1 registered members (Russ),
1,663
guests, and 24
spiders. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
S |
M |
T |
W |
T |
F |
S |
|
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
19
|
20
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
26
|
27
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
31
|
|
|
Only The Best Herbs!
Your best source of world-class herbal information! More... |
#1 Book We've Found!
"Silver" fillings, mercury detox, & much more. More... |
For Mercury Detox
Prevent mercury reabsorption in the colon during detox. More... |
Softcover & Kindle
Excellent resource for mercury detox. More... |
For Mercury Chelation
For calcium chelation and heart health. More... |
Must for Every Parent
The most complete vaccine info on the planet. More... |
Finally.
Relief! More... |
Dr. Sherri Tenpenny
Get the info you need to protect yourself. More... |
What everyone's talking about!
Safe, powerful, timely! More... |
There is a difference!
A powerful brain antioxidant for use during Hg detox. More... |
This changed my life!
This book convinced me remove my fillings. More... |
This is what we use!
The only multi where you feel the difference. More... |
Hair Tests Explained!
Discover hidden toxicities, easily. More... |
Have Racing Thoughts?
Many use GABA for anxiety and better sleep. More... |
Help Them!
Natural health for pets. More... |
The Bible We Use!
King James with study notes by Bullinger. More... |
The Bible We Use!
King James with study notes by Bullinger. More... |
Food Additives
Protect your family from toxic food! More... |
|
|
|
|
Russ Explains His Position on Creation
#44901
11/09/08 10:18 AM
11/09/08 10:18 AM
|
OP
Master Elite Member
|
Joined: Dec 1999
Posts: 30,797
Maine, USA
|
|
Please link to this page using this simple URL:http://urlbam.com/ha/M0020Russ Explains His Position on CreationI am very aware that all of the answers are not in yet, as science still has a lot of work to do in answering these questions. I am also aware that we see a lot of evidence for both a young creation and an old creation. Of course, evolutionists don't like to acknowledge the young Earth evidence, and creationists don't like to acknowledge the old Earth evidence. To be intellectually honest, we must view all of the evidence. It's important to note that I can only hypothesize, as can scientists, as to the age of the Earth and Universe, so here's my best guess. The universe is old, very old, perhaps hundreds-of-thousands or even millions of years. This is why the matter that makes up the Earth and moon seem old. But considering the young-Earth evidence, it seems that someone stopped by this busy little solar system several thousand years ago and did some rearranging. (I say "I think" below to humbly underscore the fact that I don't know all of these things. This is my best guess.) I think God updated some of the satellite positions around the planets, most notably the Earth's moon. Hence the "astronomical" coincidence that the moon, when viewed from the Earth, can eclipse the sun perfectly. It seems self evident that it is not by chance. He also made other changes to the solar system that are necessary and intimately related to the proper functioning of life on Earth. These changes explain the anomalies that we see pointed out in this video: Our Solar System: Evidence for Creationhttp://urlbam.com/ha/uI think God also rejuvenated the Earth, changing it in many ways in preparation for the life He would create on it. The Biblical support for this hypothesis is as follows. Is Creation the Beginning?"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."(Genesis 1:1) This is pretty clear, and I think that God did create the Earth in the beginning, probably meaning that time/space was all created at the same "time" as it is necessary (so far as we know) for the existence of matter. "And the earth [color:#CC0000]was (1961) without form (8414), and void (922)..."[/color] (Genesis 1:2) This verse is mistranslated and should read: "And the earth became a waste and a ruin;..."The word " was" is Strong's 1961 (haw-yaw'): "to exist, that is, be or become, come to pass" The word " without form" is Strong's 8414 (to'-hoo): "From an unused root meaning to lie waste; a desolation (of surface)" The word " void" is Strong's 922 (bo'-hoo): "an undistinguishable ruin" Those in doubt (which should be everyone) should look up the words themselves. It's important that everyone does their own research. It's enlightening and rewarding and builds confidence. So, we have the Earth "becoming" a waste and a ruin. This implies that at some previous time, it was not a waste or ruin. Clearly, the "creation" events that are about to take place are a "re-creation", not an original creation. "And God said, Let there be light: and there was light." (Genesis 1:3) Now, I think verse 3 (shown above) occurs after a great deal of time. This means that I generally accept what Christians call the "Gap Theory", being that there is a time gap between verses 2 and 3. I will also point out that this is the only place (that I'm aware of) that my belief differs from Hovind. Hovind believes in a young Earth, and he provide strong evidence for it, but in studying his case for young Earth, I believe most—if not all—of his points are easily explained by a "renewed" Earth, as I pointed out in the verse above. I will also add that the Bible make references to previous Earth ages, and I think this is supported by science and is another point of validity for an old Earth, new creation theory. Now, on the other hand, I must admit that this theory also leaves a few of the "On the X day, God created..." verses isolated, at least, at first glance. The CreationSo as we look at this, and admittedly (I'm still researching this little by little as time permits) you do find some interesting things. For example, the first creation is light (Gen 1:3) and that creation is marked by the appearance of darkness and light: "And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day."(Genesis 1:5) The word evening here means "night" and is from a root that means "dusk". The word morning here is from a root meaning "dawn", which is the first appearance of light. Considering that days are measured by the absence and presence of light, this verse becomes more interesting than at first glance. It is most important to point out that all of the creation days are written from an Earth perspective, meaning that they seem to be explaining what the Earth experienced (or what an Earth-bound observer would see) during this time. Keeping this in mind, verses like the Genesis 1:3 become easier to understand in that the Earth was probably completely dark and covered with layers of thick water vapor. The verse that is generally speaking about the creation of light may have nothing to do with the original "creation" of light at all. Light was likely "created" much earlier in time, and in fact, the verse (Gen 1:3) does not say light was created. It says that God said "Let there be light." When we view this from an Earth perspective, it could mean that God allowed light to be on the Earth at that time, even though He actually created light at a much earlier time. If this is written like the rest of these verses—from an Earth perspective (which would be logical considering the verses were written to be understood by a people who dwell on the Earth)—then things begin to make more sense. The same logic holds true for verses 14 through 16. Verse 17 further substantiates my "Earth perspective" theory. Most of the remaining creation days deal directly with terraforming the Earth and creating life, all things that I suspect God has no problem doing in an Earth day (24 hours) with His own power. I think this gives you a pretty good idea of my current creation theory, and I hope it answers your questions. RelatedAn interesting loosely related subject: The Fourth Word of the Bible: Christ's Role In Creation.
|
|
|
Re: Russ Explains His Brand of Creation
[Re: Lynnmn]
#44948
11/10/08 03:59 AM
11/10/08 03:59 AM
|
Master Elite Member
|
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 4,707
|
|
Of course, evolutionists don't like to acknowledge the young Earth evidence, and creationists don't like to acknowledge the old Earth evidence. To be intellectually honest, we must view all of the evidence.
Here's another take on it. Weither one agree's with it or not. Interesting reading..
In The Beginning God Created the heavens and the earth ." { Genesis 1:1 }
Genesis does not teach that the universe was created in a short period of time in the relatively recent past. What does it teach. Does Science Contradict the Genesis Account ??? Whats the Bibles viewpoint on that. Many people claim that science disproves the Bible's account of creation. But the real contridiction is between science and, not the Bible, but the opinions of so-called Christian Fundamentalists. Some of theses groups falsely assert that according to the Bible, all physical creation was produced in six 24 -hour days some 10,000 years ago.
The Bible, however, does not support such a conclusion. If it did, then many scientific discoveries over the past hundred years would indeed discredit the Bible. A carefully study of the Bible text reveals no conflict with established scientific fact.
The following shows what the Bible really teach's.
|
|
|
Re: Russ Explains His Brand of Creation
[Re: Lynnmn]
#44950
11/10/08 04:12 AM
11/10/08 04:12 AM
|
Master Elite Member
|
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 4,707
|
|
How Long Were The Creative Days ?
What about the length of the creative days ? Were they literally 24 hours long ? Some claim that because Moses-- the writer of Genesis- later referred to the day that followed the six creative days as a model for the weekly sabbath , each of the creative days must be literally 24 hours long.. { Exodus 20:11 }
Does the wording of Genesis support this conclusion ? No, it does not. The fact is that the Hebrew word translated " day" can mean various lengths of time, not just a 24- hour period. For example, when summarizing God's creative work, Moses referes to all six creative days as one day. { Genesis 2:4 }
In addition , on the first creative day, " God began calling the light Day, but the darkness he called Night." { Genesis 1:5 }
Here, only a portion of a 24- hour period is defined by the term " day. " Certainly, there is no basis in Scripture for arbitrarily stateing that each creative day was 24 hours long.
|
|
|
Re: Russ Explains His Brand of Creation
[Re: Lynnmn]
#44952
11/10/08 04:19 AM
11/10/08 04:19 AM
|
Master Elite Member
|
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 4,707
|
|
Creation Appears Gradually..
Moses wrote his account in Hebrew, and he wrote it from the perspective of a person standing on the surface of the earth. These two facts , combined with the knowledge that the universe existed before the beginning of the creative periods, or " days," help to defuse much of the controversy surrounding the creative account.
How so ? A carefull consideration of the Genesis account reveals that events starting during one "day" continued into one or more of the following days. For example, before the first creative " day " started , light from the allready exisiting sun was somehow prevented from reaching the earth's surface, possibly by thick clouds. { Job 38:9 }
During the first " day," this barrier began to clear, allowing diffused light to penetrate the atmosphere.*
* In the description of what happened on the first " day, " the Hebrew word used for light is 'ohr, light in a general sense, but concerning the fourth " day, " the word used is ma-'ohr', which referes to the source of light.*
|
|
|
Re: Russ Explains His Brand of Creation
[Re: Lynnmn]
#44953
11/10/08 04:28 AM
11/10/08 04:28 AM
|
Master Elite Member
|
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 4,707
|
|
On the second " day," the atmosphere evidently continued to clear, creating a space between the thick clouds above and the ocean below. On the fourth " day," the atmosphere had gradually cleared to such an extent that the sun and the moon were made to appear.. " in the expanse of the heavens." { Genesis 1:14-16 }
In other words, from the perspective of a person on earth, the sun and the moon began to be discernible. Theses events happened gradually.. The Genesis account also relates that as the atmosphere continued to clear, flying creatures--- including insects and membrane winged creatures--- started to appear on the fifth " day." However , the Bible indicates that during the sixth " day," God was still in the process of " forming from the ground every wild beast of the field and every flying creature of the heavens." { Genesis 2:19 }
Clearly, the Bible's language makes room for the possibility of some major events during each " day," or creative period , to have occured gradually rather then instantly, perhaps some of them even lasting into the following creative " days."
|
|
|
Re: Russ Explains His Brand of Creation
[Re: Lynnmn]
#44956
11/10/08 04:58 AM
11/10/08 04:58 AM
|
Master Elite Member
|
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 4,707
|
|
Why We Believe in a Creator.
Many experts in various scientific fields perceive intelligent design in nature. They find it illogical to think that the intricate complexity of life on earth came by chance. Hence, a number of scientists and researchers believe in a Creator.
They are convinced that the God of the Bible is the Designer and Builder of the material universe. Why have they arrived at that conclusion ? You may find their comments interesting.* The views presented by the experts in this articule do not necessarily reflect thoses of their employers.*
" Unfathomable Complexities of Life "
Wolf-Ekkehard Lonning profile: Over the past 28 years, I have done scientific work dealing with genetic mutations in plants.
For 21 of thoses years, I have been employed by Max Planck Institute for Plant Breeding Research, in Cologne , Germany. My empirical research in genetics and my studies of biological subjects such as physiology and morphology.. bring me face-to-face with the enormous and often unfathomable complexities of life.
My study of theses topics has reinforced my conviction that life, even the most basic forms of life, must have had an intelligent orgin.
The scientific community is well aware of the complexity found in life. But theses fascinating facts are generally presented in a strong evolutionary context. In my mind, however, the arguments against the Bible account of creation fall apart when subjected to scientific scrutiny. I have examined such arguments over decades. After much carefull study of liveing things and consideration of the way the laws governing the universe seem perfectly adjusted so that life on earth can exist.
I am compelled to believe in a Creator.
|
|
|
Re: Russ Explains His Brand of Creation
[Re: Lynnmn]
#44958
11/10/08 05:08 AM
11/10/08 05:08 AM
|
Master Elite Member
|
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 4,707
|
|
If the conclusion is that obvious, why do so many scientists believe in evolution ?
Might it be that evolutionists look at their evidence with presupposed conclusions ?
This is not unheard of among scientists.. But observation, no matter how convinceing , does not presuppose conclusion... For example, a person researching laser physics could insist that light is a wave, similar to a sound wave, because light often behaves like a wave.. However, his conclusion would be incomplete because the evidence also indicates that light behaves as a group of particles, known a photons.
Similarly, thoses who insist that evolution is a fact base their conclusions on only part of the evidence, and they allow their own presupposed conclusions to influence the way they view evidence.. I find it amazing that anyone accepts the theory of evolution as fact when evolutionary " experts " themselves argue, over how it is supposed to have happened..
For example, would you accept arithmetic as a proved fact if some experts said that 2 plus 2 equals 4, while other experts said it was believed to total 3 or possibly 6?
If the role of science is to accept only what can be proved, tested, and reproduced, then the theory that all life evolved from a common ancestor is not a scientific fact.
|
|
|
Re: Russ Explains His Brand of Creation
[Re: Lynnmn]
#44959
11/10/08 05:16 AM
11/10/08 05:16 AM
|
Master Elite Member
|
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 4,707
|
|
" Something Cannot Come From Nothing."
Kenneth Lloyd Tanaka profile: I am a geologist employed by the U.S Geological Survey in Flagstaff , Arizona. For almost three decades, I have participated in scientific research in various fields of geology, including planetary geology. Dozens of my research articules and geologic maps of Mars have been published in accredited scientific journels.
I was taught to believe in evolution, but I could not accept that the immense energy required to form the universe could have orginated without a powerfull Creator. Something cannot come from nothing. I also found a strong argument in favor of a Creator in the Bible itself. The book gives numerous examples of scientific fact in my field of expertise, such as the earth is spherical in shape and hangs " upon nothing. " { Job 26:7} { Isaiah 40:22 }
Theses realities were written in the Bible long before they were proved by human investigation. Think of the way we are made. We possess sensory perception, self-awareness, inteligent thought, communication abilities, and feelings. In particular , we can expirence , appreciate, and express love.
Evolution cannot explain how theses wonderfull human qualites came to be.
|
|
|
Re: Russ Explains His Brand of Creation
[Re: Lynnmn]
#44961
11/10/08 05:23 AM
11/10/08 05:23 AM
|
Master Elite Member
|
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 4,707
|
|
" The Obvious Design Evident in the Cell "
Paula Kincheloe: profile: I have several years of expirence as a researcher in the fields of cell and molecular biology and microbiology. I am presently employed by Emory University, in Atlanta, Georgia, U.S.A. I also work as a volunteer Bible teacher in the Russian-speaking community.
As part of my education in biology, I spent four years focusing on just the cell and it's components. The more I learned about DNA, RNA, proteins, and metabolic pathways, the more amazed I became with the complexity, organization,and precision involved.
And while I was impressed with how much man has learned about the cell, I was even more amazed at how much there is yet to learn. The obvious design evident in the cell is one reason I believe in God.
My study of the Bible has revealed to me who the Creator is--- namely, Jehovah God. I am convinced that he is not only an intelligent Designer but also a kind and loveing Father who cares for me. The Bible explains the purpose of life and provides the hope of a happy future.
Young ones in school who are being taught evolution may be unsure of what to believe.. This can be a confusing time for them. If they believe in God, this is a test of faith. But they can meet that test by examining the many amazing things in nature that surround us and by continuing to grow in knowledge of the Creator and his qualities.
I have personally done this and have concluded that the Bible's account of creation is accurate and does not conflict with true science.
|
|
|
Re: Russ Explains His Brand of Creation
[Re: Lynnmn]
#44962
11/10/08 05:28 AM
11/10/08 05:28 AM
|
Master Elite Member
|
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 4,707
|
|
" The Elegant Simplicity Of The Laws "
Enrique Hernandez - Lemus profile: I am a full- time minister. I am also a theoretical physicist working at the National University of Mexico. My current work involves finding a thermodynamically feasible explanation for the phenomenon known as the gravothermal catastrophe, which is a mechanism of star growth. I have also worked with the complexity of DNA sequences.
Life is simply too complicated to have arisen by chance. For example, consider the vast amount of information contained in the DNA molecule.. The mathematical probability of the random generation of a single chromosome is less than 1 in 9 trillion, an event so unlikely that it can be considered impossible. I think it is nonsense to believe that unintelligent forces could create not just a single chromosome but all the amazing complexity present in liveing beings.
In addition , when I study the highly complex behavior of matter, from the microscopic level to the movement of giant stellar clouds through space, I am impressed by the elegant simplicity of the laws governing their motion. To me, theses laws imply more than the work of a Master Mathematician-- they are like the signiture of a Master Artist.
Sometimes people ask me how I can believe in God. Their reaction is understandable , since most religions do not encourage their believers to ask for proof of what they are taught or to research their beliefs.. However the Bible encourages us to use our " thinking ability." ------ Proverbs 3:21
All the evidence of intelligent design in nature, together with evidence from the Bible, convinces me that God not only exists but is also interested in our prayers.
|
|
|
Re: Russ Explains His Brand of Creation
[Re: Lynnmn]
#44964
11/10/08 05:34 AM
11/10/08 05:34 AM
|
Master Elite Member
|
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 4,707
|
|
Why Do You Feel That Life Provides Evidence Of Intellegent Design ?
Professor Behe: We infer design whenever we see complex functional arraignments. Take, for instance, the machines we use everyday--- a lawnmower, a car, or even simpler things. An example I like to use is a mousetrap. You conclude that it is designed because you see different parts arranged to perform the function of catching a mouse.
Science has now advanced enough to have uncovered the foundation level of life. And much to our surprise, scientists have found functional, complex machinery at the molecular level of life.
For instance, within liveing cells there are little molecular " trucks " that carry supplies from one side of the cell to the other. There are tiny molecular " sign posts " that tell theses " trucks " to turn left or right. Some cells have molecular " outboard motors " that propel the cells through liquid. In any other context, when such functional complexity is evident, people would conclude that theses things were designed.
We have no other explanation for this complexity, claims of Darwinian evolution notwithstanding. Since it's been our uniform expirence that this sort of arrangment bespeaks design, we are justified in thinking that theses molecular systems were also intelligently designed.
|
|
|
Re: Russ Explains His Brand of Creation
[Re: Lynnmn]
#44969
11/10/08 06:05 AM
11/10/08 06:05 AM
|
Master Elite Member
|
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 4,707
|
|
The Bible says that God created liveing things " according to their kinds." { Genesis 1:20,21 }
It does not support the idea that life arose from non- liveing matter or that God started off the process of evolution with a single cell.. Still, each " kind " has potential for great variety.. So, the Bible allows for change to take place within each " Kind. "
Also, consider what Paul wrote about God: " His invisible qualities are clearly seen from the world's creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made." { Romans 1:20 }
With thoses words in mind, take a close look at the human body, the earth, the vast universe, the ocean depths.. Examine the fascinating world of insects, of plants , of animals--- whatever field interests you. Then useing your " power of reason, " ask yourself,.... ' What convinces me that there is a creator ?'
And lots of scientists do believe in a creator.
The Bible does not comment on the age of the earth or solar system. What it says is compatible with the thought that the universe may well have been in existence for billions of years before the beginning of the first creative " day ".--- Genesis 1:1,2.
If, indeed, evolution was true, there would seem to be ample reason to live by the fatalistic motto: " Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we are to die."--- 1 Corinthians 15:32..
Make no mistake about it.. true Christians do not accept the aforementioned statements nor accept the premise upon which theses statements are based ---- evolution..
On the contrary, they believe that the Bible is true.. { John 17:17}
Hence, they believe what it says about how we got here: " With you [God] is the source of life." { Psalm 36:9 }
Theses words have profound implications.
A Listing of Some of the Physical Constants Necessary for Life to Exist.
The charges of electron and proton must be equal and opposite; the neuron must outweigh the proton by a tiny percent; a matching must exist between temperture of the sun and the obsorptive properties of chlorophyll before photosynthesis can occur; if the strong force were a little weaker, the sun could not generate energy by nuclear reactions..
But if it were alittle stronger, the fuel needed to generate energy would be violently unstable; without two separate remarkable resonances between nuclei in the cores of red giant stars, no element beyond helium could have formed; had space been less then three dimensions, the interconnections for blood flow and the nervous system would be impossible; and if space had been more than three dimensions, planets could not orbit the sun stably.. --- The Symbiotic Universe, pages 256-7..
|
|
|
Re: Russ Explains His Brand of Creation
[Re: Russ]
#44991
11/10/08 07:13 PM
11/10/08 07:13 PM
|
Master Elite Member
|
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,315
|
|
Most evodates are ruled out if one accepts the histories and physical evidence that a worldwide flood took place in Noah's time. This is why evolutionists have always done their level best to deny the flood. [3] Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, [4] And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. [5] For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: [6] Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: [7] But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men. I do not wish them partial failure in their efforts.
Dark Matter + Dark Energy = Dark Truth"We find that such evidence demonstrates that the ID argument is dependent upon setting a scientifically unreasonable burden of proof for the theory of evolution." - Judge Jones Kitzmiller case http://www.talkreason.org/articles/Falsify.cfm"To Compel A Man To Furnish Funds For The Propagation Of Ideas He Disbelieves And Abhors Is Sinful And Tyrannical." - Thomas Jefferson "And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath?" - Thomas Jefferson
|
|
|
Re: Russ Explains His Brand of Creation
[Re: Lynnmn]
#46505
01/07/09 07:03 PM
01/07/09 07:03 PM
|
OP
Master Elite Member
|
Joined: Dec 1999
Posts: 30,797
Maine, USA
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Russ Explains His Brand of Creation
[Re: Russ]
#47009
01/29/09 09:29 AM
01/29/09 09:29 AM
|
|
Ok I have read your position on the age of the earth. While interesting, it is not novel. However it is lacking in details. Why do you believe the earth and universe are old? How old do you think they are? Was there life before the recent preparation by God? Once I know your answers to these questions, I can form a more complete investigation into your hypothesis.
A faith that connot survive collision with the truth is not worth many regrets. -- Arthur C. Clarke
|
|
|
Re: Russ Explains His Brand of Creation
[Re: LinearAq]
#47025
01/29/09 07:31 PM
01/29/09 07:31 PM
|
OP
Master Elite Member
|
Joined: Dec 1999
Posts: 30,797
Maine, USA
|
|
Why do you believe the earth and universe are old? The Bible speaks about previous ages of the earth. Even in the Genesis account, when properly translated, language is used that states the Earth had become a "waste" and a "ruin" and was not created at that time. We have located artifacts on Mars that where obviously built by beings that had the same kabbalistic belief system that the power-brokers do today. These ruins are very old. It is also becoming apparent that at least one of the moons of Saturn has geometric structure that defies natural processes (sound familiar ). These and other legitimate scientific positions indicate an old universe, and the Bible is in complete agreement with that. How old do you think they are? I don't know. I think that science has a hard time with that question, as I have heard several honest and qualified physicists admit. Was there life before the recent preparation by God? Yes. The angels existed before the re-creation of Earth, as indicated by the fact that they shouted for joy during the event. I also think the discoveries by Hoagland are indicators that the fallen angels have been here for a long time developing technologies that allow them to "walk among the stones of fire" as the Bible puts it. The stones of fire may be the planets and the fire may be the sun. This simplistic language may have been used so it would be digestible (even if not completely understood) throughout time.
|
|
|
Re: Russ Explains His Brand of Creation
[Re: Russ]
#47030
01/30/09 12:41 AM
01/30/09 12:41 AM
|
Master Elite Member
|
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 4,707
|
|
Oh yes, ((( Smiles ))) I was just listening to that today. It is so deep. The Three World Ages.. Arnold Murray explains it all so well and backing it up with scripture.. He's one of the Bible Teachers I really enjoying listening too. Even in another scripture subject.. He talks about Moffet translating standing where it ought not.. To standing where he ought not. Sticking to the subject in regard to Satan.. Another subject but... As you wrote... The Bible speaks about previous ages of the earth. Even in the Genesis account, when properly translated, language is used that states the Earth had become a "waste" and a "ruin" and was not created at that time. Became void/waste. There was no man, no birds, no tree, no cities.. No bird with a branch to carry.. No man to carry it too. Zero, zilch. Why, because God shook it and it became void. They were broken down at the presence of the Lord. By Gods furious anger. God did not create a wasteland. Plus he added.. Christianity is a reality not a religion. Plus Jesus would not ask you to do anything that he did not have to do himself. And following Satan leads to the lake of fire. And Satan who wants to inherit yet Satan the Devil which is death. Will inherit and lead one to Judgment/Death. And the wages of sin is death. As God is a consuming fire. I have his tapes on Fallen Angels and Genesis too.. I really enjoy listening to theses. As you mentioned above.. I think Murray is one of the best Bible teachers around. I don't agree with him 100% on everything, as he is not a conspiratorialist, but other than that, his teaching is very solid. I think he is too.. But ya.. A conspiratorialist... If one believe's the world this system is ruled by the wicked one "Satan " and they are ruining/destroying the earth like the Bible speaks of.. The kings of the earth plotting.. It is a conspiracy. A conspiracy theory alleges a coordinated group is, or was, secretly working to commit illegal or wrongful actions, including attempting to hide the existence of the group and its activities. Trying to deceive us to make us believe the lie.. The bible says so. Thats what they do. Take Care Lynn
|
|
|
Re: Russ Explains His Brand of Creation
[Re: Russ]
#47125
02/02/09 02:02 PM
02/02/09 02:02 PM
|
|
The Bible speaks about previous ages of the earth. Even in the Genesis account, when properly translated, language is used that states the Earth had become a "waste" and a "ruin" and was not created at that time. Perhaps you could explain this one further. All translations I have seen indicate that the Earth was always "waste" before God started the creation process. We have located artifacts on Mars that where obviously built by beings that had the same kabbalistic belief system that the power-brokers do today. These ruins are very old. It is also becoming apparent that at least one of the moons of Saturn has geometric structure that defies natural processes (sound familiar ). Reference to articles covering this, please. I work for NASA and have heard nothing about any of this. These and other legitimate scientific positions indicate an old universe, and the Bible is in complete agreement with that. What other legitimate scientific positions? Was there life before the recent preparation by God? Yes. The angels existed before the re-creation of Earth, as indicated by the fact that they shouted for joy during the event. ...and they built structures on Mars... I also think the discoveries by Hoagland are indicators that the fallen angels have been here for a long time developing technologies that allow them to "walk among the stones of fire" as the Bible puts it. Bible verses please.
A faith that connot survive collision with the truth is not worth many regrets. -- Arthur C. Clarke
|
|
|
Re: Russ Explains His Brand of Creation
[Re: Lynnmn]
#47131
02/02/09 08:21 PM
02/02/09 08:21 PM
|
Master Elite Member
|
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 15,835
|
|
Greetings All!
This is a most dynamic post, Russ. Thankyou for sharing 'His Brand of Creation'. Do you mean 'HIS', or speaking for 'yourself?', sorry..... :-)
In my reading last night, I happened upon these fantastic verses from the "weeping" prophet,(JEREMIAH), whose writings became one of the four major prophetic books of the O/T. Referring to Jeremiah 51:14-16 - located under the topic of 'Babylon judged for sins against Israel':
"The LORD of hosts has sworn by Himself: "Surely I will fill you with a population like locusts, and they will cry out with shouts of victory over you."
"It is He who made (Creator), the earth by His power, Who established the world by His wisdom, And by His understanding He stretched out the heavens.
When He utters His voice, there is a tumult of waters in the heavens, And He causes the clouds to ascend from the end of the earth; He makes lightning for the rain, And brings forth the wind from His storehouses."
Biblical History explains the 'Creation of planet earth, and also the heavens.'
What a mighty God we serve. Thank you, Lynn, for your insight. You truly do 'your homework' on the Bible. Keep it up! Blessings, Abishag <><
Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me." [John 14:6]
|
|
|
Re: Russ Explains His Brand of Creation
[Re: Abigail]
#47132
02/02/09 08:53 PM
02/02/09 08:53 PM
|
Master Elite Member
|
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 15,835
|
|
Thank you, once again, Russ...
As I am sitting here reading references, etc. I find in JOB Chapter 9, beginning with verse: 5-10 :
"..God removes the mountains, they know not how, When He overturns them in His anger; Who shakes the earth out of its place, And its pillars tremble; Who commands the sun not to shine, And sets a seal upon the stars; Who alone stretches out the heavens And tramples down the waves of the sea; He, Who makes the Bear, Orion and the Pleiades, And the chambers of the south; Who does great things, unfathomable, And wondrous works without number."
WOW! The oldest book ever written, still the number one best sellar, contains all the "Creation" information.
What a mighty God we serve! Blessings, Abishag
Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me." [John 14:6]
|
|
|
Re: Russ Explains His Brand of Creation
[Re: LinearAq]
#47133
02/02/09 09:34 PM
02/02/09 09:34 PM
|
Master Elite Member
|
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 15,835
|
|
Hello LinearAq,
'Having just posted Scripture verses from the book of JOB, I find it very interesting that you say you work for NASA, yet you have heard nothing of comparable Bible verses to todays' meteorological comparisons? (my words)
Do you not find it interesting that approximately 4000 years ago JOB spoke of the same Constellations mentioned on today's Weather Broadcasts? (Bear, Orion, Pleiades)
Hmmmmmmm......very interesting indeed, I'd say.
So, you said you wanted to SEE scripture verses... You have them right before your eyes. (If you would but look).
I am not a 'debator', LinearAq. I am posting what I KNOW to be true Scientific information.
Abishag
Last edited by Abishag; 02/02/09 09:56 PM. Reason: spelling.
Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me." [John 14:6]
|
|
|
Re: Russ Explains His Brand of Creation
[Re: Abigail]
#47138
02/03/09 02:42 AM
02/03/09 02:42 AM
|
OP
Master Elite Member
|
Joined: Dec 1999
Posts: 30,797
Maine, USA
|
|
Perhaps you could explain this one further. All translations I have seen indicate that the Earth was always "waste" before God started the creation process. The Bible says the Earth "became" a waste. This implies that there was a previous time when it was not a waste, although this does not state it dogmatically. Please show me where the Bible indicates the Earth as always being a waste. I am familiar with the Bible and have not seen any such indication. Reference to articles covering this, please. I work for NASA and have heard nothing about any of this. Does that surprise you? Hoagland discovered the same thing at NASA: The right hand does not know what the left hand is doing. This is classic compartmentalization. There are many places, but this is a good place to start: http://enterprisemission.com/I would order the UN conference DVD to get a solid introduction. The information is based on this book: http://enterprisemission.com/images/monument.jpg...and they built structures on Mars... Evidence supports the idea that the monuments on Mars, being built according to kabbalistic numerology, were built by fallen angels, that same angels that gave technology to men, and who gave the "doctrines of demons" (the Kabbalah) to men as well. This is an interesting and deep study.
|
|
|
Re: Russ Explains His Brand of Creation
[Re: Abigail]
#47142
02/03/09 12:49 PM
02/03/09 12:49 PM
|
|
Hello. I hope your day is going well 'Having just posted Scripture verses from the book of JOB, I find it very interesting that you say you work for NASA, yet you have heard nothing of comparable Bible verses to todays' meteorological comparisons? (my words) Where did I say I have heard nothing of Bible verses that compare to today's "meteorological(?!) comparisons? Thou doth presume much. Do you not find it interesting that approximately 4000 years ago JOB spoke of the same Constellations mentioned on today's Weather Broadcasts? (Bear, Orion, Pleiades) I don't usually hear of the constellations in our weather forecasts. Be that as it may, did you think that the people of Job's day couldn't see the stars? Now, if they told me about the black hole at the center of our galaxy or the gravity induced fusion of hydrogen within stars, then I would be quite impressed. On another note. "Orion" was a hunter from Greek mythology and Pleiades represents the seven sisters of Atlas. If Job is the oldest book of the ever written then why would it have Greek names? Does the original Hebrew have "???. ???????, ?????" and "???????" where those two references are? I rather doubt it. Hmmmmmmm......very interesting indeed, I'd say. Not really that surprising at all that the people in Job's day could see patterns in the stars and gave those patterns names. The stars were there as guides for traveling after all. So, you said you wanted to SEE scripture verses... You have them right before your eyes. (If you would but look). Again, you assume that I have not studied the Bible. The source of your information about me is in error. I am not a 'debator', LinearAq. I am posting what I KNOW to be true Scientific information. And how is it that you KNOW this particular Scientific information?
A faith that connot survive collision with the truth is not worth many regrets. -- Arthur C. Clarke
|
|
|
Re: Russ Explains His Brand of Creation
[Re: Russ]
#47143
02/03/09 01:09 PM
02/03/09 01:09 PM
|
|
Perhaps you could explain this one further. All translations I have seen indicate that the Earth was always "waste" before God started the creation process. The Bible says the Earth "became" a waste. This implies that there was a previous time when it was not a waste, although this does not state it dogmatically. Which Bible are you looking in? Even my Strong's concordance doesn't support this....please elaborate. Please show me where the Bible indicates the Earth as always being a waste. I am familiar with the Bible and have not seen any such indication. The direct reading of the Bible (Genesis 1) implies strongly that God created the world in a formless state and it was in that state until God put things on it. Reference to articles covering this, please. I work for NASA and have heard nothing about any of this. Does that surprise you? Hoagland discovered the same thing at NASA: The right hand does not know what the left hand is doing. This is classic compartmentalization. There are many places, but this is a good place to start: http://enterprisemission.com/Crackpot nonsense. His science is incredibly screwed up. Evidence supports the idea that the monuments on Mars, being built according to kabbalistic numerology, were built by fallen angels, that same angels that gave technology to men, and who gave the "doctrines of demons" (the Kabbalah) to men as well. I saw the deep space data streams and helped decode them into pictures. No structures on Mars....sorry! As a Christian, aren't you supposed to be discerning about information that you accept as correct teaching?
A faith that connot survive collision with the truth is not worth many regrets. -- Arthur C. Clarke
|
|
|
Re: Russ Explains His Brand of Creation
[Re: LinearAq]
#47153
02/04/09 12:22 AM
02/04/09 12:22 AM
|
OP
Master Elite Member
|
Joined: Dec 1999
Posts: 30,797
Maine, USA
|
|
Which Bible are you looking in? Even my Strong's concordance doesn't support this....please elaborate. I'm looking at Strong's (an old one). And the earth(776) was(1961) without form,(8414) and void;(922) and darkness(2822) was upon(5921) the face(6440) of the deep.(8415) And the Spirit(7307) of God(430) moved(7363) upon(5921) the face(6440) of the waters.(4325) (Genesis 1:2) was(1961) - became without form(8414) - lie waste / desolation void(922) - ruin The direct reading of the Bible (Genesis 1) implies strongly that God created the world in a formless state and it was in that state until God put things on it. Two things to consider here. (1) First, you're statement is flat wrong. When you read it in it's original translation, and consider that the word "was" means "became", then it implies that it was not "without form" at some former time. (2) Peter and other books make references to previous Earth ages. Of course, this is consistent with Genesis. It's really quite plain to see. Crackpot nonsense. His science is incredibly screwed up. Such brash statements demand self inspection. Have you watched his lectures? What exactly is crackpot? Is it possible that you're frightened by ideas you're not familiar with? Is it possible that you're more interested in pleasing the emperor than serving truth? There are physicists, astronomers, mathematicians, and scientists from every other discipline who believe and accept his work. I have watched his U.N. lecture along with his University of Ohio and JPL lectures numerous times and have found no fundamental flaws with his logic. He's an excellent speaker and develops his theories with expertise. Do you know that his discoveries on Mars led to predictions about Neptune that turned out to be accurate? Do you understand Hoagland's statements about the important differences in Maxwellian and Newtonian math, and why they are so important today? Please tell us exactly what you believe is flawed. I'll gladly read it and consider your case. I saw the deep space data streams and helped decode them into pictures. No structures on Mars....sorry! As a Christian, aren't you supposed to be discerning about information that you accept as correct teaching? Your statement is irrelevant because the technical process of helping to decode data streams into graphics has nothing to do with the physical interpretation of the content of the pictures. It's like saying, "I can do framing" so that makes me an architect. Again, I would implore you to check out the 3 lectures that I mentioned earlier. He gave them to your colleagues. Why don't you watch them before throwing them away. Don't you agree that there is much too much rash judgement in the world today? I do hope so. "Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance."—Albert Einstein
|
|
|
Re: Russ Explains His Brand of Creation
[Re: Russ]
#48779
03/20/09 08:32 PM
03/20/09 08:32 PM
|
Master Elite Member
|
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 4,707
|
|
Hi Russ, ((( Smiles ))) I found it.. It's in a Bible that seems to be more focused on meanings and possible mistranslations.. And footnotes of compareing scriptures to earlier manuscripts. Vulgate, Dead Sea Scrolls ect.. And explaining with indexing what each chapter is pertaining to. And the words Jesus Christ is in this Bible too as well as the words Christ Jesus which is fine with me as Christ is not a last name but as this Bible explains.. Foot note.. Or Messiah " the Christ " {Greek) and "the Messiah" {Hebrew} both mean the " the annointed one".. The only problem I have with it which is like with the King James translation is.. I like how the Interlinear Bible uses Gods name instead of just the title and also the word Lord like in the King James is an English word in translation, title. They stick to the King James style in that way but.. Just looking at Bible.com a person can see their are many Bibles/Translations out there. But I agree like you do that the closer to the orignal text/word the better and also to look up the meaning of a word like a dictionary as well.. But as all the King James versions translated the Hebrew word as WAS.. This Bible " New International Version ".. Makes a footnote by the word Was.. As possibly "Became ".. As they also noted the translation of the Red Sea with the footnote .. That is, the Sea of Reeds.. They are very into footnotes of what some earlier manuscripts say or possible mistranslations or what was not found in an earlier manuscript... but seems to follow the lead of the King James Version with footnotes of theses details.. As also you say and also Pastor Murray too.
This verse is mistranslated and should read:
"And the earth became a waste and a ruin;..."
The word "was" is Strong's 1961 (haw-yaw'): "to exist, that is, be or become, come to pass"
The word "without form" is Strong's 8414 (to'-hoo): "From an unused root meaning to lie waste; a desolation (of surface)"
The word "void" is Strong's 922 (bo'-hoo): "an undistinguishable ruin"
Those in doubt (which should be everyone) should look up the words themselves. It's important that everyone does their own research. It's enlightening and rewarding and builds confidence.
So, we have the Earth "becoming" a waste and a ruin. This implies that at some previous time, it was not a waste or ruin. Clearly, the "creation" events that are about to take place are a "re-creation", not an original creation.
|
|
|
Re: Russ Explains His Brand of Creation
[Re: Lynnmn]
#51982
07/16/09 08:13 PM
07/16/09 08:13 PM
|
Master Elite Member
|
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 4,707
|
|
Became or Was Laid to Waste.. http://www.gnmagazine.org/booklets/EV/earthsage.htmCreation or Evolution Does It Really Matter What You Believe? When God shakes something up he shakes it up big time. It Becomes ruin waste without form and void. It's interesting the same wording is used in Jeremiah 4:23 And there was no man after no birds no flood no cities it was all gone.. Laid to waste.. And we know the Bible is a translation of ancient manuscripts. We do owe alot to King James to make the Bible more known unto the people. But man is not infallible only God is.. The King James translation wasen't handed down to us by God himself. But by and through translaters who I'm sure did the best they could at that time. Which was a pretty good job. Though we are very gratefull to King James. We still should be able to look up the meaning of the words based on the original language for ourselves. And not be considered disloyal to King James. He sounded like a wonderfull ruler. And did not want to keep the original manuscripts out of the peoples hands. He wanted us to have it. What was taken out of the orignal sacred tounges. Was the King James. He wanted us to have that too.. Not to keep anything from us. But for us to expand in our knowledge of the Scriptures. I do appreciate that. What a wonderfull gift to the people.
|
|
|
Re: Russ Explains His Brand of Creation
[Re: Lynnmn]
#52049
07/20/09 06:50 PM
07/20/09 06:50 PM
|
Master Elite Member
|
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 4,707
|
|
Jeremiah 4:23
I looked on the earth, and behold, it was without form and void; and to the heavens, and they had no light. I looked on the mountains , and, behold , they quaked. And all the hills were shaken. I looked, and, behold, there was no man; and all the birds of the skies had fled. I looked,and,behold the fruitful place was a wilderness, and all it's cities were broken down, before the face of Jehovah, before his glowing anger. For so Jehovah has said, The whole land shall be a desolation; yet I will not make a full end.
|
|
|
Re: Russ Explains His Brand of Creation
[Re: Lynnmn]
#52078
07/21/09 11:49 PM
07/21/09 11:49 PM
|
Master Elite Member
|
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 4,707
|
|
Became or Was Laid to Waste.. http://www.gnmagazine.org/booklets/EV/earthsage.htmCreation or Evolution Does It Really Matter What You Believe? When God shakes something up he shakes it up big time. It Becomes ruin waste without form and void. It's interesting the same wording is used in Jeremiah 4:23 And there was no man after no birds no flood no cities it was all gone.. Laid to waste..
|
|
|
Re: Russ Explains His Brand of Creation
[Re: Lynnmn]
#68563
09/25/12 06:08 PM
09/25/12 06:08 PM
|
Master Elite Member
|
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 4,707
|
|
I am also aware that we see a lot of evidence for both a young creation and an old creation. There is a movie out that explains how that can be! Has time always remainded the same in a timeless universe as space itself is stretching so is time. So the cosmic clock or our clock as what is time in the stretching of time and space. CBR and the slowing of the cosmic clock the slinky effect of the stretching of time. And in point of reference what if both are correct? Louise Flectcher and Ernest Borgnine in The Genesis Code. Faith and Science what if both are true? The Genesis Code - Official Trailer [HD] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2p4Cs_QkwsM&feature=relatedWhat if. And the Three World Ages or Ages is because of the word... Eon and Eon is a period of time. The Eons of the Bible With Concordance http://www.saviourofall.org/Tracts/Eons2.html
|
|
|
|