Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

A matter of authority and warning against false teachings

Expand Messages
  • Chris Ashcraft
    The primary difference between young and old earth creation is largely due to where we place our authority. Either we look to the Word of God and we trust what
    Message 1 of 20 , Sep 5, 2012
      The primary difference between young and old earth creation is largely due to where we place our authority. Either we look to the Word of God and we trust what it says regarding the early history of the Earth, or we place our authority with fallible human scientists that hold to naturalism. Instead of accepting theories formed from naturalist philosophy and trying to reinterpret the Bible in keeping with their view, we must interpret scientific observations ourselves using the Biblical teachings as our basis for what truth is. 

      Personally I believe that the teachings from theistic evolutionists can be a terribly destructive influence within the Church, especially for young people or those new to the faith. Brilliant educators like John Polkihorne (Cambridge University) have taught theistic evolution to young people for decades and he will be held accountable if those teaching cause any of his students to fall from the faith. He teaches for example that Adam was not a real man - but if Adam was no real person, then specifically when does the genealogical record in the Bible become real? What parts of its history can we trust? Such teachings can compromise a person's faith in the Word of God and those doubts will ripple through the New Testament as well.

      Remember - although naturalistic science teaches that God did not speak the universe into existence, and opposes the Bible wherein it says that Adam and the animals were created from the dust of the ground - these same scientists also assert that virgins can not give birth and people can not be raised from the dead. Simply put, naturalism is antithetical to the Biblical worldview and those attempting to reconcile these views should be sharply warned against teaching views that may harm the faith of our brothers and sisters in Christ.

      The following ICR devotional offers a poignant commentary on relevant scripture.

      Preaching against False Teachers
      September 4, 2012
       "But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea." (Matthew 18:6)
       Jude, an earthly brother of our Lord, had become a leader in the early church by the time he wrote his epistle. He had intended "to write unto you of the common salvation," but instead was compelled by God's Spirit to write and "exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith" (Jude 3) against the onslaught of false teachers. He writes "to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him" (Jude 15).
       Few categories of people are so summarily denounced in Scripture as false teachers, those who teach error from within. Nearly every biblical writer echoes God's hatred of them and their work. Here, Jude refers to Enoch's ancient teaching to demonstrate the fact that God has always hated false teachers and has warned them of their doom. Unfortunately, many of today's pulpits and "Christian" airwaves are filled with false teachers and their teaching, leading many astray.
       But this is also a lesson to be learned by any who would teach, even born-again, God-gifted teachers. Error is a serious thing in God's eyes, and a Bible teacher must continually submit to God's Word and Spirit to discern and teach only truth. Evidently it would be better for those teachers, seminarians, and others who espouse errors such as humanism, evolution, and other false concepts, that a millstone were hung about their necks and that they drowned in the depth of the sea than to lead astray those "little ones" in their influence. JDM 
       
      Christopher W. Ashcraft
      http://nwcreation.net/ashcraft
      CreationWiki
      http://creationwiki.org/

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Christine Bridges
      Chris, and all Creation Talkers,    We were talking about sharing creation teachings within our church bodies a few months ago.  I was charged to be the
      Message 2 of 20 , Sep 8, 2012
        Chris, and all Creation Talkers,
           We were talking about sharing creation teachings within our church bodies a few months ago.  I was charged to be the one.
        On Thursday, I began attendng a Bible Study at the  new church.  It is Cumberland Presbyterian.  We started with the Creation stories in Genesis.  The pastor believes in evolution and the authority of the Bible. 
         They were all so open to the idea that the world was different initially and there was no rain until Noah.  The pastor said she had never seen it  there before.  Sometimes the fields are ripe for harvest.  I just need to be a faithful worker.
         
        christine
         


        ________________________________


        ________________________________
        christine bridges



        ________________________________
        From: Chris Ashcraft <ashcraft@...>
        To: Creation Talk <CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com>
        Sent: Wednesday, September 5, 2012 9:08 PM
        Subject: [CreationTalk] A matter of authority and warning against false teachings



         

        The primary difference between young and old earth creation is largely due to where we place our authority. Either we look to the Word of God and we trust what it says regarding the early history of the Earth, or we place our authority with fallible human scientists that hold to naturalism. Instead of accepting theories formed from naturalist philosophy and trying to reinterpret the Bible in keeping with their view, we must interpret scientific observations ourselves using the Biblical teachings as our basis for what truth is. 

        Personally I believe that the teachings from theistic evolutionists can be a terribly destructive influence within the Church, especially for young people or those new to the faith. Brilliant educators like John Polkihorne (Cambridge University) have taught theistic evolution to young people for decades and he will be held accountable if those teaching cause any of his students to fall from the faith. He teaches for example that Adam was not a real man - but if Adam was no real person, then specifically when does the genealogical record in the Bible become real? What parts of its history can we trust? Such teachings can compromise a person's faith in the Word of God and those doubts will ripple through the New Testament as well.

        Remember - although naturalistic science teaches that God did not speak the universe into existence, and opposes the Bible wherein it says that Adam and the animals were created from the dust of the ground - these same scientists also assert that virgins can not give birth and people can not be raised from the dead. Simply put, naturalism is antithetical to the Biblical worldview and those attempting to reconcile these views should be sharply warned against teaching views that may harm the faith of our brothers and sisters in Christ.

        The following ICR devotional offers a poignant commentary on relevant scripture.

        Preaching against False Teachers
        September 4, 2012
         "But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea." (Matthew 18:6)
         Jude, an earthly brother of our Lord, had become a leader in the early church by the time he wrote his epistle. He had intended "to write unto you of the common salvation," but instead was compelled by God's Spirit to write and "exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith" (Jude 3) against the onslaught of false teachers. He writes "to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him" (Jude 15).
         Few categories of people are so summarily denounced in Scripture as false teachers, those who teach error from within. Nearly every biblical writer echoes God's hatred of them and their work. Here, Jude refers to Enoch's ancient teaching to demonstrate the fact that God has always hated false teachers and has warned them of their doom. Unfortunately, many of today's pulpits and "Christian" airwaves are filled with false teachers and their teaching, leading many astray.
         But this is also a lesson to be learned by any who would teach, even born-again, God-gifted teachers. Error is a serious thing in God's eyes, and a Bible teacher must continually submit to God's Word and Spirit to discern and teach only truth. Evidently it would be better for those teachers, seminarians, and others who espouse errors such as humanism, evolution, and other false concepts, that a millstone were hung about their necks and that they drowned in the depth of the sea than to lead astray those "little ones" in their influence. JDM 
         
        Christopher W. Ashcraft
        http://nwcreation.net/ashcraft
        CreationWiki
        http://creationwiki.org/

        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • JAMES MAY
        Christine, That s wonderful. So glad you had a positive reception and were willing to take on such a challenge. I would question though whether we can really
        Message 3 of 20 , Sep 9, 2012
          Christine,

          That's wonderful. So glad you had a positive reception and were willing to take on such a challenge.

          I would question though whether we can really be sure that there was no rain before Noah. I have heard that taught before and used to believe it myself, but I no longer teach that. Perhaps it would be good if you reviewed some different opinions on that from some of the leading creationist organizations. CMI or Answers in Genesis, or maybe ICR. At least it might be good to say that not all creationists teach that there was no rain before the flood.

          God bless!

          ----- Original Message -----
          From: Christine Bridges
          Sent: 09/09/12 05:51 AM
          To: CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com
          Subject: Re: [CreationTalk] A matter of authority and warning against false teachings


          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • Igor Skoglund
          The problem is that the world was changed after Adam and Eve had sinned. So the world is not perfect now as it was in the beginning. It means that are
          Message 4 of 20 , Sep 9, 2012
            The problem is that the world was changed after Adam and Eve had sinned. So the world is not perfect now as it was in the beginning. It means that are scientific methods are not perfect too and we can't be sure that the scientific calculations of the age of the Universe are perfect.



            ________________________________
            From: Christine Bridges <cbrocket2003@...>
            To: "CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com" <CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com>
            Sent: Saturday, September 8, 2012 10:51 PM
            Subject: Re: [CreationTalk] A matter of authority and warning against false teachings


             
            Chris, and all Creation Talkers,
               We were talking about sharing creation teachings within our church bodies a few months ago.  I was charged to be the one.
            On Thursday, I began attendng a Bible Study at the  new church.  It is Cumberland Presbyterian.  We started with the Creation stories in Genesis.  The pastor believes in evolution and the authority of the Bible. 
             They were all so open to the idea that the world was different initially and there was no rain until Noah.  The pastor said she had never seen it  there before.  Sometimes the fields are ripe for harvest.  I just need to be a faithful worker.
             
            christine
             

            ________________________________

            ________________________________
            christine bridges

            ________________________________
            From: Chris Ashcraft <ashcraft@...>
            To: Creation Talk <CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com>
            Sent: Wednesday, September 5, 2012 9:08 PM
            Subject: [CreationTalk] A matter of authority and warning against false teachings


             

            The primary difference between young and old earth creation is largely due to where we place our authority. Either we look to the Word of God and we trust what it says regarding the early history of the Earth, or we place our authority with fallible human scientists that hold to naturalism. Instead of accepting theories formed from naturalist philosophy and trying to reinterpret the Bible in keeping with their view, we must interpret scientific observations ourselves using the Biblical teachings as our basis for what truth is. 

            Personally I believe that the teachings from theistic evolutionists can be a terribly destructive influence within the Church, especially for young people or those new to the faith. Brilliant educators like John Polkihorne (Cambridge University) have taught theistic evolution to young people for decades and he will be held accountable if those teaching cause any of his students to fall from the faith. He teaches for example that Adam was not a real man - but if Adam was no real person, then specifically when does the genealogical record in the Bible become real? What parts of its history can we trust? Such teachings can compromise a person's faith in the Word of God and those doubts will ripple through the New Testament as well.

            Remember - although naturalistic science teaches that God did not speak the universe into existence, and opposes the Bible wherein it says that Adam and the animals were created from the dust of the ground - these same scientists also assert that virgins can not give birth and people can not be raised from the dead. Simply put, naturalism is antithetical to the Biblical worldview and those attempting to reconcile these views should be sharply warned against teaching views that may harm the faith of our brothers and sisters in Christ.

            The following ICR devotional offers a poignant commentary on relevant scripture.

            Preaching against False Teachers
            September 4, 2012
             "But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea." (Matthew 18:6)
             Jude, an earthly brother of our Lord, had become a leader in the early church by the time he wrote his epistle. He had intended "to write unto you of the common salvation," but instead was compelled by God's Spirit to write and "exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith" (Jude 3) against the onslaught of false teachers. He writes "to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him" (Jude 15).
             Few categories of people are so summarily denounced in Scripture as false teachers, those who teach error from within. Nearly every biblical writer echoes God's hatred of them and their work. Here, Jude refers to Enoch's ancient teaching to demonstrate the fact that God has always hated false teachers and has warned them of their doom. Unfortunately, many of today's pulpits and "Christian" airwaves are filled with false teachers and their teaching, leading many astray.
             But this is also a lesson to be learned by any who would teach, even born-again, God-gifted teachers. Error is a serious thing in God's eyes, and a Bible teacher must continually submit to God's Word and Spirit to discern and teach only truth. Evidently it would be better for those teachers, seminarians, and others who espouse errors such as humanism, evolution, and other false concepts, that a millstone were hung about their necks and that they drowned in the depth of the sea than to lead astray those "little ones" in their influence. JDM 
             
            Christopher W. Ashcraft
            http://nwcreation.net/ashcraft
            CreationWiki
            http://creationwiki.org/

            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • Chris Ashcraft
            The main problem is not the imperfection of the methods used, but how observations of matter or phenomena are interpreted.  The fossil record can be
            Message 5 of 20 , Sep 9, 2012
              The main problem is not the imperfection of the methods used, but how observations of matter or phenomena are interpreted. 

              The fossil record can be interpreted in different ways. For a scientists holding to a Biblical worldview, it is proof of Biblical history and a monument of the global flood. For scientists that reject the Biblical history, it is interpreted to support their view that the Earth is extremely old. 

              Its important to understand that naturalists are bound by a theoretical necessity that the Earth be old enough to support evolutionary theory of slow and gradual change. From their view it must be old, and they are simply seeking evidence that can be interpreted to support that position.

              An analogy can be drawn with how evidence is interpreted by lawyers when arguing for the guilt or innocence of a client. Often the same evidence is interpreted in a completely different manner based on the underlying assumption about the client. And most often it is not the truth that prevails, but a decision based on the quality of the argument presented, which is itself due ultimately to the amount of money that was invested in preparing the case. 

              For those that have not yet seen it, the documentary "Darwin's Dilemma"is excellent in identifying some of the major problems with the Darwinian interpretation of the fossil record.
              http://store.nwcreation.net/darwinsdilemma.html%c2%a0

               
              Christopher W. Ashcraft
              http://nwcreation.net/ashcraft
              CreationWiki
              http://creationwiki.org/


              ________________________________
              From: Igor Skoglund <iskoglund@...>
              To: "CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com" <CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com>
              Sent: Sunday, September 9, 2012 6:20 AM
              Subject: Re: [CreationTalk] A matter of authority and warning against false teachings


               
              The problem is that the world was changed after Adam and Eve had sinned. So the world is not perfect now as it was in the beginning. It means that are scientific methods are not perfect too and we can't be sure that the scientific calculations of the age of the Universe are perfect.

              ________________________________
              From: Christine Bridges <cbrocket2003@...>
              To: "CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com" <CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com>
              Sent: Saturday, September 8, 2012 10:51 PM
              Subject: Re: [CreationTalk] A matter of authority and warning against false teachings


               
              Chris, and all Creation Talkers,
                 We were talking about sharing creation teachings within our church bodies a few months ago.  I was charged to be the one.
              On Thursday, I began attendng a Bible Study at the  new church.  It is Cumberland Presbyterian.  We started with the Creation stories in Genesis.  The pastor believes in evolution and the authority of the Bible. 
               They were all so open to the idea that the world was different initially and there was no rain until Noah.  The pastor said she had never seen it  there before.  Sometimes the fields are ripe for harvest.  I just need to be a faithful worker.
               
              christine
               

              ________________________________

              ________________________________
              christine bridges

              ________________________________
              From: Chris Ashcraft <ashcraft@...>
              To: Creation Talk <CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com>
              Sent: Wednesday, September 5, 2012 9:08 PM
              Subject: [CreationTalk] A matter of authority and warning against false teachings

               

              The primary difference between young and old earth creation is largely due to where we place our authority. Either we look to the Word of God and we trust what it says regarding the early history of the Earth, or we place our authority with fallible human scientists that hold to naturalism. Instead of accepting theories formed from naturalist philosophy and trying to reinterpret the Bible in keeping with their view, we must interpret scientific observations ourselves using the Biblical teachings as our basis for what truth is. 

              Personally I believe that the teachings from theistic evolutionists can be a terribly destructive influence within the Church, especially for young people or those new to the faith. Brilliant educators like John Polkihorne (Cambridge University) have taught theistic evolution to young people for decades and he will be held accountable if those teaching cause any of his students to fall from the faith. He teaches for example that Adam was not a real man - but if Adam was no real person, then specifically when does the genealogical record in the Bible become real? What parts of its history can we trust? Such teachings can compromise a person's faith in the Word of God and those doubts will ripple through the New Testament as well.

              Remember - although naturalistic science teaches that God did not speak the universe into existence, and opposes the Bible wherein it says that Adam and the animals were created from the dust of the ground - these same scientists also assert that virgins can not give birth and people can not be raised from the dead. Simply put, naturalism is antithetical to the Biblical worldview and those attempting to reconcile these views should be sharply warned against teaching views that may harm the faith of our brothers and sisters in Christ.

              The following ICR devotional offers a poignant commentary on relevant scripture.

              Preaching against False Teachers
              September 4, 2012
               "But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea." (Matthew 18:6)
               Jude, an earthly brother of our Lord, had become a leader in the early church by the time he wrote his epistle. He had intended "to write unto you of the common salvation," but instead was compelled by God's Spirit to write and "exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith" (Jude 3) against the onslaught of false teachers. He writes "to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him" (Jude 15).
               Few categories of people are so summarily denounced in Scripture as false teachers, those who teach error from within. Nearly every biblical writer echoes God's hatred of them and their work. Here, Jude refers to Enoch's ancient teaching to demonstrate the fact that God has always hated false teachers and has warned them of their doom. Unfortunately, many of today's pulpits and "Christian" airwaves are filled with false teachers and their teaching, leading many astray.
               But this is also a lesson to be learned by any who would teach, even born-again, God-gifted teachers. Error is a serious thing in God's eyes, and a Bible teacher must continually submit to God's Word and Spirit to discern and teach only truth. Evidently it would be better for those teachers, seminarians, and others who espouse errors such as humanism, evolution, and other false concepts, that a millstone were hung about their necks and that they drowned in the depth of the sea than to lead astray those "little ones" in their influence. JDM 
               
              Christopher W. Ashcraft
              http://nwcreation.net/ashcraft
              CreationWiki
              http://creationwiki.org/

              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • Chris Ashcraft
              Agreed - the best we can say is that it may not have rained before the flood .  Its an argument from omission. In the book of Genesis, the Bible says that
              Message 6 of 20 , Sep 9, 2012
                Agreed - the best we can say is that it "may not have rained before the flood". 

                Its an argument from omission. In the book of Genesis, the Bible says that the "whole surface of the ground" was watered by rivers (or mist KJV) that came out of the Earth, and there is no mention of rain until the flood, but it does not specifically say that it did not rain.

                Genesis 2:6
                but streams came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground. 


                Personally, I think it very possible there was no rain - and very doubtful that there were earthquakes or volcanoes before the flood. Clearly both the crust and atmosphere were altered by this terrible event. The water that was once beneath the Earth's crust (supplying both these ancient rivers and ultimately the water to flood the Earth) is now collected into the oceans. That there was no rainbow until after the flood is also a clear testimony that some dramatic change occurred related to atmospheric moisture. 

                Its an arguable (and very interesting) subject... 
                 

                Christopher W. Ashcraft
                http://nwcreation.net/ashcraft
                CreationWiki
                http://creationwiki.org/


                ________________________________
                From: JAMES MAY <jimmay@...>
                To: CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com
                Sent: Sunday, September 9, 2012 3:52 AM
                Subject: Re: [CreationTalk] A matter of authority and warning against false teachings


                 
                Christine,

                That's wonderful. So glad you had a positive reception and were willing to take on such a challenge.

                I would question though whether we can really be sure that there was no rain before Noah. I have heard that taught before and used to believe it myself, but I no longer teach that. Perhaps it would be good if you reviewed some different opinions on that from some of the leading creationist organizations. CMI or Answers in Genesis, or maybe ICR. At least it might be good to say that not all creationists teach that there was no rain before the flood.

                God bless!

                ----- Original Message -----
                From: Christine Bridges
                Sent: 09/09/12 05:51 AM
                To: CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com
                Subject: Re: [CreationTalk] A matter of authority and warning against false teachings

                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • Igor Skoglund
                That what I tried to tell. Natural laws were different before the flood and before the sin of Adam and Eve. ________________________________ From: Chris
                Message 7 of 20 , Sep 9, 2012
                  That what I tried to tell. Natural laws were different before the flood and before the sin of Adam and Eve.



                  ________________________________
                  From: Chris Ashcraft <ashcrac@...>
                  To: "CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com" <CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com>
                  Sent: Sunday, September 9, 2012 6:12 PM
                  Subject: Re: [CreationTalk] A matter of authority and warning against false teachings


                   
                  Agreed - the best we can say is that it "may not have rained before the flood". 

                  Its an argument from omission. In the book of Genesis, the Bible says that the "whole surface of the ground" was watered by rivers (or mist KJV) that came out of the Earth, and there is no mention of rain until the flood, but it does not specifically say that it did not rain.

                  Genesis 2:6
                  but streams came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground. 

                  Personally, I think it very possible there was no rain - and very doubtful that there were earthquakes or volcanoes before the flood. Clearly both the crust and atmosphere were altered by this terrible event. The water that was once beneath the Earth's crust (supplying both these ancient rivers and ultimately the water to flood the Earth) is now collected into the oceans. That there was no rainbow until after the flood is also a clear testimony that some dramatic change occurred related to atmospheric moisture. 

                  Its an arguable (and very interesting) subject... 
                   

                  Christopher W. Ashcraft
                  http://nwcreation.net/ashcraft
                  CreationWiki
                  http://creationwiki.org/

                  ________________________________
                  From: JAMES MAY <jimmay@...>
                  To: CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com
                  Sent: Sunday, September 9, 2012 3:52 AM
                  Subject: Re: [CreationTalk] A matter of authority and warning against false teachings


                   
                  Christine,

                  That's wonderful. So glad you had a positive reception and were willing to take on such a challenge.

                  I would question though whether we can really be sure that there was no rain before Noah. I have heard that taught before and used to believe it myself, but I no longer teach that. Perhaps it would be good if you reviewed some different opinions on that from some of the leading creationist organizations. CMI or Answers in Genesis, or maybe ICR. At least it might be good to say that not all creationists teach that there was no rain before the flood.

                  God bless!

                  ----- Original Message -----
                  From: Christine Bridges
                  Sent: 09/09/12 05:51 AM
                  To: CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com
                  Subject: Re: [CreationTalk] A matter of authority and warning against false teachings

                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                • VictorM
                  ... It did rain before the garden of Eden phase. Job 38:8-9 Or who enclosed the sea with doors When, bursting forth, it went out from the womb; (9) When I
                  Message 8 of 20 , Sep 9, 2012
                    --- In CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com, Chris Ashcraft <ashcrac@...> wrote:
                    >
                    > Agreed - the best we can say is that it "may not have rained before the flood". 
                    >
                    > Its an argument from omission. In the book of Genesis, the Bible says that the "whole surface of the ground" was watered by rivers (or mist KJV) that came out of the Earth, and there is no mention of rain until the flood, but it does not specifically say that it did not rain.
                    >
                    > Genesis 2:6
                    > but streams came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground. 
                    >
                    >
                    > Personally, I think it very possible there was no rain - and very doubtful that there were earthquakes or volcanoes before the flood. Clearly both the crust and atmosphere were altered by this terrible event. The water that was once beneath the Earth's crust (supplying both these ancient rivers and ultimately the water to flood the Earth) is now collected into the oceans. That there was no rainbow until after the flood is also a clear testimony that some dramatic change occurred related to atmospheric moisture. 
                    >
                    > Its an arguable (and very interesting) subject... 
                    >  
                    >
                    > Christopher W. Ashcraft
                    > http://nwcreation.net/ashcraft
                    > CreationWiki
                    > http://creationwiki.org/
                    >

                    It did rain before the garden of Eden phase.

                    Job 38:8-9 "Or who enclosed the sea with doors When, bursting forth, it went out from the womb; (9) When I made a cloud its garment And thick darkness its swaddling band,

                    On day two water was continually ejecting out from the surface as a atmosphere formed. These were natural processes that happened at God's continuing commands. The atmosphere must have beee saturated with water ejecting into space for a considerable period, since God commands nature to act.

                    The reason it did not rain during the garden phase was that the water all seeped underground, gathered into one place, the tehom, the underground place from where it burst forth during the flood. Day two is the only day God did not say was good.

                    The dry land appear out of the water because the surface water was either ejected into space (as we see on the moon Enceladus) or percolated underground into subterranean caverns (possibly eaten out by the acidic nature of the early sea.

                    Later, during the garden phase, the rivers divided, they did not run into the ocean. The land was one land, one continent. There was no major surface ocean. Indeed, our continents fit together on a tiny planet, without major surface seas. The reason it did not rain was because the water came up out of the ground to water the face of the earth. The earth continues to spread out in unbroken continuity. A global expansion seam runs through every ocean. Even across the Pacific, the continents fit together with Australia nesting against Alaska. Transform faults and seams show how the continents moved apart, while staying rooted in place as the seas continued to form and spread out - a natural process that continues to this very day.

                    I agree that young Earth creationist accept the authority of scripture. However, they also accept the authority of the first law of science, the idea Peter predicted for the mockers of the last day.

                    They interpret the literal text of Genesis with ideas about unchanging matter and fixed orbits and this is why they imagine that the Bible teaches a creation in 144 modern hours. Yet on day four God continues to form the Sun, Moon and stars and continues to place them in the spreading place, which we confirm in the history of galaxies. There is not way to arrive at a concept of linear time from the text of the bible or the visible history of the universe.

                    The text teaches and ancient universe and one in which the intensity of creating the heavens and the earth was finished in six days. Yet the verb for finished shows incomplete actions. He is continuing to call the stars to come out, as Isaiah states.

                    The visible history of how galaxies have continued to form as the stars continued to emerge and spread out supports the authority of the literal text, but it does not fit either the scientific adjustment made by YE or OE creationists.

                    Only Changing Earth Creationists can accept both the authority of scriptures and the history of how the stars continued to come out from billions of galaxies. Why? We try to interpret the creation account grammatically instead of with the notion of short duration days - ideas that came from the Catholics, not the Bible. We have simple answers to the age of the universe conundrum - using the authority of scripture and the simple visible evidence that supports it.

                    We expect that the Bible will utterly triumph over western science, for His great glory, because the first law Peter predicted is visibly false in billions of galaxies.

                    Victor
                  • Christine Bridges
                    Thanks for the support. I will review The thoughts of the organizations mentioned, as James suggested.  It is an exciting time to be a Creationist!! I
                    Message 9 of 20 , Sep 9, 2012
                      Thanks for the support. I will review The thoughts of the organizations mentioned, as James suggested.  It is an exciting time to be a Creationist!!
                      I want to represent y'all faithfully. 


                      ________________________________


                      ________________________________
                      christine bridges



                      ________________________________
                      From: Igor Skoglund <iskoglund@...>
                      To: "CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com" <CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com>
                      Sent: Sunday, September 9, 2012 11:29 AM
                      Subject: Re: [CreationTalk] A matter of authority and warning against false teachings



                       

                      That what I tried to tell. Natural laws were different before the flood and before the sin of Adam and Eve.

                      ________________________________
                      From: Chris Ashcraft <mailto:ashcrac%40yahoo.com>
                      To: "mailto:CreationTalk%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:CreationTalk%40yahoogroups.com>
                      Sent: Sunday, September 9, 2012 6:12 PM
                      Subject: Re: [CreationTalk] A matter of authority and warning against false teachings


                       
                      Agreed - the best we can say is that it "may not have rained before the flood". 

                      Its an argument from omission. In the book of Genesis, the Bible says that the "whole surface of the ground" was watered by rivers (or mist KJV) that came out of the Earth, and there is no mention of rain until the flood, but it does not specifically say that it did not rain.

                      Genesis 2:6
                      but streams came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground. 

                      Personally, I think it very possible there was no rain - and very doubtful that there were earthquakes or volcanoes before the flood. Clearly both the crust and atmosphere were altered by this terrible event. The water that was once beneath the Earth's crust (supplying both these ancient rivers and ultimately the water to flood the Earth) is now collected into the oceans. That there was no rainbow until after the flood is also a clear testimony that some dramatic change occurred related to atmospheric moisture. 

                      Its an arguable (and very interesting) subject... 
                       

                      Christopher W. Ashcraft
                      http://nwcreation.net/ashcraft
                      CreationWiki
                      http://creationwiki.org/

                      ________________________________
                      From: JAMES MAY <mailto:jimmay%40iname.com>
                      To: mailto:CreationTalk%40yahoogroups.com
                      Sent: Sunday, September 9, 2012 3:52 AM
                      Subject: Re: [CreationTalk] A matter of authority and warning against false teachings

                       
                      Christine,

                      That's wonderful. So glad you had a positive reception and were willing to take on such a challenge.

                      I would question though whether we can really be sure that there was no rain before Noah. I have heard that taught before and used to believe it myself, but I no longer teach that. Perhaps it would be good if you reviewed some different opinions on that from some of the leading creationist organizations. CMI or Answers in Genesis, or maybe ICR. At least it might be good to say that not all creationists teach that there was no rain before the flood.

                      God bless!

                      ----- Original Message -----
                      From: Christine Bridges
                      Sent: 09/09/12 05:51 AM
                      To: mailto:CreationTalk%40yahoogroups.com
                      Subject: Re: [CreationTalk] A matter of authority and warning against false teachings

                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    • Christine Bridges
                      I found an article in Answers to Genesis that discusses rain before the flood.  It maintained that the no rain argument is not absolutely supportable by
                      Message 10 of 20 , Sep 9, 2012
                        I found an article in Answers to Genesis that discusses rain before the flood.  It maintained that the no rain argument is not absolutely supportable by scripture and there is no reason to be dogmatic about it one way or the other.  Just speculate.
                         
                        thanks for the imput James.  The only article at ICR that I found is supporting the no rain view point ( there may be opposing views)  I counld find anything at
                        CMI but got lost reading other interesting articles .  I made it a favorite.
                         
                        christine


                        ________________________________




                        ________________________________
                        From: JAMES MAY <jimmay@...>
                        To: CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com
                        Sent: Sunday, September 9, 2012 5:52 AM
                        Subject: Re: [CreationTalk] A matter of authority and warning against false teachings



                         

                        Christine,

                        That's wonderful. So glad you had a positive reception and were willing to take on such a challenge.

                        I would question though whether we can really be sure that there was no rain before Noah. I have heard that taught before and used to believe it myself, but I no longer teach that. Perhaps it would be good if you reviewed some different opinions on that from some of the leading creationist organizations. CMI or Answers in Genesis, or maybe ICR. At least it might be good to say that not all creationists teach that there was no rain before the flood.

                        God bless!

                        ----- Original Message -----
                        From: Christine Bridges
                        Sent: 09/09/12 05:51 AM
                        To: mailto:CreationTalk%40yahoogroups.com
                        Subject: Re: [CreationTalk] A matter of authority and warning against false teachings

                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      • Igor Skoglund
                        As far as I understand death didn t existed in Eden time. I am not sure people or animals were supposed to age from the beginning.
                        Message 11 of 20 , Sep 10, 2012
                          As far as I understand death didn't existed in Eden time. I am not sure people or animals were supposed to age from the beginning.



                          ________________________________
                          From: Christine Bridges <cbrocket2003@...>
                          To: "CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com" <CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com>
                          Sent: Sunday, September 9, 2012 11:38 PM
                          Subject: Re: [CreationTalk] A matter of authority and warning against false teachings


                           
                          Thanks for the support. I will review The thoughts of the organizations mentioned, as James suggested.  It is an exciting time to be a Creationist!!
                          I want to represent y'all faithfully. 

                          ________________________________

                          ________________________________
                          christine bridges

                          ________________________________
                          From: Igor Skoglund <iskoglund@...>
                          To: "CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com" <CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com>
                          Sent: Sunday, September 9, 2012 11:29 AM
                          Subject: Re: [CreationTalk] A matter of authority and warning against false teachings


                           

                          That what I tried to tell. Natural laws were different before the flood and before the sin of Adam and Eve.

                          ________________________________
                          From: Chris Ashcraft <mailto:ashcrac%40yahoo.com>
                          To: "mailto:CreationTalk%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:CreationTalk%40yahoogroups.com>
                          Sent: Sunday, September 9, 2012 6:12 PM
                          Subject: Re: [CreationTalk] A matter of authority and warning against false teachings

                           
                          Agreed - the best we can say is that it "may not have rained before the flood". 

                          Its an argument from omission. In the book of Genesis, the Bible says that the "whole surface of the ground" was watered by rivers (or mist KJV) that came out of the Earth, and there is no mention of rain until the flood, but it does not specifically say that it did not rain.

                          Genesis 2:6
                          but streams came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground. 

                          Personally, I think it very possible there was no rain - and very doubtful that there were earthquakes or volcanoes before the flood. Clearly both the crust and atmosphere were altered by this terrible event. The water that was once beneath the Earth's crust (supplying both these ancient rivers and ultimately the water to flood the Earth) is now collected into the oceans. That there was no rainbow until after the flood is also a clear testimony that some dramatic change occurred related to atmospheric moisture. 

                          Its an arguable (and very interesting) subject... 
                           

                          Christopher W. Ashcraft
                          http://nwcreation.net/ashcraft
                          CreationWiki
                          http://creationwiki.org/

                          ________________________________
                          From: JAMES MAY <mailto:jimmay%40iname.com>
                          To: mailto:CreationTalk%40yahoogroups.com
                          Sent: Sunday, September 9, 2012 3:52 AM
                          Subject: Re: [CreationTalk] A matter of authority and warning against false teachings

                           
                          Christine,

                          That's wonderful. So glad you had a positive reception and were willing to take on such a challenge.

                          I would question though whether we can really be sure that there was no rain before Noah. I have heard that taught before and used to believe it myself, but I no longer teach that. Perhaps it would be good if you reviewed some different opinions on that from some of the leading creationist organizations. CMI or Answers in Genesis, or maybe ICR. At least it might be good to say that not all creationists teach that there was no rain before the flood.

                          God bless!

                          ----- Original Message -----
                          From: Christine Bridges
                          Sent: 09/09/12 05:51 AM
                          To: mailto:CreationTalk%40yahoogroups.com
                          Subject: Re: [CreationTalk] A matter of authority and warning against false teachings

                          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

                          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

                          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

                          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




                          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                        • JAMES MAY
                          Chris, If it is possible that it rained before the flood, it is also possible there were rainbows as well. If there were, then when the rainbow after the flood
                          Message 12 of 20 , Sep 10, 2012
                            Chris,

                            If it is possible that it rained before the flood, it is also possible there were rainbows as well. If there were, then when the rainbow after the flood appeared, God just assigned a new meaning to it for Noah and his descendants.

                            Jim
                            ----- Original Message -----
                            From: Chris Ashcraft
                            Sent: 09/10/12 01:12 AM
                            To: CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com
                            Subject: Re: [CreationTalk] A matter of authority and warning against false teachings


                            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                          • Chris Ashcraft
                            The view of animal immortality before the fall of man is held by some, but I personally do not agree. Most that hold to this view use Romans 12 for support,
                            Message 13 of 20 , Sep 10, 2012
                              The view of animal immortality before the fall of man is held by some, but I personally do not agree. Most that hold to this view use Romans 12 for support, but note that it refers specifically to death of "people".

                              12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man,�and death through sin,�and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned�

                              http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%205:12&version=NIV%ef%bf%bd

                              Additionally it is noted that the Bible refers to animals as nephesh (Hebrew), which refers to the soul in some instances or as simply a living being with life in the blood. Because the Bible refers to the blood and soul synonymously at times (as it does the breath and the spirit) many understand this to imply that animals have a soul.

                              http://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/hebrew/nas/nephesh.html

                              Animal immortality before the fall of man is an argument used by some (such as Ken Ham) against the conventional (secular) interpretation of the fossil record - stating that there could not have been millions of years of animal death and decay�because�death did not enter the world until Adam and Eve sinned.

                              But this view calls into question the purpose of the "Tree of Life" in the garden of eden. If humans (and animals) were already immortal, then what purpose did the tree of life have?

                              Genesis 2:9
                              The LORD God made all kinds�of�trees grow out�of�the ground �trees that were pleasing to the eye and good for food. In the middle�of�the garden were the�tree�of�life�and the�tree�of�the knowledge�of�good and evil.�

                              The Genesis account clearly states that this tree in the Garden of eden was the source of immortality, and Adam and Eve were blocked from eating from it after they sinned by removing them from the garden of Eden and blocking the entrance.

                              The implication seems very clear that this tree was meant only for humans just as was�the tree of knowledge.

                              Genesis 3:22-24
                              22�And the�Lord�God said, The man has now become like one of us,�knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life�and eat, and live forever. 23�So the�Lord�God banished him from the Garden of Eden�to work the ground�from which he had been taken.�24�After he drove the man out, he placed on the east side�of the Garden of Eden�cherubim�and a flaming sword�flashing back and forth to guard the way to the tree of life.


                              Christopher W. Ashcraft
                              http://nwcreation.net/ashcraft
                              CreationWiki
                              http://creationwiki.org/


                              ________________________________
                              From: Igor Skoglund <iskoglund@...>
                              To: "CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com" <CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com>
                              Sent: Monday, September 10, 2012 4:39 AM
                              Subject: Re: [CreationTalk] A matter of authority and warning against false teachings


                               
                              As far as I understand death didn't existed in Eden time. I am not sure people or animals were supposed to age from the beginning.

                              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                            • Chris Ashcraft
                              Regarding animal immortality - see this post from John D. Morris (ICR), which makes this argument... By Man Came Death September 9, 2012   For since by man
                              Message 14 of 20 , Sep 11, 2012
                                Regarding animal immortality - see this post from John D. Morris (ICR), which makes this argument...

                                By Man Came Death
                                September 9, 2012
                                 "For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive." (1 Corinthians 15:21-22)
                                 These verses, coupled with others throughout the Old and New Testaments, teach a very important principle not fully appreciated by those Christians who would hold that man evolved from lower animals or even that his tenure on earth was preceded by millions of years. For if the earth is old, then death is part of the natural order of things, and billions upon billions of organisms have lived and died, struggling for existence, surviving only if they were "fit."
                                 Taken at face value, however, the Bible indicates a far different scenario. Evidently, at the beginning, all living creatures (i.e., conscious life as opposed to plants and non-conscious "animals") were created to live forever. There was no death, for all were designed to be vegetarian (Genesis 1:30). God had warned them of disobedience to His one command: "For in the day that thou eatest thereof |i.e., of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil| thou shalt surely die" (or more literally, "dying thou shalt die") (Genesis 2:17). All of creation was placed under the Curse of death at that time, the animals (3:14), the plants (v. 18), the ground (v. 17), and mankind (vv. 15-17,19); all would be dying. Sadly, as we know all too well, this situation continues today (see Romans 8:22).
                                 But if death is a part of the created order, what can our text mean? Furthermore, if death was not specified as the penalty for sin, what does the death of Christ mean? Belief in the concept of the old earth destroys vital doctrines, including our redemption through Christ’s death.
                                 Thankfully, the reign of death and the Curse will end one day (Revelation 21:4; 22:3) as God restores the creation to its intended state. JDM 

                                 
                                ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

                                Personally I consider this to be a flawed position - used for the purpose of providing an additional Biblical argument against an old-earth interpretation of the fossil record. The Bible never states that animals were immortal, and again the expressed purpose of the "tree of life" argues strongly against this claim.

                                This view calls into question the purpose of the "Tree of Life" in the garden of eden. If humans (and animals) were already immortal, then what purpose did the tree of life have?


                                Genesis 2:9
                                The LORD God made all kinds of trees grow out of the ground ”trees that were pleasing to the eye and good for food. In the middle of the garden were the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. 

                                The Genesis account clearly states that this tree in the Garden of eden was the source of immortality, and Adam and Eve were prevented from eating from it after they sinned by removing them from the garden of Eden and blocking the entrance. 

                                The implication seems very clear that this tree was meant only for humans just as was the tree of knowledge.

                                Genesis 3:22-24
                                22 And the Lord God said, The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever. 23 So the Lord God banished him from the Garden of Eden to work the ground from which he had been taken. 24 After he drove the man out, he placed on the east side of the Garden of Eden cherubim and a flaming sword flashing back and forth to guard the way to the tree of life. 


                                Christopher W. Ashcraft
                                http://nwcreation.net/ashcraft
                                CreationWiki
                                http://creationwiki.org/


                                ________________________________
                                From: Chris Ashcraft <ashcrac@...>
                                To: "CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com" <CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com>
                                Sent: Monday, September 10, 2012 7:08 AM
                                Subject: Re: [CreationTalk] A matter of authority and warning against false teachings


                                 
                                The view of animal immortality before the fall of man is held by some, but I personally do not agree. Most that hold to this view use Romans 12 for support, but note that it refers specifically to death of "people".

                                12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned”

                                http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%205:12&version=NIV%c2%a0

                                Additionally it is noted that the Bible refers to animals as nephesh (Hebrew), which refers to the soul in some instances or as simply a living being with life in the blood. Because the Bible refers to the blood and soul synonymously at times (as it does the breath and the spirit) many understand this to imply that animals have a soul.

                                http://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/hebrew/nas/nephesh.html

                                Animal immortality before the fall of man is an argument used by some (such as Ken Ham) against the conventional (secular) interpretation of the fossil record - stating that there could not have been millions of years of animal death and decay because death did not enter the world until Adam and Eve sinned.

                                But this view calls into question the purpose of the "Tree of Life" in the garden of eden. If humans (and animals) were already immortal, then what purpose did the tree of life have?

                                Genesis 2:9
                                The LORD God made all kinds of trees grow out of the ground ”trees that were pleasing to the eye and good for food. In the middle of the garden were the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. 

                                The Genesis account clearly states that this tree in the Garden of eden was the source of immortality, and Adam and Eve were blocked from eating from it after they sinned by removing them from the garden of Eden and blocking the entrance.

                                The implication seems very clear that this tree was meant only for humans just as was the tree of knowledge.

                                Genesis 3:22-24
                                22 And the Lord God said, The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever. 23 So the Lord God banished him from the Garden of Eden to work the ground from which he had been taken. 24 After he drove the man out, he placed on the east side of the Garden of Eden cherubim and a flaming sword flashing back and forth to guard the way to the tree of life.

                                Christopher W. Ashcraft
                                http://nwcreation.net/ashcraft
                                CreationWiki
                                http://creationwiki.org/

                                ________________________________
                                From: Igor Skoglund <iskoglund@...>
                                To: "CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com" <CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com>
                                Sent: Monday, September 10, 2012 4:39 AM
                                Subject: Re: [CreationTalk] A matter of authority and warning against false teachings


                                 
                                As far as I understand death didn't existed in Eden time. I am not sure people or animals were supposed to age from the beginning.

                                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




                                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                              • Igor Skoglund
                                I am Orthodox Christian and the view of Orthodox Church is that death was not supposed to exist but is the result of sin. After the Last Judgement the nature
                                Message 15 of 20 , Sep 11, 2012
                                  I am Orthodox Christian and the view of Orthodox Church is that death was not supposed to exist but is the result of sin. After the Last Judgement the nature will become perfect again.



                                  ________________________________
                                  From: Chris Ashcraft <ashcrac@...>
                                  To: "CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com" <CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com>
                                  Sent: Monday, September 10, 2012 4:08 PM
                                  Subject: Re: [CreationTalk] A matter of authority and warning against false teachings


                                   
                                  The view of animal immortality before the fall of man is held by some, but I personally do not agree. Most that hold to this view use Romans 12 for support, but note that it refers specifically to death of "people".

                                  12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned”

                                  http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%205:12&version=NIV%c2%a0

                                  Additionally it is noted that the Bible refers to animals as nephesh (Hebrew), which refers to the soul in some instances or as simply a living being with life in the blood. Because the Bible refers to the blood and soul synonymously at times (as it does the breath and the spirit) many understand this to imply that animals have a soul.

                                  http://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/hebrew/nas/nephesh.html

                                  Animal immortality before the fall of man is an argument used by some (such as Ken Ham) against the conventional (secular) interpretation of the fossil record - stating that there could not have been millions of years of animal death and decay because death did not enter the world until Adam and Eve sinned.

                                  But this view calls into question the purpose of the "Tree of Life" in the garden of eden. If humans (and animals) were already immortal, then what purpose did the tree of life have?

                                  Genesis 2:9
                                  The LORD God made all kinds of trees grow out of the ground ”trees that were pleasing to the eye and good for food. In the middle of the garden were the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. 

                                  The Genesis account clearly states that this tree in the Garden of eden was the source of immortality, and Adam and Eve were blocked from eating from it after they sinned by removing them from the garden of Eden and blocking the entrance.

                                  The implication seems very clear that this tree was meant only for humans just as was the tree of knowledge.

                                  Genesis 3:22-24
                                  22 And the Lord God said, The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever. 23 So the Lord God banished him from the Garden of Eden to work the ground from which he had been taken. 24 After he drove the man out, he placed on the east side of the Garden of Eden cherubim and a flaming sword flashing back and forth to guard the way to the tree of life.

                                  Christopher W. Ashcraft
                                  http://nwcreation.net/ashcraft
                                  CreationWiki
                                  http://creationwiki.org/

                                  ________________________________
                                  From: Igor Skoglund <iskoglund@...>
                                  To: "CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com" <CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com>
                                  Sent: Monday, September 10, 2012 4:39 AM
                                  Subject: Re: [CreationTalk] A matter of authority and warning against false teachings


                                   
                                  As far as I understand death didn't existed in Eden time. I am not sure people or animals were supposed to age from the beginning.

                                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




                                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                • Victor McAllister
                                  ... God said to Adam (Gen 3) on the day you eat of the forbidden fruit dying continue to die. (Two verbs for to die in Hebrew one infinitive one imperfect).
                                  Message 16 of 20 , Sep 11, 2012
                                    On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 6:17 AM, Chris Ashcraft <ashcrac@...> wrote:

                                    > **
                                    >
                                    >
                                    > Regarding animal immortality - see this post from John D. Morris (ICR),
                                    > which makes this argument...
                                    >
                                    > By Man Came Death
                                    > September 9, 2012
                                    > "For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the
                                    > dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive."
                                    > (1 Corinthians 15:21-22)
                                    > These verses, coupled with others throughout the Old and New Testaments,
                                    > teach a very important principle not fully appreciated by those Christians
                                    > who would hold that man evolved from lower animals or even that his tenure
                                    > on earth was preceded by millions of years. For if the earth is old, then
                                    > death is part of the natural order of things, and billions upon billions of
                                    > organisms have lived and died, struggling for existence, surviving only if
                                    > they were "fit."
                                    > Taken at face value, however, the Bible indicates a far different
                                    > scenario. Evidently, at the beginning, all living creatures (i.e.,
                                    > conscious life as opposed to plants and non-conscious "animals") were
                                    > created to live forever. There was no death, for all were designed to be
                                    > vegetarian (Genesis 1:30). God had warned them of disobedience to His one
                                    > command: "For in the day that thou eatest thereof |i.e., of the tree of the
                                    > knowledge of good and evil| thou shalt surely die" (or more literally,
                                    > "dying thou shalt die") (Genesis 2:17). All of creation was placed under
                                    > the Curse of death at that time, the animals (3:14), the plants (v. 18),
                                    > the ground (v. 17), and mankind (vv. 15-17,19); all would be dying. Sadly,
                                    > as we know all too well, this situation continues today (see Romans 8:22).
                                    > But if death is a part of the created order, what can our text mean?
                                    > Furthermore, if death was not specified as the penalty for sin, what does
                                    > the death of Christ mean? Belief in the concept of the old earth destroys
                                    > vital doctrines, including our redemption through Christ�s death.
                                    > Thankfully, the reign of death and the Curse will end one day (Revelation
                                    > 21:4; 22:3) as God restores the creation to its intended state. JDM
                                    >
                                    >
                                    > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
                                    >
                                    > Personally I consider this to be a flawed position - used for the purpose
                                    > of providing an additional Biblical argument against an old-earth
                                    > interpretation of the fossil record. The Bible never states that animals
                                    > were immortal, and again the expressed purpose of the "tree of life" argues
                                    > strongly against this claim.
                                    >
                                    >
                                    > This view calls into question the purpose of the "Tree of Life" in the
                                    > garden of eden. If humans (and animals) were already immortal, then what
                                    > purpose did the tree of life have?
                                    >
                                    > Genesis 2:9
                                    > The LORD God made all kinds of trees grow out of the ground �trees that
                                    > were pleasing to the eye and good for food. In the middle of the garden
                                    > were the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
                                    >
                                    > The Genesis account clearly states that this tree in the Garden of eden
                                    > was the source of immortality, and Adam and Eve were prevented from eating
                                    > from it after they sinned by removing them from the garden of Eden and
                                    > blocking the entrance.
                                    >
                                    >
                                    > The implication seems very clear that this tree was meant only for humans
                                    > just as was the tree of knowledge.
                                    >
                                    > Genesis 3:22-24
                                    > 22 And the Lord God said, The man has now become like one of us, knowing
                                    > good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also
                                    > from the tree of life and eat, and live forever. 23 So the Lord God
                                    > banished him from the Garden of Eden to work the ground from which he had
                                    > been taken. 24 After he drove the man out, he placed on the east side of
                                    > the Garden of Eden cherubim and a flaming sword flashing back and forth to
                                    > guard the way to the tree of life.
                                    >
                                    > Christopher W. Ashcraft
                                    > http://nwcreation.net/ashcraft
                                    > CreationWiki
                                    > http://creationwiki.org/
                                    >
                                    > _
                                    >

                                    God said to Adam (Gen 3) on the day you eat of the forbidden fruit dying
                                    continue to die. (Two verbs for to die in Hebrew one infinitive one
                                    imperfect). Many Christians interpret this as spiritual death - but
                                    primarily it is about physical death. On that day, Adam became mortal and
                                    his mortality continued until at the age of 930 years when the process
                                    finally culminated in physical. death. It was because He now was like God,
                                    knowing good and evil, that God blocked off access to the tree of life that
                                    he would not be able to live for olam - for the eons. The tree of life will
                                    exist in the New Jerusalem. Although there is no sun or moon, the tree
                                    produces a different fruit every month, evidently a different one each
                                    month - because 12 kinds are mentioned. How do you have months without
                                    days? Perhaps the tree itself is the marker for the passing eons and its
                                    leaves are for the healing of the nations (Revel 22).

                                    The Bible does not say aquatic creatures or germs did not die before sin.
                                    Fruit was given to land animals and humans. An interesting sidelight to
                                    this question. Where does oil come from? IMO, oil is from the bodies of
                                    mineral eating germs that live down in the hot waters deep underground.
                                    Smokers are places along active volcanic seams where mineral laden hot
                                    waters erupt from deep under the sea bed. (Some smokers are black, some
                                    white, depending on their mineral loads. These hot springs are loaded with
                                    mineral eating anaerobic bacteria. In other words, oil is continuing to
                                    form right now today as these swarms of bacteria eat minerals and die.

                                    Even tiny flea-like creatures have been discovered in the oozes deep under
                                    the oceans. The cells in their bodies to not use oxygen but instead use
                                    sulfur and other minerals to energize their living tissues. By the way,
                                    they lay eggs, and some of them were actually hatched on a drill ship a few
                                    years ago.

                                    The great struggle Christians young people encounter today is the age of
                                    the universe.

                                    Let's review what the Bible states.

                                    God created in six literal evenings and mornings.
                                    This happened about 6,000 years ago.
                                    Long term natural processes were continually commanded by God. From the
                                    text itself, the Catholic model of short term one time commands is
                                    unsupported. He continued to command water to separate, for an atmosphere
                                    to form, for water to seep underground, for the ground to produced plants
                                    which grew naturally into trees that fruited in 1/4th of a day. He
                                    continued to command the water to teem with living, reproducing creatures.
                                    He continued to command the ground to bring forth animals after their
                                    kinds. He continued to speak to Himself, let us continue to create man in
                                    our image to have dominion (v 26). He continued to create man in His own
                                    image. The verb for create does not become a completed action until He also
                                    created the woman (27). She was not created until the man had cataloged and
                                    named all the animals (something that may have taken vast ages); had an
                                    operation; and woke up to be presented with the woman who was also created
                                    in the image of God.

                                    The text of Genesis one is about long, term events, many of them natural
                                    processes that produced the desired results at God's continuing commands.

                                    The problem of the western DEFINITION of time is central to the issue of
                                    the age of the universe. There is not a single verse in the Bible that says
                                    the earth is young. There are many verses that mention eon ages. Consider
                                    carefully the visible history of galaxies, the very evidence that the
                                    Creator says declares His glory. We can see with sight that the atomic
                                    clocks and the orbits both have been accelerating for vast eons as the
                                    orbits in billions of spiral galaxies do not close, but continue to
                                    accelerate outward in defiance of every definition and law of western
                                    science. Most of what scientists measure and most of their mathematical
                                    formulas were contrived with the western concept of time. Only a biblical
                                    concept of time is supported in the Bible and also in cosmic history, that
                                    decalres His great glory as He continued to call the stars to emerge and
                                    come out as billions of galaxies grow - exactly as the text of the Bible
                                    states.

                                    How great will be the triumph of the authoritative word of God over western
                                    science!

                                    Victor


                                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                  • Benjamin Klett
                                    God said to Adam (Gen 3) on the day you eat of the forbidden fruit dying continue to die. (Two verbs for to die in Hebrew one infinitive one imperfect). Many
                                    Message 17 of 20 , Sep 11, 2012
                                      God said to Adam (Gen 3) on the day you eat of the forbidden fruit dying
                                      continue to die. (Two verbs for to die in Hebrew one infinitive one
                                      imperfect). Many Christians interpret this as spiritual death - but
                                      primarily it is about physical death. On that day, Adam became mortal and
                                      his mortality continued until at the age of 930 years when the process
                                      finally culminated in physical. death.

                                      I agree with you here. The continual implication of death in the Hebrew
                                      tense is best interpreted as the continual process of death that we all
                                      experience as our bodies wear out over time. On a side note, I wonder if
                                      the fruit contained something that renewed the telomerase on the DNA...
                                      keeping it from wearing out... Just a thought.

                                      Although there is no sun or moon, the tree
                                      produces a different fruit every month, evidently a different one each
                                      month - because 12 kinds are mentioned. How do you have months without
                                      days? Perhaps the tree itself is the marker for the passing eons and its
                                      leaves are for the healing of the nations (Revel 22).

                                      You don't need days to have a month, though days will always exist
                                      regardless of whether they are measured or not. I am guessing that you are
                                      eliminating days because of no sun and moon? If so, perhaps this will help.
                                      A day is simply a unit of measure, generally given to the amount of time
                                      that passes as the earth rotates once. Even if the earth stopped rotating,
                                      days would still exist, they just would become harder to measure. Another
                                      analogy would be that of distance. Even if I don't have a tape measure, I
                                      know that there is a certain number of inches in a given distance. Even if
                                      I go to a primitive tribe in the Amazon where they do not think in inches
                                      (and still do not have a tape measure), there will still be a certain
                                      number of inches in the same given distance. This is because inches are
                                      only an abstract unit of measurement designed to measure distance, which
                                      exists without being measured. Time does not come from measurements,
                                      clocks, heavenly bodies, passing events, or anything else. It is only
                                      measured by these. Time exists all by itself, and would continue to do so
                                      even if nobody were paying any attention to it whatsoever.

                                      Even tiny flea-like creatures have been discovered in the oozes deep under
                                      the oceans. The cells in their bodies to not use oxygen but instead use
                                      sulfur and other minerals to energize their living tissues. By the way,
                                      they lay eggs, and some of them were actually hatched on a drill ship a few
                                      years ago.

                                      This is particularly fascinating.

                                      God created in six literal evenings and mornings.
                                      This happened about 6,000 years ago.
                                      Long term natural processes were continually commanded by God. From the
                                      text itself, the Catholic model of short term one time commands is
                                      unsupported. He continued to command water to separate, for an atmosphere
                                      to form, for water to seep underground, for the ground to produced plants
                                      which grew naturally into trees that fruited in 1/4th of a day. He
                                      continued to command the water to teem with living, reproducing creatures.
                                      He continued to command the ground to bring forth animals after their
                                      kinds. He continued to speak to Himself, let us continue to create man in
                                      our image to have dominion (v 26). He continued to create man in His own
                                      image. The verb for create does not become a completed action until He also
                                      created the woman (27). She was not created until the man had cataloged and
                                      named all the animals (something that may have taken vast ages); had an
                                      operation; and woke up to be presented with the woman who was also created
                                      in the image of God.

                                      The text of Genesis one is about long, term events, many of them natural
                                      processes that produced the desired results at God's continuing commands.

                                      The problem of the western DEFINITION of time is central to the issue of
                                      the age of the universe. There is not a single verse in the Bible that says
                                      the earth is young. There are many verses that mention eon ages. Consider
                                      carefully the visible history of galaxies, the very evidence that the
                                      Creator says declares His glory. We can see with sight that the atomic
                                      clocks and the orbits both have been accelerating for vast eons as the
                                      orbits in billions of spiral galaxies do not close, but continue to
                                      accelerate outward in defiance of every definition and law of western
                                      science. Most of what scientists measure and most of their mathematical
                                      formulas were contrived with the western concept of time. Only a biblical
                                      concept of time is supported in the Bible and also in cosmic history, that
                                      decalres His great glory as He continued to call the stars to emerge and
                                      come out as billions of galaxies grow - exactly as the text of the Bible
                                      states.

                                      There are a few issues here... One being the "definition" of time. We have
                                      the same definition of time as did those in Biblical times. The only
                                      difference is that we measure it with cogs and wheels, vibrating quartz, or
                                      atomic decay, whereas they only had the movement of heavenly bodies (sun,
                                      stars, moon) to measure. Oh, and shadows... which were used, perhaps not
                                      that far back, but pretty far, to almost the same accuracy as cogs and
                                      wheels. I take that back... there is another difference: we also now
                                      believe that it is tied into space somehow. But this does not change its
                                      definition, or its existence. DNA existed long before people could see it
                                      or even thought of it. Same goes for bacteria. The fact that we have
                                      different or more precise ideas about something today does not necessarily
                                      mean that we have the wrong ideas.

                                      A second issue is that the genealogies are very, VERY specific as to how
                                      old the earth is. We only have to put them end to end and plug in the ages
                                      of people that we are given (the only thing we are not provided is how long
                                      Adam and Eve lived in the garden before they began aging... an interesting
                                      philosophical question). Years are measured with heavenly bodies and with
                                      the passage of seasons. The Bible does not say that Adam lived for
                                      nine-hundred-soemthing eons... it says "years." Now, if you want to make
                                      the argument that a year lasted longer back then than it did now, please do
                                      so. That would make for interesting discussion. However, do not obfuscate
                                      the issue by claiming that when the Bible says "year" it is being vague or
                                      really means "eon."

                                      Lastly, the formation of galaxies has nothing to do with anyone's ideas of
                                      time. It has everything to do with how they believe stars and galaxies
                                      form. According to modern thought, spiral galaxies do actually close and
                                      become disc galaxies. This, of course, cannot be observed, due to the fact
                                      that people claim it happens over millions of years. Actually, we can't
                                      observe your claim, either, that they continue to expand... for the same
                                      reasons, too. Whether you want to measure time vaguely (eons) or precisely
                                      (hours, minutes, seconds) we all have the same definition of time. It is
                                      still the same definition whether you want to say it is of variable speed
                                      or the same forever; those are only details. The point being that the
                                      modern concepts of cosmology are not based on concepts of time (not to any
                                      extent in anything I have learned to date, that is).


                                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                    • VictorM
                                      ... This is not true. The western concept of time is aberrant, unlike that of any former civilization. Early societies did not believe that time had an
                                      Message 18 of 20 , Sep 12, 2012
                                        --- In CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com, Benjamin Klett <ben.klett@...> wrote:
                                        >
                                        > God said to Adam (Gen 3) on the day you eat of the forbidden fruit dying
                                        > continue to die. (Two verbs for to die in Hebrew one infinitive one
                                        > imperfect). Many Christians interpret this as spiritual death - but
                                        > primarily it is about physical death. On that day, Adam became mortal and
                                        > his mortality continued until at the age of 930 years when the process
                                        > finally culminated in physical. death.
                                        >
                                        > I agree with you here. The continual implication of death in the Hebrew
                                        > tense is best interpreted as the continual process of death that we all
                                        > experience as our bodies wear out over time. On a side note, I wonder if
                                        > the fruit contained something that renewed the telomerase on the DNA...
                                        > keeping it from wearing out... Just a thought.
                                        >
                                        > Although there is no sun or moon, the tree
                                        > produces a different fruit every month, evidently a different one each
                                        > month - because 12 kinds are mentioned. How do you have months without
                                        > days? Perhaps the tree itself is the marker for the passing eons and its
                                        > leaves are for the healing of the nations (Revel 22).
                                        >
                                        > You don't need days to have a month, though days will always exist
                                        > regardless of whether they are measured or not. I am guessing that you are
                                        > eliminating days because of no sun and moon? If so, perhaps this will help.
                                        > A day is simply a unit of measure, generally given to the amount of time
                                        > that passes as the earth rotates once. Even if the earth stopped rotating,
                                        > days would still exist, they just would become harder to measure. Another
                                        > analogy would be that of distance. Even if I don't have a tape measure, I
                                        > know that there is a certain number of inches in a given distance. Even if
                                        > I go to a primitive tribe in the Amazon where they do not think in inches
                                        > (and still do not have a tape measure), there will still be a certain
                                        > number of inches in the same given distance. This is because inches are
                                        > only an abstract unit of measurement designed to measure distance, which
                                        > exists without being measured. Time does not come from measurements,
                                        > clocks, heavenly bodies, passing events, or anything else. It is only
                                        > measured by these. Time exists all by itself, and would continue to do so
                                        > even if nobody were paying any attention to it whatsoever.
                                        >
                                        > Even tiny flea-like creatures have been discovered in the oozes deep under
                                        > the oceans. The cells in their bodies to not use oxygen but instead use
                                        > sulfur and other minerals to energize their living tissues. By the way,
                                        > they lay eggs, and some of them were actually hatched on a drill ship a few
                                        > years ago.
                                        >
                                        > This is particularly fascinating.
                                        >
                                        > God created in six literal evenings and mornings.
                                        > This happened about 6,000 years ago.
                                        > Long term natural processes were continually commanded by God. From the
                                        > text itself, the Catholic model of short term one time commands is
                                        > unsupported. He continued to command water to separate, for an atmosphere
                                        > to form, for water to seep underground, for the ground to produced plants
                                        > which grew naturally into trees that fruited in 1/4th of a day. He
                                        > continued to command the water to teem with living, reproducing creatures.
                                        > He continued to command the ground to bring forth animals after their
                                        > kinds. He continued to speak to Himself, let us continue to create man in
                                        > our image to have dominion (v 26). He continued to create man in His own
                                        > image. The verb for create does not become a completed action until He also
                                        > created the woman (27). She was not created until the man had cataloged and
                                        > named all the animals (something that may have taken vast ages); had an
                                        > operation; and woke up to be presented with the woman who was also created
                                        > in the image of God.
                                        >
                                        > The text of Genesis one is about long, term events, many of them natural
                                        > processes that produced the desired results at God's continuing commands.
                                        >
                                        > The problem of the western DEFINITION of time is central to the issue of
                                        > the age of the universe. There is not a single verse in the Bible that says
                                        > the earth is young. There are many verses that mention eon ages. Consider
                                        > carefully the visible history of galaxies, the very evidence that the
                                        > Creator says declares His glory. We can see with sight that the atomic
                                        > clocks and the orbits both have been accelerating for vast eons as the
                                        > orbits in billions of spiral galaxies do not close, but continue to
                                        > accelerate outward in defiance of every definition and law of western
                                        > science. Most of what scientists measure and most of their mathematical
                                        > formulas were contrived with the western concept of time. Only a biblical
                                        > concept of time is supported in the Bible and also in cosmic history, that
                                        > decalres His great glory as He continued to call the stars to emerge and
                                        > come out as billions of galaxies grow - exactly as the text of the Bible
                                        > states.
                                        >
                                        > There are a few issues here... One being the "definition" of time. We have
                                        > the same definition of time as did those in Biblical times. The only
                                        > difference is that we measure it with cogs and wheels, vibrating quartz, or
                                        > atomic decay, whereas they only had the movement of heavenly bodies (sun,
                                        > stars, moon) to measure. Oh, and shadows... which were used, perhaps not
                                        > that far back, but pretty far, to almost the same accuracy as cogs and
                                        > wheels. I take that back... there is another difference: we also now
                                        > believe that it is tied into space somehow. But this does not change its
                                        > definition, or its existence. DNA existed long before people could see it
                                        > or even thought of it. Same goes for bacteria. The fact that we have
                                        > different or more precise ideas about something today does not necessarily
                                        > mean that we have the wrong ideas.
                                        >
                                        > A second issue is that the genealogies are very, VERY specific as to how
                                        > old the earth is. We only have to put them end to end and plug in the ages
                                        > of people that we are given (the only thing we are not provided is how long
                                        > Adam and Eve lived in the garden before they began aging... an interesting
                                        > philosophical question). Years are measured with heavenly bodies and with
                                        > the passage of seasons. The Bible does not say that Adam lived for
                                        > nine-hundred-soemthing eons... it says "years." Now, if you want to make
                                        > the argument that a year lasted longer back then than it did now, please do
                                        > so. That would make for interesting discussion. However, do not obfuscate
                                        > the issue by claiming that when the Bible says "year" it is being vague or
                                        > really means "eon."
                                        >
                                        > Lastly, the formation of galaxies has nothing to do with anyone's ideas of
                                        > time. It has everything to do with how they believe stars and galaxies
                                        > form. According to modern thought, spiral galaxies do actually close and
                                        > become disc galaxies. This, of course, cannot be observed, due to the fact
                                        > that people claim it happens over millions of years. Actually, we can't
                                        > observe your claim, either, that they continue to expand... for the same
                                        > reasons, too. Whether you want to measure time vaguely (eons) or precisely
                                        > (hours, minutes, seconds) we all have the same definition of time. It is
                                        > still the same definition whether you want to say it is of variable speed
                                        > or the same forever; those are only details. The point being that the
                                        > modern concepts of cosmology are not based on concepts of time (not to any
                                        > extent in anything I have learned to date, that is).
                                        >
                                        >
                                        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                        >

                                        This is not true. The western concept of time is aberrant, unlike that of any former civilization. Early societies did not believe that time had an actuality nor did they measure it. They were simply doing what the Bible states, using the cycles of the heavenly bodies as markers to divide seasons, days and years. Furthermore, ancient people understood that orbits continue to change. They recorded how the planets used to pass close to Earth, to which the Bible also agrees in several places. Why don't they pass close to earth today? The Bible plainly states - that Elohim continued to form the Sun, Moon and stars and continued to place them in the spreading place. Notice that the bodies themselves continue to change and the orbits continue to change by spreading out, according to Genesis 1. He continues to finish the heavens and the earth - according to Genes 2:1 - 2.

                                        The western notion of time has a history. Augustine studied the pagan philosopher Plotinus before he became a Christian and used Plotinus's system to interpret the Bible. Augustine's Confessions BOOK 11 had a profound influence on the Western system because the Catholics taught it as doctrine for 1000 years. Augustine claimed God created time in the beginning, that it has an actual existence even though Solomon says that time is in our minds (Ecc 3:11). Augustine taught that God is eternal, is outside of time. The original biblical text never agrees with Augustine's ideas about God and time. During the thirteen century, mendicant friars worked hard at adapting the Aristotle's system to Christianity and adjusting it away from the Plato / Plotinus' system. The friar's "solved" the ancient problem of matter continuing to change itself with a new idea - that the essence of substance is changeless. Newton used this idea as the foundation for clock time and clock-like orbits.

                                        There is one place only where we see history as it happened long ago. When we compare the most distant atomic clocks with local ones, we SEE that none of them clocked the frequencies of modern atoms. The earliest galaxies shone at tiny fractions of the frequencies of modern atoms. When we compare the shape of early galaxies with later ones, we observe how the stars continued to emerge from formerly naked cores, globs of stars continuing to come out and spread out as billions of galaxies continually grew into huge local growth spirals. What we observe is the very things the Biblical Creator says He does in unbroken continuity. He says knowledge of His glory is available day and night in the plural heavens - the spreading place. It is not the vacuum that is spreading, but hundreds of billions of galaxies as the stars continue to come out.

                                        How will the Bible vanquish western science? Scientists are building new telescopes to observe the creation era itself. What we have observed so far exactly fits the literal text of Genesis - that God made the plural heavens (the galaxies) first. Later He continued to form the stars and continued to place them in the spreading place. To prevent what is visible from being so, scientists have filled the universe up with magical things like space time, expanding vacuums, invisible matter, vacuums that alter the frequencies of passing light etc. Peter predicted that in the last days mockers will obfuscate the age of the plural heavens with a first law - that all things remain the same.

                                        What should we do? Just state what the Bible says without tailoring it to fit western science. When our obedience is complete, we will use the literal text of the Bible to bring down the greatest system of reasoning ever invented by philosophically minded men - science itself. (Read 2 Corinthians 10:3 - 6)

                                        What Glory that will bring to our God. Why? Man cannot come to Him through wisdom. The triumph of the authoritative Word of God over science is not far off. Changing Earth Creationists agree with Solomon that science is impossible. Think about it.

                                        Victor
                                      • Benjamin Klett
                                        ... Point conceded. The actuality of time, where it can be linked to space and manipulated by way of manipulating space is a rather new concept. I did
                                        Message 19 of 20 , Sep 13, 2012
                                          > This is not true. The western concept of time is aberrant, unlike that of
                                          > any former civilization. Early societies did not believe that time had an
                                          > actuality nor did they measure it. They were simply doing what the Bible
                                          > states, using the cycles of the heavenly bodies as markers to divide
                                          > seasons, days and years.
                                          >

                                          Point conceded. The "actuality" of time, where it can be linked to space
                                          and manipulated by way of manipulating space is a rather new concept. I did
                                          mention that in my previous post, anyway, so I should have recognized that.
                                          However, even though it is a new idea, it has been observed to be true.
                                          Using the cycles of heavenly bodies is measuring time. The biblical era
                                          folk measured years. They measured days. These are all units of time. They
                                          also had a language that had tenses (PAST tense, PRESENT tense, FUTURE
                                          tense, etc.) that are all functions of time. They may not have cared as
                                          much about time as we do... as long as the crops are in by spring, and then
                                          you harvest them when the time is right, but they did recognize time and
                                          measure it. Read the Genesis genealogies. They kept track of years...


                                          > Furthermore, ancient people understood that orbits continue to change.
                                          > They recorded how the planets used to pass close to Earth, to which the
                                          > Bible also agrees in several places. Why don't they pass close to earth
                                          > today? The Bible plainly states - that Elohim continued to form the Sun,
                                          > Moon and stars and continued to place them in the spreading place. Notice
                                          > that the bodies themselves continue to change and the orbits continue to
                                          > change by spreading out, according to Genesis 1. He continues to finish the
                                          > heavens and the earth - according to Genes 2:1 - 2.
                                          >

                                          Did they really understand changing orbits? Orbits, while they may be
                                          changing, would take a long time to do so... many many generations...
                                          excepting the first few...
                                          Planets do pass relatively close to the earth today. Jupiter, Mars, and
                                          Venus are all visible to the naked eye when their orbits pass "close" to
                                          ours. If a tenth planet had been in orbit between Earth and Mars, that
                                          would be really close, compared to what we have today... I don't think that
                                          they could have been too close (just opinion), due to tides and
                                          gravitational effects on our own moon...
                                          SIDE NOTE: If a tenth planet exploded, that would explain the "millions of
                                          years" worth of impact craters on the "space side"... just a thought...

                                          Also, that is a misread of Genesis. God may have spread out the heavens in
                                          the imperfect tense, but no matter how imperfect it was, it could only
                                          continue through day 6, after which He rested. The Bible makes it pretty
                                          plain that God completed his work on day 6 and then ceased working on day
                                          7. This means that whatever spreading is going on now would be continuing
                                          on its own, not a continuation of the creation event.

                                          Augustine claimed God created time in the beginning, that it has an actual
                                          > existence even though Solomon says that time is in our minds (Ecc 3:11).
                                          > Augustine taught that God is eternal, is outside of time. The original
                                          > biblical text never agrees with Augustine's ideas about God and time
                                          >

                                          Ecc 3:11 actually doesn't say that... In fact, that verse mentions a
                                          beginning and an end. That's time... outside our minds. While there is no
                                          explicit "God is outside time" text to be found in the Bible, a case can be
                                          made from Scripture, and the Bible most certainly does not prohibit it. God
                                          does not experience yesterday-today-tomorrow in the same way we do, the
                                          Scriptures support this. We, on the other hand, live inside time, doomed to
                                          always experience tomorrow after today. It just happens.


                                          > There is one place only where we see history as it happened long ago. When
                                          > we compare the most distant atomic clocks with local ones, we SEE that none
                                          > of them clocked the frequencies of modern atoms.
                                          >

                                          You have talked about the redness of the light having something to do with
                                          this... are you sure that you're not talking about the red shift? Because
                                          that is just the Doppler effect taking place (light is stretched due to
                                          movement away from us). Also, how on earth do you measure the frequencies
                                          of atoms in other galaxies? If you know of a method, please tell me; I am
                                          curious.

                                          To prevent what is visible from being so, scientists have filled the
                                          > universe up with magical things like space time, expanding vacuums,
                                          > invisible matter, vacuums that alter the frequencies of passing light etc.
                                          >

                                          Space-time has been observed, even if we don't know how it works yet. Also,
                                          by invisible matter, I assume that you speak of "dark matter." I would like
                                          to address this here for everyone in this group. I have heard dark matter
                                          spoken against rather often, but it is very real and actually very simple.
                                          Dark matter is not invisible, it is just matter that does not emit light.
                                          Earth is made of dark matter, as are asteroids and our own moon. It is
                                          called "dark" and is "invisible" because when looking through a telescope
                                          over light-years of distance, the only things you can see are those that
                                          emit their own light. Reflected light is not strong enough to cover the
                                          distance.

                                          Sir, I think you have a lot of valuable insight to bring to the table, and
                                          I really enjoy hearing about the ancient astronomy, exploding planets, and
                                          the fact that the observed development of galaxies echoes the creation
                                          account. That said, the rest seems somewhat mystical.


                                          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                        • Alan Cassidy
                                          For what it s worth, the idea surely came from this verse: Genesis 2: 6 But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground. This
                                          Message 20 of 20 , Sep 16, 2012
                                            For what it's worth, the idea surely came from this verse:


                                            Genesis 2: 6 But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.

                                            This verse seems to indicate there was a time before it rained that the plants grew from a "mist from the earth". Well, it states it more strongly than "seems".   Verse 10 says a river ran through Eden "to water the garden".


                                            In between is the verse where it restates than God made man, but just like with the so-called "difference" between Genesis One and Two, the descriptions are not necessarily in strict chronological order.


                                            --Alan




                                            ________________________________
                                            From: Chris Ashcraft <ashcrac@...>
                                            To: "CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com" <CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com>
                                            Sent: Sunday, September 9, 2012 11:12 AM
                                            Subject: Re: [CreationTalk] A matter of authority and warning against false teachings


                                             
                                            Agreed - the best we can say is that it "may not have rained before the flood". 

                                            Its an argument from omission. In the book of Genesis, the Bible says that the "whole surface of the ground" was watered by rivers (or mist KJV) that came out of the Earth, and there is no mention of rain until the flood, but it does not specifically say that it did not rain.

                                            Genesis 2:6
                                            but streams came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground. 

                                            Personally, I think it very possible there was no rain - and very doubtful that there were earthquakes or volcanoes before the flood. Clearly both the crust and atmosphere were altered by this terrible event. The water that was once beneath the Earth's crust (supplying both these ancient rivers and ultimately the water to flood the Earth) is now collected into the oceans. That there was no rainbow until after the flood is also a clear testimony that some dramatic change occurred related to atmospheric moisture. 

                                            Its an arguable (and very interesting) subject... 
                                             

                                            Christopher W. Ashcraft
                                            http://nwcreation.net/ashcraft
                                            CreationWiki
                                            http://creationwiki.org/

                                            ________________________________
                                            From: JAMES MAY <jimmay@...>
                                            To: CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com
                                            Sent: Sunday, September 9, 2012 3:52 AM
                                            Subject: Re: [CreationTalk] A matter of authority and warning against false teachings


                                             
                                            Christine,

                                            That's wonderful. So glad you had a positive reception and were willing to take on such a challenge.

                                            I would question though whether we can really be sure that there was no rain before Noah. I have heard that taught before and used to believe it myself, but I no longer teach that. Perhaps it would be good if you reviewed some different opinions on that from some of the leading creationist organizations. CMI or Answers in Genesis, or maybe ICR. At least it might be good to say that not all creationists teach that there was no rain before the flood.

                                            God bless!

                                            ----- Original Message -----
                                            From: Christine Bridges
                                            Sent: 09/09/12 05:51 AM
                                            To: CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com
                                            Subject: Re: [CreationTalk] A matter of authority and warning against false teachings

                                            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

                                            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




                                            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.