![[Masthead]](http://www.t-g.com/images/nameplate.png)
|
|
A Few Clouds ~ High: 89°F ~ Low: 64°F Thursday, May 24, 2012 |
|
Question 2 How long did creation take ?Posted Sunday, March 9, 2008, at 8:28 AM
Whether you believe in the thew phrase "the day" as a literal day or as when I say back in my day I mean the 80's.
The time I grew up , my parents would be the 60's and so forth. A day to the Lord is a thousand years and a thousand years a day. Evolutionist cannot kind the 'missing link or why hasn't anything evolved since then? Even if people went to the Mountains of Ararat and brought back Noah's ark and put it in Time Square, would you believe then? What if carved on the bow was the phrase "Noah was here" would that make you believe then? You might even find the phrase "Kilroy was here" somebody could , explain who the heck is Kilroy ? I don't need that kind of proof . I came across these expert from a Christian newsletter that I got years ago and I still had it , her is a excerpt from it. It was call Creation versus Evolution You be the Judge. Given the fact that, according to the Bible, Adam was created on the sixth day of our planet's existence, we can determine a Biblically-based, approximate age for the earth by looking at the chronological details of the human race. This of course assumes that the Genesis account is accurate, that the six days of creation described in Genesis were literal 24-hour periods, and that there were no ambiguous chronological gaps. The genealogies listed in Genesis chapters five and eleven provide the age at which Adam and his descendants each begot the next generation in a successive ancestral line from Adam to Abraham. By determining where Abraham fits into history chronologically and by adding up the ages provided in Genesis chapters five and eleven, it becomes apparent that the Bible teaches the earth to be about 6,000 years old, give or take a few hundred years. What about the popular age of about 4.6 billion years accepted by most scientists today and taught in the vast majority of our academic institutions? This age is primarily derived from two dating techniques: radiometric dating and the geologic timescale. Scientists who advocate the younger age of about 6,000 years insist that radiometric dating is flawed in that it is founded upon a series of faulty assumptions while the geologic timescale is flawed in that it employs circular reasoning Moreover, they point to the debunking of old-earth myths, like the popular misconception that it takes long periods of time for stratification, fossilization and the formation of diamonds, coal, oil, stalactites, stalagmites, etc, to occur. Finally, young-earth advocates present positive evidence for a young age for the earth in place of the old-earth evidences which they debunk. Young-earth scientists acknowledge that they are in the minority today but insist that their ranks will swell over time as more and more scientists reexamine the evidence and take a closer look at the currently accepted old-earth paradigm. Ultimately, the age of the earth cannot be proven. Whether 6,000 years or 4.6 billion years -- both viewpoints (and everything in between) rests on faith and assumptions. Those who hold to 4.6 billion years trust that methods such as radiometric dating are reliable, and that nothing has occurred in history that may have disrupted the normal decay of radio-isotopes. Those who hold to 6,000 years trust that the Bible is true, and that other factors explain the "apparent" age of the earth, such as the global flood, or God creating the universe in a state that "appears" to give it an very long age. As an example, God created Adam and Eve as fully-grown adult human beings. If a doctor were to have examined Adam and Eve on the day of their creation, the doctor would have estimated their age at 20 years (or whatever age they appeared to be) - when, in fact, Adam and Eve were less than one day old. Whatever the case, there is always good reason to trust the Word of God over the words of atheistic scientists with an evolutionary agenda. Tons of stuff could have happened between Gen.1-1 and Gen.1-2 who knows ,that is not the faith aspect of it. I know my kids love me ,I don't need proof everyday. Can you see the wind? can you see or feel gravity? I could go on and on ,but I am getting ready to go to God's house and "PRAISE THE LORD !" Comments Showing comments in chronological order [Show most recent comments first] |
A man getting to the roots of his faith.
Hot topics Daddy's Rules For Dating My Daughters!(25 ~ 8:26 PM, Aug 15)
Southern Traditions
The Implosion From Within
The Crumbling!
IN HONOR OF ALL VETERANS!
|
Email link
Read comments (68)
Blog archive
![[Feed icon]](http://www.t-g.com/images/icons/feed-icon-14x14.png){kind=icon}
Push forward Michael. Sometimes it is hard to understand but you can be sure that mankind is not perfect.
One minute we have a planet and the next we don't, food is good for you before it is not, medicines are fantastic until they find out it is causing something else.
Michael,
Please explain how you know about radio-active isotopes when you can't even explain in your own words what the hell you are talking about? All of your "supposed answers" are coming from Christian letters.
Never once do the explain why Dinosaurs are incased in Stone and solid bedrock for millions of years. You state they found "noahs ark" well, No they found what could be Noah's Ark, just alot of wood on a mountain does mean it is true. I could be a mountain fortress, but they wil not dig there to verify.
You state one thing, but cannot back up your claims one way or another when someone questions you, your answer is always, "because god says so". Sorry but that doesn't fly anymore because it really doesn't answer the question. Basically it is a cop out and frankly I find you to be a fraud.
Evil Monkey, perhaps you can give us your dissertation on how you know that the stone that these dinosaurs are encased in are actually millions of years old. Would you agree that not all scientists are in agreement concerning the accuracy of all scientific claims? There just so happens that there are many scientists disagree with the accuracy of radiometric dating methods. Here is link to one such group: http://www.icr.org/rate/ Now, I know that you will probably discount what they say because they are working for a Christian institution, but they have valid credentials, with Dr. Humphreys receiving recognition for his work in the field of nuclear physics. Also, while this is another of what you will probably call "christian letter" http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles...
also gives their view point on the accuracy of radiometric dating-using some of the research of the RATE Group. Their entire explanation is given in scientific terms. Now, I am certain that you can find many websites that state what I have offered as is "junk science" and not credible. I could do the same with anything that you might offer. So, at the heart of the matter is who are you going to put your faith in? Man? As, for me, I will take my chances with the Author and Finisher of My faith, the Lord God, and His son Jesus Christ, One thing you might find interesting is that in Isaiah we are told the earth is round, which was written long before any man dared even think that would be a possibility. So, will I change your mind? Most likely not, but maybe you will not encase your opinion in the same stone of those dinosaurs.
It's funny how you attack me for asking questions. Never once did I say that any form of dating, whether it be using isotopes or carbon. But I find it hard to say that 6,000 years of Pressure and water could have made a piece of wood into stone. Unless you believe in the philosophers stone too.
So, at the heart of the matter is who are you going to put your faith in? Man? As, for me, I will take my chances with the Author and Finisher of My faith, the Lord God, and His son Jesus Christ, One thing you might find interesting is that in Isaiah we are told the earth is round, which was written long before any man dared even think that would be a possibility.
-- Posted by Midnight Rider on Sun, Mar 9, 2008, at 12:56 PM
Hmm, you put your faith in God and all that, yet you use http://www.icr.org/rate/ and http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles... as your proof...Those people don't sound like god to me.
Mat 4:8 NRSV) Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor
(Job 38:13 NIV) that it might take the earth by the edges and shake the wicked out of it?
All of these verses mention the ends of the earth Deu 28:49, Deu 28:64, Deu 33:17, 1 Sam 2:10, Job 1:7, Job 28:24, Job 37:3, Psa 2:8, Psa 19:4, Psa 22:27, Psa 33:13, Psa 33:14, Psa 48:10, Psa 59:13, Psa 61:2, Psa 65:5, Psa 72:8
Has anyone found the "ends of the earth yet"?
(Job 37:18 NRSV) Can you, like him, spread out the skies, hard as a molten mirror? The sky is hard???
When God created the earth? Why no mention of the entire westerm hemisphere? I mean, after all, nowhere in the Bible is this half of the continent mentioned, yet here we are.
First and foremost...I teach science. There is hard scientific proof for microevolution (flu virus mutations for one) and as for macroevolution...well I am still doing personal research but I think its farfetched, but then again the Earth was once the center of the universe:-)
I ask, not in any offending terms, I just want to know thoughts...
In the days the scrolls/tablets whatever, however the old testament was actually written down...when there was very little knowledge of numbers other than counting and rudimentary knowledge of geometrical facts (using Pythagorean Theorem to construct right angles)...How would you explain to someone how the Earth was made?
I have seen enough supernatural events and felt enough stirrings in my heart to believe in our Creator. I just like to think about how God would tell how He made everything to someone He knew had so little understanding of how our world is dynamic, everchanging. Still today I don't think we have even come close to understanding how everything operates, although we know so much more than we did.
Jacks4me,
My argument is on the age of the earth, not whether on who created it and how long it really took.
I think that the universe was created by God using the big bang (a simple snap of the fingers). Once the earth was form, he placed water, the atmosphere, and life. The thing I find strange is, why does God talk to all these prophets, people and send angels during the old testament and during the life of christ yet never after the 2nd Century AD?
I haven't seen anyone change water into wine, or feed thousands of people with a few fish and 2 loaves of bread. What about splitting an entire sea or strike at a rock and let water flow? None of these events have happened yet there are more people now that believe in God. Are you saying there are people now that are not worthy as those people that performed those miracles?
All I keep hearing is FAITH FAITH FAITH, but how does that help me? Gives me a feel good experience or because I can claim myself as a christian? None of this pays my bills, stops the crime, the hatred, it doesn't help one thing in my life whatsoever. I have no demons in my life, no sin, no shame, no guilt, Nothing that prevents me from being an upstanding person.
And finally, I do NOT believe the Bible as the Word of God as it was written by MAN. If it was written by God, it would be in my HEAD and I would be able to bring that knowledge forth anytime I needed to make a decision... Oh wait I do have that, its called a conscience!
Evil here is another fly in the ointment. The half life of C-14 is 5730 years. It decays by beta emission to the stable form of nitrogen N-14. This makes up >99 of all nitrogen found in nature. The parent isotopes are either B-14 or N-18, both with half lives measured in milliseconds.
The decay equation (which I apparently am too stupid to be able to cut and paste here) allows either forward or backward calculation. So if you know either the amount you have now or the amount you started with you can work the equation. BUT no matter what element you choose, once an isotope goes through 10 half lives, the decay curve approaches infinitely to zero.
So the question is, how do they calculate beyond 57300 years using carbon dating? That's really an open question for discussion because I don't know.
I havent seen God turn water into wine , but I have personally seen him turn a pot smoking drunk into a respectable man with a wonderful family. I have held my job at the same place for over 20 years now and I give ALL of the credit to God.
Double Exposure,
Really? I used to drink when I as younger, and when I had a kid. It stopped, I don't call it God, I call it growing the hell up. It's called using your conscience.
Tim,
Great points and my hypothesis is, and I can state that based on some materials like paper, wood and ceramic that decay rate would be more extreme due to atmospheric conditions. But when things are under great pressure for longer periods of time, the same piece of carbon can do a variety of things slowing down the process of beta emmisions. For example, diamonds and coal.
Another example of longer deterioration are carbon based life, they decayed and seeped into the ground and forms large orifices of sweet crude oil. I don't think that took less than 10,000 years to make, and if it did then we can make the stuff synthetically now.
Great discussion though.
False Statements About Genesis
No one else, besides myself, presently walking on this Earth, is an expert on Genesis. There is no "close second". Do not even listen to anyone else trying to expound what Genesis is saying, or what "creationism" is, for they do not understand the text, and are speaking from ignorance. Anyone else speaking about "what Genesis says", or comparing it to evolution should be considered unqualified to speak on the subject, no matter how many credentials it seems they have. There is no "creation account" in Genesis. There is no such thing as a "creation/evolution" contest. It is "evolution" verses the "Observations of Moses", shown to him by God in 1598 BC, in biblical order, as revealed by the Living Word in the Gospels.
The world of theology (and creationism) has never understood Genesis, so of course they would not have told us the truth, since they never did their "homework". Each day in Genesis, from Gen. 1:2 thru 2:3 was a 24-hr day , shown to Moses, taken from seven different weeks (1 day from Creation Week, 6 days from 6 restoration weeks), and each (first) week was from a different geologic age. The seven days conveyed to Moses were not linear.
Genesis chapter two covers about a 200 yr period, starting in about 7200 BC, and has nothing to do with chapter one. There was no "evolution". The 600+ million year fossil record shows that there was Creation, followed by escalating extinction, then six periods of restorations, with five more extinction events in between, ending each era of life. With the third era of mankind (the second restoration), God "redesigned" mankind to be in His image, after His likeness, in about 64 Million BC.
If you have comments, issues, or questions, direct them to me (ephraim7@aol.com), or read the book "Moses Didn't Write About Creation!", now in print. Have I made myself clear?
Herman Cummings
PO Box 1745
Fortson GA, 31808
Ephraim7@aol.com
Love the writeup, but how was I wrong? Can't say I disagree with you Herman, but I wasn't far from what you stated. You just worded it better.
EM,
I know we don't agree on much, but I checked our Mr. Herman above. Do a Google search, it was quite interesting.
I think he just happened upon our discussion, because he in trying to get some publicity for his book. The first chapter of his book is online.
Evil Monkey, I am sorry if you think I was attacking you. That was never my intention. I too was just posing some questions. You wanted Michael to "explain how you know about radio-active isotopes when you can't even explain in your own words what the hell you are talking about". So, maybe I wrongly jumped to the conclusion that you were using radio-metric/carbon dating methods to support your claim of "why Dinosaurs are incased in Stone and solid bedrock for millions of years." I just wanted you to know that not all scientists agree with the accuracy of those methods. Again, not meaning for you to think I am attacking you, and I offer you my apologies for making you feel that way. I would like to suggest one thing to you. God did put His Word in us, he put His word in our hearts. Romans 2:15 states that : "in that they show the work of the law, written in their hearts, their "conscience" bearing witness…" Oh, one last thought, you must have some sort of "faith" because you believe in a god that created the earth by a snap of his fingers, this has to be believed by faith because there is no way to prove this to be true.
nascarfanatic, Great verses! I was just merely trying to point out that not all scientists agree with, and even dispute the secular world view of the old earth theory, and they do this with science. The one thing I do know is that rather than trying to confirm the biblical accounts through science, they seek to confirm scientific accounts through scriptural reference. Another verse you could have used is Isaiah 40:22 where he tells us that the earth is a sphere long before anyone else considered this to be a possibility. This is just one example of how the bible has confirmed what science has "discovered" Another interesting thing that people might want to look up is when did man first lay claim to the "discovery" of underwater springs in the ocean, and then compare that year to the biblical writing.
Midnight Rider,
Ok so you believe that God's word is in us, that's a huge step in the direction of understanding what i believe. Instead of relying on a book, I can go by my God given conscience to know the difference between right or wrong. Please understand I never said I didn't believe in God. My problem is believing in a book by men claiming it is of God.
EM decay rates are constant in nature. They are not affected by atmospheric or soil conditions. They can be manipulated in theory in the lab, but that's under extreme energy.
Evil Monkey, I believe we have found some common ground on which to have a reasonable conversation. I am glad you believe in God, and never meant to imply that I thought you did not. You must admit that what is interesting is that what you believe is written in a book many many years before you came into existence.
Now, I do not know you well enough to fully understand your adamant position that the bible be must be flawed because man was involve in the writing, or not of God because the words were penned by man. I know, that this next statement is not agreeable to you, but the bible does say that every word is God inspired 2 Timothy 3:16, with the literal translation being "breathed out by God".
Now, my intention is not to "convince" you with scriptural beatings, but I am curious about something. I consider what you write, and how you write and must conclude that you are intelligent, well read, and if I could hear you talk, probably well spoken. I would also think that a lot of your knowledge comes from reading books and other written sources (all by man), and I know that you would never claim that your knowledge comes strictly from within yourself.
So, my question is why do you seem to be so adamantly opposed to the fact that this one particular book is so fundamentally flawed that the book is rendered useless. Now, if I have misunderstood your position, please, by all means correct me. Again, I wish not to attack you, but seek to understand your thinking so that we may continue to have reasonable conversations.
The nature of my work may keep me from replying on a timely basis, but I will do my best to keep up with you.
Oh you are definately reasonable, that is not a problem.
The 2 main reasons is the mass removals of books from the bible during the 3rd century by Constantine and the latest mass removal of 14 books in 1875 by the Archbishop of Canterbury.
Btw If you ever want to meet, I wouldn't mind I don't hide behind my avatar evil monkey. Plus you can call me at my business line 931-536-1279, thats my direct line.
Who really cares how or the amount of time it took for God to create the earth. It doesnt make you a better Christian or person. People get so caught up in the details of such trivial things and dont worry about the bigger picture.
Except that the bigger picture is that if the Bible has this wrong, what else is wrong...
Except that the bigger picture is that if the Bible has this wrong, what else is wrong...
-- Posted by jesuslovesevery1 on Mon, Mar 10, 2008, at 2:47 PM
It seems that since you believe the Bible has it wrong you had to have drawn from some other source to have a pen name as you do. Unless you do not believe what your name says. How did you determine that jesuslovesevery1. I would like to read some of the more accurate writings that helped you realize this truth if the Bible is wrong.
Above comment withdrawn. I think I misunderstood what her point was. If I did, my apologies.
Don't need a book to believe in Jesus... Of course, that's the only way we know about him, since there are no other historical books about him. He didn't walk around preaching overzealous verses, so I shouldn't either.
He might not have walked around preaching overzealous verses but he sure made some overzealous claims about himself.
Don' blame Constantine if you don't like the Bible.
The Da Vinci Code Claims that Emperor Constantine created the New Testament canon - the list of books to be counted as Christian Scripture alongside the Old Testament - and rejected thousands of alternative texts by the Gnostics. Brown writes: 'The fundamental irony of Christianity! The Bible, as we know it today, was collated by the pagan Roman emperor Constantine the Great' (p. 313).
Emperor Constantine was born after Lists of New Testament books existed.
The claim that Constantine created the canon is not true. Emperor Constantine did ask bishop Eusebius of Caesarea to have fifty copies of the New Testament reproduced for the new imperial capital at Constantinople. But the work of collating the New Testament books had been done over the preceding centuries. The evidence for this is abundant. The most famous documentary example is a piece of writing known as the Muratorian fragment. This fragment dates from the end of the second century and is named after the Italian scholar who first published it in 174. It is a list of books recognized by the church: four Gospels (though the first two are missing due to damage to the fragment), the Acts of the Apostles, thirteen epistles of Paul; three epistles of John; Jude; the Apocalypses of John and Peter. Significantly, the Muratorian canon rejects Gnostic works by Valentinus and others. This is important for showing that Brown is wrong, because it proves that as early as the end of the second century the church was already denying the truth of Gnosticism, and the canon of Scripture was being formed.
Emperor Constantine - Did he remove books from the Bible?
The Da Vinci Code Claims that the four Gospels were selected by Constantine from eighty others. Brown writes: 'Constantine commissioned and financed a new Bible, which omitted those gospels that spoke of Christ's human traits and embellished those gospels that made Him godlike. The earlier gospels were outlawed, gathered up, and burned' (p. 317). Or again: 'More than eighty gospels were considered for the New Testament, and yet only a relative few were chosen for inclusion' (p. 313).
This is wrong. Many early Christian texts written well before Constantine's time say that there are and can be only four authoritative Gospels. Irenaeus, who died in around AD200, over a century before Constantine's reign, writes this in his great work Against the Heresies:
It is not possible that the Gospels can be either more or fewer in number than they are. For, since there are four zones of the world in which we live, and four principal winds, while the church is scattered throughout all the world [...] it is fitting that she should have four pillars [...]. From which fact, it is evident that the Word, [...] who was manifested to men, has given us the Gospel under four aspects, but bound together by one Spirit. (III. xi. 8; Ante-Nicene Fathers, 1:428)
This may seem like a strange argument to us - four winds so four Gospels - but the point is clear. There is no evidence that there were ever anywhere near eighty Gospels, and the selection was made many years before Emperor Constantine was even born.
Excerpted from:
Williams, Garry The Da Vinci Code - From Dan Brown's Fiction to Mary Magdalene's Faith
© 2006 Christian Focus Publications, Ross-shire,Scotland pp.18-21
Dude, I am not reading fiction, Are friggin daft? ROFL wow really grasping straws there chief. Why are you twisting anything I said around? He REMOVED books from the bible. I never said He CREATED the bible. and Dan Brown Pulease the man wrote FICTION as entertainment.
What the article plainly states is that Constantine did not remove any books from the bible. What it says is that he did not have a hand in "creating" the New Testament "canon" which is the accepted books that are included in the church's bible. What it says is that the books accepted for inclusion in the bible were established well before Constantine. Whether someone gets their ideas about Constantine's role in removing books from the bible from Dan Brown or elsewhere they are just as wrong. Please read what the information says before having a cow.
© 2006 Christian Focus Publications, Ross-shire,Scotland pp.18-21
-- Posted by devan on Mon, Mar 10, 2008, at 4:52 PM
Try using a source that isn't biased.
Try to refute the facts and not the source.
Well at least we know one thing for a fact. There are no Athiest in Hell.
Try to refute the facts and not the source.
-- Posted by devan on Mon, Mar 10, 2008, at 7:50 PM
I think that is what you did with Skeptics Annotated Bible.. Eating your words again?
devan,
Your "facts" is an article based on theories, discrediting fictional books.
Try to refute the facts and not the source.
-- Posted by devan on Mon, Mar 10, 2008, at 7:50 PM
I think that is what you did with Skeptics Annotated Bible.. Eating your words again?
-- Posted by nascarfanatic on Mon, Mar 10, 2008, at 11:55 PM
Nope. What I gave were alternatives to the "facts" presented in the source. I did not just say the source is biased.
devan,
Your "facts" is an article based on theories, discrediting fictional books.
-- Posted by Evil Monkey on Mon, Mar 10, 2008, at 11:56 PM
The Muratorian fragment is a fact and my post was not directed at just the Da Vinci Code but at discrediting Constantine's role in removing books from the Bible.
Ok, but because your source is obviously a biased source, it is rendered null and void. Thank you! Have a nice day.
Constantine...
I know that name.
Is he the guy that fathered the Swamp Thing's daughter?
ROFL Keanu.. dude.
You mean he's not the guy that saw the cross in the sky and thought God was talking to him?
Wow, not even real evidence can be debated here unless it is being used to discredit the bible. Devan had a real point and articulated it well,(alot better than I could have)and got shot down. So much for intelligent debate.
Greasemonkey,
I was having some fun, sometimes these discussions get a little to deep and serious, even though it is a very serious topic.
Wow, not even real evidence can be debated here unless it is being used to discredit the bible. Devan had a real point and articulated it well,(alot better than I could have)and got shot down. So much for intelligent debate.
-- Posted by greasemonkey on Wed, Mar 12, 2008, at 11:54 PM
Funny how that "real evidence" you speak of came from an obviously selective source. Copy and paste isn't articulating "Devan's point" it's just sharing a third parties, who happens to already believe just like him. If you want to make sure you're right about something, you shouldn't seek your answers from places where you know they will agree with your persuasion.
nascarfanatic,
We all search for sources that tend to agree with our persuasion. Your sources tend to agree with what your beliefs are, my will agree with what my beliefs are.
Who am I talking to? Greasemonkey or Sharon22? I look at it like this, we all believed the world was out to get us when 9/11 happened, and essentially the entire country wanted revenge... Well, years later we realized how we had been lied to, via fear mongering that none of this was the case. So, now since people actually question what's popular, or question those who think they shouldn't be, we find out truths that would have otherwise be unbeknownst to anyone for centuries.
I find my questioning, authentic, and my research objective... If I went to "atheists.com" then yeah, I'd see your point, but since I don't visit such sites, I see your point as ineffective.
It's an open forum, so I thought anyone could answer. I also did not say what sites you visited, just that we tend to look to sources that will support our position. Let's see 9/11 - that was not the first time the world trade center was attacked, the first time was feb of 1993, the second time they were just successful. We also experienced the USS Cole in 2000 and the embassy bombings in 1998 or were we lied to then also?
Did we respond the wrong countries responsible for those malicious attacks? Or did we go after the true culprit?
I think we sat back and did not respond at all.
What I'm still waiting for is an objective response to my post. If my source is biased, give me one that's not. I have several history books laying around the house and none of them reference Constantine's role in Bible editing. However, they are not religious books but social/political history and might not be concerned with this specific topic. Searching through the web I found several references but none more specific than the one I posted.
Devan,
I am too. I liked what you posted. I had been wondering if the DaVinci code played into effect here. I have not done much research lately into the canonization of the Bible, but knew it was complete by the time Constantine decided to "christianize" everyone. I guess if you have a sword to your throat, and it was life or death, a lot of folks would have picked life. Constantine did not do much to help the progress of Christianity, he just included it with all his other religious beliefs. What else do your history books have to say about Constantine?
Oh sorry I can find that for you. Hell I can even give you a physical refernce source. Give me a day, or call me at 931-536-1279, its local to Shelbyville.
Ok I found it, The Edict of Milan.. also, for a more interesting read... The Edicts of Toleration. I am not going to reference any books because I don't like to give biased advice. But those are a good start for the basis of Constantine's start of the modern day Christianity.
Also many do not know that the Apocryphal books were actually included in the King James translation until they were officially purged by the Archbishop of Canterbury in 1885.
Thanks EM, it will give me something to check out. The more I learn about Constantine, the more I decide he was just "rolling with the flow" or in todays talk, being "PC". I can't judge him, but I don't think he was the nicest person around.
EM, nice post. I will have to check that out as well...
Basically, he tooks pagan holidays and made them Christian holidays. He made laws a religious right... then made the right into a law... hehe, the guy was genius. Seriously he was one of the most clever men to walk the earth.
Most of our "Christian" holidays, besides Easter, are based on a pagan holiday. I know a lot of folks get upset when christmas is referred to as a secular holiday. It was originally a pagan holiday, and looks to be returning in that direction. I love receiving presents and the fun of christmas, but as christians it should be about the birth of Jesus, and not how much can I spend on presents and what need gadgets (i.e. nintendos, game boys, big screen TV's, etc).
and yet we must admit that God lives within us and nothing can take that away.Not removal of books from the Bible, or the changing of the words or making the women of the bible subjective or objective. We as people of God, live to talk of Him and speak of Him as he lives within us. EM you are evil and yet, well loved as God loves you and I am sure your family does as well.
Yes grannyapple, if GOD lives within us, then why does everyone insist we worship a book? Why does reading that book make me a better person? Harry Potter didn't make me a wizard :(
I believe God lives inside of us as our conscience. I don't need a man made book to know that God is great and God is good.
SO FREAKING TRUE!!!!!!!
Did Hitler follow his conscience? We have to use Gods word to mold our conscience. If we are left to our own devices theres no telling what kind of wrong we may do. Thats why we have the Bible to guide us.
God has commanded the death of far more people than Hitler did... Did he have a conscience?
Moses and Jacob were told by God:). Don't think God told them they were hearing voices.
I think that the people that God had killed were killed for a reason. We as creations and not the Creator really dont know why God did some of the things he did. We should be thankful that Christ was our sacrifice and we dont have to live under the laws of the old testament. Its really irrelavent though because we still, as humans, can't rely on our conscience to be our moral compass at all times.
Its really irrelavent though because we still, as humans, can't rely on our conscience to be our moral compass at all times.
-- Posted by greasemonkey on Sat, Mar 15, 2008, at 12:16 AM
Then why did God give us one?
How Long Did Creation Take?
That was the original topic being discussed, I think. The discussion got very sidetracked.
The original question was posed by a Bible believer. So let's see what the Bible actually says about it!
My answer is aimed at those who, like myself, are Bible believers. It is mostly a scriptural discussion of the subject.
Again let's remember what Jesus told a group of his critics, self righteous religious people, fundamentalists, vain preachers who mixed politics with religion:
"Jesus answered, "You're off base on two counts: You don't know your Bibles, and you don't know how God works...... don't you read your Bibles?" (Matthew 22:29, MSG)
What is the very first thing the Bible says, in it's very first verse? What does the Bible say about WHEN the physical universe was created?
Genesis 1:1 (KJV)
"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."
Note that the Bible says this BEFORE it talks about the six "days" of refining the earth.
The heaven and the earth were created BEFORE day 1, in the beginning. That's what the Bible itself says. I believe it. The "young earth" people claim to believe the Bible, but they don't read the first verse. They just read the rest of the chapter, and then they parrot what the rest of their crowd says.
Instead of making the earth itself in 6 "days", God did a lot of work on it during those six "days", but it had been created BEFORE the first "day". He just doesn't say how long before the first "day" he created it. It could have been a very very long time.
Genesis 2:4 (KJV)
"These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens"
The Bible itself here says that God made the heavens and the earth in ONE "DAY"! That is just after it describes each of seven "days" of creation. Obviously the Bible itself is describing a "day" that includes the work God did in each of the first 6 previous "days" of creation. Does that make sense? Each "day" is an EPOCH. Seven epochs can be lumped together into one even greater epoch, or "day". But seven literal 24 hour days can not be lumped together into only one literal 24 hour day.
So what do we observe in the creation that God made? Look up. We see stars. How long does it take for their light to get here for us to see it? Millions of years. So when were they created? It's obvious that they were created millions of years ago.
The order of creation stated in Genesis chapter one indicates that first there was light, later there was vegetation, later there were sea animals, later yet there were birds, then mammals, then man. Now, does that sound scientifically accurate according to modern evidence based knowledge. Yes! Did any ancient religious writings other than the Bible express such an accurate description of the order of the existence of living things? Not that I am aware of. Usually they describe mythical scenes such as how one demonic god ripped another in half and made one half into earth and the other half into heaven, or some similar nonsense. Or they have the earth resting on the shoulders of Hercules or such. Whereas the Bible says God is "Hanging the earth upon nothing" (Job 26:7, YLT). Which one sounds more in line with evidence based knowledge?
The Bible is supported by evidence based knowledge. Those who give answers that they believe are in the Bible, but actually are not; they could hinder seekers of true knowledge and stumble them from accepting the Bible.
So I submit an answer to the question, "Did Creation Take a Long Time?":
Evidence indicates that creation did take a long time from the viewpoint of puny men.
The Bible does not limit the amount of time that God took "In the beginning" to create the physical universe. It could have been millions or billions of years.
The creation did not take a long time from the viewpoint of "The Ancient of Days". The whole physical creation took place "in the "day" [or epoch] that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens". (Genesis 2:4, KJV)
Grandpa_Davidson,
I'm with you but be prepared to take a tongue lashing for believing in that Bible from some anonomous and cowardly people? (cars, monkeys and disturbed things) on here . Maybe they will respect their elders if nothing else. Keep it coming.
"I think that the universe was created by God using the big bang (a simple snap of the fingers). Once the earth was form, he placed water, the atmosphere, and life."
I said the same thing that Grandpa said, but you didn't agree with me parker, yet now the same thing is said by someone else, Now you agree.
It is quite easy to see Grandpa_Davidson values his Bible. I do not think you will hear him say....
"Hell, I believe Stargate has more fact then the Bible and I know Stargate is pure fictional"
"Simply put, the Bible isn't a really good source of information"
"I don't believe in God, Hell or any of the other crap so none of it matters. And as I grow older, I am finally given up believing in Santa and the Tooth Fairy.".....as you have.
Notice where he draws upon for his information. I do think he is an antichrist.
That is the only real point of difference you and I have. You try to decimate something I cherish. I am for and you are anti. It's really that simple.
Correction:
Notice where he draws upon for his information. I do think he is an antichrist
Should read: Notice where he draws upon for his information. I do NOT think he is an antichrist
Sorry Grandpa_Davidson, slip of the fingers. I think you already knew that though.