fuller was correct in his observation of God's omnipotence and capitalized on the idea with his own creations.

Theories and Theorums exist only until they are disproven by a greater knowledge and higher understanding. No one has successfully disproven God's existance yet, exept in Theory.


----------



## Dominic (Jul 8, 2010)

Inthegarge said:


> Survival of the fittest" is a phrase which is commonly used in contexts other than intended by its first two proponents: British polymath philosopher Herbert Spencer (who coined the term) and Charles Darwin.
> 
> Herbert Spencer first used the phrase - after reading Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species - in his Principles of Biology (1864), in which he drew parallels between his own economic theories and Darwin's biological ones, writing “This survival of the fittest, which I have here sought to express in mechanical terms, is that which Mr. Darwin has called 'natural selection', or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life."[1]
> 
> Sounds to me like they are same.



Best answer I could find without digging threw old lecture notes



> Evolution and "survival of the fittest" are not the same thing. Evolution refers to the cumulative changes in a population or species through time. "Survival of the fittest" is a popular term that refers to the process of natural selection, a mechanism that drives evolutionary change. Natural selection works by giving individuals who are better adapted to a given set of environmental conditions an advantage over those that are not as well adapted. Survival of the fittest usually makes one think of the biggest, strongest, or smartest individuals being the winners, but in a biological sense, evolutionary fitness refers to the ability to survive and reproduce in a particular environment. Popular interpretations of "survival of the fittest" typically ignore the importance of both reproduction and cooperation. To survive but not pass on one's genes to the next generation is to be biologically unfit. And many organisms are the "fittest" because they cooperate with other organisms, rather than competing with them.




http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/faq/cat01.html


----------



## creation's_cause (Jul 8, 2010)

emtguy said:


> Ok first off i never arrgue politics or religion...i have read these postin this forum for some time and never replied but here goes...stay with me, this gets deep and NO i dont have scripture to back this up b/c im to lazy to get up and find exact text but i can if need be...
> 
> First off the earth is billion of years old, sceince is correct! The first verse in the bible is " In the beggining God created the heavens and the earth"....does everyone agree?
> 
> ...



I don't get on here enough anymore....

It was eluded to earlier....but what God did and in what order would only truly matter if you (emtguy) want a relationship with Him and/or are Saved.  So what is your motive to understand?  Do you desire a (deeper)relationship with our Creator?  Do you believe that the Bible is God's Word, or are you just trying to creep into a Spirtual Discussion forum mascarading as someone who wants to understand the scriptures, but is really an antheist??  I am not judging you either way, just asking, but it does make a huge difference IMHO.

I'll have to say "pass the popcorn" on your origianl post however, and would encourage you to actually read what you are posting about....God Made....God Created on each of the 6 days of the creation according to Gen 1: 1-31.


----------



## wmf196242 (Jul 8, 2010)

the dinosaurs were in the first earth age. we are now in the second earth age. study the bible good it seems you do dont fall for that false rapture doctrine rapture is not in the bible.


----------



## emtguy (Jul 9, 2010)

creation's_cause said:


> I don't get on here enough anymore....
> 
> It was eluded to earlier....but what God did and in what order would only truly matter if you (emtguy) want a relationship with Him and/or are Saved.  So what is your motive to understand?  Do you desire a (deeper)relationship with our Creator?  Do you believe that the Bible is God's Word, or are you just trying to creep into a Spirtual Discussion forum mascarading as someone who wants to understand the scriptures, but is really an antheist??  I am not judging you either way, just asking, but it does make a huge difference IMHO.
> 
> I'll have to say "pass the popcorn" on your origianl post however, and would encourage you to actually read what you are posting about....God Made....God Created on each of the 6 days of the creation according to Gen 1: 1-31.



Your dumb to think im a atheist...i like the "hidden" stuff in the bible, it intrigues me...see for all these years you have been thinking god created stuff for 7 days...which he did'nt! wonder what else you have assumed wrong abot the bible? Man everything in the bible is important or it would'nt be there! even this!

the hebrew for made is asah...which means " to make out of already exsiting material.
It is the opposite of bara which is hebrew for " to create"
Thers a major difference in God created and God made....the bible says on the 6th day he CREATED giant whales...not MADE! if there was;nt a difference he woulda used the same verb throughout!

When scripture reads " in six days the lord made( or asah..to RESTORE!) heaven and earth it refers to their restoration in 6 days after the curse of gen 1:2 and not to their original creation.

He created NOTHING until the great whales....read your bible and do some research before assuming things! You my dear freind are wrong!

Lowjack, am i wrong in this translation?


----------



## creation's_cause (Jul 9, 2010)

Thanks for the encouragement....and thanks for asnwering my questions about what your motives are....I will let my post and your response be a witness on the issue.  Shalom!!


----------



## emtguy (Jul 9, 2010)

wasnt trying to be mean...just kinda harsh to question my faith...sorry if i took it wrong.

The bibles little hidden facts always facinate me...like this one

Ask 10 people to finish this verse...

You shall know the truth and the truthh shall.........

id say 8 out of ten will say "set you free" when its actually " make you free"
The diffrence in set and make is heaven and Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----!!!
to make something requires effort....

kinda like the word " if" it is in the bible 1522 times(i think, i know im close)b/c EVERY promise of God is conditional, it requires some effort on our part


----------



## chiefsquirrel83 (Jul 11, 2010)

I have always been one of those that believes in the Dinosaurs, Ancient Man, and the Christian Religion....I love Science and how we became what we are today through science and my Faith in Christ.


----------



## ted_BSR (Jul 12, 2010)

chiefsquirrel83 said:


> I have always been one of those that believes in the Dinosaurs, Ancient Man, and the Christian Religion....I love Science and how we became what we are today through science and my Faith in Christ.



You sound like a man with conviction amd faith in your beliefs.  That is a good way to be!


----------



## Diogenes (Jul 12, 2010)

You can’t buy this sort of stuff.

I mean, aside from the grammmer and speeling, witch reveles a sertan fundamental, there is certainly an argument being put forth here.  

I have no idea what it is, though.

The dinosaurs were here a really, really long time ago.  The Bible came along a few dozens of million of years later.  So if I am getting this right, the basic argument is that the Bible came first, and contains certain ‘explanations’ concerning why there is stuff, like dinosaurs, that is actually older than itself.  And these ‘explanations’ are ‘hidden’ in the verses, and the argument is that only certain initiates, who know how to unlock these secrets, are privy to these ‘hidden secrets.’  Do I have it right so far?

Now you know I have to ask – are these ‘secrets’ contained in the New Testament, which began to congeal into a set of ‘Books’ somewhere between 2 and 4 A.D., or are they in the Old Testament, which Christians largely reject, but incorporate, just in case, and which as a set of writings are only a few thousand years older, and of even less certain authorship?

I mean, I look at Leviticus, and it is all about how to diagnose boils on peoples skins and admonitions that one ought not have relations with animals.  I jump forward to John, and he is all about explaining how come Jesus didn’t actually suffer the things the other guys say he does, and noplace in the reading do I see an explanation of the dinosaurs.

How can a ‘Sacred Book’ miss such a basic point?  Are you actually arguing that Noah had a pair of T-Rex on the Ark?  Or did they, as God’s Creations, fail to show up, and were Left Behind, to drown also?

Careful here . . . 

Faith and Truth tend to be worlds apart, and doubt is only a failing when the evidence overwhelmingly supports one side or another.  In this case, the evidence is pretty clear, to a jury of anyone’s peers, that dinosaurs were here well before the Bible was here.

Sorry about that.


----------



## ted_BSR (Jul 12, 2010)

No need to be sorry Diogenes, where you been?

Evidence *IS* lacking here, I think that is the point.


----------



## emtguy (Jul 13, 2010)

Diogenes said:


> You can’t buy this sort of stuff.
> 
> I mean, aside from the grammmer and speeling, witch reveles a sertan fundamental, there is certainly an argument being put forth here.
> 
> ...



no, im saying dinosaurs were here AND cave men and i gave you the reasoning behind it...the earth is a billion years old and no, noah did not have any on the ark b/c they were long gone by then..
Like i have already stated, there is no time limit between gen1:1 and gen.1:2....people just ASSUME it was all done right then and there....ever read where satan said " i will be like god...i will ASCEND to the.... he rebelled against god and was going to set his place in heaven, where did he ascend from...i submit the earth, his dwelling place before he rebelled...where he made a attempt at creating something to be his minions...the souless aimals and men we know as dinosaurs and cavemen

and i do agree i cat type or spell....i do it with one hand. sorry bout that.

and i do agree they were here before the bible....thats what im attempting to explain!!!


----------



## creation's_cause (Jul 13, 2010)

emtguy said:


> (Satan).... he rebelled against god and was going to set his place in heaven, where did he ascend from...i submit the earth, his dwelling place before he rebelled...where he made a attempt at creating something to be his minions...the souless aimals and men we know as dinosaurs and cavemen





emtguy said:


> Believe it or not....I think you have stumbled on to something here....don't think you have your time frames correct or Satan's original dwelling place,but when you infer that the dinosaurs and men were Satan's minions, now we have something we can agree on....but Satan didn't create them, he doesn't have authority or power to create...only God has that.  The men were the Nephilim (Gen 6, Num 13, Deut 2 and elsewhere), and the animals, yes were the dinosaurs.  They were "defiled" by the devil, not created by him however...(MHO)....and the Nephilim attempted to corrupt the human line to Christ and the dinosaurs attempted to destroy the other animals (that were not defiled by Satan) and plant kingdom God created.  How about that.....we almost agree on something!!!!  Check out the unclean animals in Gen 7:2?  What were they?


----------



## Madman (Jul 14, 2010)

Diogenes said:


> Careful here . . .
> 
> Faith and Truth tend to be worlds apart, and doubt is only a failing when the evidence overwhelmingly supports one side or another.  In this case, the evidence is pretty clear, to a jury of anyone’s peers, that dinosaurs were here well before the Bible was here.
> 
> Sorry about that.



No need to be careful, well I guess it could get you kicked out if you caught trying to start a debate.

I would change the Faith and Truth statement for myself a little: “Faith and Truth can be worlds apart.” 

It all boils down to the question: “Do you believe it because it is true, or is it true because you believe it.?  

I do find it humorous that evolutionists use many escape mechanisms to explain evolution and “millions of years” which I believe has many problems.  It has been stated that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago, yet every day we hear about “living fossils” fish and reptiles that have not changed since the day of the dinosaur.  Why not just call them dinosaurs?
Back to the OP.  My problem with the gap theory is not so much any over whelming evidence from geologist or biologists or proper vs. improper translations, as it is theological.
The Scripture specifically states that God created and it was good.  Death, dying, and decay are not good.  Gets a lot deeper than that but that’s the gist.


----------



## emtguy (Jul 15, 2010)

Madman said:


> No need to be careful, well I guess it could get you kicked out if you caught trying to start a debate.
> 
> I would change the Faith and Truth statement for myself a little: “Faith and Truth can be worlds apart.”
> 
> ...



in your last sentence you said god created was in the scripture...it is BUT on the sixth day...he created nothing on the first 5...refer to my previous post somewhere on this thread...he restored things on the first 5 days. its scripture, read it for yourself.


----------



## emtguy (Jul 15, 2010)

creation's_cause said:


> emtguy said:
> 
> 
> > (Satan).... he rebelled against god and was going to set his place in heaven, where did he ascend from...i submit the earth, his dwelling place before he rebelled...where he made a attempt at creating something to be his minions...the souless aimals and men we know as dinosaurs and cavemen
> ...


----------



## Madman (Jul 16, 2010)

emtguy said:


> in your last sentence you said god created was in the scripture...it is BUT on the sixth day...he created nothing on the first 5...refer to my previous post somewhere on this thread...he restored things on the first 5 days. its scripture, read it for yourself.



22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 
Romans 1:22

No word in that passage is translated restored.

Sounds like another version of earthly wisdom to me.


So let’s change the shortened word “created” to the longer explanation “spoke into existence.”

Gen 1:3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

Gen 1:6 And God said, "Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water." 7 So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the expanse "sky." And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.

Gen 1:9 And God said, "Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear." And it was so. 10 God called the dry ground "land," and the gathered waters he called "seas." And God saw that it was good.

Gen 1:11 Then God said, "Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds." And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.

 Gen 1:14 And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth." And it was so. 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.

Gen 1:20 And God said, "Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky." 21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living and moving thing with which the water teems, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 God blessed them and said, "Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth." 23 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fifth day.

Gen 1:24 And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so. 25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.

With day 6 being the day that dinosaurs were created, in your theology that would have been after the gap, where are they today?  They were on the arc.

Read it for yourself.


----------



## emtguy (Jul 18, 2010)

WHAT????

who said anything about dinosaurs being created on the 5th day????

man you need to read the thread over before you reply....

Look its this simple...he RESTORED things until the day he CREATED something which was GREAT WHALES....thats the first thing the bible says god CREATED in THE SEVEN days mentioned in the bible...we refer to them as the 7 days of creation BUT that is wrong....he created stuff the 5 and 6 day...Its in black and white man.


the hebrew for made is asah...which means " to make out of already exsiting material.
It is the opposite of bara which is hebrew for " to create"
Thers a major difference in God created and God made....the bible says on the 6th day he CREATED giant whales...not MADE! if there was;nt a difference he woulda used the same verb throughout!

When scripture reads " in six days the lord made( or asah..to RESTORE!) heaven and earth it refers to their restoration in 6 days after the curse of gen 1:2 and not to their original creation.

He created NOTHING until the great whales....read your bible and do some research before assuming things! You my dear freind are wrong!


----------



## gtparts (Jul 19, 2010)

I'd be interested in the source of emtguy' information. Doesn't square with anything I have ever read.


----------



## Madman (Jul 19, 2010)

gtparts said:


> I'd be interested in the source of emtguy' information. Doesn't square with anything I have ever read.



Me either.

Shalom


----------



## emtguy (Jul 19, 2010)

gtparts said:


> I'd be interested in the source of emtguy' information. Doesn't square with anything I have ever read.




go get a dakes bible KJV, better yet go to your local christian book store and read one b/c they are really costly..read the first two chapters and the notes that go with them, theyll be in the margins and numbered....google the name dake and his story....phinius dake i think was his name....


----------



## emtguy (Jul 19, 2010)

in the 7 days of genesis " asah" was used in the hebrew written bible...asah means " to make something out of ALREADY existing material....asah was used on the first 5 days....

the word " bara" was used on the day he CREATED something BECAUSE " bara" means " to create"...he created the great whales....THATS THE FIRST THING GOD CREATED!!!! its in the bible man...for the love of god research it yourself!!!


----------



## Diogenes (Jul 19, 2010)

Funny, if we're niggling about translations, my Hebrew version of Genesis says quite clearly (33 times) that gods (plural) created the heavens and the earth, and all that other stuff.  Not God.  Gods.

One would think that a transcription error wouldn't be repeated 33 times.  This might explain why the OT goes on and on about not worshiping any of those other guys . . . It looks like it turned into a bit of a Heavenly power struggle over just who was going to win the copyrights . . . . 

But this doesn't help solve the problem – Either God, or God(s), if you prefer, started all this mess up right there in Chapter One Verse One, or He (they) didn't.

I can't find a single word in any of the dozens and dozens of versions of the Bible that says there was already quite a lot of stuff laying about, and then, In The Beginning, God decided to rearrange it.  

Can  someone point me to the Verse that says something like, “After the dinosaurs had perisheth from creation, God created the heavens and the earth all over again.”?   I'm having a hard time following this thread . . . 

(BTW – I did research it, quite extensively, and I'm coming up with nothing at all saying, in effect, “In the beginning, there was the Whale.”  Am I looking at the wrong Bible?)


----------



## emtguy (Jul 20, 2010)

Diogenes said:


> Funny, if we're niggling about translations, my Hebrew version of Genesis says quite clearly (33 times) that gods (plural) created the heavens and the earth, and all that other stuff.  Not God.  Gods.
> 
> One would think that a transcription error wouldn't be repeated 33 times.  This might explain why the OT goes on and on about not worshiping any of those other guys . . . It looks like it turned into a bit of a Heavenly power struggle over just who was going to win the copyrights . . . .
> 
> ...



he rearranged nothing, he restored....and did you not notice in your extensive research the word MADE was used instead of CREATED? Thats b/c in the original text they were "asah" and "bara" Asah was used because he restored what was here already, Bara was used when he CREATED something, which were whales. My gosh why cant you people google a hebrew text and then follow the definitions and translations.

I do think God made all the universe, i just know from reading the bible that when he made it and when the 7 days mentioned in the bible was billions if not trillions of years apart....thats all im saying. 

The first 5 days he resored what he had previously created BECAUSE in my OPINION satan had laid claim, after his fall ,to the earth and it was in disarray b/c of satans dominion here..Gods spirit came, restored the earth for 5 days then CREATED on the last days....


----------



## wmf196242 (Jul 20, 2010)

emtguy just plant the seed and go on i know ove studied if they want to be blinded he will blind them.


----------



## Diogenes (Jul 23, 2010)

Sir, if I may say so, this is an astounding interpretation.  If you are correct, you may well have founded an entirely new religion.


----------



## drippin' rock (Jul 24, 2010)

Met a kid in boot camp that believed the world was only 6 thousand years old.  I asked him about fossils, and his response was God must have put them there to trick us. ( I also asked him why he believed that , and he said because his parents said so.)  I have struggled with faith for many years, but in no shape form or fashion would I believe God to be a trickster.  
       However, while Science does seem to prove it's previous theories  wrong every once in a while, I don't believe it is far off the mark with the age of the earth.  I have found shell fossils in the Smokey Mountains, which means the soil and rock that composes the mountains was under water at one point.  I figure that was probably more than 6 thousand years ago.
       In conclusion, no matter how much FAITH you have in the Bible, and no matter how much you lean on Science, you will never know the complete truth until Judgement day, or the Time Machine is invented.


----------



## Dawg Tired (Jul 25, 2010)

where you recon Noah kept all the fish and creatures of the sea on the ark during the flooding of the earth.


----------



## Dawg Tired (Jul 25, 2010)

Also let's just for giggles add BC years and AD years and let's see what we come up with. There was a great flood that covered the Entire Earth somewhere between 0 BC and 1AD .


----------



## gtparts (Jul 25, 2010)

Dawg Tired said:


> where you recon Noah kept all the fish and creatures of the sea on the ark during the flooding of the earth.



If you are suggesting something, why not just come out and say it.

 Try reading the account in Scripture. The answer is in the Bible. Proper understanding requires reading the whole account, not just pulling out one verse and concluding that fish and other aquatic creatures must have been included in the ark inventory. Since they are around today, God obviously made provision whether in the ark or outside.

Have a blessed day.


----------



## gtparts (Jul 25, 2010)

Dawg Tired said:


> Also let's just for giggles add BC years and AD years and let's see what we come up with. There was a great flood that covered the Entire Earth somewhere between 0 BC and 1AD .



Where did you arrive at this bit of information?


----------



## ambush80 (Jul 25, 2010)

gtparts said:


> If you are suggesting something, why not just come out and say it.
> 
> Try reading the account in Scripture. The answer is in the Bible. Proper understanding requires reading the whole account, not just pulling out one verse and concluding that fish and other aquatic creatures must have been included in the ark inventory. Since they are around today, God obviously made provision whether in the ark or outside.
> 
> Have a blessed day.




Why the Apologetics?  He just did it. That's how. why even reply?


----------



## emtguy (Jul 25, 2010)

Diogenes said:


> Sir, if I may say so, this is an astounding interpretation.  If you are correct, you may well have founded an entirely new religion.


Why would this be a new religion? go dust off your bible and read gen 1. I beleive the same as all christians. Im just showing how modern assumption is wrong. The earth has been here trillions of years...not 6-8k. 

heres what i think happened in order, no time between these events. i just put them in order i think happened


i proposed this, God created the universes. satan rebelled and was kicked outa heaven. Satan laid claim to the earth and dwelled here with his counterfeit creations( dino's and cave men). God was'nt having this. God came and took 7 days and restored the earth to its original pre-satan dwelling days for 5 days( which the bible said) and then started creating things with giant whales being the first thing mentioned in the bible.

between gen 1:1 and gen 1:2 there is NO time mentioned. It couda been billions of years...

now i know ya'll cant wrap your head around this SO ya'll tell me where the dino's came from? I have seen their bones so i know they where here...anyone

My proposed statement is right but id love to hear others.

I have repeatedly showed where the KJV used the word "made" and the word "created". Its in the original hebrew that way also. and i showed the difference in the two words and no one can rebuttle with hard facts like im giving, i just get these " i researched it and your wrong" replys...show me the research that proves im wrong or some thats atleast as strong as mine please.

I mean if god created the spiritless cavemen and dino's dont ya think he woulda mentioned it in the bible? Maybe he was just practicing for the real creation.LOL!

Ever notice that all the dinosaurs were reptilian? Even the birds...satan was a reptile when he came in the garden and god even cursed the reptile...just odd facts im throwing out.


----------



## creation's_cause (Jul 26, 2010)

emtguy said:


> Why would this be a new religion? go dust off your bible and read gen 1. I beleive the same as all christians. Im just showing how modern assumption is wrong. The earth has been here trillions of years...not 6-8k.
> 
> heres what i think happened in order, no time between these events. i just put them in order i think happened
> 
> ...



Wow emtguy you are really an interesting read...I mean your posts are filled with I think, I think, and more I thinks, but then you become emphatic that your assumptions are fact with no room for discussion....you should join the NEA and become a teacher and try to prove why teachers should ensure their second grade classrooms are "safe" for students who are gay, bi or transgender....sorry if the illustration is a little"loose", but it does seem to parallel the reasoning in your posts.  Needless to say I disagree with your time frames...what is it billions or trillions, you have stated both, almost interchangably.  But when one is obviously biting off much more than one can chew, it probably doesn't matter much?   Keep it coming!!!  Maybe I can learn something.


----------



## gtparts (Jul 26, 2010)

The idea of a preadamic Earth is just a pathetic way of twisting and back-filling with human speculation, the very Word of God in order to engineer agreement between Scripture and the science of today. It has been around a while, but has never gained much popularity with most Bible scholars......, with good reason. It can be shot down with a straw, a spit wad, and a light puff of air.


----------



## emtguy (Jul 26, 2010)

creation's_cause said:


> Wow emtguy you are really an interesting read...I mean your posts are filled with I think, I think, and more I thinks, but then you become emphatic that your assumptions are fact with no room for discussion....you should join the NEA and become a teacher and try to prove why teachers should ensure their second grade classrooms are "safe" for students who are gay, bi or transgender....sorry if the illustration is a little"loose", but it does seem to parallel the reasoning in your posts.  Needless to say I disagree with your time frames...what is it billions or trillions, you have stated both, almost interchangably.  But when one is obviously biting off much more than one can chew, it probably doesn't matter much?   Keep it coming!!!  Maybe I can learn something.




what does it matter if it was billion or trillion or zillions of years? God is timeless.
Now YOU tell me where dino's came from. You PROVE that there is a time limit between Gen1:1 and Gen1:2.
PROVE that im wrong about the word "made" being used instead of "created" in the hebrew or KJV.
betcha cant.

THE only thing i state is FACT is there is no time span mentioned between 1st and 2nd verse and that God restored things on the first 5 days...he did'nt create things then. I say this is fact b/c the bible specifically used "asah" and "bara" in the verses of " creation". One means to restore, the other means to make.  The rest is MY thinking of what and where and when, im just putting 2 and 2 together...i mean where do you think satan dwelled. I propose when he said " I will ascend to the sides of the north" that he was talking about coming from his dwelling place( earth maybe?) to heaven and rebelling against God. I say if he was already in heaven when he rebelled he would not had to ASCEND anywhere...i could be wrong, it just makes sense to me.

i do agree my post get sporatic sometimes b/c i post late at night and go off of memory 99% of the time b/c im not walking around and digging for refernces and making noise late at night, got family to think of concerning noise. For that im sorry


----------



## emtguy (Jul 26, 2010)

gtparts said:


> The idea of a preadamic Earth is just a pathetic way of twisting and back-filling with human speculation, the very Word of God in order to engineer agreement between Scripture and the science of today. It has been around a while, but has never gained much popularity with most Bible scholars......, with good reason. It can be shot down with a straw, a spit wad, and a light puff of air.




Shoot it down then, dont talk about it. Do it.

prove the earth is not billions of years old, tell me where dino's came from...

All im asking for is another side of the argument, not just telling me im wrong.

Show me a time line between verse 1 and 2 of Gen..

Why is it so hard to beleive God could not have made the universe and it got in dis-array so he straightened it out?
I mean he did create lucifer did'nt he? Lucifer(gods creation) went into dis-array and rebellion.

My theory is WAY more plausable than the " earths only 6k years old theory"...i got arrowheads that old!

maybe im just not conveying my time line/theory well enough? im sorry if thats the case.


----------



## Big7 (Jul 26, 2010)

If you believe the earth was only 6 days old.. (24 hr. days)
Like.. Mr.T says."I pitty the fool"


----------



## creation's_cause (Jul 27, 2010)

Big7 said:


> If you believe the earth was only 6 days old.. (24 hr. days)
> Like.. Mr.T says."I pitty the fool"



Why not 6 literal days....because God is not capable?


----------



## creation's_cause (Jul 27, 2010)

emtguy....if you are honest, you would have to concede you have attempted to state much more as fact than just a "gap" between Gen 1:1 and 1:2.  I would like to think you actually mean what you post?  I will get back to you on the substance...might take a couple days...I am getting late for work right now!!  I think many others of us could also be wanting more information and a better picture of what part the dinos played....and I don't think a clear picture has ever been presented on the subject....but why should we care??  My original question to you that you never asnwered.


----------



## gtparts (Jul 27, 2010)

emtguy said:


> Shoot it down then, dont talk about it. Do it.
> 
> prove the earth is not billions of years old, tell me where dino's came from...
> 
> ...



The first and most obvious problem is that when Genesis was first written in Hebrew, THERE WAS NO VERSE ONE AND VERSE TWO!

I know it is hard to believe, but the convention of numbered verses is a "modern" concept.

Here is the KJV.

*Genesis 1*

 <sup class="versenum" id="en-YLT-en-KJV-1">1</sup>In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. 
 <sup class="versenum" id="en-YLT-en-KJV-2">2</sup>And  the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of  the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. 
 <sup class="versenum" id="en-YLT-en-KJV-3">3</sup>And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.


The use of the run-on sentence in Hebrew is a literary device where a single idea is expressed in the initial phrase and followed immediately by supporting detail. What is now numbered as verse 1, is, in essence, a summation of the process that follows. 

The entire first chapter (chapters also being a modern convenience) chronicles the initial creative process. It is composed of six consecutive days of God's creative work, beginning at verse one and being completed on day six in verse thirty-one.

The Hebrew word "_bara"_, in verse one, is correctly translated as "created" and particularly in the manner of "_ex nihilo", _out of nothing or from nothing. It is also critically important to know the method of God's creative action. He breathed/spoke it all into existence. Genesis plainly says the creative power of God is the _ruach elohim. _The following, excerpted from Hebrew for Christians, gives a more detailed explanation:


"In the _Tanakh,_ the word _ruach _generally means wind, breath, mind, spirit. In a living creature (_nephesh chayah_), the _ruach_ is the breath, whether of animals (Gen 7:15; Psa 104:25, 29) or mankind (Isa 42:5; Ezek 37:5). God is the creator of _ruach_: "The ruach of God (from God) is in my nostrils" (Job 27:3). In God's hand is the _ruach_ of all mankind (Job 12:10; Isa 42:5). In mankind, _ruach_ further denotes the principle of life that possesses reason, will, and conscience. The _ruach_ imparts the divine image to man, and constitutes the animating dynamic which results in man's _nephesh_ as the subject of personal life. 

When  applied to God, the word Ruach indicates creative activity (Gen 1:2)  and active power (Isa 40:13). The Spirit of God also works in providence  (Job 33:4; Psa 104:30), in redemption (Ezek 11:19; Ezek 36:26-27), in  upholding and guiding his chosen ones (Neh 9:20; Psa 143:10; Hag 2:5),  and in the empowering of the Messiah (Isa 11:2; Isa 42:1; Isa 61:1). 

In short, as the _ruach_ is to the created _nephesh,_  so the Ruach Elohim is to God Himself, part of God and identified with  God. Ruach may be understood as the Author of the animating dynamic of  the created order, the underlying Principle of creation, and the One  that imparts the _nephesh_ to the entire universe."

The key element that you and others have missed is that the process of creation involves, 1) generating something where nothing was before (bara) and 2)  bringing everything thus created into order or harmony (asa or asah).

The error is dividing the bara from the asah.  Trying to separate the two is something like the process of making steel. What use is it to produce iron from ore and then steel from iron, only to pour it out in a massive puddle? 
We know that the process must include pouring ingots for further processing, or rolling sheet, or forging or extruding to the point where we have something useful to us or others. 

Now, that may not be the best illustrative example, but you get the point, I hope.

God is not sloppy about creating. He brought what He desired into existence and completed the order, harmony, and arrangement of all He created.

*Genesis 2*

  <sup class="versenum" id="en-YLT-en-KJV-32">1</sup>Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. 
 <sup class="versenum" id="en-YLT-en-KJV-33">2</sup>And  on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested  on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. 



So, with proper hermeneutics and exegesis, it is clear that there was only one creation story, complete and accurate for the purpose of revealing God's creative nature to mankind.
Had there been another, it would have been included, but there are no gaps in the Genesis creation account.


One last point: The Bible tells us that death entered the world as a result of sin. Sin entered by the action of Adam. Adam was not created till the sixth day. And you believe that the dinosaurs died in a time prior to Adam? If so, what else do you believe of the Bible .... the Dake KJV.... is in error or an outright lie?


Just asking!


----------



## creation's_cause (Jul 27, 2010)

gtparts--

You got to the substance much better than I ever could have in your post....so I will not attempt to put forth further comment on the creative process...however, the dinosaurs are still an enigma to many....myself included....but I do believe emtguy may be on to something when he eludes to Satan's work upon the earth and in particular to the dinos being demonic/Satanic....what say you?  I whole-heartedly believe the only reason we should care is that it is part (a small part) of wanting and desiring a deeper understanding in our relationship with our Creator....leading us into a closer daily walk and working out our salvation that He offers to all.


----------



## gtparts (Jul 27, 2010)

creation's_cause said:


> gtparts--
> 
> You got to the substance much better than I ever could have in your post....so I will not attempt to put forth further comment on the creative process...however, the dinosaurs are still an enigma to many....myself included....but I do believe emtguy may be on to something when he eludes to Satan's work upon the earth and in particular to the dinos being demonic/Satanic....what say you?  I whole-heartedly believe the only reason we should care is that it is part (a small part) of wanting and desiring a deeper understanding in our relationship with our Creator....leading us into a closer daily walk and working out our salvation that He offers to all.



I've said before in other posts: 

"The Bible is not a science book." 


The Bible's purpose is not to address every question we might come up with. There are things which can be known and still not have any practical value in daily life,........ mine, yours, or the life of anyone else. 

We have very little history actually recorded because it just wasn't sufficiently note-worthy,..... like what my sister did yesterday. It wasn't in the paper, on the radio, on the TV, she didn't call me, and none of her family or friends cared enough to inform me. I doubt if she will include yesterday in her autobiography, if she writes one.

It may come as a shock to some, but the origin of dinosaurs is called PREHISTORY for a reason. Fossils may be nothing more than God's sense of humor......they may have never lived..... just be artifacts God put in the soil and stone for a joke. I don't really believe it, but it has every bit as much support as the "gap" between the first and second phrase in Genesis. But it would explain dinos....lol!

My suggestion for all followers of Christ is to concentrate your efforts so that Christ can say, "This one is mine, that my Father has given me." about each of us.

Some folks seem to major on the minors and neglect the truly major things.

I can't see how understanding everything there is to know about dinosaurs could make me a better Christian, a better husband, a better father, a better son, a better friend, or a better person.

I do take exception to people trying to pad the Scripture with foolishness or putting worthless speculation in the margins.

Well, thanks for asking. Sorry, you caught me on my soapbox. 
Have a blessed week, my friend.


----------



## emtguy (Jul 27, 2010)

in reality it has nothing to do with life as a christian BUT it does help explain things when a unbeliever ask " well what about dinosaurs? Where they come from? The bibles just a big fairy tale" etc..

Thats what lead to my studying on the subject!

by the way gtparts, great copy and paste job.

Im still right though. Everything i stated is very plausable and by reading and putting 2 and 2 together it makes sense....

later


----------



## emtguy (Jul 27, 2010)

gtparts said:


> The first and most obvious problem is that when Genesis was first written in Hebrew, THERE WAS NO VERSE ONE AND VERSE TWO!
> 
> I know it is hard to believe, but the convention of numbered verses is a "modern" concept.
> 
> ...



Wow, have you read a DAKES KJV...bet not
It's the most indepth study of the KJV EEEVVVEEERRRR...and the price shows it LOL!

I agree BUT the seven days of creation is not correct...he restored things for 5 days....The bible doesnt mention the ORIGINAL creation of the universe, if it did wouldnt you think the other planets may have been mentioned...
I just think God created the universe whenever, satan dwelled on earth after/enduring his rebellion, god restored earth and created man...

i may be wrong but its sure makes sense to me and the dinosaurs fit perfectly in my theory.


----------



## creation's_cause (Jul 27, 2010)

Interesting point of view on the importance or lack thereof concerning our "pre-historic" reptiles....my interest is mainly as a father, whose children are consistantly bombarded by teachers in elementary, middle, high school and college concerning evolution...and they often use the dinosaurs existance as a big part of the supposed evidence for all this....I am certainly not attempting to re-write or add to the scriptures, however having a logical, biblically based "Theory" concerning the dinosaurs, consistant with scripture is not worthless (imho) when our children are being subjected to Theories, presented as fact, with no biblical basis at all.  I think we can be better friends to one another and others if we reason together based on a biblical world-view and trust God and His Word in the process.  A deeper walk is not in knowing more, it is in the process and desire to know Him better.


----------



## gtparts (Jul 27, 2010)

*emtguy,*

What do you do with this?

John 1 (King James Version)

John 1

 1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

 2The same was in the beginning with God.

 3All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. 


Did Finis Jennings Dake  simply miss this bit of information? It might be worth considering before giving Satan credit for making dinosaurs and  preadamic cavemen.


----------



## Diogenes (Jul 27, 2010)

“and did you not notice in your extensive research the word MADE was used instead of CREATED?”    Um, well, in the dozens of translations from the Original Greek, or Hebrew depending on who you ask, I DID notice that the word ‘Create’ tends to mean, almost regardless of usage: to beget, cause, compose, concoct, design, establish, generate, initiate, invent, institute, produce, and, indeed, MAKE.  The words are synonyms, and are fairly plugged in as substitutes if one is translating, say, Greek to Turkish, then Turkish to Italian, then Italian to Latin, then Latin to English, for example.

If the entire point revolves around some subtle shading of meanings that may differ between the words ‘Created,’ and ‘Made,’ in only the English language, then I’m afraid I fail to see any distinction whatsoever.All of the usages are the antonym of the word ‘Destroy,’ so perhaps we might begin by agreeing that, in the beginning, everything wasn’t destroyed . . . 

Then we run into a Hebrew language lesson, in which, “The Hebrew word "bara", in verse one, is correctly translated as "created" and particularly in the manner of "ex nihilo", out of nothing or from nothing.”  So the Hebrews knew Latin, and used their words in the Latin sensibility of the usage, this suggests . . . and this goes on to dwell on only two more words which loosely translate as ‘breath,’ and ‘animal’ in modern terms, but fails again to use any of the intermediate translations, apparently under the assumption that there weren’t any.

Concluding that, “So, with proper hermeneutics and exegesis, it is clear that there was only one creation story, complete and accurate for the purpose of revealing God's creative nature to mankind.”  This bit of garlic attempts to link hermeneutics, which is the ‘science’ of the ‘interpretation’ of exegesis, with the factual conclusions of that which it attempts to explain.  Exegesis, of course, means a critical explanation or interpretation of a text, especially of the bible.  

So, what “ . . . with proper hermeneutics and exegesis, . . .” actually means is – ‘with proper interpretation of my explanations and interpretations.’  Sounds pretty fancy and authoritative, said in the bigger words, but you can try the same self-affirming approach with just about anything, and so I cannot be refuted when I state beyond doubt that ‘with proper hermeneutics and exegesis, it is clear beyond doubt that Miss Gulch actually became the Wicked Witch of the West, and there is no further argument that can be offered.’  

Rhetorical tricks can be fun, cain’t they?

The final word seems to be that all of that inconvenient ‘pre-history,’ which one presumes to be previous to or in direct contradiction of the writer’s desires is just plain not important.  There is a “not a science book” which nonetheless explains all of science, and in fact, trumps it and tosses it all into a hat.  We’re told.  

For what it is worth, if anyone educated is about, this type of thinking and ‘logic’ has gained its own term, coined by the Russian critic Mikhail Bakhtin in the 1920’s.  The claim that there is only one point of view on a question, to be expressed one way alone, in words with single undisputed meanings, is known as ‘monologism.’  It is a false ideology of language, usually employed by the news media, and, of course, by proselytizers of every stripe . . .


----------



## emtguy (Jul 28, 2010)

creation's_cause said:


> Interesting point of view on the importance or lack thereof concerning our "pre-historic" reptiles....my interest is mainly as a father, whose children are consistantly bombarded by teachers in elementary, middle, high school and college concerning evolution...and they often use the dinosaurs existance as a big part of the supposed evidence for all this....I am certainly not attempting to re-write or add to the scriptures, however having a logical, biblically based "Theory" concerning the dinosaurs, consistant with scripture is not worthless (imho) when our children are being subjected to Theories, presented as fact, with no biblical basis at all.  I think we can be better friends to one another and others if we reason together based on a biblical world-view and trust God and His Word in the process.  A deeper walk is not in knowing more, it is in the process and desire to know Him better.



I agree 100 percent.

I just dont see why everyone cant see that my theory  is in-line with scripture....its atleast the closest one i've ran across. It may be wrong but its alot better than the " evolution theory" and makes sense..heck atleast im not saying we evolved from sludge.

I think my timeline and events happenings are perfect...


----------



## emtguy (Jul 28, 2010)

gtparts said:


> What do you do with this?
> 
> John 1 (King James Version)
> 
> ...


----------



## Diogenes (Jul 28, 2010)

If I may, EMT, I think that your theory is no more or less odd than any of the other Biblical theories espoused by others. The problem I see with all of these creation  theories is simply that they seem to go to incredibly creative lengths of interpretation and assignation solely in order to put the genie back into the bottle.

Refusing to acknowledge that there might be even a SECOND source of information, let alone the hundreds of thousands that exist, could well be seen by some as something of a flaw in the entire method.  The zeal to explain EVERYTHING in only Biblical terms is understandable, but you must see that it invites ridicule, and forces us to ask things like, “In just which Verse was the Slinky, polysorbate 60, the Ford Pinto, and correlational sociolinguistics explained?”  

Once you start down the road of trying to force all things into a solely Biblical explication, you then must dwell in a box of your own construction, and you can readily see how quickly that box becomes uncomfortably small and confining.

Confining all of reality and knowledge to a single source is akin to a physics teacher asking his class to explain mirrors, but only in terms that can be found within the book ‘Alice in Wonderland,’ and no other sources of explanation will be seen as valid.  A wise student would drop that class immediately.  But those who seek only and exclusively Biblical resolutions ‘hidden’ in their verses, and reject all other input are doing just that.  

Most genuine students of the world try to see all points of view, but please do us the same favor – Frankly, most of the world views the attempts to continually take all of the accumulated knowledge of mankind and wedge it into the tiny, ancient, contradictory, and increasingly irrelevant box constructed by one ‘holy’ book to be little more than desperate rationalizing.  We tend to scratch our heads at a certain point, and wonder – if these folks have their minds so open that they can readily believe and defend the supernatural, then why do they so fiercely resist the plainly natural?

The continual, heels dug in, kicking and screaming rejection of progress, coupled with the hugely illogical and frankly adolescent argument that ‘science can’t explain EVERYTHING, therefore I am right and they are wrong,’ multiplied by the evangelism that characterizes these extremely odd points of view  . . . well, do the math . . . add up the factors in that equation and think out the obvious result.

Science is pretty advanced, as this computer gig here fairly well shows, and, yes, there are things we do not know with certainty – as well, there are things we are working on, as always, and things we may never know.  But if the opposition to that is that YOU know, with certainty, because of a leap of intuition learned from a single ancient Book, then you’d better step up and give us the cure for cancer, right now.  If your Book, and your interpretation of it truly DOES contain all answers to all things, as is continually asserted, then we ought to have a right to hold you criminally responsible for withholding answers to the truly important questions.

Up to and until the very moment that you can cure all ills, resolve structural anthropology with the Stone-Cech compactification in terms of non-linear differential equations, solve Goodman’s paradox, demonstrate the sixteen-eighteen electron rule in biblical terms, give us the cure for Down’s Syndrome, and tell us just why Godot never showed up, you’ll pardon us if we have a few doubts about your ‘Explanation of all things.’

Now I’m just observing here, but in my experience, there are a few other Books in the local library.  So far as I know, only a few of the more radical Imams and Dictators actually forbid folks from reading them . . .


----------



## emtguy (Jul 29, 2010)

Diogenes said:


> If I may, EMT, I think that your theory is no more or less odd than any of the other Biblical theories espoused by others. The problem I see with all of these creation  theories is simply that they seem to go to incredibly creative lengths of interpretation and assignation solely in order to put the genie back into the bottle.
> 
> Refusing to acknowledge that there might be even a SECOND source of information, let alone the hundreds of thousands that exist, could well be seen by some as something of a flaw in the entire method.  The zeal to explain EVERYTHING in only Biblical terms is understandable, but you must see that it invites ridicule, and forces us to ask things like, “In just which Verse was the Slinky, polysorbate 60, the Ford Pinto, and correlational sociolinguistics explained?”
> 
> ...



sorry..im to a.d.d to read all that.


----------



## gtparts (Jul 29, 2010)

emtguy said:


> in reality it has nothing to do with life as a christian BUT it does help explain things when a unbeliever ask " well what about dinosaurs? Where they come from? The bibles just a big fairy tale" etc..
> 
> Thats what lead to my studying on the subject!
> 
> ...



Help me out here, emtguy.  Exactly what part do you think is a cut and paste job?


----------



## Diogenes (Jul 29, 2010)

C’mon Gt – the fella just said that he can’t read more than a ten second sound bite.  A.D.D, I think he said.  In real terms, that means no time to listen and learn, only time to opine and be surely correct.  

Defining the source of an allegation of a ‘cut and paste’ would surely take too much valuable time.  You ask too much.  

We are, once again, being told to listen and believe, simply because the words were said.

 I, for one, am completely convinced.  In The Beginning, there was already everything, dinosaurs and all, and the Creation that everyone goes on about was a ‘Making.’  Sort of like an origami thing – the paper already existed, and this clever God fella folded it into the beautiful and flawless reality as we know it . . .

Takes a few bottles of Grandpa’s ‘rheumatis medicine’ to wrap yer brain around, but heck, it is no less entertaining than the other theories . . . I mean, try on Scientology – nutballs abound, it appears.

I say that the dinosaurs were created entirely by the writers of the Flintstones television show, because without Dino, the show would have lacked credibility.  Or maybe by the writers of the Jurassic Park movie, because without dinosaurs their entire premise would have been sunk.  Then the bank would have foreclosed, and it wouldn’t have been worth the effort.  Or maybe the dinosaurs were just a huge joke, and God the Creator (or Maker if you prefer)  just salted his newly created planet with the bones of animals that never existed because He has a hugely odd sense of humor.

Or something.


----------



## tullisfireball (Jul 30, 2010)

emtguy said:


> NO i dont have scripture to back this up b/c im to lazy to get up
> 
> See God did not create ANYTHING until the 6th day...the first 5 days he restored things, read your bible. On the 6th day he made GIANT WHALES.
> 
> ...



You have said you "have no Scripture to back up what you are saying" because "you are to lazy to get up" you also say God didn't create ANYTHING until the 6th day. 

Genesis 1:7 
And God *MADE * the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
vs 8 And God called the firmement Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the *SECOND DAY.*


So according to the Bible, you are wrong on your FIRST statement, so there is no use in going any further with your ramblings. I kept this short because every time someone has tried to show you where you were wrong, you plainly said you were to lazy to read that much.


----------



## Diogenes (Jul 30, 2010)

Sigh.


----------



## creation's_cause (Aug 1, 2010)

I am still intrigued by what the unclean animals were as mentioned in Genesis Chapter 7, verse 2.  For God to destroy many of the animals he created, while extending mercy to 7 of the clean animals, and a pair (2) of the unclean animals, it would seem to me that something had become flawed at the core of both man and beast.  Something wicked, possibly un-holy or defiled that came upon and into both man and beast...or a least some beasts and most people, because scripture states they we continually wicked, Gen 6:5.  Not sure exactly what had come over or upon the creation, but whatever it was, it was so significant that God needed to correct it in a very drastic way...so if you believe the scriptures, it is very appearant there was a significant, un-holy or wicked influence that was upon much of creation....and some form of demonic influence could have been the instigation in my "sanctified imagination".  Could be wrong, but too many scriptural evidences to be too far off imho!  What say you theologins??


----------



## emtguy (Aug 1, 2010)

tullisfireball said:


> You have said you "have no Scripture to back up what you are saying" because "you are to lazy to get up" you also say God didn't create ANYTHING until the 6th day.
> 
> Genesis 1:7
> And God *MADE * the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
> ...



you did'nt read this entire thread did you?

You are wrong, i explained why atleast 3 times in this post.
The word "MADE" is from the hebrew word "asah" which is defined as " to restore something from ALREADY EXISTING materials" in lay terms..." bara" is hebrew for "create" which was the word used when he created the first thing ever in the 7 days in genesis which was whales. research it yourself. My theory on dinosaurs has no biblical backing, i said thats me putting 2 and 2 togetherr but the rest i can back up with the scriptures like i just did!


now since we proved i was correct and you are in error what does that mean about the rest of my statements? You implied since my first statement was wrong all of the others were so there was no need reading any farther.

I guess the opposite of that would be since my first statement IS CORRECT you need to read the rest and you know what? they are right to.

and i will say i meant the 5th day, i hit the 6 key again. my bad


----------



## Big7 (Aug 8, 2010)

gtparts said:


> "The Bible is not a science book."
> 
> The Bible's purpose is not to address every question we might come up with.



Two good points in a great post.
That's what I've been saying since I got on GON!

My analogy is this:

Everything in the Bible is true.
Everything that is true is not in the Bible..

Make sense?


----------



## Diogenes (Aug 9, 2010)

“Everything in the Bible is true.
Everything that is true is not in the Bible..”

Works for me.

Revelations 9:1 – And the fifth angel sounded, and I saw a star fall from heaven unto the earth: and to him was given the key of the bottomless pit.  

This is an eyewitness account, folks –

9:2 – And he opened the bottomless pit (presumably the fifth angel was male, and the bottomless pit had a lock, and needed a key to open, in this dream . . . ); and there arose a smoke out of the pit, as the smoke of a great furnace; and the sun and the air were darkened by reason of the smoke of the pit.  

9:3: And there came out of the smoke locusts upon the earth (smoke-proof  and furnace-proof locusts, I’m guessing): and unto them was given power, as the scorpions of the earth have power.  (Well, you decide – maybe he was predicting the Obama government . . . or maybe these were some pretty cool, like, video-game style locusts . . .  )

9:4:  And it was commanded them that they should not hurt the grass of the earth, neither any green thing, neither any tree (now one would naturally ask what the locusts have to do with it, if the smoke of a great bottomless furnace is already upon the land, and the sun and the air were already darkened by it, but hey, even locusts have to eat, huh? And they were already ‘commanded’ not to eat the stuff they usually eat); but only those men which have not the seal of God in their foreheads.  (Locusts, back then, ate men?  But only those men pre-selected to be devoured?  Darn, that is pretty harsh.)

9:5:  And to them it was given that they should not kill them, but that they should be tormented five months: and their torment was as the torment of a scorpion, when he striketh a man.  (Well, now, if five months isn’t random enough, one might think that if one wishes things to be just about the same as being struck by a scorpion for five continuous months, it might have done to send scorpions instead of locusts, ya think?  Maybe locusts function better in all of that smoke and darkness than scorpions do . . .  ).

9:6: And in those days shall men seek death, and shall not find it; and shall desire to die, and death shall flee from them.  (Well, I guess so.  But one has to think that five months of that sort of thing rather violates the Geneva Convention.  Which part of this is the merciful and benevolent Creator, desiring the Salvation of his children?)

Read the rest of the chapter, folks – especially Verses 12 through 21.  

Then say – “Everything in the Bible is true.”


----------



## earl (Aug 9, 2010)

Come on Dio ! You know number 5 is sacred.


----------



## Huntinfool (Aug 12, 2010)

Ok, now I've read it...


...this is the best thread in the history of the forum.  God bless America.  Good night.


----------



## apoint (Aug 13, 2010)

The evening and the morning was the first day. repeat for 7 day's.
  Now you have 7, 24 hour days.  Gods created for 6 days and rested on the 7 day. How can anyone get millions of years out of that?
 God never said there was a gap. To blend mans changing science with Gods never changing truth is NUT's..
 The bible is the anvil that has wore out all the hammers used on it to make it wrong. Science is catching up to the bibles truth though. they just dont want to believe God.......


----------



## emtguy (Aug 15, 2010)

apoint said:


> The evening and the morning was the first day. repeat for 7 day's.
> Now you have 7, 24 hour days.  Gods created for 6 days and rested on the 7 day. How can anyone get millions of years out of that?
> God never said there was a gap. To blend mans changing science with Gods never changing truth is NUT's..
> The bible is the anvil that has wore out all the hammers used on it to make it wrong. Science is catching up to the bibles truth though. they just dont want to believe God.......




24 hrs??? what????? There is no time limit mentioned, your assuming it's 24 hours on what basis?

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.--2 Peter 3:8 

Read Gen. chapter one before replying.
Im not even goin to discuss anything with you. Just wanted to throw that verse in AND ask you to prove there is a time limit between gen1:1 and gen1:2...coulda been a day or 10 thousand years between creation of universe(gen1:1) and restoration/creation of earth and man(gen1:2)


----------



## Diogenes (Aug 17, 2010)

Okay.  So let’s talk about these unbelievably long ‘days’ you are asserting.  

Give or take a few minor disagreements that amount to being statistically insignificant, the Earth is about 4 billion years old.  

For all of that time it has largely been about the same size, has largely spun around roughly the same axis of rotation, and has pretty much been in about the same orbit around the Sun.  We’ve got nothing to indicate anything other than very minor, and again statistically insignificant variations from those basic conditions.

Now.  A year is the amount of time it takes for the Earth to make one complete orbit around the Sun.  Given a nearly constant distance from the gravitational center, and given that the Sun’s mass, and thus gravitational pull, is diminished as it slowly burns out, it stands to reason that a year has very gradually gotten longer over that 4 billion years.  But not dramatically.  If, in Biblical times, only a few thousand years ago, folks lived to be 600 years old, and at the turn of the 20th century the average life-span was 48, then at that decay rate in the orbit of the planet a year now would be about three months or so (In Biblical terms) and we would have spun so far out of orbit that the planet would look quite a bit like Mars about now.

Similarly, 24 hours is the measure of how long it takes the Earth to complete one entire rotation on its axis.  Again, we observe the same gradual slowing of that rate of rotation, as the magnetosphere succumbs to resistance and the nuclear, molten core of the planet itself gradually burns out, loses mass, and the magnetic sphere weakens as a result.  So the days are actually getting longer at the rate of about 0.005 seconds per year per year.  

So, oddly enough, both our years and our days are getting longer.  That would make it quite odd to observe that a year might once have been 12 years, or that a day might once have been 150 million years, simply because that assertion makes your own theory work out with some precision.  

Still, we can get all quantum about it, and assert that time is merely a function of speed, and since we observe what seems to be an expanding Universe, the speed of the Galaxy that contains our own unfashionable little Solar System appears to be increasing, relative to other nearby Galaxies.  Time slows as speed increases, which may cancel out local effects in tiny, insignificant places, like our Planet.  So the only thing that might make your central theory work would be if our entire Galaxy was once stationary, then suddenly took off with amazing speed all at once.  

The math and astrophysics required to demonstrate that sort of an idea would be extraordinary, but since the theory is yours alone, I’ll leave it to you to take all the credit by doing the calculations and publishing that paper.  The world will be astonished by your results, and they’ll finally be convinced, once and for all.

Or you could convince us by continuing to add your voice to the strange assertions – ‘No, No, No, -- You guys don’t GET IT!  The Invisible Ghost in the Sky Did it!  Take MY word for it!  I’m NOT Kidding!’

We get a lot of that sort of thing around here.

You can see why it is a bit difficult to wholly buy into . . .


----------



## emtguy (Aug 18, 2010)

um i think that verses i stated above was to show that with a eternal God there is no time....time is a progression of events, thats why it goes by fast for some and slower for others(say a prisoner with nothing to do but sit in a cell). See with God there is no time b/c he is eternal/immortal/forever and i think that verse was showing that.


----------



## Diogenes (Aug 18, 2010)

“ . . . that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.”   

Well, it says both, doesn’t it?  Sort of like saying, “I spent a year in Cleveland one weekend.”  That sort of completely self-contradictory ‘Verse’ is hardly the basis for a conclusion, is it?

One can hardly assert, simultaneously, that some invisible ghost set the ‘perfection’ of the mechanics of the planet and the universe in motion, then sat back and gave all of that creation ‘free-will’ to choose what happens next, but also said, in effect, “Oh, by the way, I monkeyed around with stuff there at the start, and compressed four billion years into a single day. Sorry about that.  But since then, trust me, everything has been working like a clock . . . “

C’mon now.  

Nothing at all says that, and nothing at all suggests such a theory of time as  being subject to whimsical revisions that may suit a tale fabricated out of whole cloth, while addressing not at all the known facts of the matter.  The whole thing just sounds a bit like a pretty desperate reach of rationalization to me, and if all you’ve got to back it up is a single self-contradicting ‘Verse’ of unknown authorship,  well . . . um . . .

Time, as a concept, is not exactly fixed in the abstract, but is relative to the observer.  All of us (observers) have been fixed to this particular planet for quite a long time, so our frame of reference can hardly have changed very much over the millenniums.


----------



## emtguy (Aug 18, 2010)

Diogenes said:


> “ . . . that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.”
> 
> Well, it says both, doesn’t it?  Sort of like saying, “I spent a year in Cleveland one weekend.”  That sort of completely self-contradictory ‘Verse’ is hardly the basis for a conclusion, is it?
> 
> ...



im assuming from your post you dont think God is real, cant argue with you about that. Its like fussing over politics, i wont change a liberals mind ever BUT really burn this post into your head, ok here goes....one day you will say " dang old emtguy was right, there is a God. Boy i played the fool"
See the bible says " every knee shall bow, every tounge confess..." one day you will be proven right or wrong and i hope for your souls sake your proven right.

I wont respond to you anymore, no need to b/c we will never agree.
Have a nice day.


----------



## Diogenes (Aug 22, 2010)

Oddly enough, emt, I’m about the farthest thing from a liberal you’ll ever meet.  Politically, I’m a bit to the right of Genghis Kahn, in the sense that I do not think that either religions or governments have any right whatsoever to try to raise a flag of dogma and lay claim to the hearts and souls of all of humanity under the dark shadow of that flag.  

When governments try it, under the dogmatic assertion that they alone are right, we call it totalitarianism.  When religions try the same thing, well, what do you call that, other than exactly the same thing wearing a different costume?

So burn this into your head – someday you won’t say anything at all, and neither will I.  

Nobody at all, from any camp, will get the opportunity to gloat, after death, about how they alone were right and everyone else was wrong.  We’ll be dead, you see.  Nobody at all has ever popped back into existence after death to tap folks on the shoulder and gloat.  Or complain.  And if the religions, especially yours, are correct, there would be a whole bunch more complaining than gloating.  As it is, we’ve got nothing at all from either camp.  Bit suspicious, all that silence . . . 

See, the Three Stooges said, “Nyuk, Nyuk, Nyuk . . . ,” and I hope for all of our sakes that they are proven right.  Because if being agreed with wholeheartedly is the only basis a man has for discussion with another then perhaps a man has narrowed his views so severely that he is, indeed, unequipped for intelligent discussion, the polite exchange of differing views, and the possibility of a mature, gentlemanly disagreement.

Have a well-mannered day yourself, sir.


----------



## apoint (Aug 22, 2010)

There has been found and documented fossil prints in stone that had a dino print and mans footprint in the same fossil..Meaning man and dino lived at the same time.  All creation was done in 6 days.


----------



## Dominic (Aug 22, 2010)

apoint said:


> There has been found and documented fossil prints in stone that had a dino print and mans footprint in the same fossil..Meaning man and dino lived at the same time.  All creation was done in 6 days.



No

No one has ever found anything such thing

No one ever will

Because it has never happened

You understand that this...







is not a documentary, right?


----------



## apoint (Aug 22, 2010)

I think the fossil is in the" creation evidence museum" in Glenrose Texas. Thank me later for the education. There is also a river in Texas that has another set of prints . Dino right beside human foot prints. Thats 2 places I know of. Here is the addy for the museum.

http://75.125.60.6/~creatio1/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=48&Itemid=24


----------



## Dominic (Aug 22, 2010)

apoint said:


> I think the fossil is in the" creation evidence museum" in Glenrose Texas. Thank me later for the education. There is also a river in Texas that has another set of prints . Dino right beside human foot prints. Thats 2 places I know of.
> 
> http://75.125.60.6/~creatio1/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=48&Itemid=24



Again no. There is no fossil.

Whatever is there is faker then  Dolly Parton's hair

What you have posted is complete and total, in the words of Colonel Potter "Horse Pucky"


----------



## apoint (Aug 23, 2010)

Dominic said:


> Again no. there is no fossil.
> 
> Whatever is there is faker then  Dolly Parton's hair
> 
> What you have posted is complete and total, in the words of Colonel Potter "Horse Pucky"



 Dom your are the expert in "horse pucky".
 When I use the process of elimination Ill go to you first.


----------



## Diogenes (Aug 23, 2010)

Now, now . . . the Creation Museum has a display that explains Dolly Parton’s hair.

My only real problem with this Museum is that it took longer than six days to build.


----------



## apoint (Aug 23, 2010)

Diogenes said:


> Now, now . . . the Creation Museum has a display that explains Dolly Parton’s hair.
> 
> My only real problem with this Museum is that it took longer than six days to build.



 Dollys hair is the only thing that aint fake.


----------



## Dominic (Aug 23, 2010)

apoint said:


> Dollys hair is the only thing that aint fake.



So you agree that everything in this "museum" is fake,  but not Dolly's hair?


----------



## apoint (Aug 23, 2010)

Dominic said:


> So you agree that everything in this "museum" is fake,  but not Dolly's hair?


 The only thing fake is you dominic.


----------



## Dominic (Aug 23, 2010)

apoint said:


> The only thing fake is you dominic.



Good one


----------

