viaro:

Hi modupe01,

It is interesting that you're missing something essential here. In none of those texts does it appear that those words (bara and asha) are used interchangeably to refer to the very same thing. I'm glad that you quoted Genesis 1:26-27, and perhaps it is one of the best texts I like to use for people who argue that the earth is 6,000 years old based upon the age of Adam. I'm sorry, but you will notice that such an idea is self-refuting; because the first verse there (verse 26) speaks of God saying that He would MAKE man before saying in the next verse 27 that He CREATED Adam in His own image!

Have you ever stopped to think of this? Why would God mention "make" [עשׂה - ‛aśah] before "create" [בּרא - bara']? It is not a coincidence, no; and I believe it is deliberate! Since you have hinted somewhere that 'the Jews should know better', then here is my answer: the Jews actually know better - and guess what? The same Jews do not believe that Adam is the very first human being to be created. Somewhere in this thread (if I remember), I noted that the Jews hold that there are 974 generations before the creation of Adam and Eve. The specie of homos sapiens did not start with Adam - which was why God spoke first of "make" before going on to speak about "create".

Just to show you this by illustration: we turn to Genesis 2:4 - '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'. Please note the following:

(a) the first part states the creation of the heavens and the earth -
which tessellates with Genesis 1:1

(b) the second part states that God made the earth and the heavens -
which brings in the order of the 6 days from Genesis 1:2

(c) in the first part, the "heavens" were mentioned first before earth;
in the second part, the "earth" was mentioned first before the heavens

These are not confused as to be mistaken for interchangeable usage - no: they are rather deliberate, because the emphasis in such verses are striking at something we often take for granted. God created the heavens and the earth - how long, when, etc? We don't know, because the Bible does not tell us about such things. We gather from other books of the Bible that there was an age that preceded the existence of the earth, though we are not told for how long that age lasted before the earth was created.

But should we examine the other references: Exodus 34:10 interestingly enough does not make use of those key words interchangeably. The key words there are:

* כּרת - karath

* עשׂה - ‛aśah

* בּרא - bara'

In the verse, they appear like this in our English translation:

'And he said, Behold, I make [karath] a covenant:
before all thy people I will do [‛aśah] marvels,
such as have not been done [bara'] in all the earth, nor in any nation:
and all the people among which thou art shall see the work of the LORD:
for it is a terrible thing that I will do with thee'

Was God using these words interchangeably? I doubt it: for He did not say He would "create" a covenant as if He was about to bring a "covenant" into existence in the sense of His creating the heavens and the earth. A legal agreement is simply a contract binding upon agreed parties - and yes, even MEN can make (karath) covenants as well, just as the one Abraham and Abimelech made (karath) in Genesis 21:32.

What about "marvels" in that verse - that God said He would "do [‛aśah] marvels such as have not been done [bara'] in all the earth"? Certainly, God did not mean again that He was going to "create" marvels as if He was going to bring 'marvels' into creation such as was the case of the heavens and the earth. In almost every other place where we read of the same connotations, the word 'marvels' has the same idea as the word translated as 'wonders' (פּלא - pele). In Exodus 15:11, we read that God is in the business of "doing (עשׂה - ‛aśah) wonders", not "creating" them as if they were part of the 6 days creation.

The same point is made in Isaiah 41:20 and 43:7 - God was not making use of those words interchangeably within the same verses; for that would be odd indeed especially here the statements are connected by a conjunction ("and".

I believe that I have addressed these objections of yours in my post below, if you missed it here is another opportunity to read what I said:

modupe01:

It is generally acknowledged that the Hebrew word as you said, bara, used with "God" as its subject, which means to create like in the production of things which did not exist before.

However, according to Exodus 20:11, God "made" (asah) the heavens and the earth and everything in them in six days. If God made everything in six days, then there is clearly no room for a gap. I know that you allege that asah does not mean to "create," but "to form" or even "re-form" and that you believe that it refers to reforming a ruined world. But is there such a difference between bara and asah in biblical usage? I don't think so. It (asah) can also mean "to create," which is the same as bara. For example, Nehemiah 9:6 states that God made (asah) "heaven, the heaven of heavens, with all their host, the earth and everything on it, the seas and all that is in them." This reference is obviously to the original ex nihilo (out of nothing) creation, but the word asah is used. Do you want to tell me that Nehemiah 9:6 refers to the supposed reconstruction? if you do then you will have to include the geological strata in the reconstruction which will invariably deprive the whole theory of any power to explain away the fossil record.

The fact is that the words bara and asah are often used interchangeably in the OT and in some other places they are used in synonymous parallelism (Gen. 1:26-27; 2:4; Exodus 34:10; Isaiah 41:20; 43:7). Applying this conclusion to Exodus 20:11; 31:17; and Nehemiah 9:6 we see that Scripture teaches that God created the universe (everything) in six days, as outlined in Genesis 1.

The most straightforward interpretation of Genesis 1:1-2 sees verse 1 as a subject-and-verb clause, with verse 2 containing three circumstantial clauses, that is, 3 statements that further describe the circumstances introduced by the principal clause in verse 1.  The grammatical connection between verses 1 and 2 rules out a time gap between the events in verse 1 and the events in verse 2.  Verse 2 is in fact a description of the state of the originally created earth: "And the earth was without form and void" (Genesis 1:2).

I know that many gappists argue that God created some things like the heaven and the earth as recorded in Gen.1:1 and the marine and flying creatures as recorded in Gen.1:21 and argue that God made other things by evolution from pre-existing materials such as the sun, moon and stars, beasts and cattle(Gen.1:16,25).  What you have to realise is that they are often used interchangeably as I explained in the quote above.  The words asah (to make) and bara (to create) are used in reference to the same act (i.e. the creation of man, Gen.1:25).  Nothing in Genesis 1 leads to the conclusion that God used evolutionary process to produce His creation.

There is a further problem with believing that the Genesis account of creation should be interpreted as an evolutionary account.  The Bible teaches quite clearly that death was introduced into the perfect world as a result of Adam's sin.  Neither human nor animal death existed until this event, both humans and animals were originally vegetarian.  The original world that God created was death free, and so evolution could not have occurred before Adam was created.

Tohu (formless) and bohu (void) appear together only in the three places in the Old Testament(Isa.34:11; Jer.4:11 and Gen.1:2). However, tohu appears alone in a number of other places and in all cases simply means “formless.” The word itself does not tell us about the cause of formlessness; this has to be gleaned from the context. Isaiah 45:18 (quoted by you earlier on this thread) is rendered in the KJV “he created it not in vain [tohu], he formed it to be inhabited.” In the context, Isaiah is speaking about Israel, God’s people, and His grace in restoring them. He did not choose His people in order to destroy them, but to be their God and for them to be His people. Isaiah draws an analogy with God’s purpose in creation: He did not create the world for it to be empty. No, He created it to be formed and filled, a suitable abode for His creation. You and other Gappists miss the point altogether when you argue that because Isaiah says God did not create the world tohu, it must have become tohu at some later time. Isaiah 45:18 is about God’s purpose in creating, not about the original state of the creation.

viaro:

I said earlier: I am not a fan of Darwinism.

That is a red herring.  There are many types of evolutionary theories of which Darwinism is one.

modupe01:

'Literal', yes; but 'global', no.

For you to believe that Noah's Flood was only a local flood shows to me the outside ideologies that has affected your interpretation of the Bible, hence your forcing eons in between Gen.1:2.  You have accepted the widely evolutionary history of the earth, which interpretes fossil layers as the history of the sequential appearance of life over millions of years.

This compromise of accepting the evolutionary timeframe, with its fossil accumulation has its own dangerous consequence.  It robs the Fall of Adam of its serious consequences.  You put the fossils, which testify of disease, suffering and death before Adam and Eve sinned and brought death and suffering into the world.  In doing this, you also undermine the meaning of the death and resurrection of Christ.  Such a scenario also robs all meaning from God's description of His finished creation as "very good."  You can also see the point of the opening post of this thread.

This is what the book of Genesis said regarding the global cataclystic flood:

"And the waters prevailed exceedingly on the earth, and all the high hills under the whole heaven were covered.  The waters prevailed fifteen cubits upward, and the mountains were covered" (Genesis 7:19-20).

In addition, Jesus believed that the Flood killed every person not on the Ark.  What else do think Christ meant when He likened the coming world judgment to the judgment of "all" men in the days of Noah (see Matthew 24:37-39)?

In 2 Peter 3, that you quoted earlier, the coming judgment by fire is likened to the former judgment by water in Noah's Flood.  A partial judgment in Noah's day, therefore, would mean a partial judgment to come.

If the Flood were only local, how could the waters rise to 20 feet (6 meters) above the mountains (Genesis 7:20)?  Water finds its own level, it could not rise to cover the local mountains while leaving the rest of the world untouched.

Even what is now Mt. Everest which is more than 5 miles high was once covered with water and uplifted afterward.  If the Flood were a local flood, God would have repeatedly broken His promise never to send such a flood again.  God put a rainbow in the sky as a covenant between God and man and the animals that He would never repeat such an event.

"For this they willingly forget: that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of water, by which the world that then existed perished, being flooded with water" (2 Peter 3:5-6).

modupe01:

Please understand. I did not assert that you made the earth the same size as the universe; rather, I pointed out that the argument of the position of 'Y[/b]oung [b]EARTH C[/b]reationism' (YEC) is often based on nothing more than mere calculations of the supposed age of Adam, dating back from the present. As long as the YEC wants to push the idea that Adam was created in day number 6 [b]therefore the heavens and earth must be 6,000 years old, that idea would continue to be self-defeating! Adam is a late comer to the scene; the earth and the universe are a creation that date back to eons which we are not exactly told how long or how old. The "heavens" is much more than the sky we look over our heads in an open field - that term includes the deepest of galaxies, most of which we know nothing about. How come the YEC has been trying ever so hard and yet so failingly to argue for the earth as young as 6,000 years old and forget the "heavens" (which includes the galaxies)? Are the galaxies 6,000 years old as well?

Hehe, I doubt you have asked the Jews what they beleive about the 974 generations before Adam - they are not as simplistic as you are arguing for only a minute part of creation. Please consult them again and let's know if they argue for the same thing that the YEC argue.

Your other posts I shall find time to come back and reply. Cheers.

Can you recollect posting the quote below? and if so what do you mean by this sentence?

viaro:

Please note carefully that the "universe" is much bigger than the earth. . because it seems to me that many times this is taken for granted in your posts.

Watch the videos posted and see how real scientists proved that the earth is young and when the Bible says heaven and earth it is a figure of speech that refers to the cosmos and everything thing within it, Time; Space; Matter/Energy and Information.

modupe01:

Watch the videos posted and see how real scientists proved that the earth is young and when the Bible says heaven and earth it is a figure of speech that refers to the cosmos and everything thing within it, Time; Space; Matter/Energy and Information.

Why are the teachings of these "real scientist" not accepted and taught in schools all over the world? The conventional scientific study says that the earth and the universe are billions of years old and that is what is taught in schools all over the world, why are the teachings of your "real scientist" discarded OLADEGBUU?

mazaje:

Why are the teachings of these "real scientist" not accepted and taught in schools all over the world? The conventional scientific study says that the earth and the universe are billions of years old and that is what is taught in schools all over the world, why are the teachings of your "real scientist" discarded OLADEGBUU?

viaro has rightly put you in your place and if I were you I would listen and watch the video and dialogue and learn a thing or two and see why Christians do not have to accept your assumption of billions of years even though it is now politically correct to teach such in our institutions today.

modupe01:

viaro has rightly put you in your place and if I were you I would listen and watch the video and dialogue and learn a thing or two and see why Christians do not have to accept your assumption of billions of years even though it is now politically correct to teach such in our institutions today.

I laugh in greek. . .so it is now about political correctness eh? The truth does not need political correctness. . . .If your theory is true why is it not thought in schools world wide?

mazaje:

I laugh in greek. . .so it is now about political correctness eh? The truth does not need political correctness. . . .If your theory is true why is it not thought in schools world wide?

The age of the earth, as determined by sinful man's fallible methods, is based on unproven assumptions, so it is not proven that the earth is billion of years old.  This unproven age is being used by this your so called "conventional scientific study" to force an interpretation on the language of the Bible and because of this these dodgy fallible theories are allowed to interprete the Bible which ultimately undermines the use of language to communicate.

Evolutionary scientists claim the fossil layers over the earth's surface date back hundreds of millions of years.  As soon as one allows millions or billions of years for the fossil layers, then one has accepted death, bloodshed, disease, thorns and suffering before Adam's sin.  This is the consequence of our children being taught in these secular institutions and they end up inventing reinterpretations of Scripture to avoid intellectual conflicts with popular scientific ideas which has become disastrous for their faiths.

not all christians oppose evolution. nearly half believe in theistic evolution. god created the building blocks of life but then left life to evolve into all its presant forms
http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm

agathamari:

not all christians oppose evolution. nearly half believe in theistic evolution. god created the building blocks of life but then left life to evolve into all its presant forms
http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm

Could God have used evolution?

The battle is not one of young earth vs. old earth, or billions of years vs. six days, or creation vs. evolution; the real battle is the authority of the Word of God vs. man’s fallible opinions.

Why do Christians believe in the bodily Resurrection of Jesus Christ? Because of the words of Scripture ("according to the Scriptures".

And why should Christians believe in the six literal days of creation? Because of the words of Scripture ("In six days the Lord made,".

The real issue is one of authority; is God’s Word the authority, or is man’s word the authority? So, couldn’t God have used evolution to create? The answer is No.  A belief in millions of years of evolution not only contradicts the clear teaching of Genesis and the rest of Scripture but also damages the character of God.  He told us in the book of Genesis that He created the whole universe and everything in it in six days by His word: "Then God said," His Word is the evidence of how and when God created, and His Word is incredibly clear.

modupe01:


The real issue is one of authority; is God’s Word the authority, or is man’s word the authority?

Who wrote the bible OLADEGBUU? Do you have any evidence for any god writing any part of the bible or do you accept the words of ancient jews who wrote down their thoughts, wishes, fantasies and aspirations and ascribed it to their god?. . . .

He told us in the book of Genesis that He created the whole universe and everything in it in six days by His word: "Then God said," His Word is the evidence of how and when God created, and His Word is incredibly clear.

Did any god appear to your personally and tell you that he wrote any part of the bible?. . . .Did any god appear to you and tell you that the bible is his word or do you just accept what other men wrote and ascribe to their god as true JUST because they said so?

the catholic has no problem with evolution.

some of the biggest proponents of evolution are theists.

modupe01,

Modupe i do not understand how can argue about something you do not have a clue about. If you say you believe in the young earth theory and others such ridiculous stories so a world wide global flood based only on your faith, i would understand. But when you tend to argue about scientific arguments you do not have a clue about, it gets annoying.

You said "The age of the earth, as determined by sinful man's fallible methods is based on unproven assumptions" Do you know what you are yaking about?. To you know the different methods and evidences that scientist used to determine the approximate age of the earth? Please let me know the ones you are aware of that you term fallible methods based on assumptions, then tell me how old exactly the world is and the methods you employed that is infallible and based on proven assumption?

Like i advised Mr Olaadegun, Stay of Science and concentrate on what you believe instead of spewing scientific nonsense about.

mazaje:

Who wrote the bible OLADEGBUU? Do you have any evidence for any god writing any part of the bible or do you accept the words of ancient jews who wrote down their thoughts, wishes, fantasies and aspirations and ascribed it to their god?. . . .

Does it matter anything to you who wrote the Bible?  Will it make any difference to you if I say that the Creator God inscribed the decalogue in tables of stone as a witness of His signature?  This is part of what He wrote with His own Finger "For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it."  Would that make any sense to you since you have made up your mind to swallow the lies and assumption of fallible man's philosophy as your own source of authority?

mazaje:

Did any god appear to your personally and tell you that he wrote any part of the bible?. . . .Did any god appear to you and tell you that the bible is his word or do you just accept what other men wrote and ascribe to their god as true JUST because they said so?

God does not need to appear to me personally for me to believe and have faith in His Word.  If I had been alive 2.000 years ago and living in Israel I would have seen God personally as He walked the face of this earth in the Person of Jesus Christ.  But thanks be to God that there is more blessing in believing His infallible Words than if I had seen Him then and not believed.  Believing is seeing and not the other way round.  Taste and see that the Lord is good.

bawomolo:

the catholic has no problem with evolution.

some of the biggest proponents of evolution are theists.

The Roman Catholic Church has always been going with the popular culture.  When they persecuted Galileo they believed the erroneous doctrine of geocentricity now they have pitched their tents with evolutionism.  No wonder that a lot of Christians have been misled by this dangerous presupposition.

wirinet:

modupe01,

Modupe i do not understand how can argue about something you do not have a clue about. If you say you believe in the young earth theory and others such ridiculous stories so a world wide global flood based only on your faith, i would understand. But when you tend to argue about scientific arguments you do not have a clue about, it gets annoying.

Like I said earlier, that the battle is not of the YEC vs. old earth proponents it it between the authority of God's word and fallible man's philosophy. You take man's philosophy as your authority and I take God's infallible Word as my authority. We have the same evidence but we interprete them differently based on our presuppositions.

wirinet:

You said "The age of the earth, as determined by sinful man's fallible methods is based on unproven assumptions" Do you know what you are yaking about?. To you know the different methods and evidences that scientist used to determine the approximate age of the earth? Please let me know the ones you are aware of that you term fallible methods based on assumptions, then tell me how old exactly the world is and the methods you employed that is infallible and based on proven assumption?

Have you heard about the physical evidence that dinosaur bones are not millions of years old? Scientists from the University of Montana found T. rex bones that were not totally fossilised. Sections of the bones were like fresh bone and contained what seems to be blood cells and haemoglobin. If these bones really were 65 million years old, then the blood cells and haemoglobin would have totally disintegrated. Also, there should not be "fresh" bones if they were really millions of years old. This says so much for your assumptuous dating methods that you use in determining the age of the earth.

wirinet:

Like i advised Mr Olaadegun, Stay of Science and concentrate on what you believe instead of spewing scientific nonsense about.

If you want to know what real science is then watch the videos posted below that gives scientific evidence that determines the age of the earth and not your methods based on assumptions.

modupe01:

Like I said earlier, that the battle is not of the YEC vs. old earth proponents it it between the authority of God's word and fallible man's philosophy. You take man's philosophy as your authority and I take God's infallible Word as my authority. We have the same evidence but we interprete them differently based on our presuppositions.

I do not like going into religious arguments, based solely on faith, but the age of the earth has nothing to do with philosophy, it is pure science. All disciplines of science from Biology, paleontology and geology, to astronomy, physics and chemistry. All scientific disciplines are in agreement that the earth is a few billion years. So if your philosophy based on your theology suggest the earth is a few thousand years, then that is your own faith.

Please show me a scientific evidence from any of the sciences that can be interpreted to mean the earth is a few thousand years old. I can give over a dozen examples showing the age of the earth to be a few billion.

modupe01:

Have you heard about the physical evidence that dinosaur bones are not millions of years old? Scientists from the University of Montana found T. rex bones that were not totally fossilised. Sections of the bones were like fresh bone and contained what seems to be blood cells and haemoglobin. If these bones really were 65 million years old, then the blood cells and haemoglobin would have totally disintegrated. Also, there should not be "fresh" bones if they were really millions of years old. This says so much for your assumptuous dating methods that you use in determining the age of the earth.

That is a very incredible claim, but as someone who is scientifically minded, i am ready to investigate the above claims.Please kindly give me a link to where i can find information on this T. Rex. I await your response with great anticipation.

modupe01:

If you want to know what real science is then watch the videos posted below that gives scientific evidence that determines the age of the earth and not your methods based on assumptions.

That is a laugh, so what is real science. I have watched some of the videos and they are filled with twisted truths and half lies. They said a fish was found in a rock dating back to the Cambrian times when if you pick any book on Evolution you will see that fishes evolved in the Cambrian period. Then they make so many wrong assertions that i got pissed off. They can only convince the scientifically illiterate mind.


I went back to check the site about the blood cells and haemoglobin of T. Rex that you claim was found. And guess what there was nothing in the site to suggest your conclusions. This is the site again
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sciencenow/3411/01-ask.html

First the person that discovered[b] what seemslike nucleated red cells [/b] did not reach the conclusion that the dinosaurs she discovered was a few thousand years old

Here is what she said when asked if the T. rex may have nucleated red cells.

Well, there are small, red structures within the vessels that look like nucleated red cells. So on the surface, this is a case of "if it looks like a duck…." But after 70 million years, just because something looks familiar doesn't mean that that is what it is. The fossil record can mimic many things, so without doing the chemistry to show that there are similarities to blood cells at the molecular level, I do not make any claims that they are cells.

So i do not know how you reached the conclusion that the dinosaur in question is in agreement with biblical times.

The site did not say that DNA had been extracted from the tissue if indeed it is a tissue, so i implore you to read the site again before jumping into unfounded conclusions.

wirinet:

I do not like going into religious arguments, based solely on faith, but the age of the earth has nothing to do with philosophy, it is pure science. All disciplines of science from Biology, paleontology and geology, to astronomy, physics and chemistry. All scientific disciplines are in agreement that the earth is a few billion years. So if your philosophy based on your theology suggest the earth is a few thousand years, then that is your own faith.

Please show me a scientific evidence from any of the sciences that can be interpreted to mean the earth is a few thousand years old. I can give over a dozen examples showing the age of the earth to be a few billion.

The Word of God declares how and when the Creator God created the cosmos and His Word is confirmed by real scientists as shown in the video below.  His Word is the authority that I build my thinking on what about you?

wirinet:

That is a very incredible claim, but as someone who is scientifically minded, i am ready to investigate the above claims.Please kindly give me a link to where i can find information on this T. Rex. I await your response with great anticipation.

A report by these scientists (M. Schweitzer and T. Staedter) stated the following:

A thin slice of T. rex bone glowed amber beneath the lens of my microscope ,  . The lab filled with murmurs of amazement, for I had focused on something inside the vessels that none of us had ever noticed before: tiny round objects, translucent red with a dark center ,  . Red blood cells? The shape and location suggested them, but blood cells are mostly water and couldn’t possibly have stayed preserved in the 65-million-year-old tyrannosaur ,  . The bone sample that had us so excited came from a beautiful, nearly complete specimen of Tyrannosaurus rex unearthed in 1990 ,  . When the team brought the dinosaur into the lab, we noticed that some parts deep inside the long bone of the leg had not completely fossilized ,  . So far, we think that all of this evidence supports the notion that our slices of T. rex could contain preserved heme and hemoglobin fragments. But more work needs to be done before we are confident enough to come right out and say, "Yes, this T. rex has blood compounds left in its tissues."

-- M. Schweitzer and T. Staedter, The real Jurassic Park, Earth, pp. 55-57, June 1997.  See report in Creation 19(4):42-43, which describes the careful testing that showed that haemoglobin was present.

Unfossilized duck-billed dinosaur bones have been found on the North Slope in Alaska.  Also, creation scientists collected such (unfossilized) frozen dinosaur bones in Alaska.  Evolutionists would not say that these bones had stayed frozen for the many millions of years since these dinosaurs supposedly died out (according to evolutionary theory).  Yet the bones could not have survived for the millions of years unmineralized.  This is a puzzle to those who believe in an "age of dinosaurs" millions of years ago, but not to someone who builds his thinking on the Bible.

wirinet:

That is a laugh, so what is real science. I have watched some of the videos and they are filled with twisted truths and half lies. They said a fish was found in a rock dating back to the Cambrian times when if you pick any book on Evolution you will see that fishes evolved in the Cambrian period. Then they make so many wrong assertions that i got pissed off. They can only convince the scientifically illiterate mind.

This is 2 of 3 clip that speaks of the evidence of a young earth.  For those who are open minded and are not willing for anyone to cover their eyes with wool should watch this film and come to their own conclusion.

[flash=500,400]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ESt7xln9MPY&border=1&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en_GB&feature=player_embedded&fs=1[/flash]

[/quote]
[quote author=wirinet link=topic=346528.msg5000105#msg5000105 date=1259242414]
I went back to check the site about the blood cells and haemoglobin of T. Rex that you claim was found. And guess what there was nothing in the site to suggest your conclusions. This is the site again
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sciencenow/3411/01-ask.html

First the person that discovered[b] what seemslike nucleated red cells [/b] did not reach the conclusion that the dinosaurs she discovered was a few thousand years old

Here is what she said when asked if the T. rex may have nucleated red cells.
So i do not know how you reached the conclusion that the dinosaur in question is in agreement with biblical times.

The site did not say that DNA had been extracted from the tissue if indeed it is a tissue, so i implore you to read the site again before jumping into unfounded conclusions.

Did God tell us when He made T. rex?  Some people would say no.  The Bible states that God made all things in 6 normal days.  He made the land animals, including dinosaurs, on Day 6 (Genesis 1:24-25), so they date from around 6,000 years ago, which is the approximate date of creation obtained by adding up the years in the Bible.  Since T. rex was a land animal and God made all land animals on Day 6, then God made T. rex on Day 6.  Dinosaurs must have died after sin entered the world, not before.  Dinosaur bones could not be millions of years old because Adam lived only 6,000 years ago.  QED

Why are you attempting to give a religious view a scientific backing? I take it that your views on the origin of living things is from the Bible and this must be based on faith. I hope you understand that if these people could (though they failed miserably) prove that the earth is actually young, you would no longer need faith in this sphere.

Check this site out. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dinosaur/blood.html

Generally, wherever scientific fact is demonstrated, faith about these things is lost

modupe01:

Does it matter anything to you who wrote the Bible?  Will it make any difference to you if I say that the Creator God inscribed the decalogue in tables of stone as a witness of His signature?  This is part of what He wrote with His own Finger "For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it."  Would that make any sense to you since you have made up your mind to swallow the lies and assumption of fallible man's philosophy as your own source of authority?

Where you there when any god was using his finger to write on a piece of stone or do you just blindly accept the stories that were written by other men WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE AT ALL?. . .By the way WHERE IS THE STONE?. . . Where is the stone that yahweh used his finger to write on?. . .Is it not the same man that wrote EVERYTHING in the bible? When you have any evidence for any god writing anything or inspiring any body to write down anything then I will begin to accept that you are sane with all these ridiculous and very pitiful assertions of yours. . . .

God does not need to appear to me personally for me to believe and have faith in His Word.  If I had been alive 2.000 years ago and living in Israel I would have seen God personally as He walked the face of this earth in the Person of Jesus Christ.  But thanks be to God that there is more blessing in believing His infallible Words than if I had seen Him then and not believed.  Believing is seeing and not the other way round.  Taste and see that the Lord is good.

Again, god created the entire world and the only place he can come and let people know about him is a little obscured place in the middle east eh?. . .I have news for you, if you were living in Arabia in the 6th centuary AD you would have seen allah's last prophet in person. . . . By the way Zeus, and all the other greek gods once lived with the people in greece no?. . . .

@modupe01,

Please forgive my absence from the forum the past few days - quite a lot kept me busy. However, I see the thread has progressed as others have expressed various concerns regarding how you proceeded to establish your views.

What you do not yet grasp in this simple issue is that your arguments are based on a false premise and very shaky foundation indeed. This is why one should not assume that viaro had no answers to your objections. Actually, I had loads to say, but only left off as it's not my style to force anything down anyone's throat. Be that as it may, here's another attempt to show you from within Scripture itself that you don't quite have a sound justification for your 'YEC' arguments.

However, I should even go so far as to rename your postulations as "Y[/b]oung [b]U[/b]niverse [b]C[/b]reationism" ([b]YUC), in so far as you have repeatedly argued that the universe is no older than 6,000 years old. Please follow the outline below to see the reason why I rename your arguments as 'Y[b]U[/b]C'  -

---

        modupe01 in post #61
        '. . God created the universe (everything) in six days, as outlined in Genesis 1.'
      ____________________

       viaro in post #63:
       'The universe and the earth are far older than 6,000 years old'
       ____________________

       viaro in post #88:
       '. . (the universe is evidently older than 6,000 years).'
       ____________________

        modupe01 in post #102
        '. . that He created the whole universe and everything in it in six days'

---

I initially suspected this was where you were going and only gave you time to develop and very well establish a y[/b]oung [b]U[/b]niverse of 6,000 years old in your arguments.

As the discussions progressed, it seemed you were incessantly forcing the texts to read whatever you wanted them to, in order to favour your '[b]YUC' ideas - which most probably were harvested from other 'YEC' apologists. BUT what if those people (did you call them 'real scientists'?) are proven wrong - yes, proven wrong on three grounds:

             * from Scripture,
             * from their own arguments, and -
             * from science (particularly the geosciences)?

What would you do, modupe01? I know how hard and very disappointing is the experience to discover you had committed far too much trust on the erring interpretations (and interpolations) of men who clearly have an agenda to protect; but would it not be far better to shed yourself of such romanticism rather than try ever so hard to be the hero of a self-defeating YUC apologetics?

@modupe,

Before I share anything with you on the Universe, let me in the following series of posts use example questions to help you reflect deeply on the weaknesses in your arguments. These example questions will be drawn directly from Scripture, so that you won't have to be unnerved by any insinuations of "outside influences" in my posts.

It is not for show or a superior display of anything that you're reading these things from me, modupe01; nor do I wish to embarrass any Christian, no matter how very skewed are their arguments. If anything, so that you come to terms with issues you may never have given much thought to hitherto.

---

(A).  From Scripture: A few things to consider about the age of "creation"

There are a few disturbing assertions in your posts. For instance, it was amusing to read your statement that: "God created the universe (everything) in six days" - for it seems that you either had taken the term "everything" for granted, or perhaps did not actually understand what that term connotes. Even more directly, you had argued that -

     "God created everything in 6 days, 6,000 years ago as the Bible says"
      (post #89, Novermber 23).


From these statements (and let's forget for the moment that you tried to force your interpolations into the Bible), are we to take it from you then that the universe is only 6,000 years old? Not only the 'Universe', but "everything" as well must be 6,000 years old? You surprise me, but let me draw you back to Scripture on this issue, starting out with this question as an example:

      1. When did God create the angels and spirit beings?

Angels are also part of God's creation (Colossians 1:16), not so? Remember I already said in post #86 that 'there are so many other verses that speak of events that we do not read in Genesis 1'? The question above is just one among several others. We know that Adam was created on the sixth day (Genesis 1:26-27); so please point me to any verse in Genesis 1 to show what particular day between the '6 days' when the angels were created. The 1st day? The 2nd. . 5th. . or. . ? What particular day among those 6 days did God mention the angels being created? Huh?

For the sake of argument, let me even grant you that "everything" was created 6,000 years ago - that 'everything' would definitely include the angels. Following from that, are you maintaining that the angels are also 6,000 years old - just as old as your argument of 6,000 years old for Adam?

Or, to follow your precise line of reasoning: "God created everything in 6 days, 6,000 years ago as the Bible says" - then I ask you modupe01, did God create the angles 6,000 years ago?


We could pursue this line of thought and propose an akin question:

     2.  When did God create the angel that became Satan?

Lucifer was his name (Isaiah 14:12); and it is emphatically stated that he also was created ('the day that thou wast created' - Ezekiel 28:13 & 15). That being so, just as we read that man was created on the 6th day (Genesis 1:26-27), can you please point me to the verse in Genesis 1 to show on what particular day between those 6 days that Lucifer was created? Was it the 1st day? . .the 2nd. . 5th. . or. . what day particularly in Genesis 1?

The reason why I'm particular about Genesis 1 is because, even though I reasoned that there are some events that we do not read of in Genesis 1, you had asserted that God 'told us in the book of Genesis that He created the whole universe and everything in it in six days' (post #102). Now, where in Genesis 1 did He tell you that He created the angels and Lucifer in any one of those six days?

You quoted John Calvin as having said that 'the duration of the world, . . . has not yet attained six thousand years' (here). In light of the above two questions and reasoning, Calvin's quote is quite an ignorant statement, and is best retired to the annals of stuporous speculations!

(B). Angels - when exactly?

It won't be educated of me to just pose questions and offer not the slightest pointers to clear the air. So, as to both questions of when exactly God created the angels and Lucifer who later became the devil, my answer is this: we are not told in Scripture when exactly that happened. The questions belong to those issues hinted at in my posts earlier that some events which we read in other passages are not mentioned in Genesis 1. What we do know, however, is that the angels were created by God (Colossians 1:16) - and that happened long before even the earth was created. How do I assume this? Let me explain:

In Job 38:4-7, we understand that the angels had already been created before God laid the foundation of the earth. Verse 4 asks the question: "Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth?" It continues until until the climax in verse 7 - "when the morning stars sang together and all the sons of God shouted for joy?" How would these beings (the morning stars and all the sons of God) have rejoiced to see God laying the foundation of the earth if they were not already created before that time? How long they had been created before the earth, we are not told. The simple fact is that they preceded the creation of the earth - and that is one of the things that we do not read about in Genesis 1.


(C). Your Mistake - Stretching Truth

I'd wanted to come back some other time when I'm less busy and deal with your arguments in post #89. Of all the laughable things one could read from you is this quote:

Jesus made a similar statement in Mark 13:19 when He indicated that man's sufferings started very near the beginning of creation.  The parallel phrases of "from the foundation of the world" and "from the blood of Abel" in Luke 11:50-51 also indicate that Jesus placed Abel very close to the beginning of creation, not billions of years after the beginning.

Let me quote just one verse from your citation: Luke 11:50 -

       'That the blood of all the prophets,
        which was shed from the foundation of the world,
        may be required of this generation'

The simple question to ask is this: was the blood of all (or any) of the prophets shed "from the foundation of the world"? We know that is just not the case; and by that statement, the Lord Jesus Christ did not mean to say that prophets were already existing or had been created at the foundation of the world. That would be stretching truth beyond elasticity and thereby . . .

        . . . making the age of prophets   =   to the age of Adam
        . . . making the age of Adam        =   the angels (Job 38:4-7)
        . . . making the age of angels       =  the age of the universe
        ____________________________________________

             sum total of the age of all above = 6,000 years old

It is clear that Jesus did not mean that statement in Luke 11:50 to indicate the age of the universe or of the earth. In so far as we know that no prophet was existing at the beginning of creation or at the foundation of the world, that verse is clearly not meant to be read in a literal sense of "the beginning of creation", which would mean that both angels and prophets existed before Adam!

To wrap up the foregoing, let me ask a series of basic questions:

* are angels 6,000 years old? - were they created 6,000 years ago?

* is Satan the devil 6,000 years old? - was he created 6,000 years ago?

* on what particular day in the 6 days of Genesis 1 were angels created?

* on what particular day in the 6 days of Genesis 1 was Lucifer created?

* is the universe 6,000 years old? - was the universe created only 6,000 years ago?

* when exactly did creation start - 6,000 years ago and nothing at all created before then?

The reasons I ask these questions are twofold:

~~ they would help you think a bit more deeply about your polarised assertions

~~ your answers would provide a good basis for replying to the vids you posted.

If I can help it this weekend, I shall come back and consider your reply. Cheers.

mazaje:

Where you there when any god was using his finger to write on a piece of stone or do you just blindly accept the stories that were written by other men WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE AT ALL?. . .By the way WHERE IS THE STONE?. . . Where is the stone that yahweh used his finger to write on?. . .Is it not the same man that wrote EVERYTHING in the bible? When you have any evidence for any god writing anything or inspiring any body to write down anything then I will begin to accept that you are sane with all these ridiculous and very pitiful assertions of yours. . . .

Remember, your axiom is seeing is believing and mine is believing is seeing. Because I believe the Word of the Lord God I can see His decalogue as written in Exodus 20. If you are still looking for the stone then read the Scriptures and find out what happened to it. I have the evidence of God coming down to earth, He came to die and rise again.

mazaje:

Again, god created the entire world and the only place he can come and let people know about him is a little obscured place in the middle east eh?. . .I have news for you, if you were living in Arabia in the 6th centuary AD you would have seen allah's last prophet in person. . . . By the way Zeus, and all the other greek gods once lived with the people in greece no?. . . .

Give me your evidence that Adolf Hitler ever existed and I will equally give you the evidence of the existence of Jesus Christ.

@ Modupe

Give me your evidence that Adolf Hitler ever existed and I will equally give you the evidence of the existence of Jesus Christ.

Nice one

@Hi viaro,

Thanks for coming back with your responses to my objections. Your presuppositions are now becoming clear to me which explains why you take such a stance.

I am beginning to realise who you see as an authority when it comes to the truth. Do you remember your response to my question when I asked whether you know that God Almighty personally inscribed the decalogue? This was your reply:

viaro:

No, I do not know that. Rather, I believe He did so in light of what the Scripture teaches.

This quote of yours now begins to make sense to me that you actually only give a mental assent to the Word of God which you claim as a belief and not as knowledge. A person with belief is one who is as a child who's father warned not to touch a beautiful flame of fire on a candle. The child's belief will keep him away for a while but the attractiveness of the dancing flame will entice him to try to touch it to see whether what he believes is true, the moment he touches it and gets burnt he will then move from the realm of belief to the realm of experience or knowledge, then no body needs to convince him that fire does not burn because he now has an experience of it. And this explains your attitude to God's written word.

This is what God Almighty inscribed on tables of stone which explains Genesis 1:

In Exodus 20:11 which states that "For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day" this was even inscribed by the finger of the Almighty God! This passage was meant to be taken as speaking of a total of 7 literal days based on the Creation Week of 6 literal days of work and one literal day of rest.

This verse alone settles the question of how long it God to create heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is them! For you to still be arguing and forcing billions of years into Gen. 1:2 just shows how desperate you are trying to impress the evolutionists who do not even believe in the existence of God in the first place.

As if this is not enough I showed you what Jesus' view was on the subject how He gave the proper interpretation on the writings of Moses and how He alluded and quoted from the book of Genesis, all you could see was that He was referring to something before the creation of Adam and Eve. Let me give you the full quote of what you partly quoted in your post below:

modupe01:

In Mark 10:6 that I referred to earlier, Jesus says: "But from the beginning of the creation, God made them male and female" How you concluded that Jesus was talking about any other thing apart from Adam and Eve surprises me. From the passage, Jesus clearly taught that the creation was young, for Adam and Eve existed "from the beginning," and not from billions of years after the universe and earth came into existence. Jesus made a similar statement in Mark 13:19 when He indicated that man's sufferings started very near the beginning of creation. The parallel phrases of "from the foundation of the world" and "from the blood of Abel" in Luke 11:50-51 also indicate that Jesus placed Abel very close to the beginning of creation, not billions of years after the beginning.

Here, I referred to Jesus' allusion to the beginning of creation and Adam and Eve when He was speaking about the institution of marriage which He quoted from Gen.1:27 and 2:24 respectively but for some reasons best known to you will rather gloss of it or deny it.  He also mentioned the foundation of the world and the blood of Abel in the same breath. I noted that you stopped short of verse 50 let me complete the rest of what Jesus said in verse 51

"From the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zacharias, which perished between the alter and the temple: verily I say unto you, It shall be required of this generation."

You omitted the verse which explains the import of Jesus message for reasons best known to you only to see another scripture telling you that it was billions of years ago.  You can only see what you want to see but the moment you are open minded and allow God to speak clearly you will realise that it is of no private interpretation but is incredibly clear.

;d

1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.


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.


3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.


4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.


5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.


6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.


7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.


8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.


9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.


10[b] And God called the dry land Earth[/b]; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.


11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.


12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.


13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.


The Heaven (according to the Bible) is older than the Earth by just one day or 24 hours (according to the above bolded statements). So, Modupe01 was right in my own opinion

God bless you kolaxy and may He give you more understanding of His glorious Word.

viaro:

To wrap up the foregoing, let me ask a series of basic questions:

* are angels 6,000 years old? - were they created 6,000 years ago?

* is Satan the devil 6,000 years old? - was he created 6,000 years ago?

* on what particular day in the 6 days of Genesis 1 were angels created?

* on what particular day in the 6 days of Genesis 1 was Lucifer created?

* is the universe 6,000 years old? - was the universe created only 6,000 years ago?

* when exactly did creation start - 6,000 years ago and nothing at all created before then?

The reasons I ask these questions are twofold:

~~ they would help you think a bit more deeply about your polarised assertions

~~ your answers would provide a good basis for replying to the vids you posted.

If I can help it this weekend, I shall come back and consider your reply. Cheers.

I will only answer you based on one verse of the Scriptures (Genesis 1:31)

"And God saw every thing that He had made, and, behold, it was very good.  And the evening and the morning were the sixth day."

All the angels were part of the original creation, as Exodus 20:11 indicates and Colossians 1 seems to confirm, everything God had created by the end of the sixth day was "very good."  Therefore, there could not have been any rebellion before this time and Satan fell some time after Day 7.  The Scriptures does not say exactly when.  QED

@ Viaro

In Job 38:4-7, we understand that the angels had already been created before God laid the foundation of the earth. Verse 4 asks the question: "Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth?" It continues until until the climax in verse 7 - "when the morning stars sang together and all the sons of God shouted for joy?" How would these beings (the morning stars and all the sons of God) have rejoiced to see God laying the foundation of the earth if they were not already created before that time? How long they had been created before the earth, we are not told. The simple fact is that they preceded the creation of the earth - and that is one of the things that we do not read about in Genesis 1.

You are very right with the above statements however, we know in that same Gen 1 that  the Heaven was created a day before the earth. If the Heaven was created a day before the earth, it is wise to conclude that all its(Heaven) creatures(angels, Lucifer inclusive) were created before the foundation of the earth(a day or 24hours)according to the verses I gave in my last post above.So, according to the Holy Bible,for me, the Heaven or Universe or Earth is not a Million or Billion year old. Thanks

Amen. Thanks Modupe. God bless you too

kolaxy:

@ Viaro


You are very right with the above statements however, we know in that same Gen 1 that the Heaven was created a day before the earth. If the Heaven was created a day before the earth, it is wise to conclude that all its(Heaven) creatures(angels, Lucifer inclusive) were created before the foundation of the earth(a day or 24hours)according to the verses I gave in my last post above.So, according to the Holy Bible,for me, the Heaven or Universe or Earth is not a Million or Billion year old. Thanks

Good job.

Age of The Earth

[flash=500,400]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F_JZHslDfXw&border=1&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en_GB&feature=player_embedded&fs=1[/flash]