jump to last post 1-11 of 11 discussions (350 posts)

Creationists, Help Me Out on this One

  1. 0
    Emile Rposted 2 years ago

    I've just been reading about 'out of place' artifacts. Oddities which are dated way, way way outside of the parameters of the currently accepted assumptions on human development on this planet. It appears a lot of these artifacts are exhibited in a creation museum. I'm curious as to why. If things are dated millions of years ahead of any time they could have been here, according to evolution theory, how do they fit into a 6000 year old earth model? Or, are they just there in an attempt to debunk science?

    Please note that I am firmly of the opinion that there are too many anomalous finds to assume we currently have a good handle on how long humanity has been stumping around this planet. However, 6000 years appears to be off base by a ludicrous long shot.

    1. Ericdierker profile image81
      Ericdierkerposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Certainly it can be understood that not all "creationists" are holding tightly to 6,000 man years of earth. Hopefully an understanding of God allows that God can do anything. And it would be good to understand that Genesis is written for man and not as a restriction on God.
      If God wants the first "days" to be billions of years long, God can do that. We do not know exactly what God created by a wave of his hand or otherwise let the earth He created create. 20 lines or so to derive the exact nature of creation is very short and I suggest that is for a reason, and the reason is to let us fill in the blanks.

      No man can hike the Grand Canyon and open his eyes and say this was created in 6,000 man years. More like 6 billion man years. And it could have been created by a wave of a hand or God could have provided for the billions of years it took to create. I do not know. But I like to think God provided nature those billions of years. (misconception clarification; the mighty Colorado did not cut through and form the Grand Canyon, other forces did much more)
      We now know for a fact that certain viruses can fully evolve within just a few man years. We have seen it with our own eyes. To deny some evolution is to deny the brain that has evolved in our head from what it could understand when Genesis was written.
      None of this is to deny that there are some "strict" creationists out there that read Genesis and try to make it work literally. Good for them, but I do not want them covering my back the next time I scale a 1 billion year old rock formation cliff ;-)

      1. 0
        Emile Rposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        OK. Well then, let me ask you this. Where would the story of Adam and Eve fall with the extended time line?

        1. Ericdierker profile image81
          Ericdierkerposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Next? ;-)

          It is interesting to note that while all these Tectonic plates are shifting around and firmament be made and seas be separated and stars are finally visible and presumably volcanoes are erupting all over it must have been darned violent. I mean crazy with earthquakes and lava and plants just popping up all over and huge rains and winds and creatures crawling out of sludge.
          Well if I were God and treasured man that came out of this "dust" and upheaval I would have waited until it calmed down a bit -- just a few billion years. I would not have made him and then thrown him into the pre-Cambrian or even Paleozoic periods. That would not have been cool.  (but maybe there was a period -- pre-great flood time when things were calmer.)
          In that man can have generations within one tenth of an inch of 1,000 ft deep of a rock formation --- He probably came and went a few times for our purposes.

    2. kess profile image59
      kessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      How old was Adam on the day he was created?

      How old is existence?

      Time can only begin at the point when men begin to keep the first record, and cannot go beyond this point.

      Men cannot relate to millions of years, it is as good as infinite years, nevertheless this is one way in which  the ignorant can appear knowledgeable.

      1. 0
        Emile Rposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Seriously? I would think the words 'day he was created' might give the answer away. From the story, the general belief appears to be he was created as an adult male, but whatever the form his existence would be measured from that moment.



        I would disagree. Time passes, whether recorded by humanity or not. I do think we cannot assume we have an accurate enough understanding of the phenomenon of Time to accurately discern its passage since the outset of its inception, but it has continued to pass.



        I would agree that millions of years is difficult to fathom, but calling those who attempt it the ignorant who can appear knowledgeable basically shines a negative light on the speaker.

        1. kess profile image59
          kessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Are you missing the point intentionally?

          Any modern man observing an adult would not  conclude he is one day old.

          You disagree with the idea of time, fine, but should you not at least have the knowledge of what time is before you conclude in disagreement.
          You have admitted to not having a clue about the thing you are wanting to disprove.

          I do agree that a someone who makes such statements do run the risk of putting himself in the shadows....but it largely depends on the Speaker.

          I guess you will not accept that there are those who do have knowledge of these things.
          This will work to your detriment for you will only confine yourself to ignorance.

          1. 0
            Emile Rposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            I may be missing your point because I don't see one here. Are you speaking of Adam? What one might observe is not the point. The text states he was formed, then life was breathed into the form. Whatever appearance that form might be, it didn't exist prior to that moment.



            I'm not in the habit of using the royal 'we'. We includes you in my statement. The disagreement with you was in your fallacious assumption that time only exists because we observe it. We aren't all that. Again, not the royal 'we' in use.



            Ummmmmm, you and I are conversing. I get the impression that you are attempting to imply you do have knowledge. You'd actually have to share something of value in order to be seen as such. Blowing smoke and attempting to insult others doesn't qualify. So sorry.

    3. Buildreps profile image95
      Buildrepsposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Hi Emile,

      The Bible is in most cases taken to literally, that leads to so many problems.

      About Adam and Eve - Adam is the Soul and Eve is the Body. This knowledge already changes the whole view on the Bible. Many many strict believers think that women are bad, because she ate from the forbidden fruit. I'm not going to explain all details, but the soul doesn't know the seven sins, only the body does...

      If you consider that Evolution is part of the Grand Design (Creation) the dilemma becomes smaller. The Cambrian explosion, also called Darwin's dilemma, indicate that Creation could be about 500 million years old. So Humans could be already million years on the Earth, which is in line with the facts when it comes the 'out of place' artifacts, that are found all over the world.

      The assumptions that many theologians made (and still make) in determining when Creation 'is done', is that by counting of the tribal names in Genesis you inevitably come to the conclusion that God created the Universe 6000 years ago, which is a short-sighted conclusion when you look at the facts of Geological findings.

      Adding to this the fact that the current Bible is not the original document, but an extremely edited version of the true Bible that was done a few centuries after Christ, this document simply cannot be used to base theories upon, despite the huge amount of strict followers.

      Hopefully it helped you more in your search for answers:)

    4. 0
      Rad Manposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Here is a snap shot of the best explanation I've heard yet as to why we live in a 6000 year old 14 billion year old universe. It doesn't really explain why the earth is billions of years old, but it attempts to explain why light from galaxies billions of light years away is reaching us.

      It goes something like this…
      For much of the earth very early existence our earth and sun were in the centre of a black whole while the rest of the universe was aging the earth was not. So while the earth is a mere 6 to 10 thousand years old the rest of the universe is almost 14 billion years old which allows the light to arrive from galaxies billions of light years away.

      This of course doesn't explain an old earth, but it serves as away for creationist to explain an old universe.

      1. 0
        Emile Rposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        I'm working out an even more bizarre explanation in my mind. Maybe, if I can get it pinned down, mapped out, written cryptically (I may get some lessons from Kess on that front) and distributed over a large percentage of the world they'll start a religion revolving around me. Yes, me. Prophetic words being spoken here, rad man. Sit up and take notice. Or, better yet, be the first to bow to my impending awesomeness.

        1. 0
          Rad Manposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          I've been bowing to your awesomeness for years. You complete me.

          1. 0
            Emile Rposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Oh. Friar rad and I didn't know it. I think, it's way past time for a promotion for you. You can be my Pope and write some bulls. I deem you henceforth and forever; infallible.

            1. wilderness profile image96
              wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Won't work.  His head is too small for the funny cap; it will cover his eyes and probably nose and mouth as well.

              Take me instead.

              1. bBerean profile image60
                bBereanposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                Great.  Now the cap's too small.  wink
                Emile, no wonder your religion causes so much fighting. 
                (Or whatever it is the AAPB likes to say).

                1. wilderness profile image96
                  wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  There need be no fighting.  Between the two of us we can "off" the Rad.  I'll take the cap and you can be my flunky - we'll even give you a nice title.  "Bishop" or something.

                  1. 0
                    Rad Manposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    You cut me deep. Real deep.

                  2. bBerean profile image60
                    bBereanposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    If we play this right there should be plenty for everyone...It's all in the marketing.  We may need Rad for graphics. 
                    Emile, your silence will render you a figurehead.  You know that, don't you?

                2. 0
                  Rad Manposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  Wilderness's head is rather swollen.

              2. 0
                Rad Manposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                I really did laugh out loud.

                1. wilderness profile image96
                  wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  smile

        2. bBerean profile image60
          bBereanposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          And so were born those known as the Emilerites.

          1. 0
            Emile Rposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            :LOL:

            1. bBerean profile image60
              bBereanposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              From the land of ________?

              1. Sed-me profile image83
                Sed-meposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                She was the sister of Elimelech. They were Ephrathites.

                1. bBerean profile image60
                  bBereanposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  Actually they were Ephrasites, (it's not nice to make fun of speech impediments).

                  1. Sed-me profile image83
                    Sed-meposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    I had my retainer in while I was typing.

    5. Titen-Sxull profile image93
      Titen-Sxullposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      I'm a former Old Earth creationist and current atheist so I'll try to give both perspectives.

      Back in the day I believed Ooparts (out of place artifacts) were evidence of Earth's hidden history, particularly in regards to the existence of Giants or, as the Bible calls them Nephilim. The Nephilim were half-angel half-human hybrids spoken of in the apocryphal book of Enoch. The Bible seems to suggest that some of them were ancient champions/heroes leading some to believe that legendary folks like Hercules (Heracles), Goliath, etc might be related to them.

      Many believed, myself included at the time, that the Great Flood had been directed at the Nephilim as they threatened to genetically degrade the human race with angelic DNA that wasn't meant to be mixed with our own terrestrial DNA.

      Now keep in mind I believed in an old earth form of creationism where God was basically doing whatever crazy experiments he wanted with the Earth for its 4 billion years.

      Now, as an atheist and someone who has taken the time to investigate the evidences for evolution and dating techniques I understand that most Ooparts, if not all, are dated incorrectly due to either being tested with the wrong technique or contamination of the test sample. For example Carbon Dating, often derided by creationists, has WELL KNOWN and established limits as to its effectiveness. Things older than a certain age cannot be dated with carbon dating and other radiometric dating techniques are employed.

      Of course most creationist websites and apologists ignore the fact that there are multiple dating techniques and that legitimate scientists already know the limitations of each and every different one.

      1. 0
        Emile Rposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Wow. I can see why you would become an atheist. Did you think all that up by yourself or were you part of some cult?

        1. Titen-Sxull profile image93
          Titen-Sxullposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Most of it was stuff I had researched on the internet. Keep in mind I believed this stuff at around ages 14-18, I wasn't exactly a skeptic. I was raised in a fundamentalist household, my Father was and still is a young earth creationist but I preferred the Old Earth variety mainly because of the stars and galaxies being so far away that the Universe  and Earth would HAVE to be old for their light to reach us.

          After I left Christianity behind my belief in stories of the Nephilim got even into even sillier areas, I even adopted a version of ancient astronaut theory, believing the aliens had engineered us as a slave race and set themselves up as gods. In my post-Christian years I drifted around a lot trying to fill the gap with all kinds of wild "theories" and ideas. Eventually I couldn't find anything that actually held up or seemed worth accepting as true and my journey into skepticism and atheism began.

          Now I still have a soft spot for the weird stuff people believe, I just tend to want to talk them out of actually believing in it.

          1. Cat333 profile image80
            Cat333posted 2 years ago in reply to this

            You've indicated in your two recent posts here that you were an "old earth Creationist", so why did any "evidence" of an old earth and debates over dating methods impact you? I didn't follow what it was that turned you from following Jesus Christ.

            1. Titen-Sxull profile image93
              Titen-Sxullposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Really the dating techniques weren't that big of an issue for me as an old earth creationist. The only place they came into play was certain claimed finds of bones, giant axes, footprints, and other Ooparts which I believed might be linked to Nephilim or possible human-dinosaur co-habitation. "Arguments" against dating techniques were plastered all over creationist websites, lot's of misconceptions about how such techniques worked and the ways in which scientists used them.

              As for my deconversion I have several hubs dealing with it. The main factor as to why I am no longer a Christian is that I actually read my Bible and studied how it was put together/edited. I had believed in a God of love and peace, truth and justice, a good God. The God of the Bible was not the God I had been led to believe he was and so I rejected that God as an invention of man or a misinterpretation of a real being. So after I stopped being a Christian I set out to find the true God of the Universe, which ultimately led to no belief in gods of any kind (atheism).

          2. 0
            Emile Rposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            That's interesting. I think, mainly because you've gone from one belief structure to another. I know, you probably think you've shed belief. But, by using the term atheist you are making as much a statement on belief as claiming nephelim DNA had to be prohibited from tainting humans. It's simply more palatable.

            I'm not attempting to be confrontational with this, but I do wonder why those on both sides have such a desire to take what little we know and use that limited information to come to conclusions too far reaching to be completely supported by the data available. I've never understood why it is so difficult to accept that no one knows.

            I don't know seems like such an honest stand. Do you think the conclusions you now accept are driven by the odd conclusions you had previously come to? Does the silliness of some of that make you driven to ensure you don't leave room for speculation which might appear silly? I've often wondered because it seems that those who once were off what I would classify a deep end seem to now be clinging to another deep end.

            1. Cat333 profile image80
              Cat333posted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Generally speaking I actually agree with you here: "I don't know seems like such an honest stand." In fact in this forum I said truthfully to Rad Man that this IS the stand I would have taken regarding the offer of any beliefs (rather than being sure of anything in the spiritual realm or trying to dissuade anyone of anything) IF I'd not met my Lord Jesus Christ. As it is, I only know because I already know through the Holy Spirit and I cannot "un-see" or "un-know" the One I've met. Since this is so, the effort to dissuade me of my faith has now turned to the naturally logical explanations of I'm either insane or deceived by an evil spirit while the truth lies elsewhere. But being sealed in the Holy Spirit, the efforts really are wasted on me.

              1. Titen-Sxull profile image93
                Titen-Sxullposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                Okay so what if I say I met with Jesus and the Holy Spirit and they told me that you are full of it and that the spirit that contacted you is a false one?

                There is no way to falsify which of us is in contact with the real God and which is a liar. Occams razor would suggest an easy way out, NEITHER of us is in contact with God.

                Going on 8 billion people on this planet in a Universe with at least a Septillion stars and one person is in contact with the creator of it all in the midst of a sea of people all claiming the same thing, claiming contact with every god from Azathoth to Zenu, not to mention ghosts, aliens, animal spirits and reptilians from the fourth dimension?

                So what reason, at all, is there for anyone to believe your claim against any of the others? None. It strikes me as funny because in the Bible God readily proved his might with amazing supernatural wonders, calling down fire for Elijah before the prophets of Baal. Now that the human race has reached the age of reason it appears he is the God who is asleep.

                1. Cat333 profile image80
                  Cat333posted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  If you were to say to me, "I met with Jesus and the Holy Spirit and they told me that you are full of it and that the spirit that contacted you is a false one", then I would say simply that you and I both know that you did not. We don't even need to "falsify" it because we are already in agreement that you made a false statement or claim (We both already fully know you were just making a point and experienced no such thing). Since we already both agree that your statement is false, then the possibilities for who is the "liar" as you label it has already diminished from including three options with one option as "only Cat", to now including only two of the three options: "Both are 'liars'", or "the unbeliever who made up a lie to prove a point alone is the 'liar'." I wouldn't so casually throw around the term "liar", but unfortunately, since it is your choice for a label, this is what remains.

                  COUNTLESS people are in contact with the Creator and give testimony of such, so where did you reach the conclusion that it was suggested that "one person is in contact with the creator of it all"? I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss those "claiming contact with every god from Azathoth to Zenu, not to mention ghosts, aliens, animal spirits and reptilians from the fourth dimension". No, I do not consider that they are currently in contact with God or have met Truth (the Spirit instructs me otherwise), BUT I consider that they may well be in contact with SOMETHING (demonic that is) within the spiritual realm. I've had experiences with demons as well and been under demonic attacks, but I FOLLOW the voice of only One - my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

                  There is only ONE reason, or WAY really, that you will believe the truth of the Lord Jesus Christ - through the working of the Holy Spirit.

                  In the days before Jesus Christ, "great" prophets brought the Spirit-inspired Word to the people and foretold of Jesus Christ. God on occasion did a miraculous display to demonstrate that this particular great prophet (amongst the false prophets) was speaking the true words of God. In the days shortly after Jesus Christ's resurrection, his apostles likewise were followed by "signs and wonders" to demonstrate the truth of Jesus Christ. These were particularly important times for spiritual manifestation and these were particularly prominent people of faith.

                  Still, today there are signs and wonders that can be found sprinkled amongst Spirit-filled believers, and these are witnessed by many, though we believers are not often so greatly filled with the Spirit as the prominent messengers and the apostles of God were. The power available for ALL believers through the Holy Spirit is incredibly underutilized (think of the underutilization of our brains and multiply that greatly). Believers may and are encouraged to DESIRE and SEEK the Holy Spirit, receive an outpouring from him, live in the power he provides, receive spiritual gifts, and have faith to receive. We live far short of all that is offered. Praise God that we are covered in the blood of Jesus and thereby declared righteous (the most wonderful thing for which we are eternally grateful), yet we too often overlook or deny all that is available to us as believers THROUGH the power of the Spirit, which is available to us through Jesus Christ.

                  1. Titen-Sxull profile image93
                    Titen-Sxullposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    Only one problem, I was a believer AND believed that I had received the Holy Spirit, I even used to speak in tongues. So there was a time when I could have claimed with all sincerity that I had been in contact with God. Even after I had left Christianity behind me I continued to have "mystical experiences" and even as an atheist I've had them, they are not magical they are mental and physiological and are Universal to human experience.

                    "BUT I consider that they may well be in contact with SOMETHING (demonic that is)"

                    And how do you know that your own experiences are not, in fact, demonic? There is no reason for the outside observer to take your claim seriously no matter how sincere you are about your experiences.

                    "Praise God that we are covered in the blood of Jesus and thereby declared righteous (the most wonderful thing for which we are eternally grateful)"

                    This raises another question for me, Christians go on and on about how Jesus died for them (he didn't, of course, since he came back to life in the same body and kept it all the way to Heaven) but I've often wondered if Christians shouldn't want to die for Christ. If you really love Jesus shouldn't you want to carry some of his burden? Shouldn't you want to take responsibility for the log in your own eye? Carry the weight of your own sins?

                    Of course such a thing is impossible within most versions of Christian theology because God is a primitive and evil character who demands that the simplest of misdeeds be deserving of eternal agony or, at the very least, horrible blood-sacrifice.

              2. 0
                Emile Rposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                Cat, I wouldn't deign to call you out as being dishonest. But, I do believe you have misinterpreted an experience you've had. Or, you've misunderstood what that experience has to do with how the rest of the world may fit into some cosmic scheme.

                I think we all strive to find meaning and how we (as in humanity) fit into the universe. I think the evidence shows there is no single way to find that meaning. Exclusionary theories are proving more and more problematic as we gather data as to what reality entails.

                If an encounter with Christ helps you find that meaning, please have enough faith in heaven and earth to assume that the meaning others have found is just as valid and just as meaningful.

                I do think Christians tend to sideline the mandate to love their neighbor as themselves. It's easy to pay homage and bend a knee to an unprovable deity. Whatever you deem acceptable to that deity can be easily justified. But, there is no deity actively supporting exclusionary ideals. All the law cannot be fulfilled by attempting to justify such ideas.

                Personally, I believe if the God of the Bible exists and Christ was his son the absence of proof is explained by that mandate. Humanity loves to love God. But that is only half of the equation and until we get that through our thick heads, as a species, we will flounder in darkness as to meaningful answers.

                1. Cat333 profile image80
                  Cat333posted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  Thank you for not calling me a liar, Emile, as others presently and previously have.

                  My experiences have been so numerous that I really would have to be misinterpreting a massive amount of experiences and my entire existence really. I would necessarily be insane, given my experiences. And many, many of my brothers and sisters in Christ around the world would also be insane. What a great bunch of lunatics we would be. And Jesus Christ himself would necessarily be a lunatic, for he spoke directly of One God and himself as the One Way to God.

                  It is true that there is that reality which is subjective - all that is related to personal preferences, unique tastes, perceptions, interpretations of experiences and such. This is God's design. And truly none of us can say our favorite music or our favorite color truly is best, since this is not an absolute truth. But the truth that exists beyond this is not determined by us. This exists whether we find or recognize that truth or not. The only way to get to this type of truth is to simply and humbly RECEIVE it from God himself (through the Holy Spirit). This is not an arrogant stand, as reaching our own conclusions is, but it is the opposite of the assumed arrogance of it - we humbly accept and receive as children. We do not know anything through any boast of our own, but only that which is GIVEN to us. Multitudes share the knowledge of the truth at this time, multitudes more will come to a knowledge of the truth, and in the end ALL will know the truth and will bow to the One true Creator and Lord of all. 

                  This is exclusionary: Jesus Christ himself said, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me" (John 14:6). Yet it is also the most open and all-inclusive Way because ALL are invited to come to God this same way - through Jesus Christ, the Savior of all people.

                  While I recognize that heaven and earth exist, my "faith" is in God alone. 

                  Love is God. God is truth. So love is truth. Only in truth do we find true love.

                  1. 0
                    Emile Rposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    Unfortunately, Jesus wrote nothing himself. Memories are sometimes flavored by personal opinion and although I think the gospels were an attempt to share the experience of having been taught by him I don't think it's healthy to take everything as gospel. Things have to make sense from point a to point z and it is quite ludicrous to think God so loved the world that he would create a scenario where billions upon billions would have the fires of hell to look forward to. Which means main stream Christianity is built on at least one falsely held belief.

                    Your claim of personal experience is nice, but since those claiming relationship don't agree again one must assume these claims are built on falsely held belief. Whether it be the experience itself or conclusions drawn from that experience something is obviously amiss.

                    If the safety of one's eternal soul hinged on anything, in particular, no God magnanimous enough to make the offer would be fickle enough to go to such great lengths to ensure the lion's share of humanity lost out on it. Such a being would not have been perceived as loving the world.

            2. Titen-Sxull profile image93
              Titen-Sxullposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              "I've never understood why it is so difficult to accept that no one knows."

              Well atheism doesn't necessarily imply certainty about the non-existence of gods, its simply disbelief. Now don't get me wrong there are atheists who will say "I believe there are no gods" or even simply "there is no god or gods" but atheism itself also encompasses a simple lack of belief. When I first realized I was an atheist it was in a conversation with a friend who explained that gnosticism and agnosticism are what refer to whether or not we know or can even know if a God or gods exist and atheism and theism deal mainly with whether we believe a god exists or not.

              There is this assumption put forward by some believers that atheists don't want to believe and while that may be true of some atheists, especially in regard to specific gods I think that many atheists would be open-minded enough if the evidence were actually presented.

              I would fully accept that statement, that no one knows, especially because of how nebulous and hard to define the concept of a god is. Greek gods are gods, Hindu gods, tribal gods, and yet we also have nebulous gods outside of time and space and beyond human understanding, or deistic gods studied only by studying the natural world or gods that simply ARE nature.

              "Do you think the conclusions you now accept are driven by the odd conclusions you had previously come to?"

              I'm not sure I would call my conclusions conclusive, if that makes any sense. I do think that if I hadn't been so open to freely researching these topics and if I hadn't had access to the internet especially I would have never discarded some of my beliefs. Sure I found lots of crazy stuff to believe on the internet but many of those beliefs and ideas never stuck for long, and many of those that did were later overturned as I began to care more and more about what was actually verifiably true and not just what sounded right or "resonated" with me.

              "Does the silliness of some of that make you driven to ensure you don't leave room for speculation which might appear silly?"

              Not really, I think and write and say a lot of silly things. Like I said I still have a soft spot for weird theories and conspiracies (recently I've been looking into a group of people who think the Moon was destroyed in 2009 and replaced by a hologram - makes no sense to me either but there's thousands of them) I just view them from the skeptical side.

              Believers might not know this but a lot of skeptics didn't turn into skeptics because their cynical or wanted to rain on the believer's parade. I became a skeptic because I wanted to believe BUT at the same time I wanted to believe the truth and so I looked for actual evidence that held up. Fox Mulder's famous "I Want to Believe" poster shouldn't be a cry for more faith, it should be a demand for skepticism! How are you ever going to find alien life, or ghosts, or gods or bigfoot if you won't conform to science or even common sense or logic - the best known mechanisms humans have for figuring things out?

              I want to believe that there's something out there, and with a Universe this vast who knows, whether that's simply a simple bacteria that evolved on Mars or a whole planet of intelligent beings or a previously undiscovered part of nature that people have been mistakenly calling the supernatural or a super-intelligent being that somehow through some mechanism or technology guided the evolution of the Universe or Earth. But there has to be evidence, some reason to believe that any of this stuff is actually true or even that its probably true. Like you said, no one knows.

              So the conclusions I've reached are tentative ones but I think they are the right ones, I think it makes sense to withhold belief in these sorts of things and I think that faith in many of these things can be detrimental, especially where organized religion is involved.

              1. 0
                Emile Rposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                Well, I'm afraid you and I are in agreement on everything you've said. I call myself agnostic for about the same reasons you've listed for becoming an atheist. I simply find the term non belief dishonest for me. I mean, seriously. What we can prove truly means nothing, when followed to its logical conclusion, using the evidence we have; because our ability to observe is limited on so many different levels.

                We can certainly rule out religion as truthful, but the core premise which began all religions cannot be ignored.

    6. Jerami profile image77
      Jeramiposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      The question Shouldn't be how long ago .....   Should be, how many times ?

  2. Zelkiiro profile image84
    Zelkiiroposted 2 years ago

    OOParts are generally hoaxes or were mistakenly dated. Only a few are convincingly anachronistic, though not impossibly so.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Out-of-place_artifact

    1. Castlepaloma profile image23
      Castlepalomaposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Had to be a hoax.

      About 27 million people were living on earth during the time Adam and Eve were made from mud.

      Anyone dare to call God on that, for the fear he may turn you back to dust.

      1. 0
        Emile Rposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Wow. Can you point me in the direction where I can see the details of that census?

        Seriously. At what point have you decided Adam and Eve were made from mud? Or, are you simply attempting to counter one fabrication with another? You can't possibly know either as a certainty.

      2. Zelkiiro profile image84
        Zelkiiroposted 2 years ago in reply to this
        1. Ericdierker profile image81
          Ericdierkerposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Literalness on either side creates lunacy.

          1. wilderness profile image96
            wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Which is why most people change the biblical words to something more palatable and true, yes?

            1. Ericdierker profile image81
              Ericdierkerposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Which is why no change is needed. The bible never suggests it is a scientific journal. We apply spiritual to our lives. It does not come with the exactitude of mathematics. Thank God ;-)

              1. wilderness profile image96
                wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                No, it certainly is not scientific - the scientific method used today had not been invented.  Nor does a literal reading produce a lot of truth - the meaning of the words must often be changed considerably to coincide with the concept of reality and truth. 

                So, we change the meaning and call it a "spiritual" thing.  It works for some, some refuse the change at all and some recognize that changing the holy words of God is a fruitless endeavor.

                1. Ericdierker profile image81
                  Ericdierkerposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  The words need not be changed, and perhaps not even their meaning. Adaptive is more correct.

                  1. wilderness profile image96
                    wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    Uh Huh.  The definition of "day" is 24 hours, not a billion years.  The definition of "cover the earth" means water over Mt. Everest, not a river overrunning it's banks.

                    So we change the meaning of "day", don't we?  From something they ancients could understand (sunup to sunup) to something they could not comprehend, like a billion years.  And change the directions to Noah from collecting all land animals to only those he could catch in the local area. 

                    And then we call it "adaptive", to make us feel better about changing the Word of God.  Some understand what we do and some pretend it isn't happening - that we just "adapt" the bible to reality.

  3. 0
    SirDentposted 2 years ago

    After reading many of the comments, I feel it must be pointed out that God created everything in a 6 day time period with the 7th day being a day of rest.

    I know nothing of the artifacts that Emile wrote about in the OP so I will not address those.  What I will address is the fact that Adam was created last, after all the animals were created on the Earth.

    It is also written that Adam gave names to all the animals.  Many seem to believe that the Bible says Adam was created one day and ate the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil the next, but that is not so.  We really have no way of knowing how long (time-wise) that Adam lived before the fall.

    Adam was created in the image and likeness of God and was never meant to die.  He was created to live forever.  After a time, (which no man knows how long), God took a rib from Adam and created Eve. God told them to be fruitful and multiply and replenish the Earth.

    No one knows how many children they may have procreated prior to the fall, nor how long they were on the earth prior to the fall.  It is possible that Adam lived to be millions of years on the earth before the fall.  No man really knows.

    1. 0
      Emile Rposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      I do have one problem with that scenario. It appears you are implying Adam and Eve had children prior to the fall. Wouldn't they be mentioned? All the other children were. I don't know that I've ever heard anyone suggest that possibility prior to your post.

      1. 0
        SirDentposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        They wouldn't necessarily be mentioned.  The Bible says they had sons and daughters but only a few of the sons were mentioned.

        1. Castlepaloma profile image23
          Castlepalomaposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Did Man co exist with dinosaurs?

          As I'm holding on to my chair

          1. 0
            SirDentposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Yes, of course.  Man was a spiritual being before the fall.  He was made like God, in His image and likeness.  There was no place he could not go nor anything he could not do.

            1. 0
              Rad Manposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Sorry, the evidence shows something very different.

            2. Buildreps profile image95
              Buildrepsposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              I agree with SirDent. Regarding the evidence - inter alia, the so called 'collection of Julsrud' in Mexico shows irrefutable that men lived with Dinosaurs. But because historians always get hysterical from this kind of evidences, that confuse their dogmatic understanding of history, it is generally neglected. Do not underestimate the amount of Geological findings that are incorrectly interpreted or even wrongly dated.

              1. Castlepaloma profile image23
                Castlepalomaposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                OH! Then to most professional scientist - Shame on you.
                You have clearly under estimated God's magic and his power of the 99% unknowns.

              2. wilderness profile image96
                wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                It's a nice collection, all right - of fakes.

                Not one is modeled after a dinosaur, and they were produced a few years before being "found" in the dirt.

                1. Buildreps profile image95
                  Buildrepsposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  Hi Wilderness, quite a pretentious claim you drop there. Since you seem to know so much - please explain me then the Cambrian Explosion? I would be honoured to be redeemed out of my misery of ignorance smile

                  1. 0
                    Rad Manposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    A red herring?

                  2. wilderness profile image96
                    wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    No, let's stay with the subject - the fake "dinosaur"s dug up in the farmers field in Mexico.  No need to bring in unrelated subjects in an effort to change the subject.

              3. 0
                Rad Manposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                Archaeologist Charles C. Di Peso "concluded that the figurines were indeed fakes: their surfaces displayed no signs of age; no dirt was packed into their crevices; and though some figurines were broken, no pieces were missing and no broken surfaces were worn. Furthermore, the excavation’s stratigraphy clearly showed that the artifacts were placed in a recently dug hole filled with a mixture of the surrounding archaeological layers. DiPeso also learned that a local family had been making and selling these figurines to Julsrud for a peso apiece since 1944, presumably inspired by films shown at Acámbaro’s cinema, locally available comic books and newspapers, and accessible day trips to Mexico City’s Museo Nacional."

                1. Buildreps profile image95
                  Buildrepsposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  Thanks Rad Man for your explanation, I think everything is possible. I keep the options open that Di Peso could be right and that actually the finding are genuine. In history Archeologists didn't prove to be very reliable in their objective observations.

                  1. 0
                    Rad Manposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    He found the family that was making them. It's called lying for Jesus.

                2. Buildreps profile image95
                  Buildrepsposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  Hi Rad Man, I've just dived into my geological journal about this issue of the people that were called the Saurians.
                  The 'fake' dinosaurs were found in 1945 by the German Waldemar Julsrud. Di Peso was indeed the guy that claimed them to be fake based upon the assumptions that: humans just didn't live together with dinosaurs; That the artefacts didn't belong to any known civilisation; despite its age, there was no patina visible; that they were only found on a very small area and nowhere else. So Di Peso didn't examine them scientifically but closed the file based on assumptions. This is no science of course, that will everyone agree on.
                  The history continues...Robert Charroux knew that Di Peso never examined this case and came with the following objections: no one could have made 32.000 artefacts in such a short time; the baking of the artefacts would have cost so much wood that wasn't available in the surrounding; the cost price of fake artefacts would have been 100 Pesos, while they sold them for just 1 Peso.

                  So this discussion only would raise eyebrows of science, but it didn't. You know why? Because any research on this issue could destroy the current view on history.

                  The story still continues...Di Peso who stupidly assumed that the artefacts were fake, some of them were examined in the Pennsylvania Museum in 1972 using the technique called thermoluminescence and appeared to be 4500 years old.

                  The story goes much deeper, but what I want to drop here in this thread that if we're trying to answer a question that Emile asked (assuming that she seriously wants an answer) - please don't jerk me off with general usual Wikipedia knowledge that is put together by a bunch of ignorant people, that investigate nothing - this counts for all the people that just drop some copy/paste common internet knowledge inside this thread...

                  1. 0
                    Rad Manposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    So if you don't like the information from a source then the source is ignorant? I've found Wikipedia to be rather neutral and unbiased. However you can if you like find information from other places, however it's a good idea to make sure the sources are not lying for Jesus. It's my understanding that the latest dating put them being fired around 1935.

                    Someone is lying for Jesus.

                  2. 0
                    Emile Rposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    Actually, I was sincere in asking the original question. I can't imagine what other reason I might have asked.

                    I do think mainstream science is extremely averse to the idea of accepting any evidence that doesn't rubber stamp current theories, and I do think too many simply accept that stance without thought. 'lying for science' isn't a great description since most only hold that view through willfully refusing to objectively view new evidence, but it is an apt description since they appear to think those with opposing views are lying for Jesus. It does bother me that many who willfully refuse to consider that some of the evidence is credible do attempt to discredit those who are genuinely open to the possibility.

                    I simply thought creationists all claimed the earth was 6000 years old. So, I started the thread. It appears I was mistaken.

              4. Cat333 profile image80
                Cat333posted 2 years ago in reply to this

                "But because historians always get hysterical from this kind of evidences, that confuse their dogmatic understanding of history, it is generally neglected. Do not underestimate the amount of Geological findings that are incorrectly interpreted or even wrongly dated." Yes!!

      2. Cat333 profile image80
        Cat333posted 2 years ago in reply to this

        I've heard several people comment that we don't know how long time went on before the fall. Children aren't generally mentioned in this as far as I know.

        We certainly weren't given all the details. Like who the "others" were Cain feared after killing his brother Abel. Were they beings other than humans, "human-like" beings not made in God's image, unmentioned brothers and sisters, something or someone else?

        1. 0
          Emile Rposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          I, personally, think implying that Adam and Eve had offspring prior to the expulsion is far fetched. A simple reading of the text prior to the story of Adam supplies a much more plausible scenario.

          1. 0
            SirDentposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Gen 1:26  And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
            Gen 1:27  So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
            Gen 1:28  And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

            1. 0
              Emile Rposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              That would be it.

    2. Cat333 profile image80
      Cat333posted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Yes, very possible Adam (and Eve) were living a long, long time before the fall! Thank you for bring up this very valid point.

      1. Castlepaloma profile image23
        Castlepalomaposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        I put out a thread voting on who believes the earth is a little more than 6000 years old. Only 10% believed in Creationism from mainly reasons from the bible. Since most people are Christian on hub pages and most people believe in evolution. I'll never understand why they keep supporting this 10% bible belief myth from the beginning of Creation and this End of the world myth 100s times over and over. Many Christian will prepare their whole life for this myth. If they were right, Chance is when they do go to Hell, They will ask- WHAT HAPPEN DID I PICK THE INCORRECT ANWER among the millions of GODS to choose from.

        1. Castlepaloma profile image23
          Castlepalomaposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          A huge miss from begining to End

        2. Cat333 profile image80
          Cat333posted 2 years ago in reply to this

          I hope you had an option of simply "don't know" how old the earth is. I make no claims as to the age of the earth, whether 6000 years or billions. The truth I present is that God is the Creator and the Word is inspired by the Spirit.

          There is but one God, and he makes people right with himself only one way - through Jesus Christ, the Savior of all.

          1. Castlepaloma profile image23
            Castlepalomaposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            If spirit is 99% unknowns, how do you know you have the right God among the other millions of Gods

            1. Cat333 profile image80
              Cat333posted 2 years ago in reply to this

              I know THROUGH the Holy Spirit, the One from the Father (God himself in Spirit form) who "guides into all truth". It is through him that we know and recognize truth, and through him that we recognize deceptive spirits. Through the Spirit we recognize the voice of Jesus Christ, because we belong to him and have been sealed in him by the Holy Spirit; when we hear the voices of strangers (Satan, false gods, idols, demons, etc.), we run.

              Until the Holy Spirit reveals truth to you, this will sound like it goes in circles and convince you of nothing. "But when he, the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all truth."

              1. Castlepaloma profile image23
                Castlepalomaposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                What fear, my dear

    3. Disappearinghead profile image88
      Disappearingheadposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      If Eve was made from Adam's rib, for which there is no evidence by the way, then she would be a clone, male, not having female chromosomes. How is this story any more plausible than any other creation myth?

      1. bBerean profile image60
        bBereanposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        I see a lot of this sort of question, and am always curious how it tracks.  I have been meaning to ask someone, from the myriad of examples, and now happen to have a moment to do so.  I hope you don't mind. 

        Posing such a question about Eve, requires you be allowing for the sake of the question the rest of the story up to that point, which has God speaking creation into existence, forming Adam from the dust of the earth and breathing life into him.  How then would creating Eve from Adam's rib seem to you to be an insurmountable technical obstacle for God?

        1. Cat333 profile image80
          Cat333posted 2 years ago in reply to this

          I was going to make a similar point, but see you've said it perfectly already.

        2. 0
          Rad Manposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Does anyone honestly think that a God came down and made a man of his image from dirt and then didn't know that he needed a women and tried to find animals for him to befriend and then decided to make a female (which he had already supposedly done from almost every other creature) from the man's rib? Does anyone honestly think this story is factual?

          1. bBerean profile image60
            bBereanposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            He knew Adam had a lot of work to get done.  Delay on the woman may have been prudent.  Just try to get your teenager to do something once they get a girlfriend...forget about it!  smile

            1. Chris Neal profile image83
              Chris Nealposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              +1

            2. Disappearinghead profile image88
              Disappearingheadposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              lol

          2. Chris Neal profile image83
            Chris Nealposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            A lot of theologians study and think about this stuff and no, the majority of them don't 'honestly' think God hadn't thought it through. The 'why' of it is a little tougher. And yes, I do believe it.

          3. Ericdierker profile image81
            Ericdierkerposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Yep I believe in God. I believe He is omnipotent. And that we do not need you to believe it or not.

          4. Cat333 profile image80
            Cat333posted 2 years ago in reply to this

            God spoke all things into existence. And he's already everywhere through his Spirit. The image of him "coming down" to make a man may be inaccurate. Still, in some manner he formed him from dust (sounds vaguely like it could resemble starting with simple life and making it more complex), and God breathed life into the man. We were made in God's image and have the very breath of God. 

            God not only foreknew that he would make women, but he foreknew everything from humans' choice to follow the deceiver to their eventual salvation through Jesus Christ. It seems there is something of spiritual significance when it's pointed out that no one suitable was found for the man and it was not good for him to be alone. Could be simply that it speaks of the need of men and women for each other and/or the importance and centrality of this relationship; could even suggest something of God's desire for a significant other, which he has created in his people as a collective whole (God is "husband" to Israel; Jesus Christ is husband to the church or "bride of Christ"). Making the woman from the man's rib is also spiritually significant and speaks of their interrelatedness.

      2. Chris Neal profile image83
        Chris Nealposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        WHY would she be a clone? Are you saying that God would be forced to use 21st century human techniques in order to create another human being, after making the first one out of the dust?

        1. Disappearinghead profile image88
          Disappearingheadposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Well I guess the answer depends on whether one tasks this as a literal account or not.

          1. Chris Neal profile image83
            Chris Nealposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            How so? I'm still a bit fuzzy on your thought, here.

            1. Disappearinghead profile image88
              Disappearingheadposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Of course she would be a clone because the genetic material would have been Adams. This story was believable before genetics were understood, now you have to invent new miracles into the story to prevent a clone from occurring. You see when you allow for miracles to explain the myth anything is permissable except reason,  facts or evidence.

              1. Chris Neal profile image83
                Chris Nealposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                Actually it seems to me that some people stop reasoning once miracles are introduced but on the other side. It may seem a cop-out to you, but intellectually speaking I just don't see why the supernatural must, under any circumstances, be bound by human rules in  order to be considered. What you're saying is that unless the miraculous stops being miraculous it cannot be considered miraculous. I think you can see the problems with that line of reasoning.

              2. Cat333 profile image80
                Cat333posted 2 years ago in reply to this

                By that logic Adam would be dirt or something close because he came from dirt. God is the CREATOR - If he can create from nothing and he can create from dirt, then he can create FROM anything without making clones.

                1. 0
                  Rad Manposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  Just curious, if he can create from nothing then why did he need dirt to for Adam and a rib to form Eve?

                  1. Cat333 profile image80
                    Cat333posted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    He created light from nothing. He went from there. The One who could create light from nothing is not limited in his creation of what comes after. He can do all things and nothing is impossible with God. Yet He knows how best to do it according to his plans and purposes. The design and the natural laws were all necessary in the grand scheme of things. We see how brilliantly it works. God alone as Creator knows all the details. But all things have their significance - so it is significant that humans came from dirt and that God breathed his own breath into them. Someday soon even the unanswered questions will be answered.

      3. JMcFarland profile image92
        JMcFarlandposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        I've had multiple Christians try to tell me that women have one more rib than men do.  One of them was a nurse.  It was hilarious, yet disturbing.

        1. Ericdierker profile image81
          Ericdierkerposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          JM are all the people you hang out with stupid.  It really does not speak well for you that you associate with these kind of folk. I suggest you kind of try to get around smarter Christians the ones you know seem a little challenged ---- or are you making that up?

          1. 0
            Rad Manposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            LOL, I just watched as at least four so called Christians tried to tell me that God made a man from dirt and a women from his rib which flies in the face of all the evidence gathered to date.

            1. Ericdierker profile image81
              Ericdierkerposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Rad man, you and JM seem to have really kind of lame friends. It kind of explains a lot.

              1. 0
                Rad Manposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                If you call you guys our friends then I guess so. LOL.

                Mr. Love?

              2. Chris Neal profile image83
                Chris Nealposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                Huh. I'm friends with Rad and JM.

                Oh well.

                1. 0
                  Motown2Chitownposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  I resemble that remark. wink

                  1. Chris Neal profile image83
                    Chris Nealposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    wink

            2. Cat333 profile image80
              Cat333posted 2 years ago in reply to this

              However literal or symbolic the creation account or other Scriptures may be, the truth is that God can do all things and it doesn't have to line up with any natural laws, which only exist as natural laws because they were put into place as such. He is the Creator of natural laws; he is not bound by them. They serve his purpose yet they do not limit him.

              It is no more incredible to be made from dirt or a rib or anything else than to be made in any other manner. It is all incredible. It seems many atheists have lost their awe and wonder and humility and recognition of the incredible, and all based on nothing but a little worldly knowledge of some processes and such.

              1. JMcFarland profile image92
                JMcFarlandposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                but if God interacts with the natural world and defies natural laws that he supposedly put into place, there should be real, physical evidence to point to his existence - shouldn't there?

                There are two options - either a god exists or a god doesn't exist.

                If a god exists that does NOT interact with the natural world, that god is indistinguishable from a god that does not exist.

                If that god DOES interact with the natural world and/or breaks or maintains natural laws, that god should have physical evidence that points to his existence within reality.

                Unfortunately, it would seem that no evidence exists.

                1. 0
                  Emile Rposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  I hate to interject, but are you serious? I would think a being who could  create a universe and was able to work outside of what we consider to be natural laws, would be able to remain undetected; if it chose to. It's kind of silly to say an omnipresent, omniscient and omnipotent being would be forced to work within parameters we found to be convenient.

                  1. lone77star profile image91
                    lone77starposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    Well-said, Emile.

                2. Cat333 profile image80
                  Cat333posted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  You say, "If that god DOES interact with the natural world and/or breaks or maintains natural laws, that god should have physical evidence that points to his existence within reality." Using something that came up in my last post, let's consider a scenario.

                  God takes a rib from a man and creates a woman, superseding the natural laws as we understand them. We're told of this by a Spirit-inspired man. Let's say this occurred in our day of knowledge and "control". We then examine the man's body to see if the truth was told. But we find the man has all his ribs and conclude that the "Spirit-inspired" man lied. Yet the One who is capable of taking the rib is also capable of regenerating or even making it as if nothing was ever done to the man. The evidence is lost, so we insist it never occurred. Yet we're wrong.

                  The faithful "see", the unfaithful do not. If the spiritual were provable by the natural, where would that leave faith?

                  1. JMcFarland profile image92
                    JMcFarlandposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    You said that we know this by a spirit inspired man.

                    Now how do you prove that?  OR do you just BELIEVE it to be true, so you announce it as actual fact, when it hasn't actually been demonstrated in the slightest?

                    As far as faith is concerned - since when is that a justifiable reason for belief?  Did the disciples, who interacted and knew Jesus face to face have faith?  Or did they have knowledge?

                  2. lone77star profile image91
                    lone77starposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    Cat333, you're working on the premise that you understand the Bible. You don't.

                    The Pentateuch, and likely much more, was written by Kabbalists in code. Most Christians do not know this code -- called the language of branches.

                  3. Disappearinghead profile image88
                    Disappearingheadposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    You say the faithful see like they have some kind of special knowledge but you don't see. You read the bible and your pastor told you it was God's word which you do not dare question through fear of losing your salvation. But you don't see, you choose to believe something for which you are not a witness and have no evidence, but choose to ignore evidence from contemporary scientists. No you most definitely do not see.

                3. Chris Neal profile image83
                  Chris Nealposted 2 years ago in reply to this


                  Yes, but should it be so irrefutable that no one could possibly deny it no matter how much they don't want to see it? Should all recourse for faith or belief, all subtlety, be stripped away and God just clobber us with the evidence?


                  I don't necessarily agree. But the main point is that I don't think most religions actually put forth a being who does NOT interact at all with the 'natural' world. Some put forth one who doesn't do it very often, but that's still not the same.

                  Which again brings the question: Should God clobber us with the evidence? If the evidence is subtle, if it could be explained either way if someone so chose, does that automatically mean that it's not evidence for God?

                  1. JMcFarland profile image92
                    JMcFarlandposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    I don't know many people personally (although I'm sure that they exist) who would steadfastly refuse to see real, actual evidence that isn't a second-hand subjective experience that they had that they can't explain.  That doesn't classify as evidence to me, and we've had that conversation before.  If there was actual, real evidence to prove any of the proposed gods actually existed, it would be everywhere.  At the very least, it would be all over the Christian community.  Yet when people ASK for evidence, all we get are the subjective personal experiences, or get instructed about the necessity for faith.  That's hardly god clobbering people over the head with evidence, is it?  So either believers are ignorant of it en mass, don't want to share it or maybe - just maybe - it isn't there.

          2. JMcFarland profile image92
            JMcFarlandposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            They were all professed Christians, several on the Hubpage forums.  If you call that association, then sure.  I'm not sure it bodes well for you, however, that you are calling fellow believers stupid when you repeatedly assert that your religion is love.

            Secondly - where did I say that EVERYONE I hang out with has that view?  The answer is nowhere.  I said several.  Which is absolutely true.  And they all profess to believe in the same god that you do, and take Genesis literally in every aspect.

            1. Cat333 profile image80
              Cat333posted 2 years ago in reply to this

              I think he may have questioned the authenticity of the statements since it is pretty amazing that people would believe the one less rib thing, so I don't know that he was intending to insult any true believers who thought men have one less rib. But I believe I heard it as well at some point back in childhood.

              Here's why that line of reasoning never made sense: Let's say God took a rib from Adam and left him with one less rib. It would not follow that all men thereafter would have one less rib since their ribs would be determined by their DNA, not by any change to Adam's body.

              But there's something really significant and revealing about the use of the rib by God. Ribs are the only human bone that regenerate. So Adam's rib would have regenerated. Did the long ago authors of the bible know this significant fact about the rib bone? No, of course not. Would the only regenerating bone out of ALL our bones have been selected by chance? Not very likely, is it? The Spirit, who inspired the messages given in Scriptures, certainly knew the reason behind God's choice of the rib bone and made a point of telling the particular bone that was used.

              1. 0
                Rad Manposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                You may want to do a little honest research on that rib thing.

              2. Disappearinghead profile image88
                Disappearingheadposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                All bones regenerate.  Break your leg and your body will dissolve the small fragments then regenerate bone to fuse the broken pieces together and replace the lost fragments. The periosteum (the literal meaning of this word is 'around the bone') is a membrane that covers every bone and it contains cells that can manufacture new bone. The rib just happens to have a very good blood supply from the intercostal muscles.

                Don't belive everything you are told on a Sunday morning.

                1. Cat333 profile image80
                  Cat333posted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  If I'm understanding correctly, the other bones heal, but they do not completely regenerate if removed. You can remove the inner part of the rib and it will regenerate.

                2. Sed-me profile image83
                  Sed-meposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  Ill be honest, that just confirms every thing I learn on Sunday mornings.

  4. jerrythurston profile image60
    jerrythurstonposted 2 years ago

    I love how they explain this by telling us that the Bible isn't supposed to be taken literally. See, the problem isn't with this ridiculously WRONG book, it's with YOU! You're reading it wrong! Ha!
    See, here's the problem with that. If we're not supposed to take it literally, how, then, are we supposed to take it? Figuratively? As in, one day in the Bible is actually what, the length of one Seinfeld episode? The legth of my grandma's life? How long it takes to get to the center of a Tootsie-Pop?
    Creationists are, by definition, people who've vested so much of their emotional well-being into religionist mythology that they will say ANYTHING to avoid the obvious truth. It must be embarassing for them, really.

    1. Cat333 profile image80
      Cat333posted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Perhaps you might make a study of symbolism as well. We are "covered in the blood of Jesus". Do you think any would claim this means the blood is literally all over our bodies?

      I think much of the Word is more literal than we realize because "with God all things are possible". Nevertheless, we can see clearly that much of it is symbolic. If someone interprets a message symbolically, why find that absurd, when we see so much definite symbolism within Scripture and writing in general?

      1. 0
        Rad Manposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        You are correct, it is absurd to think "with God all things are possible".

        1. Cat333 profile image80
          Cat333posted 2 years ago in reply to this

          It's absurd to think we exist in all our complexity and magnificence, and yet we do.

          1. 0
            Rad Manposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            I don't find our complexity absurd at all considering it had billions of years to evolve.

            1. Cat333 profile image80
              Cat333posted 2 years ago in reply to this

              It could have had infinity to evolve and would be no less miraculous in its end result!

              1. 0
                Rad Manposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                End result? You think we are done. LOL.

                1. Cat333 profile image80
                  Cat333posted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  We are certainly not "done", though what we will become will not occur through evolution, but through a great transformation by our Lord himself in "the twinkling of an eye". As far as life on this CURRENT earth goes, we will not become any radically different creature, as you might imagine (Perhaps you could make an interesting movie about it). Yet we will live eternally in the NEW earth WITH OUR GOD in our new SPIRITUAL bodies.

                  1. 0
                    Rad Manposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    Actually our evolution makes perfect sense with God, but is that how you think heaven will be? A new planet, with new bodies where people live forever? Doesn't the bible say only a few will get in?

  5. 59
    andy harrisposted 2 years ago

    creationism is a tool used by satan to divide and confuse us all. they are doing a good job, unfortunately, as anybody can see. theres no timeline in the bible. theres a difference between worship of god and worship of bible knowledge and biblical principle, which is what they do. its a nice deception. to get you to question yourself. as if the entire universe is 6000 years old. writing dates and study notes in your bible is weird. and blasphemous.

    1. Cgenaea profile image59
      Cgenaeaposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      There is also a difference between worshipping the words in the bible as opposed to worshipping the very one who inspired those words. I'm in the latter group. The words in the bible are life-giving. They create a template/reference for living out the life that Jesus came to provide.
      The words say, "study..." thus the notes. The words also say, "learn of me." It is quite dangerous to listen to one speak and understand without knowing the speaker.
      When Jesus said, "I am in the father, and the father is in me." Many people sold a ticket to the reincarnation concert. Many people bought those tickets. Jesus meant that he had the same mind/heart/purpose. God is still the father. Jesus is still his eldest son. We walk as Jesus (not reincarnation but spiritual rebirth) because he knows the way to the father. He is the ONLY one who knows the way; he said that too.
      There is nothing hidden in regard to living/thinking as God desires. Some just listen to those louder spirits.

  6. 60
    slimmingproductsposted 2 years ago

    Amen to that so true

  7. gmwilliams profile image85
    gmwilliamsposted 2 years ago

    I am going to put in succinctly.  Creation as described in the bible and other religious books is a metaphor for evolution.   Ancient humankind did not have advanced scientific knowledge of evolution(as far as we moderns presume) thus using the creation mythology to describe the process of evolution.

    If one analyzes carefully the 7 day creation synopsis; it is quite a figurative and metaphoric description of evolution of the universe and all life forms. Now, the world is NOT 6,000 years old.  PLEASE, PUHLEEZE, stop THIS.  The world is billions of years old.  Now, good night all.

    1. 0
      Emile Rposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Had you read through the thread you would have realized that no one has claimed the earth was 6000 old.

      1. Castlepaloma profile image23
        Castlepalomaposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Agree, mmmm.... must not be true then.

        1. 0
          Emile Rposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Definitely not true within this thread. Personally, I think there are more atheists claiming theists think the earth is 6000 years old than there are theists making the claim. But, it sounds good to accuse a whole group of believing it.

          1. Cat333 profile image80
            Cat333posted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Good point.

            1. Castlepaloma profile image23
              Castlepalomaposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Pick any thread.
              Most people and professional scientist agree modern man have existed for at least 200,000 years or earlier. All the NT bible can claim -over 2000 years and than they borrowed the Jew bible OT before that they borrow many stories from the Hindus religion.
              Many Muslims hold belief Jesus  survived the crucifixion and travelled towards India to continue his ministry among the Lost Tribes of Israel

              1. Castlepaloma profile image23
                Castlepalomaposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                The Lost tribe of Israel (Christians)  are missing 198,000 years in their beginning and end of the world story not counting where most  of other  the species earthlings have had a far longer history.

              2. Cat333 profile image80
                Cat333posted 2 years ago in reply to this

                Jesus has always existed and was with God in the beginning. His arrival was prophesied long before it came to pass. No one can say how old the OT is because no one can ensure we have the earliest manuscripts of it. In addition, we do not know the timeframe for the events spoken of in the OT.

                Near the end of earth and humankind as we know it, a time was planned from the beginning for Jesus Christ to be revealed to the world. The time of Jesus was necessarily near the end because it ushered in the "last days" or "end times". Now while our end time prophesies are being fulfilled, we wait for Jesus' return for us.

  8. lone77star profile image91
    lone77starposted 2 years ago

    Beautiful, Emile.

    Those who take the Bible literally (atheists and believers) are missing a lot, because the Truth is not in the letter, but in the spirit of scripture. The letter has too many typos and editing changes. Egoistic man has too fallible.

    My own research pegs the Flood at 27,970 BC and Adam (the tribe) starting at 10,434,130 BC. (Details in my hubs and in my new book, "The Bible's Hidden Wisdom: God's Reason for Noah's Flood."

    The book "Forbidden Archaeology" has numerous examples of Homo sapiens or their artifacts existing millions of years ago. Scientists easily dismiss such things, but without going through the same rigor required by peer reviewed articles. How convenient.

    What's also interesting is the fact that scientists are on record ignoring evidence in favor of "tradition." Ouch! I guess we're still living in the dark ages.

    Science has been doing a great job, for the most part. Dismissing science is like ignoring reality -- tantamount to delusion.

    There are so many elements that prove an old Earth and old universe that many "creationists" are living in delusion. This creationist is actively trying to learn more about reality -- not just physical reality, but also the reality above "effect."

    I wrote an article on colliding galaxies that should nip creationists' arguments in the bud, but too many are stuck in ego -- unable to look beyond their own ideas.

    http://the-love-of-god.com/galaxies.php

    Ken Ham once asked his audience, "Who do you believe, science or God?" Of course, his audience said, "God." But his question was a false dichotomy. The problem is not between science and God, but between science and Ken Ham and his limiting interpretation of God and scripture.

    God and science get along just fine. They study His creation.

    1. Castlepaloma profile image23
      Castlepalomaposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Lonestar

      Did you gather this God concept of the beginning of time from your own mind. Can you ignore the  bible words and by the only bible museums in existence which is Christian  science of Creationism. Creationism is the only formal study I know of  relating to the beginning of the earth by Christians and atheist will sue them if put this Myth in to the school budgets system.

      1. Castlepaloma profile image23
        Castlepalomaposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Your star is not alone, we are all made from stardust

  9. Cgenaea profile image59
    Cgenaeaposted 2 years ago

    I want to ask them who know spiritual things to put some thought into a notion I've had for years.
    Could it be that God COMES TO KNOW beforehand, based upon the whispers of our hearts what we will do?
    I ask this because there was OT mention of him being regretful for creating the beings. It seems that this would give credence to the fact that since we are free to think/feel/behave as WE desire, we change on a dime and are really unpredictable until he comes to know what we've decided to put first in our hearts.
    Also, the bible states that he tests us. As he tested Abraham.
    What are your thoughts. I cant seem to decide.
    To be clear, I do believe that he knows all things. But does he know the one created in his image (able to decide/think/feel/do as he or she pleases) beforehand, or does he come to know?

    1. 0
      SirDentposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      1Pe 1:19  But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:
      1Pe 1:20  Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,

      Christ was before the world was created.  God knew that it would be necessary for Jesus to come and die for the sins of the world.

      God knows all things, nothing is hidden from Him.  David wrote, "though I make my bed in hell, you are there." (speaking of God).

      Furthermore, if God does not know all things, He is not God.

      1. Castlepaloma profile image23
        Castlepalomaposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        You do not know 99% part of the unknown knowledge of the world's and Universe. 

        How do you know your God (out of millions of Gods) known’s everything?

        "He asks.... knowing how silly the question is and expect a silly answer.

        1. 0
          Rad Manposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Because a few thousand years ago someone said so.

        2. Chris Neal profile image83
          Chris Nealposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          He asks...having already judged the whole thing as silly and therefor having already judged the answer as silly. Why? Because he's pretty silly himself!

          1. Castlepaloma profile image23
            Castlepalomaposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            I perfer Rad's Silly answer

            It's honest, not so lost in space. Ask silly questions, almost always get silly answers.

    2. bBerean profile image60
      bBereanposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Jeremiah 1:5  Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.

      1. 0
        Emile Rposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        The idea of God knowing events beforehand fascinates me, in that the ancients were setting us up to explore the how of such an idea. We now know, through scienctific research, that the passage of time varies depending on the event and reference point. That, within the observable universe.

        The ancients knew they lived in one dimension and speculated others. Many of us now assume we live in one dimension and speculate others (reference string theory). Differently, of course, but the fact that they pondered time, the observable universe, other dimensions, etc. and came up with these concepts in their own unique way is fascinating. It reminds me of the journey through history from the development of the idea of the atom to the proof of its existence; and all of the benefit derived for humanity during the journey toward discovery.

        My point, I suppose, is that we now have ample evidence that the ancient belief in an observer capable of existing outside of our current timeline is entirely feasible. I think, as we discover more, we will find it feasible to observe and interact. Does that prove God? I can't see how that, in and of itself, could; but anything which drives us toward discovery must be good and ancient goat herders pondering concepts now being delved into through string theory, quite frankly, amazes me.

        1. bBerean profile image60
          bBereanposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Only God, as Creator, is not subject to the laws He established to govern our existence.  Not being subject to time, He has provided prophecies, most of which have been fulfilled already, because this is an ability Satan, demons, false prophets, etc. cannot duplicate.  What other wonder could He perform that would irrefutably show to those sincerely seeking Him, that He is the true God? 

          Isaiah 46:9-10  Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me, Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure:

          1. 0
            Emile Rposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            I'm not big on worrying about if prophecy is true, or not. I think it is all so ambiguous, so many people have so many different ideas on what it means, that it negates any perceived value.

            And, I have no ability to respond concerning Satan and demons. I see no evidence to support the belief that such play an active role in this reality, or have been shown to exist as described.

            The best I can say is I find the name God identified himself to Moses as profound. I AM. I see no reason, at this juncture, to believe that statement has been refuted.

            1. Cat333 profile image80
              Cat333posted 2 years ago in reply to this

              While the Holy Spirit is the One who reveals truth, confirms the truth, and seals us in that truth, and while spiritual manifestations and miracles occur in response to faith, perhaps the primary ways God reveals himself to the world are through 1) the testimony of all of creation, and 2) the testimony of the Word, with its focus on prophecies given and fulfilled.

              To dismiss prophecies is to miss one of the primary types of evidence God has given to an unbelieving world. You may find some ambiguous prophecies, but are they all really so ambiguous? How ambiguous are prophecies that Jesus would be born in Bethlehem and come out of Egypt, or that he'd be tortured, crucified and raised to life? How ambiguous are prophecies that Israel would after near destruction become a nation again? How ambiguous are the prophesies (made before technology, the means) regarding globalization in government, the economy and religion, now occurring before our eyes? How ambiguous are the prophecies regarding end-time troubles, including the wars, famines, earthquakes, cancer and so on that are also now occurring before our eyes? How are so many prophecies made and none contradicted within Scriptures? How have almost all the prophecies within Scripture been fulfilled already, and many before our very eyes, so that no one can deceive us and say falsely that these prophecies were added after the fact?

              1. 0
                Rad Manposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                29 “Immediately after the distress of those days

                “‘the sun will be darkened,
                    and the moon will not give its light;
                the stars will fall from the sky,
                    and the heavenly bodies will be shaken.’
                30 “Then will appear the sign of the Son of Man in heaven. And then all the peoples of the earth[c] will mourn when they see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven, with power and great glory.[d] 31 And he will send his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other.

                32 “Now learn this lesson from the fig tree: As soon as its twigs get tender and its leaves come out, you know that summer is near. 33 Even so, when you see all these things, you know that it[e] is near, right at the door. 34 Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened.

                1. Cat333 profile image80
                  Cat333posted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  This generation witnessing all these things certainly will NOT pass away until it has all been fulfilled. We will not cease to be, as some predict, but all these things will be fulfilled before that occurs. What's your point?

                  1. Zelkiiro profile image84
                    Zelkiiroposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    The point is that Jesus basically said, "The Kingdom of Heaven will manifest on Earth and the end times will be completed in this generation's lifetime." And neither of those things happened within even 100 years of his life. Whoops?

              2. 0
                Emile Rposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                Well, since they have been thinking the end was near, since right after Jesus left; I'd say those prophecies are pretty unreliable. As to anything else, everybody has a different idea as to when, what and where all the prophecies pertain to. It's easy to look back in history and say 'see? that fulfilled a prophecy.' Just look at the hoops they jump through to make it look as if Nostradamus actually foretold the future.  It is much harder to make a prophecy and then have it fulfilled, without a shadow of a doubt that it has been fulfilled, shortly thereafter. Darn near impossible, judging by how many have attempted it.

                I find it interesting that you say to ignore it ignores the primary evidence of God. I think those who claim prophecy is evident are the primary evidence against God.

                1. Cat333 profile image80
                  Cat333posted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  Set aside the "end time" aspect if it trips you up (though it isn't really hard to see that in light of ALL the days of humanity, the time since Jesus certainly IS the "end" times, even if it takes a few more centuries yet). Is it ambiguous that we are in fact seeing increases in wars and rumors of wars, famines, earthquakes, cancer, nuclear events and such, just as prophesied? Is it ambiguous that we're seeing globalization in government, economics and religion, just as prophesied (long before such things were feasible)? Are the rises and falls of nations as prophesied ambiguous? Is Israel's persistence despite so much persecution and all the efforts to destroy them ambiguous? Is their rebirth as a nation ambiguous? 

                  It isn't easy to see prophesies fulfilled if they are in fact contradicted. In false prophecies outside the Word (such as by Nostradamus), you will find that prophecies have been contradicted. But not so with the Word - no hoops are required, just some understanding of the original language and a little understanding of what's being said (e.g., that "generation" in the original language also means "race"). While you may prefer that the prophecies be immediately fulfilled, the length of time following a prophecy (and promises) seems to be THE test of our faith.

                  Prophesies are one of the primary evidences of the true God - the One who loves us, reaches out to us through his Word and Spirit, came to earth for us, died for us, and will come again for us. The fulfillment of prophecies is in fact evident if carefully studied.

                  Here's an example. Be honest, how much do you think this prophesy (for the end times, but again no need to get caught up on that) describes the rebellious, hedonistic, greedy, self-serving and idol/self worshipping cultures of our day (in contrast to more humble, respectful peoples of certain times)? "People will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, without love, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not lovers of the good, treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God..." (2 timothy 3).

                  1. Zelkiiro profile image84
                    Zelkiiroposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    Funny story, that--the world is actually the closest it has ever seen to global peace since the widespread adoption of agriculture. Worldwide deaths as a result of warfare are at historic lows, and the only major conflict going on is the never-ending pissing contest between Israel and Palestine, and even that's not seeing millions upon millions of deaths per year (more like a couple thousand per year).

                    So yeah. Despite the news stations making a big stink about every isolated event, this is as close to world peace as we've been in almost 10,000 years (where the only conflicts were quick and local).

                  2. 0
                    Emile Rposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    I think we have a tendency to romanticize the past. And, years ago you didn't have ads blaring at you seemingly 24-7, violence and greed presented as entertainment, etc. But, people today are little different from our ancestors.

                    I honestly don't believe the time we live in represents an end time scenario. Any more than any point in history has. And your statement that it might not be for a few more centuries proves that you may not either.

                  3. JMcFarland profile image92
                    JMcFarlandposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    but there are criteria for prophecy, before anything can be considered a prophecy at all.

                         It must actually be a prophecy. Not a documentation of events that is misinterpreted as a prophecy after a similar event occurs later.
                        It must be written before the events that it predicts.
                        The predicted events must actually occur.
                        The prediction must be both falsifiable and verifiable.
                        It must not be overly vague.
                        It must not predict a likely event.
                        It must not be self-fulfilling.

                    http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Prophecy

                    Not to mention the criteria for fulfilled prophecy:

                         The prophecy must be properly interpreted.
                        The prophecy must be made before the event it fulfills.
                        The prophecy must be far enough in advance of the event to make educated guesswork impossible.
                        The event which fulfills the prophecy must have actually happened.
                        The prophecy must not be fulfilled as a direct consequence of the prophecy itself existing.
                        The prophecy must not be fulfilled by mere probability, or by sheer number of guesses: with enough shots in the dark, one will be bound to come close to the mark.

                    Since no Christians seem to be able to agree on the prophecies in the bible, or their interpretations or their fulfillment it would seem that they're NOT clear, and cannot be used as actual evidence.  Not to mention the fact that ALL of the events that Christians use to point to as prophetic of Jesus are a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT LIST than the ones the Jews viewed as prophecies in their own scriptures prior to Jesus' arrival.  Many, many religions (including Islam and Judaism as well as Christianity) point to prophecy and fulfilled prophecy as proof that they are actually true.  Christians dismiss or argue against the prophecies of other religions, and other religions argue against and dismiss the supposed prophecies of Christianity.  Since Christianity cannot agree on prophecy or its interpretation and fulfillment, it cannot reasonably be argued or concluded that it's the best proof possible of Christianity.  Not to mention the numerous FAILED prophecies that actually are specific enough to KNOW that they are complete failures.  I've met scholars and theologians that have no problem admitting to them, and acknowledging that they're potentially problematic to the faith overall.  It seems to be only the laypeople who are convinced that these things are actually true.

                    In addition, the passage you quoted from Timothy was AGAIN written at a time when the early church thought that Jesus' return was eminent, and can easily be said to be fulfilled by the culture and decadence of the Roman empire.  You're interpreting it to mean our day and time, when that interpretation is not immediately evident or obvious. 

                    in simple terms - practically every generation of the Christian church has proclaimed and expected that they are living in the end times - from the first Christians up through the present batch.

  10. Cgenaea profile image59
    Cgenaeaposted 2 years ago

    Thanks guys. smile God knows all.

  11. Cgenaea profile image59
    Cgenaeaposted 2 years ago

    In addition, each scripture states the very word "before". After further consideration, I appreciate being reminded of what he said. He said his spirit would do it. smile

 
working