whaoo. Modupe01, thanks for those videos. I learnt a lot and I can't just stop laughing at the same time. Thanks

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.

Give me one iota of evidence to prove that bible is the word of god

@modupe01,

modupe01:

@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:

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.

With all due respect, you have very wrongly prejudged my presuppositions and attitude to God's Word.

Indeed I remember quite well what my response to your question was - post #11 on page 1. It was not that I did not "know" where in the Bible it says that God wrote the decalogue with His own finger: that much I 'know' that such a statement was written, as well I 'know' where it was written that He did so [Exodus 31:18 and Deuteronomy 9:10]; but I do not 'know' that as an experiential fact as to be able to attest to it personally as if I was there when it happened, especially if asked to prove it in other ways (scientifically, historically, archeologically, etc) - and neither do you 'know' it in that way! Thus my reply in post #11, that: "I believe He did so in light of what the Scripture teaches".

Consequently, in post #15 you quipped that you guessed I was still in "the realm of belief rather than knowledge" - and added in parenthesis: "(my guess is as good as yours)." You did not even attempt to prove anything in that respect other than point out the verse I already knew as stating the point. If you were asked to show that you "know" that event experientially as to attest to its veracity both scientifically, historically and archeologically, how would you have proceeded to do so? You actually do not "know" anything, my dear pal. . and your attitude should be humble in just the way that Paul advised in 1 Corinthians 8:2 - "If anyone imagines that he knows something, he does not yet know as he ought to know." I don't brag about "knowing" anything so precisely as to make unguarded statements; and my advice is that you shy away from being too assertive where you absolutely do not know anything.

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.

And how does Exodus 20:11 answer the simple questions I posed in post #116?

I deliberately set my rejoinder on the basis of what Scripture teaches, and also made clear that those 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.' I have not appealed to any other source - not evolution, not paleontology, not archeology, not even the geosciences, nor anything from the videos you posted - nothing suggesting any "outside influences". I wanted to see how well your 'YUC' ('[b]y[/b]oung [b]u[/b]niverse [b]c[/b]reationism') could be sustained when closely examined. I can now say that it has proved to be all feather and no flesh. . empty, loud, pretentious, and only intended to attract notice and impress traditionalists who do not have a clue what they argue. What would you have done if I had argued creation and the Universe on the basis of the geosciences? Pal, you actually do not 'know' anything about whatever clauses you have been arguing hitherto.

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.

No, I am not trying to impress the evolutionists nor anyone else - I plainly said so in my opening remarks in post #114:

        '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.

I then proceeded to discuss my views and ask questions as well answer them on one and only one basis - the very same Scriptures that declare those very things you read in my posts! Does that sound like I was being desperate? Your inability to stand up as a real person with a head on your shoulder simply shows how myopic and naive your assertions have been.

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:

You have repeated that fallacy far too many times that it has become such a bore! I do not see in Scripture anything to suggest that Jesus asserted a universe as young as 6,000 years old - there are other verses (which I have discussed) that show a much older creation, and even Jesus our Lord knew those verses quite well. I also discussed your inference on Luke 11:50-51, and the best you could do is offer a plastic re-quote without any attempts to discuss the point I made? Hmm, very interesting! Are we then to suppose that the blood of prophets were shed at the same time as the foundation of the earth? Are you so naive, modupe01?

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.

Oh please stop being so stupid on top of everything else! If you cannot discuss issues, it is not even smarter to resort to prevarications and recreancy! How could you charge me with either having 'glossed' over Genesis 1:27 and 2:24, or even deny them, when to the contrary I actually discussed them in posts #85 and #86?!? Repeating yourself ad infinitum like a broken record and not saying anything in the face of other things I pointed out is not a smart way to progress from where you were yester-fore.

The "beginning of creation" is a phrase that does not mean the same thing in every place where it occurs. For this reason, I took the time to outline that fact more directly in posts #114 and #115 by discussing and asking questions about a creation event that nowhere appears in Genesis 1 -

* When did God create the angels and spirit beings?

* When did God create the angel that became Satan?

My summary of the above was given in post #116, where you mischievously evaded and chose to not discuss them. How could you then turn round to furtively assert that I denied discussing Genesis 1:27 and 2:24?

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."

Does it make any difference if I had addressed Luke 11:51 as I did verse 50? Was the blood of Abel shed at the "foundation of the world"? Was Abel created at the same time as when God laid the 'foundation of the world' - at the same time when the angels rejoiced to see God lay such a foundation (Job 38:4-7)?

In dealing with verse 50 of Luke 11, I'd asked you pointedly: 'was the blood of all (or any) of the prophets shed "FROM the foundation of the world"?' You evaded an answer to that - probably because it would require you to show how that is so when we turn to the Old Testament. So, what difference does Abel's blood make in verse 51 as to the age of the cosmos?

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.

Please answer my simple question: Was the blood of Abel shed at the "foundation of the world"?

You're beginning to sound dry and funny; and let's even pursue this a bit further by proposing a few questions more:

        *  did the shedding of Abel's blood establish the age of the cosmos?

        *  did Jesus try to use that event as the direct evidence for your 'YUC' -
            ('[b]y[/b]oung [b]u[/b]niverse [b]c[/b]reationism') of 6,000 years old?

        *  Did Luke 11:51 point to the same time in history when angels were created?

There's one other person I know on NL who argues vacantly as you do: OLAADEGBU! The difference is that when he meets a dead end, he does not seem to pursue his futile arguments brazenly as you do. On top of that, you repeatedly insinuate and wrongly define my position as evolutionistic even though I have made clear that I'm not a fan of Darwinism.

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.

To reassure you, viaro is a very open-minded fellow: he is not as narrow minded, hidebound or parochial as to just assume everything in a brassbound or inexorable manner without asking relevant questions where need be. Even God's Word warns against such attitudes: "The simple believes everything, but the prudent gives thought to his steps" (Prov. 14:15, ESV); or as rendered in the CEV - "Don't be stupid and believe all you hear; be smart and know where you are headed. " I've tried to always take that exhortation to heart.

What you have been doing is stretch truth, evade particular references, and go limp in the face of issues that question your obdurate assertions feigned as the interpretation of those verses of Scripture. I had a good laugh at the one where you tried to use the shed blood of Abel to establish the age of the cosmos! That was classic! Is there any wonder then that you really have no clue what you're arguing as regards the age of the universe? What then would be left of you if I had approached my subject from a geoscientific perspective? As to those clowns in the vids you posted, I would often watch them when I need a good laugh.

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.

modupe01:

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

Lol, c'mon modupe01. . you know you're being mischievous here!
So, you had no place to point to in any of those 6 days to show on what day angels were created? My questions were not about whether angels were part of the "original creation"; but rather as to WHAT day among those 6 days of creation they were created? Was it the 1st, 2nd, . . 5th day. . or what day in particular?!?

Not even Exodus 20:11 or Colossians 1 mentions any particular day in those 6 days of creation as regarding the day angels were created! This is what I mean by your mistake of stretching truth beyond elasticity! The fact that the angels were already created before the earth existed is alluded to in Job 38:4-7. Since you want to force all of creation (including the cosmos/universe, galaxies, and angels - "everything" as you said) to a 6,000 year old age, then please show us the particular verses in Genesis 1 that mentions the creation of the angels as precisely as verse 26 and 27 state about the creation of man. If you cannot find that verse and are hiding behind verse 31, then you're only confirming your arguments are all feathers and no flesh. Cheers.

Hello kolaxy,

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

That's okay - and I can absolutely let you have your opinion as simply as stated above, even though I do not agree with you.

However, should you wonder about why I disagree with you, it is on your assumption that "the Heaven was created a day before the earth". I do not find that assumption made in Genesis 1, and it would have been interesting to see you point out the verse for me.

Yet, the serious problem with your assumption is that the creation week would not be a 7 day period (ie., 1 day for creating heaven before earth + the other 6 days of creation) but rather an 8-day period, where God would have rested on the 8th day instead of the 7th. Have you carefully considered this before drawing your conclusions?

Perhaps there was something you wanted me to see which I have not. Your clarifications would be most appreciated.

Even Our Faith
November 28, 2009

"One Lord, one faith, one baptism." (Ephesians 4:5)

Everyone has faith in something--faith in some religion, faith in one's self, faith in fate, faith in evolution, faith in mankind.  Even the atheist has faith in his own reason.  But there is only one real faith that works for time and eternity.  True faith is faith in the one true God--the God who made us, who will judge us, and who has paid the price to save us.

This faith is an understanding faith, for it is "through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God" (Hebrews 11:3). It is a saving faith, "for by grace are ye saved through faith" (Ephesians 2:.  Since "the just shall live by faith" (Galatians 3:11), it is therefore a living faith, and a growing faith, "because that your faith groweth exceedingly" (2 Thessalonians 1:3), and a working faith because "faith without works is dead" (James 2:20).

There is more.  The true faith is a justifying faith (it makes us righteous in the sight of God) because "being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ" (Romans 5:1).  It is a protecting faith because with "the shield of faith . . . ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked" (Ephesians 6:16).  It is a stable faith, "for by faith ye stand" (2 Corinthians 1:24).  This faith is also a purifying faith, "purifying their hearts by faith" (Acts 15:9).  Furthermore, asking faith receives answers to its prayers, "in faith, nothing wavering" (James 1:6), and a strong faith recoiling "not at the promise of God through unbelief; but . . . strong in faith, giving glory to God" (Romans 4:20).

Finally, the Christian faith is a triumphant faith. "For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith" (1 John 5:4).  This faith--even our faith!--is an understanding, saving, living, growing, justifying, purifying, working, protecting, stable, asking, strong, triumphant faith! HMM

Awww. . . perhaps the thread has come to a dead end, and has switched over to a devotional one instead! It shouldn't surprise me though.

Hi Viaro,

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[b] And God called the firmament Heaven[/b]. 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 And God called the dry land Earth; 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.

Please what's your view on the above bolded statements in Genesis 1:1-13. Thanks

kolaxy:

Hi Viaro,


Please what's your view on the above bolded statements in Genesis 1:1-13. Thanks

Thank you, kolaxy.

First, notice that in verse 1 both the heavens are mentioned together without any day separating between them:

      'In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth'

No day separated this distinct declaration as if the heavens were first created and then the earth later came into existence the next day. I think when we disregard the very first verse, a whole lot of unrelated thinking are poured forth.

Next, we come to the first bolded line in your quote, which appears in verse 5:

      'And the evening and the morning were the first day.'

But just here is another problem: people who think the earth was left out on the first day have missed verse 2 again where the earth is already mentioned before the "first day" was marked in verse 5. Together, this is what both verses 1 and 2 declare about the earth:

       'In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.' [v. 1]

       'And the earth was without form, and void . .'  [v. 2]

This is clearly attesting to the fact that both the heavens and the earth were created in the beginning - no day separating between them; and verse 5 mentions the "first day" only after both verse 1 and 2 have clearly stated the fact of the creation of the earth before verse 5!

Now, what about verse 8? It declares the second day after stating that the firmament which divided waters from waters was named the "heavens". This does not mean we should discard what verse 1 states: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth"; nor should we forget that the earth was also mentioned in verse 1 and 2 before the "first day" in verse 5.

The same thing with verse 10 - "And God called the dry land Earth" does not mean that was when the earth was created, unless we want to deliberately ignore verse 1 and 2 about the creation of the earth mentioned together with the heavens without any day separating them.

It was for this reason (or reasons) that I earlier hinted that if we're not careful, we shall be reading an additional day to make the creation week a 7 day period with the divine rest on the 8th day. As long as we understand and take seriously what verse 1 states about the creation of the earth without any day separating that from the creation of the heavens, we shall not have to be faced with undue problems.

viaro:

What you have been doing is stretch truth, evade particular references, and go limp in the face of issues that question your obdurate assertions feigned as the interpretation of those verses of Scripture. I had a good laugh at the one where you tried to use the shed blood of Abel to establish the age of the cosmos! That was classic! Is there any wonder then that you really have no clue what you're arguing as regards the age of the universe? What then would be left of you if I had approached my subject from a geoscientific perspective? As to those clowns in the vids you posted, I would often watch them when I need a good laugh.

Oladegbuu is a protege of Ken Ham, Kent Hovind and all his other YEC/YUC mentors out there. . . .

Viaro you are reading the creation accounts in genesis completely different from the way the YEC/YUC read the accounts. . .If you read some of their interpretations and opinions you will see that you guys are on two different roads. . . .

^^^what can I say? Not only are we on different roads, we are most probably on different planets!

@viaro,

Thank you, kolaxy.

First, notice that in verse 1 both the heavens are mentioned together without any day separating between them:

'In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth'

No day separated this distinct declaration as if the heavens were first created and then the earth later came into existence the next day. I think when we disregard the very first verse, a whole lot of unrelated thinking are poured forth.

Next, we come to the first bolded line in your quote, which appears in verse 5:

'And the evening and the morning were the first day.'

But just here is another problem: people who think the earth was left out on the first day have missed verse 2 again where the earth is already mentioned before the "first day" was marked in verse 5. Together, this is what both verses 1 and 2 declare about the earth:

'In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.' [v. 1]

'And the earth was without form, and void . .' [v. 2]

This is clearly attesting to the fact that both the heavens and the earth were created in the beginning - no day separating between them; and verse 5 mentions the "first day" only after both verse 1 and 2 have clearly stated the fact of the creation of the earth before verse 5!

Now, what about verse 8? It declares the second day after stating that the firmament which divided waters from waters was named the "heavens". This does not mean we should discard what verse 1 states: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth"; nor should we forget that the earth was also mentioned in verse 1 and 2 before the "first day" in verse 5.

The same thing with verse 10 - "And God called the dry land Earth" does not mean that was when the earth was created, unless we want to deliberately ignore verse 1 and 2 about the creation of the earth mentioned together with the heavens without any day separating them.

It was for this reason (or reasons) that I earlier hinted that if we're not careful, we shall be reading an additional day to make the creation week a 7 day period with the divine rest on the 8th day. As long as we understand and take seriously what verse 1 states about the creation of the earth without any day separating that from the creation of the heavens, we shall not have to be faced with undue problems.

Thanks once again for your response. Honestly, had I checked through your posts on the 1st and 2nd page of this thread, I would've perfectly known where you are 'coming from'. And there wouldn't have been any need for all these. My point was based on the following Bible verse which you've thoroughly discussed with Modupe01.

Exodus 20:11

"For in six days the LORD made the heavens and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day, and hallowed it."

So, once again, thanks for your time.

The Beginning Of The Creation

"But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female" (Mark 10:6).

These words of the Lord Jesus Christ ought to settle once and for all, for those who take His words seriously, the controversial question of the age of the earth.  The earth was created essentially at the same time, He said, as the creation of Adam and Eve.  Christ was quoting from Genesis 1:27: ". . . male and female created He them."  This greatest of God’s creative works was "from the beginning of the creation," not 18 billion years after the beginning of the creation, as modern old-earth advocates allege.

One can understand why atheists believe in evolution and an almost infinitely old universe, for they really have no other alternative.  One who believes in a personal God, on the other hand, only dishonours God if he believes such humanistic speculations rather than God’s word.  God is omniscient and omnipotent, as well as loving and merciful, and He would never do anything like this.  The great ages assumed by evolutionary geologists supposedly involved billions of years of suffering and dying by billions of animals before man ever evolved.  Surely this would have been the most inefficient, wasteful, and cruel method that ever could have been devised for "creating" human beings.  Since man’s creation was God’s main purpose, there is no conceivable reason why He would waste billions of years in such a meaningless charade as this before getting to the point.  In fact, the only reason He took six days instead of an instant of time was to serve as a pattern for man’s work week (Exodus 20:8–11).

In fact, the Lord Jesus Christ was not only a creationist, but was Himself the Creator of all things (John 1:3; Colossians 1:16; etc.).  Therefore, He is the best possible witness as to when He created man and woman, and He said it was "from the beginning of the creation!" HMM

modupe01:

The Beginning Of The Creation

“But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female” (Mark 10:6).

These words of the Lord Jesus Christ ought to settle once and for all, for those who take His words seriously, the controversial question of the age of the earth.  The earth was created essentially at the same time, He said, as the creation of Adam and Eve.

Please stop putting words in His mouth! In Mark 10:6 that you quoted, Jesus did not mention any "earth" in that verse! Nor did He try to use Adam or Even to determine the age of the earth or the cosmos! This is why I earlier noted:

viaro:

What you have been doing is stretch truth, evade particular references, and go limp in the face of issues that question your obdurate assertions feigned as the interpretation of those verses of Scripture. I had a good laugh at the one where you tried to use the shed blood of Abel to establish the age of the cosmos! That was classic! Is there any wonder then that you really have no clue what you're arguing as regards the age of the universe?

viaro:

Please stop putting words in His mouth! In Mark 10:6 that you quoted, Jesus did not mention any "earth" in that verse! Nor did He try to use Adam or Even to determine the age of the earth or the cosmos! This is why I earlier noted:

A man with an experience is not at the mercy of the man with an argument. I have discovered your problem which has been enumerated into details here. You will do yourself a lot of favour if you read and learn from it. I wish you the best in your chosen path.

The Beginning Of The Creation

"And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God" (Revelation 3:14).

This salutation in the last of the seven church epistles in Revelation contains the last of four occurrences of the distinctive phrase, "the beginning of the creation."  The glorified Christ here assumes this as one of His divine names.  Note that even God’s work of creation, long since completed (Genesis 2:1–3), had a beginning, and that beginning was Christ.  "In the beginning was the word . . . and . . . . All things were made by Him" (John 1:1,3).

The first two occurrences of this phrase also come from the lips of Christ.  "From the beginning of the creation God made them male and female" (Mark 10:6).  This assertion by the Creator, Jesus Christ, quoting Genesis 1:27, makes it unambiguously certain that Adam and Eve were created at the beginning of creation, not after the earth had already existed for 4.5 billion years.  God also wrote this plainly on the tables of the law (Exodus 20:8–11).  Those evangelicals who accept the geological ages evidently reject this clear statement of the creation’s Creator!

Then Christ also referred to the end-time in the context of the beginning-times.  "In those days shall be affliction, such as was not from the beginning of the creation which God created unto this time, neither shall be" (Mark 13:19).

The phrase is also used in Peter’s very important prophecy concerning the scoffers of the end-times who will argue (in willful ignorance) that "all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation" (II Peter 3:3,4), thereby denying that there ever was a real creation or real Creator and thus rejecting Christ Himself.  But He is also the "true witness" and the "Amen," and such denials will only be "unto their own destruction" (II Peter 3:16). HMM

modupe01:

A man with an experience is not at the mercy of the man with an argument.

You neither demonstrated that experience in any argument, nor handled your arguments sanely. Thus, it's true no one could be at the mercy of any man who spins webs to put words in Jesus' mouth.

I have discovered your problem which has been enumerated into details here.  You will do yourself a lot of favour if you read and learn from it.  I wish you the best in your chosen path.

Nice try, but look for another excuse with substance. I have no problem; and supposing one for me is a convenient way of evading the real issues here. ICR and their complaints are best suited to them - they are only making clowns of themselves all the more and those who quote them in a cosmetic fashion against other Christians. Here especially is one of the preposterous lines in that link that they made up to imprecate other Christians:

          ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Even more—questioning the character and nature of the God of the Bible
           by attributing to Him the evil, wasteful, chaotic, random, purposeless,
           death-filled processes of evolutionary "creation" making God the Author
           and Sustainer of all that evolution demands.
           ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

None of these things apply to me, since I have not questioned the 'character and nature' of God; nor have I attributed to Him any of those adjectival descriptives of any evolutionary 'creation'. The silliness of the chaps at ICR is why people see them for the clowns they are: because when their theses and pretentious interpretation of Scripture fails them, the next best thing they do is make silly ad hominems against other people. Is it any wonder then that you have turned this thread into an ICR devotional?

modupe01:

The Beginning Of The Creation

"And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God" (Revelation 3:14).

This salutation in the last of the seven church epistles in Revelation contains the last of four occurrences of the distinctive phrase, "the beginning of the creation."  The glorified Christ here assumes this as one of His divine names.

Here is another occurrence of the clause 'the beginning of creation' - which your devotional affirms is one of the divine names of Christ, yes? Yes. I previously pointed out that such a clause does not mean exactly the very same thing in all the places where they occur; and this is why you should have been reasonable and calm to think carefully through this matter. As such, since Christ affirms that clause as one of His divine names, does that make Christ only 6,000 years old? Is this not the reason why I cautioned that you should not be too assertive in your feigned interpretations of Scripture?

Just a subscript, though: it might be painful for you to realize this fact - ICR does not do science. They are better at weaving surprising tales than making any good attempt at science. That is perhaps why you made an attempt to determine the age of the cosmos by the shed blood of Abel. Applause.

@modupe01,

I am not your enemy; and no, I don't have any problem. I tried to reason out this subject with you concerning the age of the earth and the universe, the cosmos. . and so that you won't have to worry about any "outside influences", my posts were drawn from Scripture, where I both discussed from, drew questions and proffered some reason. When something just does not follow, we should not force our thinking to bend any verse to make it 'work' - to do so is why unbelievers will laugh and use the familiar phrase 'lying for Jesus' to retire the pseudoscience that many like the chaps at ICR practise.

People can have different ways of seeing things; but where we disagree, it should not be reason enough to allege things which are not true about me - and to even keep maintaining such allegations after I corrected them. This was why I put your 'YEC/YUC' assertions to the test, and only found it wanting. Turning the thread into a devotional does not help to redeem the fallacy of your YEC/YUC; but you can enjoy whatever is left of it. Cheers.

@viaro,

I must commend you for taking the time to go through the link I suggested even though you didn't agree with it. It is pertinent that as Christians we should take what Jesus says on any matter as our final authority. Anyone who claims that they are true followers of Jesus Christ should take His sayings seriously. We may not have the perfect understanding of scriptures but where Jesus, who not only created all things but also gave the proper interpretations to His inerrant Word we have no excuse to continue in our ignorance. See here how Jesus taught a recent creation and then decide if you want to continue to follow man's ideas or not.

The Beginning Of The Creation

"For in those days shall be affliction, such as was not from the beginning of the creation which God created unto this time, neither shall be" (Mark 13:19).

The phrase "from the beginning of the creation" or equivalent, occurs at least six times in the New Testament, indicating, beyond question, that the world was created at a definite beginning-point of time.  All other cosmogonies, on the other hand, are evolutionary cosmogonies, which deny a real beginning for the space/time cosmos at all.

What almost seems a redundancy in our text is the phrase "the creation which God created."  Evidently the Lord thought it vital to stress the fact of divine creation, especially as the great last-days "affliction" draws near.

That the "creation" mentioned in this verse refers explicitly to the cosmos, is evident from the parallel passage in Matthew 24:21, where the same prophecy is rendered as follows: "For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not from the beginning of the world to this time."  Here "world" is actually the Greek, kosmos, referring to the ordered universe of heaven and earth.  Thus, according to the Bible, the entire universe (including even time itself) came into existence at the "beginning," when God created it, as recorded in Genesis 1:1.

Note especially the significance of Mark 10:6 in this connection: "But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female."  Jesus was here quoting from the account of the creation of Adam and Eve (Genesis 1:27) and included what seemed an almost-incidental confirmation that God created them, not after many billions of years of cosmic evolution, but from the very beginning of creation!  Man and woman were not divine afterthoughts, as evolution would imply, but were the very reason why God created the universe in the first place. HMM

Hi again modupe01,

I had just logged out of NL when my inbox pinged, announcing a reply in a thread I was following. A quick look and it was this one. I'll try and run through that link you recommended.

I see that we have discussed almost all the points highlighted there - another one of Henry Morris' (Ph.D) write-ups. Nothing new there; so perhaps it might be somewhat easier and better to offer a summary yet again:

The three basic areas of Morris' concerns for the view of his YEC are partly quoted in their relevant portions below:

1. The Bible nowhere allows for long ages.
One can search the Scriptures (see my book Biblical Creationism for proof) from beginning to end without finding even a hint of evolution or long ages.

2. The Bible explicitly states how and when creation took place.
. . . The question seems to be even more firmly settled when God wrote with His own finger that "in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the [seventh] day, and hallowed it" (Exodus 20:11), thereby basing our calendar's seven-day week on this primeval creation week.

3. The Lord Jesus recognized that men and women existed right from the beginning.
The current opinion is that the cosmos evolved about 16 billion years ago, the earth about 4.6 billion, primitive life perhaps two billion, and human life about one million years ago. The Lord Jesus, on the other hand (who was there, having Himself created all things—note John 1:1-3), taught that men and women were made essentially at the same time as the cosmos itself, when He said that "from the beginning God . . . made them male and female" (Mark 10:6). "The beginning" obviously was a reference to Genesis 1:1, and Christ was specifically citing Genesis 1:26.

You would find that there's nothing new in these arguments, which I have examined in detail. However, in the third quote, the remark that caught my interest was this statement:

     --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
     that, the Lord Jesus. .
     'taught that men and women were made essentially at the same time as
     the cosmos itself
     --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As we have seen, that statement is as false as anything false can be! That was Morris putting words in Jesus' mouth, forcing the text to say what it does not state! The Lord Jesus nowhere teach that men and women were made essentially at the same time as the cosmos - unless Henry Morris with a Ph.D does not understand what the 'cosmos' is. This is what worries me with people who beggar what true science actually is; especially in the face of the Biblical warning that we should avoid "science falsely so called" (1 Tim. 6:20).

Another thing you might notice is Henry Morris' repeated mention of evolution. Why does he assume that anyone who thinks differently and sees an old age cosmos must by default be resorting to evolution? As is evident in this thread, I believe from Scripture that the cosmos is older than 6,000 years old - but my conclusions were not reached by evolutionary thinking at all.

He also mentions the work of "Creationist geologists", and for the life of me I still can't find what type of scientific model, hypothesis, or theories these creationist geologists have formulated and tested. Where are the scientific theories that these creationist geologists have that could be referenced for their work and replicated by other non-partisan geoscientists?

During the coming week, no matter how tight my schedules, I shall take time to come examine the religious geology of some of these ICR staff. The findings may surprise you - and there's no need to wonder about any outside influences: I will stick to the Bible and query some of their thinking.

Cheers.

@Hi viaro,

Thanks again for going through those links. It is for you to reflect on in your quiet time, you may not necessarily agree with them now and it is not a matter of argument. You are entitled to your opinion and the responsibility of you finding out the truth depends squarely on your shoulders. What you do with these truths is entirely up to you.

Prophets From The Beginning

"That the blood of all the prophets, which was shed from the foundation of the world, may be required of this generation; From the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zacharias, which perished between the altar and the temple: verily I say unto you, It shall be required of this generation" (Luke 11:50,51).

God’s true prophets have been persecuted from the beginning.  Abel, son of Adam and Eve, was the first, according to Jesus, for his blood was shed by Cain "from the foundation of the world."  A "prophet" in Biblical terms was a man who proclaimed inspired words from God (not necessarily predictions of the future, but words inspired by the Holy Spirit—note I Peter 1:10,11; II Peter 1:19–21).

Evidently Abel was speaking God’s own words to Cain when the latter slew him in jealous wrath.  The Zacharias mentioned is probably "Zechariah the son of Jehoiada the priest," who was stoned when he prophesied against the people under King Joash (II Chronicles 24:20–22), for he was the last prophet actually mentioned in the Old Testament as having been slain for his testimony.

Thus the period encompassed by the Lord’s statement was the entire Old Testament period, "from the foundation of the world" to the coming of Christ.  The same experience awaited most of the prophets used by God to pen the New Testament Scriptures.  Thus does the world react to God’s inspired word!

There is another important truth in this passage.  The blood of God’s prophets began to be shed "from the foundation of the world," not just beginning almost five billion years after the foundation of the world, as modern evolutionists allege!  This is striking confirmation that the world was made from start to finish in six literal days.  See also Mark 10:6, Acts 3:21, etc., for similar incidental confirmations of this truth. HMM

modupe01:

@Hi viaro,

Thanks again for going through those links. It is for you to reflect on in your quiet time, you may not necessarily agree with them now and it is not a matter of argument. You are entitled to your opinion and the responsibility of you finding out the truth depends squarely on your shoulders. What you do with these truths is entirely up to you.

Thanks, modupe01. I'm quite familiar with the arguments of ICR; and their own interpretations are their own and does not represent 'truth' for any other Christian. This has been demonstrated again and again, especially where they often evade certain questions, as the ones I offered you for consideration. I think we should be careful how we hold on to particular modes of exegesis about the age of the cosmos/universe that try to box down everything to the narrow assertions of some traditionalists. Even God Himself is not averse to our use of the gift of reason He gave us.

Viaro,

You mentioned in some of your posts that you can use geosciences to buttress your point that the earth is older than 6000 years. I would like to see some of those points.

They should be quite interesting. . .

^^^Yes, I mentioned geosciences as providing evidence of an age older than 6,000 years for the earth. Although I would not like to get bogged down with either paradigms of geoscientific studies (reductionist or holistic), it is well to note that one cannot possibly ignore the role of planetary science in the geosciences. This would mean that the proper geoscientific study of the Earth cannot stand alone as if the Earth is excluded from the universe in which it is contained; but rather that one needs to look at this study in a manner that involves the properties of any such given system - physical, biological, chemical, chronological, etc.

In due course, I shall share the very little in my understand as regards this; but I still do not see the Earth as young as 6,000 years old.

viaro:

In due course, I shall share the very little in my understand as regards this; but I still do not see the Earth as young as 6,000 years old.

waiting in anticipation. .

@ow11,

You have been very patient with me. I have not forgotten your enquiry and will follow up on it. Just a line to let you know it's still well remembered. Thank you for your patience.