Creation vs. Spontaneous Combustion

When I logged on here tonight, I saw a good article called “How Hubble Killed God.” As you might have imagined, this article details how some of the data from the Hubble telescope disproves the notion that the earth is only about 6000 years old. You really should read it, since he explains his position much better than I ever could, but to give you the gist of it, his argument centers around the distance of the images the telescope has captured.

“Light speed, Mr Sulu…”
I’m sure most of you are familiar with the term “light-year,” but aside from old Star Trek episodes, do you know what it means? It’s pretty self-explanatory. A “light-year” is the distance that light is able to travel in a year. Light does not illuminate an object immediately. For instance, if you shine a flashlight at your wall, there’s a slight delay from the time you flip the switch to the point that you’re able to make shadow puppets (of course, you’ll never notice this delay). The average distance between the earth and the sun is 92,900,000 miles, and it takes light about 8 minutes to travel that distance. So when you see the sun finally sink below the horizon, it actually passed that point 8 minutes earlier. Pretty trippy, huh?

Stu (the blogger that posted this article) points out that the Hubble telescope has captured images from galaxies that are about 13 billion light-years away! Therefore, he concludes that the earth can’t be a measly 6000-ish years old (as far as the question of whether or not there’s a God, he’s pretty ambivalent; just thought the title was catchy). Well, I’d like to make a couple of observations.

The Chicken, or the Egg?
First of all, if you look at the creation account in Genesis, there are several interesting things that pop out at you. For one, creating this complex universe didn’t seem to be too difficult for God – he merely spoke it all into existence. Just as interesting is the fact that everything was fully formed. He didn’t make Adam and Eve into infants, they were adults. The four rivers mentioned in Genesis didn’t start out as tiny streams, they were rivers. Trees were trees, not saplings, etc.

So when God made the sun, I don’t believe he had to wait 8 minutes for its light to reach the earth. When God made stars (all of the stars, planets, etc were made on the 4th day, by the way), I don’t think he had to wait light-years before they showed up. God made everything as if it had already been here, so why couldn’t he have made something with its light already shining as far away as he wanted? After all, if he can speak things into existence, do you really think he’s going to be bound by the same rules of physics he created? Now, Stu would probably say that that’s a convenient copout. And since God created us all with a free will, Stu’s entitled to that opinion. But before you agree with him, check out the next section.

Proofs
The coolest thing about all of this is that the Bible gives some actual proofs for its veracity. Archaeology has backed up many of the Bible’s claims, and history has as well. But sticking to the realm of science, there are some passages that mention things that weren’t common knowledge until relatively recently.

10 He drew a circular horizon on the face of the waters,
At the boundary of light and darkness
– Job 26:10

22 It is He who sits above the circle of the earth, – Isaiah 40:22

These two passages show that the earth was round long before anyone knew that, and definitely long before many people maintained that it was a possibility.

7 He stretches out the north over empty space;
He hangs the earth on nothing.
– Job 26:7

We know now that the earth hangs in empty space, supported only by gravity (which is invisible). There were countless theories back then about how the earth was supported. Very few would have believed that it was hanging in empty space, yet that’s what the Bible teaches.

16 “Have you entered the springs of the sea?
Or have you walked in search of the depths?
– Job 38:16

People didn’t know there were “springs in the sea” until the last few centuries.

Bottom line: there are several things that science has only proven in the past few centuries that were written well before Christ’s birth. People who choose to follow God and the teachings in the Bible must do it based on faith. But it doesn’t have to be blind faith.

One Last Point
In my very first real blog post, I talked about the mystery God has revealed to us. This final point I want to make goes along with that first post very well. We need to be careful when we put too much stock in science or our own understanding. Plenty of people have made severe blunders in the name of science. Marie Curie helped discover radium, which has been very useful. However, she made the mistake of carrying it around with her a good bit too, and that stuff will make you glow in the dark…

The Bible comes right out and warns us several times about blinding ourselves with our own wisdom. Several of those passages are quoted in my first post. One of the most direct passages is this one:

9 The coming of the lawless one is according to the working of Satan, with all power, signs, and lying wonders, 10 and with all unrighteous deception among those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved. 11 And for this reason God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie, 12 that they all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness. – 2 Thes 2:9-12

For those who don’t really want to believe in God’s word, there are other things they can choose from. Now that’s not to say that they’ve been led astray and can’t help it. 2 Pet 3:9 tells us that God wants everyone to be saved and do what’s right. But some people just aren’t interested, and so God allowed a way for them to do what they want. When people embrace evolution, the Big Bang, etc, etc, they’re looking for anything other than what God said, and they’ll find just enough substance to convince themselves, and therefore, blind themselves to the truth. Let’s not fall into the same trap. Let’s keep open minds and continually strive to find the truth, whatever that might be.

Advertisements

20 thoughts on “Creation vs. Spontaneous Combustion”

  1. Hey,
    Nice post, I’m gussing by reading this that you believe in the “Young Earth” theory. (that probably sounds condescending, I didnt mean it that way:) )Man this gets so much hot headed debate amoung folks, yet I really see it as not that important in the whole scheme of things. Now don’t get me wrong, yes it is important that God is who He says He is and that He did everything He said He did. Just how and when He did it really seems a bit beside the point. Very strong points about us leaning on our own understandings and discoveries, thats what makes the Bible so important.

    Like

  2. Honestly, I’ve never researched much about the estimated age of the earth – like you, I’ve never thought it mattered a whole lot. However, I do believe in the Biblical account of creation. So, when it says that it took God six days to make everything, I think they were six literal days.

    I’ve heard the argument that the word “day” here could have been used figuratively, especially since 2 Pet 3:8 says that to God, one day is as a thousand years and a thousand years as one day. But I don’t buy this argument. The passage in 2 Peter was written for a specific purpose: to remind the readers that God was definitely coming back. See, many had begun to think that Christ would never return, since he hadn’t come back yet. But Peter reminds them that God is not held by time, and if he promises to do something, he will.

    The other thing to remember is that the Bible was written for us, so if it says that God created the universe in 6 days, then I think we are to take that literally. I believe that God made everything as if it had already been here, hence the light from stars shining here, even though they’re billions of light-years away. And following that line of thought, I even think it’s likely that God created the earth with fossils already in it.

    Like

  3. The argument that God made everything to appear old is not new — it was promoted in full in book called Oomphalos in the 19th century. Christian theologians rejected the idea then because it requires that God be a deceiver. There are at least six different creation stories in the Bible, each conflicting with the others in key details. One mentions six days of creation, same as the pagan belief system in Babylon, promoted by the best scientists in Babylon at the time (several hundred years before Jesus). Why would we ever take the word of ancient Babylonian scientists over what God’s creation manifests to scientists with better instruments today?

    Like

  4. That’s a good point, and thanks for the info on Oomphalos. In my opinion it’s still very possible for God to have made everything to appear old, though I don’t think I’d classify that as God being a deceiver. For one thing, God set up the example of doing things that way in the account of creation. Like I said, everything he made was made mature. Adam and Even were created full grown, not as embryos; trees and rivers and mountains, etc were all created in a complete state. I think that shows us that it’s very possible everything else was created that way.

    As far as heavenly bodies go, we’re given the account in Genesis 15 where God tells Abraham that his descendants will be as numerous as the stars in the heavens. Here, the stars were so numerous that they couldn’t even be counted (just like we see today), but there’s not enough time between Adam and Abraham for light to have traveled that far, unless God had created them with their light already shining here. So, if those things are accurate, then God’s not really a deceiver to have made everything as though it had already been here, since he practically tells us that’s the case when you really look at the account in Genesis.

    Also, even though we know God is not a deceiver, he does allow man to decieve himself. 2 Thes 2:11-12 says this:

    11 And for this reason God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie, 12 that they all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

    We know from 2 Peter 3:9 that God doesn’t want anyone to be lost, but for those who refuse to obey his commands, he allows them to believe other things. Maybe that sounds harsh to us, but for us to truly have free will then it’s necessary for us to be able to believe error. I just think (and 1 Cor 1 seems to support this) that we have to be very careful about our own wisdom and understanding. Mankind has been certain of scientific beliefs many times, only to have them disproved by other scientific research down the line.

    Thanks for your comment…

    Like

  5. Nate wrote: “For one thing, God set up the example of doing things that way in the account of creation. Like I said, everything he made was made mature. Adam and Even were created full grown, not as embryos; trees and rivers and mountains, etc were all created in a complete state. I think that shows us that it’s very possible everything else was created that way.”

    This is a good point that i’ve never really thought about before, thanks!

    Like

  6. By the way, Mr Darrell, I’m not familiar with there being 6 different creation stories in the Bible. Can you elaborate on that? Thanks

    Like

  7. There’s also nothing in the Bible that urges a 6,000-year-old Earth — that was the work of a 17th century geologist. I find it amusing that 17th century science is preferred over 21st century science, and held to be, somehow, more “sacred,” though of course it is only much less accurate. Faith does not call us to hold on to the 17th century.

    There are the two distinct creation stories told in Genesis, there is yet another much different one retold in Job (no Adam, no Eve, no Eden — but a dragon!); there is the famous story in John, which is notable mostly for its ambiguity. There are stories related, not completely, but with some differing details in Proverbs.

    Then, if one uses the longer canon, there are differing creation stories in Ecclesiasticus, Baruch and Wisdom.

    There two things in common in all the stories: God is the motivating force, and God’s creation is done out of love. Almost all other details differ. In those two common threads, evolution nests nicely, plus it has the corroboration of the Great Second Testament, creation. Taking any of the other stories as literal puts the written Word at direct odds with the Word created by God’s hand.

    What’s a Christian to do?

    Like

  8. If you could provide the specific passages, that would be great. In the meantime, I’ll try to find them myself. I agree that the Bible must make sense throughout, if we’re to believe it.

    I do know that the Bible refers to Adam and Eve several more times as though they were literal; Christ’s genalogy is even traced back to them. As far as 6000 years go, it doesn’t matter much to me how old the earth really is. But I think most people who hold that position get it from the account in Genesis – working genealogies backward to get the approximate 6000 year period.

    Like

  9. Provide the verses? I’m still a bit flabbergasted that so many are unfamiliar with them.

    Of course there are the two stories in Genesis 1 and 2. Some claim that they are really the same story, but of course no serious scholars make such a claim, due to the obvious differences in language and phrasing, and due to the differences in the stories themselves.

    In Job, when God finally speaks, God recounts the creation story partly to remind Job and Job’s friends who is God. These are words that most creationists never read, I think, since they act as if God never said them: “Why do you talk so much when you know so little?” God asks. Creation is laid out over chapters 38 through 41.

    In the recounting, God tells of the things God did, challenging Job, for example, to go to the “places where I keep snow and hail, until I use them to conquer and punish nations.” Clearly there is some metaphor here — God is not talking literally.

    But the creation story would be literal, wouldn’t it, especially when God describes it? In Job 41 God recounts the famous story of creation, where God wrestles with a dragon, a sea monster, for dominion over the Earth. “Can you catch a sea monster (Leviathan) by using a fishhook?” God asks in Job 41. No Eden, no Adam, no Eve, no first through sixth days — but the wrestling with the dragon.

    In Proverbs, Wisdom recounts her being with God at the creation, Proverbs 8:22-31.

    In the Catholic canon, Ecclesiasticus 24 has a creation story. There is another in Baruch 3:9 through 4:4. There is another recounting of Wisdom’s role in Wisdom 9 and 10, in the prayer of Solomon.

    Plus, as you note, there are many other references, though I do not believe any reference claims to be a literal reference. In Matthew, for example, in one verse that is usually pointed to by prooftexters, Jesus is not talking about creation at all, but is instead talking about divorce.

    When James Ussher, the geologist, made his chronology in the 17th century, he warned that it was known to be innaccurate, as there are gaps in the Bible (he knew of what is now known to be at least a 400-year gap). Ussher’s calculations were a scientific endeavor, not so much a religious one, and Ussher warned that there was much more to know that he could not include, because it was yet to be discovered. There is nothing in scripture which claims the age of the Earth can be learned from genealogies, and Psalms verses suggest that the age of the hills around Jerusalem are much greater than could be calculated, for example.

    Finally there is the problem of the more accurate, Second Testament of God: creation. Christians regard creation itself as a testament to God (see Romans 1:20-21, for example). When creation speaks, it speaks with accuracy. Creation speaks of great age. If we conclude that the rocks mislead us, we must conclude that God does the misleading, since God is the creator of the rocks. I’m uncomfortable with such a conclusion, since it runs contrary to so much of Christian doctrine.

    Does that help?

    Like

  10. Thanks for those passages, I read all of them (except for the Catholic texts). However, I don’t see the discrepancies you talk about. The books of Job and Provervbs don’t recount creation in the way you’ve described. Yes, they talk about God’s creation, and they talk about the fact that he created things (assigned the sea its limit, established the clouds, formed the mountains, etc). But there is no narration of the events of creation. The only narration I’ve been able to find is in the first few chapters of Genesis.

    And as far as Genesis goes, where do chapters 1 and 2 contradict one another? It seems obvious to me that chapter 2 is merely a more detailed account of some of the things listed in chapter 1.

    I agree that creation is another testament of God’s existence and power, as Romans 1 points out. I am amazed at the order to our universe and the myriad lifeforms that cover our planet. But I don’t think that any of that means our universe must be extremely old. God has given us ample evidence that a Creator exists, and he’s given us ample evidence that his word is complete and accurate and holds the secrets to our origin. So, I think we should believe what it teaches over what scientists propose. God has told us how creation occurred, and if we choose to believe something else, it’s not God deceiving us, we’re deceiving ourselves.

    Like

  11. The story in Job of God wrestling with the dragon is a classic Babylonian creation story, also told by several tribes right around Israel. You don’t recognize it as the creation story you know — so Job, had Job known the Genesis versions, should have at least acted confused, no? But he didnt. Your failure to recognize it is common, and to be expected, I suppose. It’s another creation story, so different many Genesisists fail to see it.

    Genesis 1 and 2 give a different order of creation — compare it yourself. In 1, Man is created last. In 2, Man is created before most or many other animals. The discrepancies between the order of creation have been topics of theological discussion for at least 3,000 years, giving rise to the story of Lilith, among other things (in Genesis 2 Adam is alone, and God must make a mate for him — well, what happened to the Woman who was created with Adam, at the same time he was created, in Genesis 1? In order to preserve the claim that the stories were literal, ancient commenters noted that Eve was Adam’s second mate, after Lilith, who was created in Genesis 1, was cast out of Eden.) I don’t mention Lilith to vouch for the veracity of the story, only to note that the discrepancies in the two creation stories were obvious thousands of years ago. It is a recent invention to claim Genesis 2 merely tells more detail, and its an invention that requires some severe bending of the actual texts of the two.

    And old universe doesn’t deny a creator. I think it’s simple error to assume that God isn’t old (scripture says otherwise, for example). Creation itself shows age — the size of the universe, the ages of rocks (which are dated with God’s clocks, the most accurate clocks in the universe — decaying atoms). We must believe what it teaches, if we are to preserve the idea that God doesn’t lie. If we choose to believe in a young creation, it’s not God deceiving us. His creation shouts out the answers, some refuse to listen.

    Like

  12. In Job 41, God describes a dragon, but it doesn’t say he wrestled with it. It only gives a description of it. At the end of chapter 40, God describes a behemoth and says “which I made along with you” (vs 15). The point that is being made is that Job couldn’t hope to understand or overcome beasts like that, yet God made them. God understands them; God created them. So who is Job to question God or think he understands God’s motives? Job is insignificant to God, and that is exactly the point God is making. To say that Job recounts a creation story is grasping at straws. It doesn’t matter to me if Babylonians had a creation story that involved wrestling a dragon. Ancient Japanese believed that the earth was a dragon too. Those points are irrelevant because this passage in Job is being used to show God’s power and authority, not explain how God created everything. Context alone tells us that.

    In Genesis 2, we are told that God created the animals. We’re also told that God brought them before Adam to be named. We are not told that Adam was created first. Now, that’s something that we might assume, but seeing as how chapter 1 tells us that Adam was created after the animals, then we understand that God took the animals he had created and brought them before Adam after Adam was created. Pretty simple concept (Gen 2:18-20; 1:24-28). Either way though, it doesn’t really matter; there’s not much emphasis placed on it in the Bible, other than telling us those things happened on the 6th day.

    I think Genesis 1 is supposed to be taken as an overview of creation. Gensis 2 goes back and gives the particulars about Adam’s creation and Eve’s creation. God creating 2 women for Adam would be a pretty significant part of the story, but that’s nowhere to be seen. Did God simply forget to include it? The simpler explanation for something is often the correct one. Inventing Lilith, while exciting, is much more cumbersome than the logical conclusion that Genesis 2 tells the same creation story but gives us a little more detail. The story of Lilith may be old, but there’s no point in holding onto nonsense just because it’s ancient nonsense.

    Finally, I agree that an old universe doesn’t deny a creator. And I agree that God isn’t young – we’re told he’s eternal. But that doesn’t mean the universe has to be old. Personally, I don’t think it really matters how old the earth is, but I definitely believe in the Gensis account of creation. I think the 6 days of creation were 6 literal days. I think Adam and Eve were the first people on earth and it’s through their seed that we all got to be here. You think my fallacy is in blinding myself to physical evidence such as light-years and decaying atoms. I think your fallacy is in thinking God is limited by the very physics he created.

    Don’t forget what 2 Thess 2:11-12 says:

    And for this reason God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie, that they all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

    By the way, seeing as how you consider yourself to be a Christian, how do you account for the supposed “discrepancies” about creation? Is the Bible God’s inspired word, or is it fallible? And if it’s fallible, how do you know which parts are accurate?

    Like

  13. No wrestling with the dragon? How do you account for the ring through the nose? The Job creation story is troubling to a lot of people who were told that Genesis is the official, NFL-approved, be-all and end-all of creation stories. It’s still a creation story, even if we don’t have the full version there. It doesn’t square with Genesis in much of anything else, either. There is simply no way to allow Job in the canon without conflict with other creation stories.

    The discrepancies? “Infallible” to Christians doesn’t mean “absolutely, totally and scientifically accurate.” In traditional Christianity, infallible means that in theological issues the Bible does not lead us astray. In the theological message of all of the creation stories, there are two parts: One, God is the creator; two, God created out of love. It seems to me that one reason to include such diversity in creation stories is to indicate that, regardless one’s thoughts or accepted beliefs about the how of creation, God is behind it. If one accepts that teaching of scripture, one finds one more reason not to get worked up over discoveries of science, such as the age of the Earth and cosmos, or our ape ancestry.

    Like

  14. I still don’t see Job as being a creation story. It lists things God created, but does not offer a narrative of the way it all happened. Genesis is the only place that does that. Ring through the nose? Yeah, he’s asking Job if Job could put a ring through its nose. That doesn’t mean God had to put a ring in its nose. God created it! God vs any of his creations = no contest.

    I disagree with your last paragraph. I don’t think the Bible would lead us astray in any area, not just theological issues. Now sure, there are times when it speaks metaphorically, and there may be things in it we don’t understand. But I still believe it all to be infallible truth, whether we completely understand it or not. God taught that he formed man and made him separate from the animals. Therefore, it is impossible for me to believe that we somehow came from apes. And the creation account of the Bible in no way matches what scientists theorize about the Universe’s formation. I think God created it exactly the way he told us.

    I’m not trying to be offensive, but I think it’s very dangerous for us to compromise on some of the Bible’s teachings just to cater to modern day theories from men. We’ve got to be very careful of that. “Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed…” – Romans 12:1-2. The wisdom of men is foolishness to God – 1 Cor 1

    Like

  15. “I disagree with your last paragraph. I don’t think the Bible would lead us astray in any area, not just theological issues.”

    The lineage of Jesus seems to be an area where the Bible may be leading us astray.

    Matthew 1:16 “And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.”

    Luke 3:23
    “And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli.”

    One of these claims must be wrong since Jesus’ dad can’t have two dads.

    Matthew 27:45-54 describes earthquakes and walking corpses being visible to many. It’s odd that this even wasn’t more widely recorded.

    Mark 24:29 “Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:”.

    It is not possible for the stars to fall from heaven. This is based on people thinking that the stars are tiny things floating in the sky above them. This contradicts the supposed scientific knowledge you claim the Bible to have. Also, they seem to believe that the moon generates it’s own light.

    Like

  16. “One of these claims must be wrong since Jesus’ dad can’t have two dads.”

    This is a point I’ve never studied, but it wouldn’t surprise me if both names referred to the same individual. We see that in several other places in the Bible (as well as in our own experiences). For instance, Peter was also known as Cephas. Paul used to be Saul, Jacob was also Israel, Abraham used to be Abram. I don’t know if that’s the case here, but it’s certainly plausible.

    Just because the passage in Matthew 27 isn’t recorded elsewhere, doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. Obviously, a lot of time has passed since then and there are many things that were written that we don’t have copies of today.

    Finally, the passage you quote in Mark 24 is a difficult one, but it uses the same kind of apocalyptic language that was used in the minor prophets. Joel 2 is a good example. Many of the same things are talked about, but they are used as warnings to Judah to repent of their wickedness or they would be punished. Obviously, from history we know that these fantastic things have never occurred; they are only meant figuratively to show God’s impending judgment. Several other of the minor prophets use this kind of language as well for the same purpose. It’s supposed to be illustrative.

    Like

  17. Perhaps what we’re running in to here is the lesson that the Bible shouldn’t be taken literally. In my opinion, we’re both providing plausible interpretations of the text, you could well be right regarding the name issue.

    This reminds me though of a point made by Marshall Bain (of whywontgodhealamputees.com fame). If the Bible is meant to be the divine word of God, why is it so confusing? Considering the importance of the message, there seems to be a lot of scope for misunderstanding. Metaphor is useful but personally I’d expect the direct approach to be more useful. i.e. “Don’t intentionally kill people unless you’re acting to prevent a human from unlawfully taking the life of another.”

    Perhaps if there is a God, we need him to send us a newer testament. While this would clear things up a bit, I have a nasty feeling that he’s going to be using words like prolly, kk and lol. Argh.

    Like

  18. Haha, that’s pretty funny. Internet speak pwns!

    Yeah, the Bible even admits that parts of it are difficult to understand (2 Pet 3:15-16), but just like with anything else, we’re admonished to work on the basics first. I mean, there are still lots of parts of it that are pretty clear, so the more complicated areas have to be defined based on the simpler parts we already understand. For instance, you don’t learn caluculus till you’ve mastered addition, subtraction, etc.

    Unfortunately, a lot of people like to speculate about the more difficult areas without first mastering the basics. And whenever that happens, confusion and error are bound to occur. Honestly, I really think God wrote the Bible intending that we understand it. Sure, it takes a lot of study and careful consideration, but I think anyone can come to the truth when they honestly look for it. Actually, the Bible promises that in Matthew 7. But we’re also told that for those who aren’t interested in finding the truth, they’ll be able to pervert the Bible into what they want, and will even be able to convince themselves that they’re right (2 Thess 2).

    Personally, I think that if someone sincerely studies and prays to find the truth, they’ll find it. And I think they’ll find that the Bible’s not really all that confusing after all, but fits into a cohesive whole.

    Like

  19. I first would to say congratulations on getting this far on this forgotten forum. I’m doing this on my company’s blackberry, so here I claim to sow seeds of honesty and make u think, and further accept truth. Genesis 1 and 2 could be interpreted as two separate stories but who knows? Genisis 2:24 “this is why a man leaves his father and mother…”
    indicates something that was completely unexperienced by Adam right? Other than God being his heavenly father. BUT if you read Genesis VERSE 1 and compare to 2 and also accept the Hebrew writing style,not to mention our loving Father’s perfect traits then we can see that in verse 1 God created the heavens
    and the earth. 2 AND the earth WAS without form and void.(By the way Hebrew writing style….hahh u knw what? This is the second heaven and earth.God is a God of order, so yes there are laws of physics at the same time all things are possible with God. Google it.God forgives sinners no matter how bad they are. Read Jonah. Ted Bundy. Yes he converted in prison.
    Peter 3:5-7 plainly states this is the second heaven and earth. Yes dinosaurs are real, and God could’ve made it that way for the sake of fossil fuels. The stars are there for seasons and I also believe it is written that he created “light on its way” again I’m on a blackberry.
    Uh the behemoth in Job was a hippo. It lived where hippos lived and was described as a hippo. Marshy reeds gives away the location. Hmm let’s see. Stop using that 2 Thess 2, delusion passage to strengthen ur arguemnt, it’s really annoying and possibly hippocritical.
    U two are talking in vain discussions, it’s sin, is it not? How many people have read this and said “why should I believe christians, they don’t even believe the same things” completely forgetting God’s gospel of love. I write for the sake of those who endured ur disagreements to see some encouragement. Adam is the first and only man from which we are. If we weren’t that would disqualify as for christ’s blood because it was for the sinners and man, who was adam.
    Remind urself of the gospel I Corinthians 15 this is what saves u. God does want u to prove Him, but don’t argue in front of people! Get the email address and study it and be like minded in the word!! It is written!! No part of the scripture be for any private interpretation!Prove God like this!!!
    You know there’s water on the moon? On mars? At least proof it was? Scientist say it was caused by comets MELTING! MELTING! Check this! God put a firmament which holds the stars and every thing our hubble can see(stars and galaxies are finally tuned so all the elements of varying masses may form, if any less stars, the heavier absent, any more, lighter absent) and on the outside of that firmament was water. Noah’s flood was ‘tributaried’ by this firmament busting(among other water sources), herego water on the moon and mars!
    Genesis 10:25 the earth was divided. Division of continents recorded long be columbus. Infallible.
    Yes satan is a serpent, and was cursed to eat dust, we are dust, yet we have Christ who makes more than Satan. Friends I hope u have taken no offense to my comment.sorry if it did. God has everything just perfected and monkeys are not our ancestors. Grace and peace be multiplied to you in the name of Jesus Christ. Amen.

    P.S. Don’t pray to Mary for an intercessor. It is written! U get to the Father through the Son. Not through the Daughter/Mother then Jesus then Father. Read the first part of Hebrews. Jesus has been around for a while if I’m understanding this right.

    Like

Comments are closed.