^^^ Seen. But to clarify my point, the evening and the next morning which defined the day were announced WHEN God finished each creation process in time. And the Hebrew Word used is יום
                                        (yôm)

which refers to an era, an age, a time, of which the 24 hour day is a special case. Now, since the day was defined by God as the period in which there was Light (for Him to work) and Night was the period of darkness; and he called the light into existence (the light was in His control), can he not also control it's limits on the timescale? What I am saying is that the DAY was defined as the period of light before another period of darkness. Where is the indication that it was exactly 86400 seconds? I believe the light stayed on for as long as God needed to work, whether it was a 15 milli-second day or a 10.7million set of years.

My submission. Thanks for hearing me out.

OLAADEGBU:

Some of the early church fathers believed that God created everything in only one day or in an instant.

Early church fathers are not the final authority, and history has shown us that they got us confused on so many, many issues. If I were you, they would not even be my appeal to settling the question of this thread.

But, of course, anyone is welcome to quote any authority - early or late fathers, that's no problem to me. The question is not so much what the Biblical texts say, but our own interpretations of those texts.

mavenbox:

^^^ Seen. But to clarify my point, the evening and the next morning which defined the day were announced WHEN God finished each creation process in time. And the Hebrew Word used is יום
(yôm)

which refers to an era, an age, a time, of which the 24 hour day is a special case. Now, since the day was defined by God as the period in which there was Light (for Him to work) and Night was the period of darkness; and he called the light into existence (the light was in His control), can he not also control it's limits on the timescale? What I am saying is that the DAY was defined as the period of light before another period of darkness. Where is the indication that it was exactly 86400 seconds? I believe the light stayed on for as long as God needed to work, whether it was a 15 milli-second day or a 10.7million set of years.

My submission. Thanks for hearing me out.

The word for "Day" found in Genesis 1 is qualified by a number and the phrase "evening and morning", the words for Day 1 "light and darkness" means an ordinary day. The sun is not needed for day and night. What is needed is light and a rotating earth. On the 1st day of creation, God made light (Gen.1:3). The phrase "evening and morning" implies a rotating earth and if we have light from one direction, and a spinning earth, there can be a day and a night.

This is what Dr. James Barr who is a professor of Hebrew (even though he is not a believer) said:

"So far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1-11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience (b) the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical stories (c) Noah's Flood was understood to be worldwide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark."

J. Barr personal letter to David Watson, April 23 1984.

viaro:

Early church fathers are not the final authority, and history has shown us that they got us confused on so many, many issues. If I were you, they would not even be my appeal to settling the question of this thread.

But, of course, anyone is welcome to quote any authority - early or late fathers, that's no problem to me. The question is not so much what the Biblical texts say, but our own interpretations of those texts.

If you were patient enough to read till the end you will discover that Martin Luther countered the errors of those early church fathers in his quote.  I know that you are so intelligent that you don't have to refer to what any church father says, as for me I can learn a lot from their experience and avoid falling into pitfalls that many are in.  Here is another church father that I can learn from.

"On the 4th day the luminaries came into existence.  Since God has foreknowledge, he understood the nonsense of the foolish philosophers who were going to say that the things produced on Earth came from the stars, so that they might set God aside.  In order therefore that the truth might be demonstated, plants and seeds came into existence before stars.  For what comes into existence later cannot cause what is prior to it." 

A letter Theophilus wrote to Autolycus defending creation science:

kolaxy:

Thanks for this piece Sir.May God continually bless you richly in your endeavours. May He continue to enrich you with wisdom. You see, there's little you can do.You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink. Just try as much as possible not to waste too much of your precious time. Thank you

Amen brother. I also thank the Lord for your life as you have allowed the Word of God to be the final authority in your endeavours the Good Lord will continue to keep you in the hollow of his palm.

OLAADEGBU:

If you were patient enough to read till the end you will discover that Martin Luther countered the errors of those early church fathers in his quote. I know that you are so intelligent that you don't have to refer to what any church father says, as for me I can learn a lot from their experience and avoid falling into pitfalls that many are in. Here is another church father that I can learn from.

My point was not that there is absolutely nothing to learn from the church fathers, or any fathers at all. It is clear that they were not written off completely in my previous post, and that is why I said that anyone was "welcome to quote any authority"; yet, whoever is being quoted should not be made the final authority on this matter, especially in the face of the challenges such interpretations have been unable to address. You inference that Luther countered the 'errors' of those church fathers should help you come round to my point.

viaro:

My point was not that there is absolutely nothing to learn from the church fathers, or any fathers at all. It is clear that they were not written off completely in my previous post, and that is why I said that anyone was "welcome to quote any authority"; yet, whoever is being quoted should not be made the final authority on this matter, especially in the face of the challenges such interpretations have been unable to address. You inference that Luther countered the 'errors' of those church fathers should help you come round to my point.

The Bible interpreted from God the Father, through Jesus Christ and by the Holy Spirit is what you should have as your final authority and not the fallible words of fallen sinful men.

^^^ Amen, bro. . . amen. That is why it is difficult for viaro to grind his nose on the mill of such as argue a 6,000 years old creation when neither God the Father, nor Jesus Christ nor the Holy Spirit mentioned such a figure for the age of the entire creation of all things.

^^^^^^^ interesting view you have there

viaro:

^^^ Amen, bro. . . amen. That is why it is difficult for viaro to grind his nose on the mill of such as argue a 6,000 years old creation when neither God the Father, nor Jesus Christ nor the Holy Spirit mentioned such a figure for the age of the entire creation of all things.

If God said that the age of the earth is 6,000 years old when He verbally inspired His prophets would'nt it be outdated by now? He knew that spiritual rebels like you would be quick to cry "error!" and that is why He has revealed His Word to us systematically and understandably. You don't even believe the Words of Jesus when He said that Adam and Eve were created from the beginning of creation (Mark 10:6) so it doesn't surprise me that you believe that Noah's Flood was local.

[list]
[li]If the flood was local why was the ark big enough to hold all the different kinds of vertebrate land animals? If only Mesopotamian animals were aboard, the ark could have been much smaller.[/li]
[/list]
[list]
[li]If the Flood was local, why would birds have been sent on board? These could simply have winged across to a nearby mountain range.[/li]
[/list]
[list]
[li]If the Flood was local, how could the waters rise to 8 metres above the mountains (Gen.7:20)? Water seeks its own level. It could not rise to cover the local mountains while leaving the rest of the world untouched.[/li]
[/list]

In the original autographs, every word and letter in the Bible is there because God put it there. Let us listen to God speaking to us through His Word and not arrogantly think we can tell God what He really means!

OLAADEGBU:

If God said that the age of the earth is 6,000 years old when He verbally inspired His prophets would'nt it be outdated by now?

Yes; but even so, did He say to us anywhere that He deliberately named the age of the earth for which YECs now assertively peg it at 6,000 years old?

He knew that spiritual rebels like you would be quick to cry "error!" and that is why He has revealed His Word to us systematically and understandably.

Lol, viaro is not a spiritual rebel; and I understand that the Biblical revelation of God to the prophets is both dispensational and progressive, besides systematic and understandable.

You don't even believe the Words of Jesus when He said that Adam and Eve were created from the beginning of creation (Mark 10:6) so it doesn't surprise me that you believe that Noah's Flood was local.

I believe the words of Jesus Christ, and in the relevant thread I have shared what I understood Mark 10:6 to be saying. Following my discussion in that thread, I also asked questions about when the angels were created; yet not one YEC/YUC has been able to take those questions seriously enough to attempt any sane answers. I also have my reasons why I believe that the flood was local rather than global, and one of these days I shall share on that from the 3 points of reference that YEC/YUC are most scared of:

          ~ Scripture
          ~ Geosciences
          ~ quotes of YEC/YUCs

Many apprentices of the YEC/YUC doctrines do not think for themselves, that is why they act like their predecessors who damn every believer that dares to discuss an older than 6,000 year old creation in the Bible. I won't follow that trend, for a discussion is at its finest point when issues are discussed and not when discussants begin to throw stones at one another.

[list]
[li]If the flood was local why was the ark big enough to hold all the different kinds of vertebrate land animals? If only Mesopotamian animals were aboard, the ark could have been much smaller.[/li]
[/list]

It's simple, really: you have no clue about the number of animals in the taxonomy of Noah's time that is why you make statements like that.

[list]
[li]If the Flood was local, why would birds have been sent on board? These could simply have winged across to a nearby mountain range.[/li]
[/list]

That is not even a serious consideration - for again you would have to think of the number of bird species in the avian taxonomy before you jump to the conclusion that they all were fitted into that Ark. Besides, there are species of birds that can swim and survive under water, regardless the current - an example is the American Dipper (Cinclus mexicanus), and several others. More than that, just think alone of the sheer number of species of birds, not to talk of other vetebrate land animals. How many do you know, please?

[list]
[li]If the Flood was local, how could the waters rise to 8 metres above the mountains (Gen.7:20)? Water seeks its own level. It could not rise to cover the local mountains while leaving the rest of the world untouched.[/li][/list]

That's easy - you have missed an essential part of geoscience here: the altitudes of mountain ranges all over the world are not the same but vary according to sea level. Now, let me ask you, what in your opinion is the highest peak of any mountain you know?

In the original autographs, every word and letter in the Bible is there because God put it there. Let us listen to God speaking to us through His Word and not arrogantly think we can tell God what He really means!

Yes, I listen; but He also enjoins me to understand what is written by seeking an interpretation that is not blind to reality.

@viaro,

It will be sincere and consistent of you if you admit that you don't believe the words of God if not you will believe the inspired word of God that said that Noah's Flood was global and catastrophic.

[list]
[li]If the Flood was local, people who did not happen to be living in the vicinity would not be affected by it. They would have escaped God's judgment on sin. If this had happened, what did Christ mean when He likened the coming judgment of all men to the judgment of "all" men in the days of Noah (Matthew 24:37-39)? A partial judgment in Noah's day means a partial judgment to come.[/li]
[/list]

[list]
[li]If the Flood was local, God would have repeatedly broken His promise never to send such a flood again.[/li]
[/list]

Noah's Flood washes away millions of years. The evidence in Genesis 6-9 for a global catastrophic flood is overwhelming. For example, the Flood was intended to destroy not only all sinful people but also all land animals and birds and the surface of the earth, which only a global flood could accomplish. The Ark's purpose was to save two of every kind of land animal and bird (and 7 of some) to repopulate the earth after the Flood. The Ark was unnecessary if the Flood was only local. People, animals and birds could have been populated from creatures outside the area after the Flood. The catastrophic nature of the Flood is seen in the nonstop rain for at least 40 days, which would have produced massive erosion, mud slides, hurricanes, etc. The Hebrew words translated "the fountains of the great deep burst open" (Gen.7:11) clearly point to tectonic rupturing of the earth's surface in many places for 150 days, resulting in volcanoes, earthquakes and tsunamis. Noah's Flood would produce exactly the kind of complex geological record we see worldwide today. Thousands of feet of sediments clearly deposited by water and later hardened into rock and containing billions of fossils. If the year-long Flood is responsible for most of the rock layers and fossils, then those rocks and fossils cannot represent the history of the earth over millions of years, as evolutionists claim.

@viaro,

You said that you believe in the words of Jesus Christ. Did you know that Jesus consistently treated the miracle accounts of the OT as straightforward, truthful, historical accounts? Such as in the creation of Adam, Noaho and the Flood, Lot and his wife in Sodom, Moses and the manna, and Jonah in the fish? He continually affirmed the authority of Scripture over men's ideas and traditions (see Matthew 15:1-9). As I said earlier, Mark 10:6 shows where Jesus clearly stated that Adam and Eve were made at the "beginning of creation," not billions of years after the beginning, as would be the case if the universe were really billions of years old. So, tell me who you believe, the words of fallible men or the Words of Christ?

Since the World Began
December 11, 2009

"As he spake by the mouth of his holy prophets, which have been since the world began." (Luke 1:70)

According to the theory of evolution as taught in most schools and colleges today, the world began about eighteen billion years ago in a "Big Bang" when the cosmos evolved into existence out of nothing.  The sun and planets evolved out of cosmic dust about five billion years ago, life evolved from chemicals about four billion years ago, and human life perhaps a million years ago.

But this is not what God's Word says! According to the priest Zacharias, as in our text, God has been speaking through His prophets ever since the world began--not beginning eighteen billion years after it began.

Similarly Peter, in his temple sermon, preached that God had promised someday to restore all things, "which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began" (Acts 3:21).  The restoration of all things obviously was meant to refer to conditions in Eden, not to the primeval cosmic dust cloud of the evolutionists.

The Lord Jesus Christ also taught that man has been here since the world began.  Referring to the creation of Adam and Eve, and quoting Genesis 1:27, He said: "But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female" (Mark 10:6).  Adam and Eve were not created eighteen billion years after the beginning of the creation, but just six days after the beginning in a "very good" world.

It is dangerously close to mocking God for modern Christian teachers to urge people to accept the Big Bang theory of cosmic evolution and the geologic ages' framework of organic evolution.  Men and women were given dominion over the earth when the world first began, and God has been promising His coming Redeemer through His prophets ever since, just as the Bible says. HMM

@mavenbox
Since you were with God when he created no wahala

@krayola
The honest truth is that I am struggling with my finals, I have got loads of work to do in such little time and I just got slapped with yet another finite difference formulation to program, now I have to read and digest 6 huge chapters this weekend alone, na aproco I dey do for here when I come look for help online but we fit still fix time later sha.

^^^ So you suddenly arrive on the thread and say I was present at creation, as if both of us were previously having a conversation on this topic?

All the best on your numerical analysis

Fake mavenbox, you are a Dundee united. I am the real mavenbox.

the world is 5000 years old sef no be 6000. Mumu.

The naughty clone above has been banned.

@Everyone: sorry for the mischievous posts made in my name.

@OLAADEGBU,

Yours is again appreciated. This is not where I would set forth my thesis of an alternative interpretation that differs from the traditional YEC/YUC conclusions about creation and the age of the cosmos; so I shall rather try to make it easier for you to consider some important points that you've been missing hitherto.

OLAADEGBU:

@viaro,

It will be sincere and consistent of you if you admit that you don't believe the words of God if not you will believe the inspired word of God that said that Noah's Flood was global and catastrophic.

[list]
[li]If the Flood was local, people who did not happen to be living in the vicinity would not be affected by it. They would have escaped God's judgment on sin. If this had happened, what did Christ mean when He likened the coming judgment of all men to the judgment of "all" men in the days of Noah (Matthew 24:37-39)? A partial judgment in Noah's day means a partial judgment to come.[/li]
[/list]

[list]
[li]If the Flood was local, God would have repeatedly broken His promise never to send such a flood again.[/li]
[/list]

Noah's Flood washes away millions of years. The evidence in Genesis 6-9 for a global catastrophic flood is overwhelming. For example, the Flood was intended to destroy not only all sinful people but also all land animals and birds and the surface of the earth, which only a global flood could accomplish. The Ark's purpose was to save two of every kind of land animal and bird (and 7 of some) to repopulate the earth after the Flood. The Ark was unnecessary if the Flood was only local. People, animals and birds could have been populated from creatures outside the area after the Flood. The catastrophic nature of the Flood is seen in the nonstop rain for at least 40 days, which would have produced massive erosion, mud slides, hurricanes, etc. The Hebrew words translated "the fountains of the great deep burst open" (Gen.7:11) clearly point to tectonic rupturing of the earth's surface in many places for 150 days, resulting in volcanoes, earthquakes and tsunamis. Noah's Flood would produce exactly the kind of complex geological record we see worldwide today. Thousands of feet of sediments clearly deposited by water and later hardened into rock and containing billions of fossils. If the year-long Flood is responsible for most of the rock layers and fossils, then those rocks and fossils cannot represent the history of the earth over millions of years, as evolutionists claim.

I believe in God's Word, but not the traditional interpretation that is painfully blind to reality. Since in your interpretation you have involved elements of the geosciences (such as erosion, mud slides, hurricanes, etctonic rupturing, etc), it should be clear to you that you beating the air and yet unable to bring yourself to the reality that is before you. If you would like to enter into such a discussion, I invite you amicably to do so.

OLAADEGBU:

@viaro,

You said that you believe in the words of Jesus Christ. Did you know that Jesus consistently treated the miracle accounts of the OT as straightforward, truthful, historical accounts? Such as in the creation of Adam, Noaho and the Flood, Lot and his wife in Sodom, Moses and the manna, and Jonah in the fish? He continually affirmed the authority of Scripture over men's ideas and traditions (see Matthew 15:1-9). As I said earlier, Mark 10:6 shows where Jesus clearly stated that Adam and Eve were made at the "beginning of creation," not billions of years after the beginning, as would be the case if the universe were really billions of years old. So, tell me who you believe, the words of fallible men or the Words of Christ?

I have repeatedly pointed out the relevant threads where I discussed my understanding of Mark 10:6 to show that YEC/YUC have deliberately ignored the question of creation itself while arguing pitifully on the notion of dating the entire universe on the age of Adam. Even so, none of the things you mentioned here (the miracle accounts of the OT, the creation of Adam, Noaho and the Flood, Lot and his wife in Sodom, Moses and the manna, and Jonah in the fish) - none of those things provide you any grounds for the age of the Universe. I don't know what game you're up to in beating frantically for just about any idea to bless your YEC dogma: but it does not appear the latest antics are helpful.

@mavenbox
*hmmm hmmmm hmmm clears throat and speaks in a thick warri accent*
As you want make I take talk am again na!

You posts smacks of so much swagger , sorry but that seemed to be the easiest conclusion or maybe is because I just skim through the posts and when I see "God did not intend for man to" or "God's plan for man was to" I just ignore the rest

All the best on your numerical analysis

Hehehehehehehehe chapter three EXERGY!!!

Chrisbenogor:

@mavenbox
*hmmm hmmmm hmmm clears throat and speaks in a thick warri accent*
As you want make I take talk am again na!

You posts smacks of so much swagger , sorry but that seemed to be the easiest conclusion or maybe is because I just skim through the posts and when I see "God did not intend for man to" or "God's plan for man was to" I just ignore the rest

Sorry if I came across to you like that. I think I have very strong and deep convictions about whatever I believe in.

viaro:

@OLAADEGBU,

Yours is again appreciated. This is not where I would set forth my thesis of an alternative interpretation that differs from the traditional YEC/YUC conclusions about creation and the age of the cosmos; so I shall rather try to make it easier for you to consider some important points that you've been missing hitherto.

This is ridiculous, what alternative interpretation do you want to give to Genesis 7:19-22 that is plain for everyone to see except you want to turn it to fit your own dogma.

[19] And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered. [20] Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered. [21] And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man: [22] All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died. [23] And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark. -- Genesis 7:19-23

viaro:

I believe in God's Word, but not the traditional interpretation that is painfully blind to reality. Since in your interpretation you have involved elements of the geosciences (such as erosion, mud slides, hurricanes, etctonic rupturing, etc), it should be clear to you that you beating the air and yet unable to bring yourself to the reality that is before you. If you would like to enter into such a discussion, I invite you amicably to do so.

I have many questions for those of you that teach that the Genesis flood was only local, here are just a few for you to think about and it only requires commonsense, not too complicated;

[list]
[li]If the Flood was local, why did Noah have to build an ark?  He could have walked to the other side of the mountains and miss the Flood.[/li]
[/list]

[list]
[li]If the Flood was local, why did God send the animals to the ark so they could escape death? There would have been other animals to reproduce that kind if these particular ones had died.[/li]
[/list]

viaro:

I have repeatedly pointed out the relevant threads where I discussed my understanding of Mark 10:6 to show that YEC/YUC have deliberately ignored the question of creation itself while arguing pitifully on the notion of dating the entire universe on the age of Adam. Even so, none of the things you mentioned here (the miracle accounts of the OT, the creation of Adam, Noaho and the Flood, Lot and his wife in Sodom, Moses and the manna, and Jonah in the fish) - none of those things provide you any grounds for the age of the Universe. I don't know what game you're up to in beating frantically for just about any idea to bless your YEC dogma: but it does not appear the latest antics are helpful.

Jesus was clear about the creation of Adam and Eve from the beginning of the original creation (after 5 days from the beginning of creation).  He was also clear about the judgment to come when He compared it with that of the days of Noah.  Jesus who created all things would certainly know what He is talking about.  You are the one playing the game of finding time gap for your geologic ages and you are prepared to mutilate the scriptures to justify your compromise.

Belief in a historical Genesis is important because progressive creation and its belief in millions of years:

[list]
[li]Contradicts the clear teaching of Scripture,[/li]
[/list]
[list]
[li]Assaults the character of God[/li]
[/list]
[list]
[li]Severely damages and distorts the Bible's teaching on death, and[/li]
[/list]
[list]
[li]Undermines the gospel by undermining the clear teaching of Genesis, which gives the whole basis for Christ's atonement and our need for a Redeemer.[/li]
[/list] 
So ultimately, the issue of a literal Genesis is about the authority of the Word of God versus the authority of the words of sinful men.

Why do Christians believe in the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ? Because of the words of Scripture that says "according to the Scriptures."  And why should Christians believe in 6 literal days of creation? Because of the words of Scripture that says "In six days the Lord made , " 

The real issue is one of authority, so let us unashamedly stand upon God's Word as our sole authority.

"Be ready in season and out of season. Convince, rebuke, exhort, with all longsuffering and teaching. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables. But you be watchful in all things, "  

2 Timothy 4:2-5

Thanks once again @olaadegbu

kolaxy:

"Be ready in season and out of season. Convince, rebuke, exhort, with all longsuffering and teaching. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables. But you be watchful in all things, "

2 Timothy 4:2-5

Thanks once again @olaadegbu

You are right Kolaxy, the "last days" are already here. Watch and pray.

@olaadegbu,

Thanks for unashamedly standing for the unchanging word of God. I can't deny how much I've learned from your posts especially this particular thread. May God help us all. Thanks

Beware Of False Teachers

"Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own steadfastness" (II Peter 3:17).

Peter's final epistle, especially chapters 2 and 3, is the classic New Testament passage on the false teachers that would plague the church in the "last days" (v.3).  In addition to the characteristics listed in the introductory verse, 2:1 (e.g., slipping in surreptitiously heretical teachings, denying the redemptive work and Lordship of Christ), a number of their attributes are predicted for our guidance, as follows:

They will "wrest the scriptures" (3:16), distorting their literal meaning to conform to their own philosophical preferences.  This will involve using "feigned words" (2:3)--that is, plastic words, words with devious meanings to make them say what their users wish to convey.  They may well be very eloquent and seductive in their speech, "when they speak great swelling words of vanity" (2:18).

They will deny the doctrine of special creation and the judgment of the worldwide Flood (3:5-6), teaching instead that "all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation" (v.4), and will scoff at the Second Coming.  They "despise government" and are "presumptuous" and "selfwilled . . . not afraid to speak evil of dignities" (2:10).

They both practice and defend immoral acts, "having eyes full of adultery" (v.14).  Yet they maintain their religious ties because they have hearts "exercised with covetous practices" (v.14), seeing nothing evil in taking money for personal gain from those whose faith they seek to undermine.

This is, indeed, a fitting description of many modern liberal theologians, religious bureaucrats in the big denominations, "New Age" preachers, college teachers of religion, etc.  Although this is not a pleasant subject, Christians urgently need to awaken to what is happening, and "beware!" HMM

Jesus and the Flood

"For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be" (Matthew 24:38-39).

The Lord Jesus Christ not only believed in the special, recent creation of all things by God (note Mark 10:6-, but also in the worldwide Flood of Noah's day, including the special preservation of life on the Ark.  The Flood in which He believed was obviously not a "local flood," for He compared it to the worldwide future impact of His Second Coming.

Neither was it a "tranquil flood," nor a "selective flood," for Jesus said, "the flood came, and destroyed them all" (Luke 17:27).  It is clear that He was referring to--and that He believed--the Genesis record of the great Flood! There it says that the whole earth was "filled with violence" (Genesis 6:13), having first been filled with people, and that the resulting world-cleansig deluge was so cataclysmic that "every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth" (Genesis 7:23).  Indeed, "the flood came, and took |literally `lifted'| them all away."

This is what Jesus said, and what He believed, and therefore, those who are truly His disciples must also believe this.  The destructive effects of the Flood can still be seen today, not only in the Biblical record, but also in the abundant evidences of cataclysmic destruction in the rocks and fossil graveyards all over the world.  To refuse this evidence, as do many modern intellectuals, can only be because they "willingly are ignorant," as Peter said in referring to this testimony (II Peter 3:5). HMM

@ mavenbox

@Olaadegbu: Many days I wish I could have more than 24 hours, there's always so much to do and so little time (besides wasting a good part of it on this new addiction: Nairaland). So why should God in his omnipotence be limited by this same 24 hour day?

The way I understand those Genesis days is this:

Each "day" started when God decided to continue the work.

Each day ended immediately God saw that it was good. Then Night came.

On the 7th "day", it started when God decided to take a break as a symbol to mankind that rest is important.

When he was done resting, the seventh day ended because its purpose was done.

God was not limited to 86400 seconds, which by the S.I. units is the duration of 794243384928000 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom Huh Undecided Undecided

Hey, man, give the Creator some credit!

This is VERY different from man's experience, where the day ends without your control, and whatever you didn't get done will be shifted to the next day.

There are clear indications of nature-control methods like this in places where Jesus, sent of God, interacted with nature. He stepped out onto water, and the water had to hold him up, it didn't consult the laws of surface tension first of all. He spoke to the winds and the waves. He told his disciple to get a coin from a fish's mouth and the fish HAD to swallow the coin (maybe from a fisherman's leaking pocket?) and position itself to be caught.

Nature aligns itself with God's plan, God does not squeeze into nature's box.

u did quite well on this thread until u got to this post.

1. The bible was written for man's comprehension and so was the creation of the earth. A day in genesis 1 is simply 24 hours. God was not limited to 24 hours but He conciously chose to do each piece of work and how each was to be made in 24 hours. God could have spoken man to existence. . .but He chose not to.
the first thing God did was to define what a day means right after declaring that "Let there be light". . why then would God not work by His own definition of a day.

2. ur information on the age of adam is FALSE. u can argue that by sinning, Adam was destined to die. . .but u cannot argue that the garden of eden of was a timeless zone. Far from it, the age of adam is known from the point of creation to the point of birth of seth. 130 years, . . . Gen 5:2-3 does justice to that.

3. Adam was the first man to be made, but there was a pre-adamic era. The bible was clear about this that the earth became formless and void because lucifer had rebelled and fallen. That explains why I believe that Genesis verse 1 and verse 2 did not happen simultaneously.

4. Based on the knowledge we have. . . . .the age of the earth is not far from the assumed.

noetic15:


4. Based on the knowledge we have. . . . .the age of the earth is not far from the assumed.

And what might that age be from your own pespective?

3. Adam was the first man to be made, but there was a pre-adamic era. The bible was clear about this that the earth became formless and void because lucifer had rebelled and fallen. That explains why I believe that Genesis verse 1 and verse 2 did not happen simultaneously.

@ OLAADEGBU

Do you believe that there was a pre-adamic era according to the bible?

toneyb:

@ OLAADEGBU

Do you believe that there was a pre-adamic era according to the bible?

What do you mean by the pre-adamic era?  Do you mean other human beings and fallen angels?