petres_007:

@mazaje,

One question for you, since you've seen the video: do you still think there's no intelligence behind the creation/existence of the universe? Did nothing in the video sound cedible enough to at least make you look into the possibility that the universe really was created?

Firstly. . . .What intelligent design is there in colliding asteroids, comets with themselves and other planets and a universe with hundreds of billions of galaxies that is are expanding infinitely into space?. . . .To me the universe just is. . . .It wasn't created for any purpose and it doesn't serve any purpose. . . .Take a look at the earth for example. . . .Scientist tell us that over 90 percent of the species that have ever lived are now extinct. . . .What's the purpose of that? Species coming into existence living and dying out into a state of oblivion?. . . .The earth is conducive for life and that's it. . .How life came into existence nobody knows. . . .I believe that the universe came into existence from something, What that something is what scientist are trying to find out because no body knows. . . .No cosmologist says that the universe came from nothing as suggested by William Craig. . .

The big bang theory does not establish that the universe had a beginning or was created from nothing. What it states is that the cosmos(our four-dimensional space-time) can be traced back to a cosmic singularity. Some people thereby assume that said cosmic singularity represents "the beginning" but that is just an assumption on their part. . . .The fact of the matter is that we simply do not know if that really was the "beginning", or whether there exists some as-yet-undiscovered mechanism that generates cosmic singularities, some or all of which then go on to become universes. . . . .

Secondly. . . . a ''creator'' resolves nothing. If I were to you ask the question what created the creator, your response will be that the creator requires no creation. So now we have two possibilities:

a) The universe was created by creator who requires no creation

b) The universe requires no creation and always is. . . . .

^^^ Your write-up is contradictory.

This -

The big bang theory does not establish that the universe had a beginning or was created from nothing. What it states is that the cosmos(our four-dimensional space-time) can be traced back to a cosmic singularity. Some people thereby assume that said cosmic singularity represents "the beginning" but that is just an assumption on their part. . . .The fact of the matter is that we simply do not know if that really was the "beginning", or whether there exists some as-yet-undiscovered mechanism that generates cosmic singularities, some or all of which then go on to become universes. . . . .

- Completley declares that a creator exists.

I demand of you that you define for me exactly what a singularity is.

When you do this, which i do not believe that you can (nor can any scientist) - you will be perilously close to staring God in the face.

mazaje1:

Davidylan says that according to the bible, the universe is not 6,000 years old. . . .He also claimed that the bible says that the books of Genesis and Jeremiah make a clear case for a world that was definitely much much older than we think and was clearly inhabited by other organism before the creation of man, What do you have to say about these since you believe that according to the bible the universe is only 6000 years old. . .

It is true that you cannot find the figures 6,000 years just as you cannot find the word trinity in the Bible but the book of Genesis which gives the historical account of creation is clear on how old the cosmos is and I believe that rather than the words of sinful men.

OLAADEGBU:

It is true that you cannot find the figures 6,000 years just as you cannot find the word trinity in the Bible but the book of Genesis which gives the historical account of creation is clear on how old the cosmos is and I believe that rather than the words of sinful men.

Olaadegbu, the bible does not tell us how old the cosmos is, infact it helps us project that the cosmos is way way older than 6000 yrs. The creation story in Genesis is the story of our creation, our earth as we know it today . . . it doesnt tell us the story of what came way before us. It is obvious that there was once a master race of folks that were wiped out before the creation of Adam and Eve.

davidylan:

Olaadegbu, the bible does not tell us how old the cosmos is, infact it helps us project that the cosmos is way way older than 6000 yrs. The creation story in Genesis is the story of our creation, our earth as we know it today . . . it doesnt tell us the story of what came way before us. It is obvious that there was once a master race of folks that were wiped out before the creation of Adam and Eve.

davidylan, how you dey?

It is a good thing that the Bible doesn't specifically state anywhere that "The earth is 6,000 years old," if that were to be so then that information would be out of date the next year. Our Omniscient God is too wise to make a mistake like that. Your idea that the cosmos is way older than 6,000 years one of the theories that is trying to fit the notion of millions or billions of years in the Bible.

God has given us a birth certificate of the earth to work with(Gen.1:1-5), and with this we can work out the age of the earth at any point in time.

If there were a master race of folks as you said before the account of the book of Genesis then what will you do with verses like these;

"And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit." 1 Cor.15:45 (Compare this with Gen. 2:7; Rom.5:12)

Granted - nowhere in the bible is it said the world was created 6000 or 10000 years ago.  But is it implied from careful reading of the text that it is about 6000 to 10000 years old, if it is to be understood literally?


The answer is a categorical YES,  YES and YES.   If you read the bible literally, then there is no escaping the implication that the world is about 1000 years old.  Let's start by looking at the genealogy of Jesus given in Luke 3. Luke gives the genealogy of Jesus all the way back to Adam, who is suppose to be the first human being created within the first week of creation.  Below are the forebears of Jesus, all the way back to Adam:

   1. God
   2. Adam
   3. Seth
   4. Enosh
   5. Cainain
   6. Mahalalel
   7. Jared
   8. Enoch
   9. Methuselah
  10. Lamech
  11. Noah
  12. Shem
  13. Arphaxad
  14. Cainan
  15. Shelah
  16. Eber
  17. Peleg
  18. Reu
  19. Serug
  20. Nahor
  21. Terah
  22. Abraham
  23. Isaac
  24. Jacob
  25. Judah
  26. Pharez
  27. Hezron
  28. Ram
  29. Amminadab
  30. Nahshon
  31. Salmon
  32. Boaz
  33. Obed
  34. Jesse
  35. David
  36. Nathan
  37. Mattatha
  38. Menna
  39. Melea
  40. Eliakim
  41. Jonam
  42. Joseph
  43. Judah
  44. Simeon
  45. Levi
  46. Matthat
  47. Jorim
  48. Eliezer
  49. Joshua
  50. Er
  51. Elmadam
  52. Cosam
  53. Addi
  54. Melchi
  55. Neri
  56. Shealtiel
  57. Zerubbabel
  58. Rhesa
  59. Joanan
  60. Joda
  61. Josech
  62. Semein
  63. Mattathias
  64. Mahath
  65. Naggai
  66. Hesli
  67. Nahum
  68. Amos
  69. Mattathias
  70. Joseph
  71. Jannai
  72. Melchi
  73. Levi
  74. Matthat
  75. Eli
  76. Mary & Joseph*
  77. Jesus

From the above info, is it conceivable that one could estimate when Adam most have lived?

Deep Sight:

^^^ Your write-up is contradictory.

This -

- Completley declares that a creator exists.

I demand of you that you define for me exactly what a singularity is.

When you do this, which i do not believe that you can (nor can any scientist) - you will be perilously close to staring God in the face.

Interesting view here - are all singularities God or are there only a special class of singularity that is God?

Allow me to point you to a very commonplace singularity - BLACK HOLES. There are billions and billions of black holes in the universe. Does this mean that there are billions and billions of God?

davidylan:

pardon me petres007

Actually nowhere in the bible did it claim that the earth is 6000 yrs old. Search the bible, that figure is NOT bandied anywhere. Infact the books of Genesis and Jeremiah make a clear case for a world that was definitely much much older than we think and was clearly inhabited by other organism before the creation of man.

I'm not sure you clearly understood what conclusions the scientists in that video were making. They were not declaring God to be the creator of the earth BECAUSE they had no other evidence for anything else. Actually they reached their conclusions for divine providence BASED on scientific evidence showing the earth CANNOT have appeared by chance and MUST have been the handiwork of some intelligent force and for a particular purpose.

Again you seem not to have watched the same video i did. Firstly the analogy of the iphone is totally wrong. The iphone is itself composed of several stand-alone parts. The cell is the single-smallest unit of life . . . it is the building blocks for every complex organism on earth. One of the scientists makes a salient point . . . if you put acell in a dish containing every condition for its survival . . . that cell thrives. However if you puncture this cell such that its contents leak out into the surrounding liquid, that liquid will still contain EVERY condition conducive for the existence of a cell, it will also contain EVERY component for a cell but it CANNOT on its own generate a new living cell.

The cell (unlike the iphone) isnt evolving into anything new. The same cell that cannot be created will still NOT be created in 2000 yrs of trying.

That is flat out WRONG. The scientist there was explaining the cambrian explosion . . . according to this theory, simple single-celled organisms were around for millions of yrs until all of a sudden you get a huge bunch of highly complex organisms. If (as you claim) cells were evolving until they mutated into complex organisms there SHOULD BE intermediate life forms present in the fossil record. This absence of intermediates is what condemns Darwin's theory of evolution as a farce.

We still wont discover any new answers . . . because there really are none.

No christian with a good grasp of his bible will tell you the earth is only 6000 yrs old.

It takes more faith to believe that the earth appeared by chance than to believe a snake spoke in a garden. Besides the bible records that a SERPENT spoke to eve, NOT a snake as is erroneously claimed.

Respects to you too bro.

Interesting view there. Just a few questions in your applecart, may I?

1) If the earth was a deliberate act of creation as you seem to suggest, how long was it from the creation of the earth to the creation of the first living cell?

2) How long from the first living cells to the first human beings?

OLAADEGBU:

davidylan, how you dey?

It is a good thing that the Bible doesn't specifically state anywhere that "The earth is 6,000 years old," if that were to be so then that information would be out of date the next year.  Our Omniscient God is too wise to make a mistake like that.  Your idea that the cosmos is way older than 6,000 years one of the theories that is trying to fit the notion of millions or billions of years in the Bible.

God has given us a birth certificate of the earth to work with(Gen.1:1-5), and with this we can work out the age of the earth at any point in time.

If there were a master race of folks as you said before the account of the book of Genesis then what will you do with verses like these;

"And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit." 1 Cor.15:45 (Compare this with Gen. 2:7; Rom.5:12)  

my brother i dey kampe. let me say that your chic cartoons have been a blessing oh to those of us who read on the sidelines.

Let me say that when God calls Adam the "first man" in Gen 2:7, it is in reference to Adam as the first "man" created "in the image of God. Look at these 2 verses . . . Gen 1:1 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

This is Moses describing a vision of the creation of man. But how come the earth was "without form and VOID" if it had NEVER at any time contained anything? Void of what?

Jeremiah describes this vision even better - - - Jer 4:23[b] I beheld the earth, and, lo, it was without form, and void[/b]; and the heavens, and they had no light

Ah, here Jeremiah sees exactly the same thing Moses saw . . . an earth with no form and void just as it were before the creation of Adam. But Jeremiah sees more . . . 24[b] I beheld the mountains[/b], and, lo, they trembled, and all the hills moved lightly.

Mountains and hills? Where did Jeremiah see those and how did he know what they were called? If we read Genesis literarily then there were no hills and mountains while the earth was without form and void, infact hills and mountains (dry land) arent created until verse 9 of Gen 1.

But there's more . . . 25 I beheld, and, lo, there was no man, and all the birds of the heavens were fled.

Man? Birds?   But these were not created until Gen 1:22 and 27! There are only two instances that describe such a barren earth . . . the creation and the flood. If Jeremiah were describing the flood then he would be wrong as there were men on earth (Noah and his sons) and birds didnt flee to anywhere. Just who were these men and birds who fled the earth and when? Why did they leave the earth without form and void?

But oops theres more . . . 26 I beheld, and, lo, the fruitful place was a wilderness, and all the cities thereof were broken down at the presence of the LORD, and by his fierce anger.

Which fruitful places and which cities is Jeremiah speaking of? When did they exist? He couldnt have been speaking of the flood as a wilderness did not exist during the flood if not Noah would not have needed an ark. When did this desolation occur?

If the earth is 6000 yrs old only, when did Jeremiah's vision occur?

huxley:

Granted - nowhere in the bible is it said the world was created 6000 or 10000 years ago.  But[b] is it implied from careful reading of the text that it is about 6000 to 10000 years old[/b], if it is to be understood literally?


The answer is a categorical YES,  YES and YES.   If you read the bible literally, then there is no escaping the implication that the world is about 1000 years old.  Let's start by looking at the genealogy of Jesus given in Luke 3. Luke gives the genealogy of Jesus all the way back to Adam, who is suppose to be the first human being created within the first week of creation.  Below are the forebears of Jesus, all the way back to Adam:

Flat out wrong . . . the bible literarily reads that our earth as we know it today is 6000 yrs old but it does not tell us what existed on the earth BEFORE the creation of man neither does it tell us how long the earth had existed before we hopped along.

huxley:


Interesting view there. Just a few questions in your applecart, may I?

1) If the earth was a deliberate act of creation as you seem to suggest, how long was it from the creation of the earth to the creation of the first living cell?

2) How long from the first living cells to the first human beings?

1. Question 1 is invalid. The creator of the earth can choose whatever time to create the first living cell at His own prerogative. There is no mathematical equation to figure that out.

2. Again invalid. Your question cannot suppose deliberate creation and evolution at the same time.

davidylan:

Flat out wrong . . . the bible literarily reads that our earth as we know it today is 6000 yrs old but it does not tell us what existed on the earth BEFORE the creation of man neither does it tell us how long the earth had existed before we hopped along.

1. Question 1 is invalid. The creator of the earth can choose whatever time to create the first living cell at His own prerogative. There is no mathematical equation to figure that out.

2. Again invalid. Your question cannot suppose deliberate creation and evolution at the same time.

In case you have forgotten, this is what the bible actually says:

Genesis 1

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

2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

6 And God said, "Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water." 7 So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the expanse "sky." And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.


So what did God create on the 1st day? Heaven and earth, light, "darkness", day and night.

And then he went on to create many other things. And on the seventh day, he rested. This suggests six consecutive days of creation, followed by one day of rest.


Genesis 2

1 Thus the heavens and the earth were completed in all their vast array.
2 By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work. 3 And God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all the work of creating that he had done.




Now, are you suggesting that there was more than one episode of creation? And that the other episodes are not documemted in the bible? So when the bible says God created the earth, which was formless and empty, how could you draw from that that there could have been some other "earth" which may have contained other things, when the bible clearly says that the earth God created was initially formless and empty?

Huxley did your read my response to olaadegbu? I already addressed your alleged question.

The central issue raised by the video boils down to one thing: does the science point to a creator behind creation or not?

What I see is a lot of effort to run away from that with all manner of digression. Even everyday things that we take for granted will indicate intelligence behind creation, which cannot be explained purely by natural selection. Clench and unclench your fist or twist your hand on your arm. Imagine the complexity involved in even those simple "machinery" and ask yourself if that could have been achieved randomly without an intelligent design behind it.

how one extrapolates the existence on a creator to the existence of Christ is mind boggling

What exactly is davidylan trying to say here

davidylan:


Let me say that when God calls Adam the "first man" in Gen 2:7, it is in reference to Adam as the first "man" created "in the image of God. Look at these 2 verses . . . Gen 1:1 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

This is Moses describing a vision of the creation of man. But how come the earth was "without form and VOID" if it had NEVER at any time contained anything? Void of what?

So the creation account written in the bible was a vision Moses saw eh?. . . .How can the earth be without form if it was previously inhibited by other living beings? . . . .According to the biblical account the earth was empty(void) because Yahweh had not yet created plants and animals. . . .How difficult is that to understand?

Jeremiah describes this vision even better - - - Jer 4:23[b] I beheld the earth, and, lo, it was without form, and void[/b]; and the heavens, and they had no light

What has the vision in Jeremiah which was about an imminent invasion and the prophecy of sorrow for a doomed nation got to do with the genesis creation account?. . . .

Ah, here Jeremiah sees exactly the same thing Moses saw . . . an earth with no form and void just as it were before the creation of Adam. But Jeremiah sees more . . . 24[b] I beheld the mountains[/b], and, lo, they trembled, and all the hills moved lightly.

NO, the vision in Jeremiah was about the doom and sorrow that was promised upon Judah by Yahweh for their wrong doings. . . . .The subject heading beginning from verse 5 from the new king james version reads " An imminent invasion" Jeremiah according to the passage saw a vision of an imminent invasion that was about to befall on Judah from Yahweh for their sins. . . .

Jer 4:4 Circumcise yourselves to the LORD, And take away the foreskins of your hearts, You men of Judah and inhabitants of Jerusalem, Lest My fury come forth like fire, And burn so that no one can quench [it], Because of the evil of your doings."

Jer 4:5 Declare in Judah and proclaim in Jerusalem, and say: "Blow the trumpet in the land; Cry, 'Gather together,' And say, 'Assemble yourselves, And let us go into the fortified cities.'

Jer 4:6 Set up the standard toward Zion. Take refuge! Do not delay! For I will bring disaster from the north, And great destruction."

Mountains and hills? Where did Jeremiah see those and how did he know what they were called? If we read Genesis literarily then there were no hills and mountains while the earth was without form and void, infact hills and mountains (dry land) arent created until verse 9 of Gen 1.

Are you just conflating passages that have NOTHING to do with each other?. . . .The subject heading from the NKJV for Jeremiah 4:19- 31 reads "Sorrow for the doomed nation". . . .The passage is talking about the prophecy of doom that was about to come to the land NOT about the any creation account. . . .

The passage goes further and says. . .

Jer 4:27 For thus says the LORD: "T[b]he whole land shall be desolate; Yet I will not make a full end[/b].

Jer 4:28 For this shall the earth mourn, And the heavens above be black, Because I have spoken. I have purposed and will not relent, Nor will I turn back from it.

Jer4: 29 The whole city shall flee from the noise of the horsemen and bowmen. They shall go into thickets and climb up on the rocks. Every city [shall be] forsaken, And not a man shall dwell in it.

davidylan:

But there's more . . . 25 I beheld, and, lo, there was no man, and all the birds of the heavens were fled.

Jeremiah was talking about what will happen after the anger of God had fallen unto unto the city according to the vision he saw. . . .All the birds fled and there was no man. . . .Here is more from the verse 4. . . .

Jer 4: 8 For this, clothe yourself with sackcloth, Lament and wail. For the fierce anger of the LORD Has not turned back from us.
Jer 4:9 "And it shall come to pass in that day," says the LORD, "[That] the heart of the king shall perish, And the heart of the princes; The priests shall be astonished, And the prophets shall wonder."
Jer 4:10 Then I said, "Ah, Lord GOD! Surely You have greatly deceived this people and Jerusalem, Saying, 'You shall have peace,' Whereas the sword reaches to the heart."
Jer 4:11 At that time it will be said To this people and to Jerusalem, "A dry wind of the desolate heights [blows] in the wilderness Toward the daughter of My people-- Not to fan or to cleanse--
Jer 4:12 A wind too strong for these will come for Me; Now I will also speak judgment against them."

Man? Birds? But these were not created until Gen 1:22 and 27! There are only two instances that describe such a barren earth . . . the creation and the flood. If Jeremiah were describing the flood then he would be wrong as there were men on earth (Noah and his sons) and birds didnt flee to anywhere. Just who were these men and birds who fled the earth and when? Why did they leave the earth without form and void?

Jeremiah was NOT describing the flood or the creation at all. . .He was describing the doom that was to come on the land because of the judgement spoken against them by yahweh. . . .How do you read?. . . . . . .The men were the inhabitants of Judah. . . The kings, prophets and princes and priest as written in verse 4:9

But oops theres more . . . 26 I beheld, and, lo, the fruitful place was a wilderness, and all the cities thereof were broken down at the presence of the LORD, and by his fierce anger.

Which fruitful places and which cities is Jeremiah speaking of? When did they exist? He couldnt have been speaking of the flood as a wilderness did not exist during the flood if not Noah would not have needed an ark. When did this desolation occur?

The fruitful places he was talking about is the cities of Judah. . .Jerusalem and the rest of the cities. . .

Jer 4: 21O my soul, my soul! I am pained in my very heart! My heart makes a noise in me; I cannot hold my peace, Because you have heard, O my soul, The sound of the trumpet, The alarm of war.
Jer 4:20[b] Destruction upon destruction is cried, For the whole land is plundered. Suddenly my tents are plundered, [And] my curtains in a moment.[/b]
Jer 4:21 How long will I see the standard, [And] hear the sound of the trumpet?
Jer 4:22 "For My people [are] foolish, They have not known Me. They [are] silly children, And they have no understanding. They [are] wise to do evil, But to do good they have no knowledge."

Verse 4:23-26 describes what he saw happen to the land. . . . .

If the earth is 6000 yrs old only, when did Jeremiah's vision occur?

Jeremiah's vision had NOTHING to do with any world before adam or any creation account the vision occured when the people went against the wishes of yahweh and he decided to destroy them. . The vision of the already destroyed and desolate land was what he saw in his vision. . . .Verse 28 even explains it better. . .

Jer 4: 28 For this shall the earth mourn, And the heavens above be black, Because I have spoken. I have purposed and will not relent, Nor will I turn back from it.
Jer 4:29 The whole city shall flee from the noise of the horsemen and bowmen. They shall go into thickets and climb up on the rocks. Every city [shall be] forsaken, And not a man shall dwell in it.

How then did you come to the conclusion that the vision was talking about a world before adam? . . . .No wonder there are different versions of christianity every where. . . . .Is this not the same davidylan that was saying that atheist do not read and understand the bible?. . . . .

Lee Strobel hammered here:

Strobel under Fire 1

and here:

Strobel Under Fire 2

and here:

Strobel Under Fire 3

and here:

Strobel Under Fire 4

and what exactly is Mazaje himself trying to say here . . .

mazaje1:

So the creation account written in the bible was a vision Moses saw eh?. . . .How can the earth be without form if it was previously inhibited by other living beings? . . . .According to the biblical account the earth was empty(void) because Yahweh had not yet created plants and animals. . . .How difficult is that to understand?

Because as at the time the vision is being described . . . it is assumed that NOTHING had ever existed before so how exactly can you declare the earth VOID if it had NEVER before contained anything? A cup is declared EMPTY because we know it has the capacity to contain something.

mazaje1:

What has the vision in Jeremiah which was about an imminent invasion and the prophecy of sorrow for a doomed nation got to do with the genesis creation account?. . . .

NO, the vision in Jeremiah was about the doom and sorrow that was promised upon Judah by Yahweh for their wrong doings. . . . .The subject heading beginning from verse 5 from the new king james version reads " An imminent invasion" Jeremiah according to the passage saw a vision of an imminent invasion that was about to befall on Judah from Yahweh for their sins. . . .

Your problem is that you read the bible with a one-track mind, you give it YOUR OWN literal interpretation which more often than not cannot stand the test of scrutiny.

If the vision of Jeremiah was about the "gloom and doom" promised to Judah then the following would be FALSE . . . Jer 4:23 I beheld the earth, and, lo, it was without form, and void; and the heavens, and they had no light

I notice you had no explanation for why Jeremiah would include this in his vision of doom for Judah. Is Judah the entire earth? Why is the ENTIRE EARTH without form and void if this vision is ONLY about the imminent invasion of Judah? Why did the heavens lose their light over Judah?

mazaje1:

Jer 4:4 Circumcise yourselves to the LORD, And take away the foreskins of your hearts, You men of Judah and inhabitants of Jerusalem, Lest My fury come forth like fire, And burn so that no one can quench [it], Because of the evil of your doings."

Jer 4:5 Declare in Judah and proclaim in Jerusalem, and say: "Blow the trumpet in the land; Cry, 'Gather together,' And say, 'Assemble yourselves, And let us go into the fortified cities.'

Jer 4:6  Set up the standard toward Zion. Take refuge! Do not delay! For I will bring disaster from the north, And great destruction."

Are you just conflating passages that have NOTHING to do with each other?. . . .The subject heading from the NKJV for Jeremiah 4:19- 31 reads "Sorrow for the doomed nation". . . .The passage is talking about the prophecy of doom that was about to come to the land NOT about the any creation account. . . .

The passage goes further and says. . .

Jer 4:27 For thus says the LORD: "T[b]he whole land shall be desolate; Yet I will not make a full end[/b].

Jer 4:28 For this shall the earth mourn, And the heavens above be black, Because I have spoken. I have purposed and will not relent, Nor will I turn back from it.

Jer4: 29 The whole city shall flee from the noise of the horsemen and bowmen. They shall go into thickets and climb up on the rocks. Every city [shall be] forsaken, And not a man shall dwell in it.

All this makes no sense when you compare them side by side with VERSE 23 of Jer 4. In one breath the writer is discussion the desctruction of a "whole city" (as in verse 29). In verse 6 the writer is talking about invasion of Judah and then suddenly sees the earth without form and void? Who invaded the earth and destroyed it?

mazaje1:

Jeremiah was talking about what will happen after [size=13pt]the anger of God had fallen unto unto the city[/size] according to the vision he saw. . . .All the birds fled and there was no man. . . .Here is more from the verse 4. . . .

Jer 4: 8 For this, clothe yourself with sackcloth, Lament and wail. For the fierce anger of the LORD Has not turned back from us.
Jer 4:9 "And it shall come to pass in that day," says the LORD, "[That] the heart of the king shall perish, And the heart of the princes; The priests shall be astonished, And the prophets shall wonder."
Jer 4:10 Then I said, "Ah, Lord GOD! Surely You have greatly deceived this people and Jerusalem, Saying, 'You shall have peace,' Whereas the sword reaches to the heart."
Jer 4:11 At that time it will be said To this people and to Jerusalem, "A dry wind of the desolate heights [blows] in the wilderness Toward the daughter of My people-- Not to fan or to cleanse--
Jer 4:12 A wind too strong for these will come for Me; Now I will also speak judgment against them."

If Jeremiah is talking about a city then is Verse 23 ALSO describing a city? 

mazaje1:

Jeremiah was NOT describing the flood or the creation at all. . .He was describing the doom that was to come on the land because of the judgement spoken against them by yahweh. . . .How do you read?. . . .  . . .The men were the inhabitants of Judah. . . The kings, prophets and princes and priest as written in verse 4:9

Neither did i indicate he was talking about the flood nor the creation. You seem to be incoherently arguing with yourself.

mazaje1:

The fruitful places he was talking about is the cities of Judah. . .Jerusalem and the rest of the cities. . .

Jer 4: 21O my soul, my soul! I am pained in my very heart! My heart makes a noise in me; I cannot hold my peace, Because you have heard, O my soul, The sound of the trumpet, The alarm of war.
Jer 4:20[b] Destruction upon destruction is cried, For the whole land is plundered. Suddenly my tents are plundered, [And] my curtains in a moment.[/b]
Jer 4:21 How long will I see the standard, [And] hear the sound of the trumpet?
Jer 4:22 "For My people [are] foolish, They have not known Me. They [are] silly children, And they have no understanding. They [are] wise to do evil, But to do good they have no knowledge."

Verse 4:23-26 describes what he saw happen to the land. . . . .

Jeremiah's vision had NOTHING to do with any world before adam or any creation account the vision occured when the people went against the wishes of yahweh and he decided to destroy them. . The vision of the already destroyed and desolate land was what he saw in his vision. . . .Verse 28 even explains it better. . .

Jer 4: 28 For this shall the earth mourn, And the heavens above be black, Because I have spoken. I have purposed and will not relent, Nor will I turn back from it.
Jer 4:29  The whole city shall flee from the noise of the horsemen and bowmen. They shall go into thickets and climb up on the rocks. Every city [shall be] forsaken, And not a man shall dwell in it.

How then did you come to the conclusion that the vision was talking about a world before adam? . . . .No wonder there are different versions of christianity every where. . . . .Is this not the same davidylan that was saying that atheist do not read and understand the bible?. . . . .

You indeed are being dishonest here . . . you have artfully dodged the verses in Jer 4 that do not fit your own narrative . . . for instance you seem to have skipped all these . . .

Jer 4:25 I beheld, and, lo, there was no man, and all the birds of the heavens were fled.

This NEVER happened at any point in time. The only invasion that occured during Jeremiah's time was the Babylonian invasion of Jerusalem . . . despite this disaster, the same bible still records that there were many jews who still DWELT in Jerusalem! We also do not read of all the birds disappearing off the face of the earth at any point in time.

What do you understand that Jeremiah was describing in verses 23 and 25?

bawomolo:

how one extrapolates the existence on a creator to the existence of Christ is mind boggling

You seem to be reading an entirely different thread (if you read this at all) . . . were did anyone make such extrapolation here?

huxley:

Lee Strobel hammered here:

Strobel under Fire 1

and here:

Strobel Under Fire 2

and here:

Strobel Under Fire 3

and here:

Strobel Under Fire 4

hmmm that was not the point of the thread. Enigma perfectly encapsulated what is truly going on here . . .

davidylan:

my brother i dey kampe. let me say that your chic cartoons have been a blessing oh to those of us who read on the sidelines.

Let me say that when God calls Adam the "first man" in Gen 2:7, it is in reference to Adam as the first "man" created "in the image of God. Look at these 2 verses . . . Gen 1:1 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

This is Moses describing a vision of the creation of man. But how come the earth was "without form and VOID" if it had NEVER at any time contained anything? Void of what?

Jeremiah describes this vision even better - - - Jer 4:23[b] I beheld the earth, and, lo, it was without form, and void[/b]; and the heavens, and they had no light

Ah, here Jeremiah sees exactly the same thing Moses saw . . . an earth with no form and void just as it were before the creation of Adam. But Jeremiah sees more . . . 24[b] I beheld the mountains[/b], and, lo, they trembled, and all the hills moved lightly.

Mountains and hills? Where did Jeremiah see those and how did he know what they were called? If we read Genesis literarily then there were no hills and mountains while the earth was without form and void, infact hills and mountains (dry land) arent created until verse 9 of Gen 1.

But there's more . . . 25 I beheld, and, lo, there was no man, and all the birds of the heavens were fled.

Man? Birds?  But these were not created until Gen 1:22 and 27! There are only two instances that describe such a barren earth . . . the creation and the flood. If Jeremiah were describing the flood then he would be wrong as there were men on earth (Noah and his sons) and birds didnt flee to anywhere. Just who were these men and birds who fled the earth and when? Why did they leave the earth without form and void?

But oops theres more . . . 26 I beheld, and, lo, the fruitful place was a wilderness, and all the cities thereof were broken down at the presence of the LORD, and by his fierce anger.

Which fruitful places and which cities is Jeremiah speaking of? When did they exist? He couldnt have been speaking of the flood as a wilderness did not exist during the flood if not Noah would not have needed an ark. When did this desolation occur?

If the earth is 6000 yrs old only, when did Jeremiah's vision occur?

Thanks for your answer.  I will endeavour to respond to your points as time permits but in the meantime peruse the link below so that we can discuss later.  God bless.

Gap ruin reconstruction theories

Bible commentary on 1 Corinthians 15:45 

And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit. -- 1 Corinthians 15:45
 
Paul here quotes Genesis 2:7, again confirming the historicity of the special creation of Adam and, therefore, of the Genesis record of creation as a whole.

first man Adam. 

This is a clear affirmation that Adam was, indeed, the first man, thus refuting the various quasi-evolutionary theories involving pre-Adamite men.

the last Adam.

The "last Adam," of course, was the Lord Jesus.  As in Romans 5:12-19, the divinely inspired apostle showed Adam to be a contrasting type of Christ.  Both were true men, yet their bodies were formed directly by God without genetic inheritance from human parents.  Adam was the first man made a living soul, the federal head of the human race; the Lord Jesus was the first begotten from the dead, the captain of our salvation, the first man made a life-giving spirit.  Adam brought sin and death into the world; Christ brought everlasting righteousness and eternal life.

For more read the article below.

Christ and time of Creation

Bible commentary on Jeremiah 4:23

I beheld the earth, and, lo, it was without form, and void; and the heavens, and they had no light. -- Jeremiah 4:23

the earth.

The word translated "earth" (Hebrew eretz) is commonly translated "land," depending upon context.  It is translated "land," in Jeremiah 4:5, for example (as well as in Jeremiah 4:7,20,27), obviously referring to the land of Judah.  It should be translated "land," in this verse also, in consistency with the whole context of the chapter.

without form, and void.

Because this phrase, "without form and void," is applied to the primeval earth in Genesis 1:2, many who advocate the "gap theory," hoping to accommodate the long evolutionary ages in Genesis between the first two verses of the Bible, have used this verse as a "proof text" for a hypothetical pre-Edenic cataclysm which destroyed the original creation of Genesis 1:1.  The gap theory, however, is indefensible both geologically and theologically.  The context here, both before and after (Jeremiah 4:16,31), make it clear that the whole chapter is describing the coming destruction of Judah, not some mysterious prehistoric cataclysm destroying the primeval world.

huxley:


Interesting view here - are all singularities God or are there only a special class of singularity that is God?

Allow me to point you to a very commonplace singularity - BLACK HOLES. There are billions and billions of black holes in the universe. Does this mean that there are billions and billions of God?

Sir - I asked Mazaje to define for me exactly what a singularity is. He has absconded from the question - and rather than deflect the issue - since you have waded in, I request that you first define for me exactly what a singularity is.

I have stated and I state again that nobody can define it - and if any person actually does I repeat affirmatively that in that event such a person will be perilously close to staring God in the face.

Now note carefully what I have said and distinguish it from the assumptions you have attributed to me: which I did not say.

Deep Sight:

Sir - I asked Mazaje to define for me exactly what a singularity is. He has absconded from the question - and rather than deflect the issue - since you have waded in, I request that you first define for me exactly what a singularity is.

I have stated and I state again that nobody can define it - and if any person actually does I repeat affirmatively that in that event such a person will be perilously close to staring God in the face.

Now note carefully what I have said and distinguish it from the assumptions you have attributed to me: which I did not say.

Without definition the notion of "Singularity", let us first examine your logic, shall we. How could you say that something that cannot be defined is closed to somthing else (God) that is definable (or not definable). Basically, this is what you are saying;


The Undefinable (Singularity) =:= The definable (or maybe undefinable) which is God, where =:= is approximately equal.


Does this make any sense at all?

^^^ You are dancing with assumptions. I did warn you when I said -

Deep Sight:


Now note carefully what I have said and distinguish it from the assumptions you have attributed to me: which I did not say.

No where in my post did I state that anything (singularity inclusive) = God.

I stated and I repeat -

That any person who defines for me exactly what a singularity is will be perilously close to staring God in the face.

Take up the challenge, son - define for me exactly what a singularity is.

This is important, because when pressed about the origin of the universe or the big bang, most athiests love to simply state - "A singularity."

Kindly justify your eloquence and define that term for me.

What is a singularity?

Simple.

Deep Sight:

^^^ You are dancing with assumptions. I did warn you when I said -

No where in my post did I state that anything (singularity inclusive) = God.

I stated and I repeat -

That any person who defines for me exactly what a singularity is will be perilously close to staring God in the face.

Take up the challenge, son - define for me exactly what a singularity is.

This is important, because when pressed about the origin of the universe or the big bang, most athiests love to simply state - "A singularity."

Kindly justify your eloquence and define that term for me.

What is a singularity?

Simple.

Note, you used the words "perilously close" which I translated as "approximately equal" NOT equals.

Can you explain what you mean by "perilously close" in this context?

"Perilously close" means that such a person is has crossed the rubicorn in terms of understanding one of the deepest mysteries of existence, and is accordingly able to grasp The God Principle.

It is a perilous thing because any person who can grasp that principle is already on the fringes of sanity - and may fall over the edge.

Now stop prevaricating: define the term "Singularity" for me.

Or are you afraid of falling over the edge?

On Singularity

To understand "Singularity", you have got to understand the concept of "Infinity", and further that there is not just one type of singularity. Singularity is domain specific - for instance in terms of cosmology, a Black Hole is a singularity, which simply means that the curvature of space-time becomes infinite. That is a blackhole singularity.

But more generally, singularity always entail one or more parameters running into infinity. And as far as our best scientific and analytic knowledge go, we have not yet got the means to fully understand the domain of the infinite. This is what drove Cantor mad. That we do not understand the maths of infinity now does not mean that it shall forever remain incomprehensible to us, far from that.

huxley:

On Singularity

To understand "Singularity", you have got to understand the concept of "Infinity"

I am glad that you have said this.

You have also acceded that no man understands "infinity."

This is why I stated that no man can define for me what a singularity is.

God is Infinite. The God Principle is a principle shrouded in infinity. That is why i stated that grasping it may alter one's sanity.

and further that there is not just one type of singularity. Singularity is domain specific - for instance in terms of cosmology, a Black Hole is a singularity, which simply means that the curvature of space-time becomes infinite. That is a blackhole singularity.

Space-Time is an illussion. It is a hoax. A scientific Fraud.

INTO WHAT IS THE UNIVERSE EXPANDING. ANSWER ME THIS.

I state that it is expanding into already existing, self-existent and infinite space.

This is what drove Cantor mad.

Are you prepared to go mad? Brace yourself.

That we do not understand the maths of infinity now does not mean that it shall forever remain incomprehensible to us, far from that.

The very nature of infinity means that it can never be contaned or limited. That will be an oxymoron.

If it can never be contained or limited, then it can NEVER be understood.

Deep Sight:

I am glad that you have said this.

You have also acceded that no man understands "infinity."

This is why I stated that no man can define for me what a singularity is.

God is Infinite. The God Principle is a principle shrouded in infinity. That is why i stated that grasping it may alter one's sanity.

Space-Time is an illussion. It is a hoax. A scientific Fraud.

INTO WHAT IS THE UNIVERSE EXPANDING. ANSWER ME THIS.

I state that it is expanding into already existing, self-existent and infinite space.

Are you prepared to go mad? Brace yourself.

The very nature of infinity means that it can never be contaned or limited. That will be an oxymoron.

If it can never be contained or limited, then it can NEVER be understood.

Where is your evidence that space-time is a hoax?


Is gravity also a hoax?



What explains the fact that all galaxies are moving away from each other?

Why are you fond of prevaricating when I ask you questions?

I repeat my question - answer it first.

INTO WHAT IS THE UNIVERSE EXPANDING?

Deep Sight:

Why are you fond of prevaricating when I ask you questions?

I repeat my question - answer it first.

INTO WHAT IS THE UNIVERSE EXPANDING?

The best answer cosmologist have now is that the universe is expanding into space it is creating at the same time. In fact most cosmologist today are now coming to the view that there is a multiverse or a cyclic universe. The evidence for this is quite strong now, but will be clinch when they manage to get result from the gravitation wave experiments.


Now, answer my question above, which are:

Where is your evidence that space-time is a hoax?


Is gravity also a hoax?



What explains the fact that all galaxies are moving away from each other?