The Lie of Organized Religion

0

Did not Jesus teach,

The false teachers mentioned above, and the many like them (2 Timothy 4:3)
"And if the blind leads the blind, both will fall into a ditch."
atruechurch info

Blind Followers of Blind Leaders on Judgment Day
Our Lord, here, is talking about false teachers who are blind to God's ...
that if the blind lead the blind both shall fall into the ditch"
(Matthew 25:41). ...
emorychristians org

God's View of False Teachers and Their Teachings Discernment
All of the false prophets, false teachers, false brethren and false ...
And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.
discernmentministriesinternational wordpress com/.../gods-view-of-false-teachers-their-teachings

Christians, you know these things already! Scripture has taught you.

During conversation with a Christian it was said to me,

The scripture states, "how will they hear without a preacher?... But with fellowship with other believers comes the ability to grow in knowledge and faith."

But what happens if they are teaching something that is not true... a falsehood, even Theologians know certain things, taught in seminary, and knowledge never passes on to the typical adherent. The preachers are not allowed to speak the truth.

In 2000, I converted to Christianity for the first time in my life. I felt a strong spiritual force, I was compelled to seek deeper knowledge. Believe it or not, I asked the Sunday School teacher, "Have you ever read the Bible?" His reply was "No". I asked then, "Well then, how do you know its the Word of God?" He was angered no doubt. I asked him "Where does the Bible come from?" He had no answer.

It is scenerios just like I've described above, that lead to people losing faith, deconversion to Atheism, and the complaint is always the same, "I asked where Mrs. Cain came from. They complained I asked too many questions and asked me not to come back." Is this what Jesus would do? Does it hint at even an inkling of a clue, they are even capable of teach scripture? Certainly not.

Today, I know the answers to those questions above, and it was not learned from the church, but from scholars' materials / books.

Back in 2000, I approached the preacher, and asked, because Sunday School just wasn't cutting it how I might learn more -- indepth knowledge. The preacher told me, "Christian Book Distributors," for starters on scholars studies, books by theologians, etc., but he warned me. HE WARNED ME well in advance, that it would pay not to discuss knowledge with many in the church, they would not take kindly to it.

Well, in short, he, the preacher, was fired shortly afterward for becoming too "liberal," that is to say, providing a bit more upbeat music to appeal to younger generation.

And myself? I did indeed discuss the hunger for knowledge, and it got me accused as being "demon possessed".

The Power of God is compelling a person to seek knowledge, and they're accused of "Demons"? Isn't that what they accused Jesus of... and Jesus warned them they were in danger of committing the unpardonable sin? That is, they were calling the Holy Spirit of God performing works in this world, "an act of evil spirits". Great blaspheme.

Instead of the "body of Christ" it turned into a witch-hunt... even the preacher was not immune, and was fired.

The question is, how can they hear the truth, if the preacher is not even allowed to even speak, or teach the truth anymore?

So, I disassociated myself with the falsehoods of the church, and put it on Jesus Christ, the power of God, and reference material like that from Christian Book Distributors... and eventually the web, and other sources. BOOKS TAUGHT ME THE TRUTH, UNDER GOD'S GUIDANCE. Today, the way things worked out, event by event, I have my own outreach with the truth. Thousands of readers pass through every week...

Speaking the truth sometimes makes enemies. Sometimes, it changes the world. I mean, Jesus was so hated by contemporaries of the day, they murdered him, but others know, he was by birthrite, the "King of Kings".

I pray for God to show me the light of truth, and that I will never depart from it. I have faith, that God, through grace in Jesus Christ (my only teacher) will guide the way.

I believe in what you say is true and always will, because my own background with the church. I do believe that the one true teacher Jesus Christ will guide all that have faith, even if one does not tend church. I myself will not go, for the simple reason of the lies they tell. I have also done my own share of reading and found that there were other books that was never printed into the Bible as we know it. But God showed them to me so I could understand more about Him and Jesus.

Oh no.. .the Apocrypha??

They're falsehoods. Seriously, another is "The Book of Enoch" which even Jude quotes in the N.T. False teachers created those forgeries, and wanted to teach people the worship of pagan gods and fictional spirits.

Those books were thrown out of the Bible because they're forgeries and scholars know it. Enoch was mythology / a false book, FORGED to make it even sound as if it was written around the time of Adam's immediate descendents, (centuries earlier), but Scholars know the mythology is late century... written only shortly before the time of Jesus. Scholars know the book of Enoch was a forgery, a mythological falsehood... that's why those books are not contained in the Bible. Thrown out for the evil forgeries they were.

I too, have copies of the Apocrypha "Lost Books of the Bible," and the book of Enoch.

God INDEED showed you a deeper truth about the Bible, that in the latter days of Israel, they were idolators, even Solomon, the fool of fools, an adulterer, erected temples to pagan gods, in his last days he met with his downfall and (some have stated) lived like a beast...

Solomon
Solomon's downfall came in his old age. He had taken many foreign wives, whom he allowed to worship other gods. He even built shrines for the sacrifices of ...
~ jewishvirtuallibrary org/jsource/.../Solomon.html

FOR INSTANCE,

Gods and Goddesses, Pagan - dictionary definition, verses and Bible references ... The proclamation was to be made in the temples of their idols and among the people ... who "cleaned house" by destroying the shrines erected by Solomon. ...
~ biblestudytools com/.../gods-and-goddesses-pagan.html

Milton: PL Book 1 - Notes
That is, the strength of empyreal angels, virtually gods. .... The place just east of the Jerusalem temple, across the Kidron valley, often called the Mount of Olives, where Solomon erected shrines to pagan dieties like Moloch, Baal, ...
~ dartmouth edu/~milton/reading_room/.../notes.shtml

See 666 and Solomon
http://www.scribd.com/doc/6693982/666-and-Solomon

Read More »

Atheists Providing Comic Relief -- This Time Its Not Creationists Misunderstanding Science, Rather Atheists Fail To Understand Ancient Biblical Hebrew

0

This was priceless. I found it on the web today. An Atheist has exhausted his wits, and I'll give it a chuckle, a bit of time to answer and then move on to more important things. The argument provided, well, is just too amateur to take serious.



He writes,

do creationists know ANYTHING about biology?

the fruiting body of a fungus is NOT a fruit bearing tree
a spore is NOT a seed
and just because fungi are non-photosynthetic does NOT mean they were around before the sun existed!

Hmm, most people will agree, it is *smile* called a FRUITING fungi, and certainly, by all reasonable, scientific standards, pass for a "tree".


~ commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Prototaxites_Dawson1888.PNG
Hueber 2001, copied from Dawson (1888) "The Geological History of Plants". Appleton, New York, p290.

This is not the failure of a Creationist knowing "Biology," (first point, *smile*, the proper scientific field in discussion is, BOTANY, or MYCOLOGY, not "Biology," but that's beside the point), the issue is not a matter that a Creationist has failed to understand Botany, but that the Atheist has proven itself illiterate of the Hebrew language, and Biblical context.
If you want to get technical, Mycology is the study of fungi or perhaps even this question might fall under Paleobotany, the study of plant fossils (Since afterall, the organism was once classed as a conifer). Biology is the study of (animal) life. Plant biology (a. k. a. Botany) (at least once it were so) included the study of bacteria, algae, and fungi. See, Ohio University, Botany Department.

First and foremost,

That scientists chose to name the "fruiting fungi" a FRUITING fungi, is probably the best evidence of all, that even in English, it stands to reason that edible "fruit" from the fungi, is in fact its "fruit". *smile* that wasn't difficult at all.

Secondly, the fruiting fungi, ancestors of Prototaxites, were indeed trees, and called so by scientists, mistaken for about a century as a conifer. But later this primitive fossilized organism was verified to be a "Fruiting Fungi".

Thirdly, and most amusing, the Hebrew language referred to many things as "seed." As was explained early on in this blog, the Hebrew language was restricted to a few 1000 words, in contrast to the English language which contains a few million words, so in Hebrew, yes, spores would have been "seed". See excerpt below from Strong's Concordance. Even one's descendents are referred to as "Seed," whether or not the English language incorporates ten or twenty synonyms to say, "descendants," the Hebrew did not. Likewise, spores, semen, descendants, seed(in the modern sense), all are interpreted as "seed" in Hebrew.

Fourthly, Darwin's dilemma, to explain why the earth left little trace of life before the Cambrian Explosion is indeed explained by all reasonable scientific standards that (see Epoch Four vs. Epoch Five, in Genesis) sunlight was not reaching the earth for the first 3.5 billion years of Earth's history, and the fossil record was primarily vacant. Yet, despite theories by scientists which hint at a dark, damp, sunless world, such as "soft bodied organisms," and admissions that fungi and other botanical organism existing during the Precambrian, such as algae (fossil evidence spanning back as far as 3.5 billion years), where was life during that vast expanse of time? Science can not, and never will adequately explain this, except with the absence of sunlight. This dilemma raised by Charles Darwin, his contemporaries and scientists who followed him, establishes that though such organisms may not have left fossil remains, with certainty, they existed! Therefore, let it be deduced, non-photosynthetic (and soft-bodied) organisms existed before the sun began nuclear fusion, the sun (Epoch Four/Genesis) newly providing life on earth with a source for light energy/photosynthesis, and abundant proliferation of life (Epoch Five/Genesis) began. According to evolution theory itself, organisms evolve according to their environment and, would not have evolved their non-photosynthetic properties, without a cause, that being, logically, the absence of sunlight.

It is not the Creationist who lacks knowledge of Botany, but that the Atheist has failed to comprehend the fundamentals of Biblical Hebrew.

If the Biblical Hebrew meant, "spore" in contrast to "seed," we would find a Hebrew term for "spore" in Strong's Concordance. Rather, "spore" is absent. As pointed out, ancient Hebrew was absent of such a word and the word "seed" was used in Hebrew to define numerous things, including "spores".

Fifthly, to address,

"...just because fungi are non-photosynthetic does NOT mean they were around before the sun existed!"

I am attaching an image (below) which provides approximates for the current, modern day size comparisons between the sun (a gas giant) vs the cold gas giants Jupiter and Saturn. Then, note comparison to size of Earth.


From Prison Planet, where they mention ironically, "experts" fail to get even the most basic facts correct,"

Note, sidebar,

"Science Fact: "The Sun and all the planets were formed at around the same time, depending on when you define the birth of the sun. Before the Sun became as it is today it was a proto sun, which had all the elements it has now but it just had not started the nuclear reaction which fuels today's sun. As the sun started to form from the debris of the dust/particle cloud so did all the planets."

There was a major difference between Earth forming in its early stages, with ice and rock; debris compressing as gravity pulled the Earth into its final form (as Genesis states, "the earth was without form...," gravity taking its toll, leading to friction, therefore intense heat and ultimately, early Earth becoming an orb of molten rock. It must be noted, there is indeed a significant difference when comparing early Earth (composed of rock) vs a gas giant. As it is written in Genesis, God said "Let there be light," and there was light. That is, Light from hydrothermal vents to provide algae with a source of light energy.
It is feasible to suggest, (in all scientific light) that the Earth was set ablaze long before the sun. The fossil record bears testimony: Due to a lack of proliferation of animal life, yet with just enough light energy to support the spawn of simple algae and bacteria. Otherwise, the fossil record is primarily empty. Charles Darwin was not mistaken.
The sun, on the other hand, like Jupiter and Saturn would need a heavy enough compression, leading to nuclear fusion. Compression of hydrogen atoms within the core, due to gravity pressing inward. This is not heat caused from friction and compression, but completely and solely compression of gas. How long did it take the sun to reach this state? We have Earth's fossil record that tells us when sunlight was present, and when it was not. For 3.5 billion years, the fossil record is vacant, therefore, there was no sun. The question is, 4 billion years ago when the Earth was in a state of molten rock, blanketed by heavy steam... was the sun yet of size, compression enough to create the force necessary to trigger nuclear fusion? In all probabilty, the answer is NO, and again, the fossil record testifies to this! Therefore, evolution took the primarily non-photosynthetic (and soft-bodied) route. Despite the massive size of Jupiter and Saturn (both gas giants with similarities to the sun), they do not have the nuclear fusion in their core as evidenced with the sun, or you'd see these giant planets set ablaze, like nuclear bombs being detonated..., like two small suns burning in the distant heavens.
The sun, in contrast,

...that is, about 100 billion H-bombs every second!"
The Sun, Physics Department, FSU.EDU

Sixthly, the question is, do Atheists know the difference between Science and Theology? Take note and observe where he posted a question on BOTANY. Did this Atheist genuinely hope to receive an answer from a Botanist or even a Biologist under the "Religion and Spirituality" category? Is the Atheist even aware that Science and Theology are separate entities? It is not the "Creationist" who is confused, but rather, the Atheist. It can be deduced that an answer was not being sought by an actual Scientist, but the question was directed at fellow Atheists, who are not, Scientists.

Religion and Spirituality Category. Atheists are confused, and can not distinguish between philosophy and empirical science today.

Let the words of Charles Darwin address this problem of Atheists who confuse thier religion, with the field of Science. Unlike Atheists, Darwin was a Scientist who did indeed distinguish a clear difference between Science and Religion:

"...I am a strong advocate for free thought on all subjects, yet it appears to me (whether rightly or wrongly) that direct arguments against christianity and theism produce hardly any effect on the public; & freedom of thought is best promoted by the gradual illumination of men's minds, which follow from the advance of science. It has, therefore, always been my object to avoid writing on religion, & I have confined myself to science..." and, "I may, however, have been unduly biased by the pain which it would give some members of my family , if I aided in any way direct attacks on religion.— I am sorry to refuse you any request..."
~ Charles Darwin, refusing dedication of an Atheist publication to his name.

Science and Theology, are two independent fields of study, separated, like the east is to the west. The man was a genius. Or perhaps, possibly a simple man like myself who asked simple questions, and exercised a thing in short supply these days: COMMON SENSE, which militant, religious Atheists (who go to Category:RELIGION, for answers on Mycology and Botany), need more of.

Seventh, and lastly: Do you realize how frustrating it is, to read Atheists mindlessly attacking Christians (amounting to nothing more than good old fashioned prejudice and religious bigotry of their own); because they have been brainwashed to believe the lie, that Faith=Lesser intellect. I have an IQ of 129. In fact, I feel quite confident that I'm by far more educated than the average atheist, therefore I strongly resent the stereotype.

Read More »

The Mosaic Law vs. The Ten Commandments - The Power of God's Spirit in Truth and Holiness

0

Tonight I saw evidence of the power of God's Holy Spirit. My son is setting in the backseat of the car, and blurts out he wants to learn the Ten Commandments, from the Bible.
Sure enough, he got home and cracked open his Bible, found the scriptures himself, and began reading them. He comprehends the meaning of the Commandments...
It's written in Scripture, through Jesus Christ, they will be taught by God (in the book of Hebrews).

I can not teach him. and, The religious establishment can not teach him (as it was in Jesus' day, when Jesus came teaching the Commandments of God in contrast to the law of Moses (613 Commandments! - ridiculous), was as Jesus put it about their traditions, having made the commandments of God of "no effect".
For instance, Moses, being a man, and having no regard for the interests of women, re-wrote the law to permit divorce (in the interest of males), but Jesus rebuked them saying it was not so from the beginning and further teaching those men, not to even look at another woman or be guilty of adultery.

As you may gather, I do not attend a church. I trust in God to teach me. Occasionally God will use a person, to deliver a truth, but ultimately Jesus is the only "teacher" I need (his testimony), and God's Holy Spirit.

I was so proud of my son. The religious establishment (a lie even relatives will preach at me), "You can't understand the Bible without a preacher." ha ha ha, that's a lie, and is in contradiction of the very reason Jesus died.
The wicked priesthood of the day, had lead the people into sin, and away from God. Most theologians know the significance of the torn veil on the temple at the time of the death of Jesus, (it was an act of divinity due to its size and weight). A giant rip in the veil, which could have only been done by the power of God, and beyond the ability of a human. Ripped from top to bottom. That torn veil meant that any human could then come into the presence of God's Holy Spirit. Before that time, only the High Priest could on the highest holy day. They wore bells on their garments in case they were struck dead (God searching the Priest's heart and mind for impurity). If the bells stopped ringing, there was a rope on the priest to drag him out from behind the veil.

Therefore, it is no small matter to be taken lightly, that any person is even allowed the great liberty, freedom and privelege that we have as true Christians, to enter into the presence of God, and taught personally by God in the precious spirit of truth.

Also, even as a sinner, I can enter into the presence of God, without fear -- in fact, as Jesus taught, the Kingdom of God is within... not here or there, not at a church that sits on a hill, not in Jerusalem: The Kingdom of God, where God's chosen obey the Commandments of God, and are sanctified as a "Holy People," it is within, and the promise to write his Ten Commandments on the heart and mind.

I'm not meaning to sound fanatic religious... but I find the subject of theology of great fascination. When I look at the church, I am sorely disillusioned that they are no longer teaching the truth. But, it was written there would come a "great falling away". As it was in the day of Moses...God told them "Do not commit adultery," and some men up and decided, "well... hmmm, I want to commit adultery... the woman I'm with isn't exciting enough anymore... I need some thrills."
So, bit by bit, piece by piece, they began falling away from the Commandments, one sin at a time. By the time Jesus arrived, centuries later, the corrupt Priesthood didn't even recognize the Commandments of God anymore.

There's Christians telling me Jesus did away with the Word of God. LOL. Sure... save it for God on the day of Judgment. Those Christians have no knowledge of the distinction between,

1. Ten Commandments of God vs.
   
2. Mosaic Law (613 silly man-made cultural laws devised by Moses and the Hebrew people, i.e., if a woman doesn't bleed on her wedding night -- stone her brains out).

Anyway, I was so pleased to see the power of God's spirit move in my young son, to pick up the Bible on his own, proceed to find the scriptures in Exodus, and read it himself -- it was God teaching him. I was... amazed.

Read More »

Genesis and the Fossil Record

0

I have looked up the term "plant" in Strong's Concordance.
The first time that Hebrew term for "plant" appears, is in Genesis 2:5 and distinguishes "herbs" from "plants".

Medical Toxicology of Natural Substances.
Foods, Fungi, Medicinal ... Apr 8, 2009 ... Toxicology of Natural Substances—Foods, Fungi,. Medicinal Herbs, Plants, and Venomous Animals, by Donald G. Barceloux, efficiently fills ...
doi wiley com/10.1002/anie.200902139

So I'm to assume the Hebrew terms distinguish "plants" as quite different from "herbs". In Science, herbs are defined as a vegetation with medicinal characteristics.

What is interesting here, is the fossil record establishes true "plants" did not exist in the earliest fossil record. They were a latter introduction into the fossil record. "Plant" is not mentioned in Genesis 1:11. I tend to rely on the King James version. Other translations appear to be prejudiced, (interpreting the Hebrew without any comprehension of the fossil record).

This small point, too, correlates within the time frame /fossil record.

King James Bible (Genesis 1:11)
And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

vs.

King James Bible (Genesis 2:5)
And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.

I stand by the opening chapters of the Bible as being in beautiful harmony with Science, however, as the Hebrew people fell away from the Commandments, from truth (God and the Prophets rebuked the Hebrews continually until the day God destroyed Israel), taken captive with no remembrance of them, while Judah was scattered among the nations and known by name only), as they fell farther and farther from grace -- I'm not surprised if they fell to a state of darkness and ignorance.

Would God share science, or any knowledge, with a people who refused to obey the simple Ten Commandments? Therefore if the latter books are riddled with superstition and ignorance, I am not amazed. God closed off the Bible (the book of Revelation), with the mythology they worshiped and loved so dearly.

Read More »

Was Charles Darwin an Atheist or a Christian?

0

"...I emphasize and re-emphasize, strict, unadulterated, uncompromised _Science_ which the schools are trying their damndest to teach. But between the ignorance of Atheists pawning lies like the feathered dinosaur myths (which Dr. Feduccia came out blasting in media) and Creationists outright denying and distorting science....... science can't get a fair hearing."

So scientists have observed a seemingly "random" scheme of things, that plants and animals "evolved" some without any "purpose" behind them... leading to a dead end and extinction? 95% of all species which ever lived went extinct? ATHEISTS! Please point out where either term, "Create" or "Design," even appear in the text of Genesis! God commanded the Earth to bring forth.. and to your human eye, would appear just as it was observed by Darwin, living organisms emerging on the Earth... transforming "after their kind," -- species going extinct, whilst others surviving. Well, out the window goes "intelligent design" because the word "design" appears no where within those verses. Does it??

Genesis 1:11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth (tender) grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
Genesis 1:12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
Genesis 1:13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.

THAT INCLUDES THE ATTACKS ON CHARLES DARWIN.



Despite the ceaseless flood of hate and attacks, Darwin never reduced himself to making attacks on religion out of respect for his family. The man was a paleontologist and avoided "religion". They battle to this day, trying to know whether or not the man was an atheist or christian.
HE WAS A SCIENTIST. As much as it may pain some, he avoided the subject of religion altogether.

"...I am a strong advocate for free thought on all subjects, yet it appears to me (whether rightly or wrongly) that direct arguments against christianity and theism produce hardly any effect on the public; & freedom of thought is best promoted by the gradual illumination of men's minds, which follow from the advance of science. It has, therefore, always been my object to avoid writing on religion, & I have confined myself to science..." and, "I may, however, have been unduly biased by the pain which it would give some members of my family , if I aided in any way direct attacks on religion.— I am sorry to refuse you any request..."
~ Charles Darwin, refusing dedication of an Atheist publication to his name.

He made the scientific observation of the literal, black and white text, in Genesis epoch three. God commanded THE EARTH to bring forth... and THE WATERS to bring forth, it does not say nor imply "design". God maintained a hands off policy with exception of some limited fine-tuning of surviving species..

"...I emphasize and re-emphasize, strict, unadulterated, uncompromised _Science_ which the schools are trying their damndest to teach. But between the ignorance of Atheists pawning lies like the feathered dinosaur myths (which Dr. Feduccia came out blasting in media) and Creationists outright denying and distorting science....... science can't get a fair hearing."

Read More »

Atheists attack... for observing and speaking, a scientific truth

0

Just a note of interest. I saw on Google where an atheist forum was attacking me, and for what? I'm innocent. Because I made an observation based on a scientific fact? Oh crucify me for speaking the truth! Non-photosynthetic fungi (which do bear seed[spores] in them, have fruit[the fruiting fungi variety] etc., and have been found in "tree" form.) Their comment was something like, "What else will they have up their sleeve?" who is this "they" which they speak of? Excuse me, but I don't have anything "up my sleeve" unless that's a mighty big sleeve, because I couldn't explain the riddle of Genesis with the fossil record! Then I prayed to God to reveal the answer. Within a couple hours I was lead to Prototaxites,

Prehistoric Mystery Organism Verified As Giant Fungus
Prototaxites has generated controversy for more than a century. Originally classified as a conifer, scientists later argued...
~ sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/04/070423080454.htm


~ commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Prototaxites_Dawson1888.PNG
Hueber 2001, copied from Dawson (1888) "The Geological History of Plants". Appleton, New York, p290.

...and a book accompanying it on edible foods, explaining a fruiting fungi is non-photosynthetic, with spores that act like seed, and can be eaten. I was in disbelief.

Extract from Foods and feeds - Google Books Result, by Dilip K. Arora, K. G. Mukerji, Elmer H. Marth - 1991 - Science - 621 pages:


My view is not like "them" (the old "us" vs. "them" of paranoid Atheist hatemongers who have a religion of their own to pawn on the masses so they can destroy the U.S. and other nations, just like they brought the USSR to its knees in poverty, warfare, genocide, famine of millions... hardly "science" at work. I am not "religious," and my view is this, unlike creationists, I SAY, stick to strict, unadulterated, uncompromised science... and keep religion out of the classroom. Every truth which scientists have discovered, will explain the verses in Genesis. Not vis versa.

Meanwhile, with that understanding in mind that Epoch Three speaks of non-photosynthetic fungi like ancestors to Prototaxites, and at best, Algae which derived photosynthetic energy directly from hydrothermal vents (explaining Darwin's dilemma why 3.5 billion years of "nothing" in the fossil record, for lack of the sun's light energy). Soft organisms (suited to a dark, damp world at best).

Well, if it were actually "24 hour days" spoken of in Genesis -- why then non-photosynthetic organisms? Why not "create" modern plants that depend on sunlight? Would young earth creationists try to convince me, that a modern tree or any other modern plant couldn't withstand one night in the dark, approx. 12 hours, without light, until the next day...

Therefore, its easily deduced that Hebrew word "Yowm" is implying an indefinate period of time, an epoch, and not a literal 24 hour day. It's written in Genesis itself, "for times, seasons," wasn't even set until Epoch four, with the introduction of light from the heavens. Time did not even exist until Hebrew word, "Yowm" (Epoch) Four. It does not say the heavenly orb was created, but rather light itself, (photosynthesis), and thus providing a way to measure time.
"Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years" (Genesis 1:14)

God does not measure time on man's terms, period.

If it were a 24 hour day, could not young earther's modern angiosperms, survive through just one night without dying? Obviously, the riddle is solved by non-photosynthetic fungi (true to the fossil record). And that implies it was (true to science) millions of years in darkness. Modern photosynthetic plants, would've quickly went extinct in the environment described in Genesis Epoch Three. Only algae, fungi(herb) and organisms like Prototaxites (fruiting fungi trees) could've survived in that harsh environment of early earth. It can_not be a 24 hour day.

I am saying, (unlike Creationists and zealot Atheist hatemongers) for religion not to interfere with Science, because religion can't even properly teach the Bible (that includes Atheists who regularly take text of the Bible, completely out of context), but would be so arrogant as to attempt interpreting Science... a completely unrelated realm of knowledge!

Religion(including Atheism) mix with science like oil and water.

Read More »

Observations of Science and Introduction of Agriculture Genesis 2:5

0

New American Standard:
"Now no shrub of the field was yet in the earth, and no plant of the field had yet sprouted, for the LORD God had *not sent rain upon the earth, and there was no man to cultivate the ground."

(And as I've explained, * there are some regions on Earth which do not see a drop of rain for months, possibly years, if never.) Some former-oceanic terrain, is over geologic time, turned to dry desert. Dr. Philip Gingerich is one of the first to testify of "whales" found in "The Desert," Science Fiction? No, science fact:

"Forty million years ago a vast area of the northern part of the Egyptian Western Desert was nothing but a sea. The whole of Fayoum was submerged; it was part of the Tethys Sea. In reality, Tethys Sea was so enormously big that some scholars call it Tethys Ocean rather than sea. When it finally receded, it formed what we know today as the Aral, Caspian and Black seas. In its bluish- green water dwelled creatures that evolved and survived or did not and became extinct. One of the biggest inhabitants of the ancient sea was Zeuglodon, the famous whale of Fayoum."
~ http://arabenvironment.net/archive/2007/4/205266.html

It seems so difficult for some to explain the context for "After Their Kind," but Genesis uses the same Evolutionary Terms, as in "Every Plant of the Field Before it grew" and "Every Herb of the Field Before It," is translated by others as saying, "No plant in the field had sprouted" ... as in THEY HAD NOT EVOLVED YET, for, there was not a man with skills in Agriculture.

King James Bible:
"And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground."

Lettuce History
Lettuce probably evolved from a wild species which is still extant called Lactuca serriola. It is very bitter. The Ancient Egyptians grew Lettuce..."
www.practicallyedible.com/edible.nsf/Pages/lettuce

Lactuca serriola, the ancestor of lettuce.

There were many nomadic humans, but no farmers.

The primitive man of Epoch Six was given what to eat?
"...I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat."

But no cabbage, no broccoli, no cauliflower...
Early hominids and primitive man, were vegetarian, and lived nomadically gathering fruits, edible roots, leafs. It does not mention anything of Lettuce, Tomatos, String Beans and all the foods which modern man has cultivated.

Take a look at the conclusion of Science, and the typical dogmatic Atheist who latches on without any knowledge of Biblical text. A poignant observation, but too little, too late, because Genesis was stating the very same thing, thousands of years ago :

"...There is not a third-rate intelligence on earth that could not, after ten minutes' contemplation, devise a better scheme of things. Man's life is largely consumed in improving his surroundings and adjusting the blunders of nature. Daily, hourly, he must employ his wits to untangle the snares of unthinking nature. It would take an intelligence below the level of a moron to carry on evolutionary processes as commonly observed. It has taken evolution, unguided by intelligence, countless ages to develop the simple, unattractive flower known as the wild rose. Evolution, with man's intelligence behind it, has, in a relatively short period of time, changed this simple flower, by artificial selection, into the glorious, multi-petalled American Beauty. That was intelligence behind evolution. Man has not only produced new species of flowers from wayside weeds, but given scent to odorless lilies and eliminated the thorns from raspberry and blackberry bushes. He has been able to evolve a spineless cactus, which, breeding true, now furnishes the desert with food for cattle. He has, by applying his intelligence to evolution, done in a short period of time that which evolution might have accomplished only after millions of years - or never at all. He has speeded up those processes which, under natural evolution, drag along hopelessly or reach an ultimate utility only after thousands of failures and unfavorable adaptations."
From "Evolution Implies Atheism"
"Essays of an Atheist", The Truth Seeker, 1945 by Woolsey Teller

Genesis is Evidence for Science

That's right. Thousands of years before Science, a "Holy" source was documenting the same things about how man cultivated modern food...
But Atheists(Anti-Theists) will deny truth because they hate truth. Creationists will deny what's written in Genesis, because they hate Science. But its in the Bible.
As Gandhi said, a truth is a truth, even if you're a minority of One... as in One, God. And both extremist factions will deny what's spelled out in black and white text, out of stubborn arrogance (oh how awful, Genesis beat science to the discovery) and the other, vain, arrogant, pride (because they were wrong, and they know they're wrong).
When man tries to deny the truth of God, or tries to usurp God's authority... well, (also Gandhi said) the only devils we need to fear, are the ones running around in our own hearts.

It seems so difficult for some to explain the context for "Earth brought forth herbs... After Their Kind," and "Waters brought forth creatures.. after their kind," but Genesis uses the same Evolutionary Terms, as in "Every Plant of the Field Before it grew" and "Every Herb of the Field Before It," is translated by others as saying, "No plant in the field had sprouted" ... as in THEY HAD NOT EVOLVED YET, for, there was not a man with knowledge of Agriculture, to cultivate farming.

Farming became tradition, with the introduction of Agriculture in Mesopotamia, and the skills spread throughout the ancient world. In other words, though God may have had a "hands off policy" for much of the account in Genesis 1 (commanding the Earth and Waters to bring forth...) IT WAS MAN who actually "created" these foods.

Read More »

Snake found with a full limb (Attaching the photo of snake with claw)

3

Atheists have latched on to this poor cursed creature with one remnant hind limb, as if it were "walking". Far from it, and how geneticists have established the snake will NEVER walk again.


The picture says _everything_ anyone need know. When God "curses" -- don't underestimate the implications. Meant exactly what's written in literal black and white.

Snake with foot found in China
A snake with a single clawed foot has been discovered in China, according to reports.

Already this information is being used by Atheist(Anti-Theist) hatemongers to say,

The book of Genesis FAIL. A snake in China grew one of it’s legs back.

They will scoff as they may, but I have already explained vestigial appendages on snakes, and why the snake will never walk again.

While humans may regain tails,

While cetaceans may sprout the bud of a hind limb...

While Pythons continue to retain spurs from their past life...
the snake shall NEVER walk again. The HOX GENE shift moved the body plan forward where it can not and will not grow forelimbs.

So, according to the science of Genetics, all the days of the snake' evolutionary future, it will inevitably -- go on its belly, and while slithering around on the ground to attack its prey, rolling around and around to asphyxiate and/or retain its victim in its clutches, they will get dust[dirt] on their prey... therefore, do indeed EAT DUST[dirt].

Now, if anyone finds a sea serpent that has re-evolved all four limbs again,... lol, share that please! I'll be open to the enlightenment.

Again, for posterity, I don't see that snake "walking" on four limbs... does anyone else?

God=Science, or either, God just isn't "God". YEC tend to deny Science, therefore, have denied knowledge and God will reject them. (Hosea 4:6)

---

Comments

An Atheist, pretending to be a Christian (how sad), left a new comment:

"...oh, and the photo is obviously photoshopped. those guys just wind you idiots up and watch you...you guys just show yourselves as ignorant fools."

Hmmm, how interesting Mr. Atheist. You claim the snake with the claw found in China, is a "photoshopped" sensationalist fiction. Even if it is by any chance a fictional story, it does _not_ invalidate a word I said about vestigial limbs in snakes, nor does it change the fact that AN ATHEIST used the same story/photograph, believing the story entirely to claim "snakes" are walking!! So I guess Atheists are credulous wind-up buffoons too? Thanks for pointing out the one-sided hypocrisy, because here it is:

"The book of Genesis FAIL. A snake in China grew one of it’s legs back.

And what does that prove? That the snake is walking??! Of course not. The book of Genesis did not "fail" because a snake regains a leg or not. The fact is, that science has established snakes are not "walking," period, and never will walk again.

The Atheist pretending to be a Christian, adds this too:

"...is all that remains on them of limbs. it is impossible for the mutation of a gene to cause a snake to grow a fully formed limb...because of the sheer number of genes involved in the process of making a limb (no, it isn't one gene that 'makes legs')

Intermission: Citing Herpetologist (reptile expert) Lenny Flank, who wrote: "there was a change in one of the HOX genes that shifted the body plan forward a bit... Since, genetically, front limbs appear right where the cervical vertebrae begin, snakes can't have front limbs."

Continue...

and the fact that the animal lost limbs so many millions of years ago (before mesozoic era) that those genes for the formation of full limbs no longer exist in ANY snakes dna. yes. i am earning interest on the mind god gave me, because somebody has to actually minister to intelligent people every once in a while. you guys go convert the dumb. you will win numbers, and that is good. but in your ignorace you will turn some away- i'm not willing to have that on my head.

Sure you are, Atheist. Also, I really don't believe the Atheist understood a word I wrote. #1, to this day, humans may not have tails (like monkeys do), but humans certainly do retain and carry genes to grow them, and on a rare occasion, do re-grow tail remnants. Also, cetaceans (whales and dolphins) still posess genes for hind limbs, observed in wild and the laboratory, and on occasion fishermen have caught such creatures. There's a vast difference between a) not having an appendage and yet carrying the gene to re-grow those limbs vs. b) not having an appendage due to an actual shift in HOX Gene expression. As in the case of fossilized snakes. Snakes do not fossilize well, period. Therefore, it is unknown to scientists, exactly when snakes lost the ability to grow forelimbs. That's the mistake they make when discussing forelimb loss in snakes. Just because a snake doesn't have the limbs (millions of years ago), did not mean the genes were absent.
As for the number of genes, oh well, I was citing the ATHEIST Herpetologist, who wrote: "there was a change in one of the HOX genes that shifted the body plan forward a bit..." Ole Lenny happens to be a Herpetologist and probably knows his snake genetics better than an angry, frustrated Atheist pretending to be a Christian.

LENNY FLANK WRITES: "As an aside, we now know, from genetic analysis, why snakes don't have vestigial FRONT limbs. During the evolutionary appearance of snakes, there was a change in one of the HOX genes that shifted the body plan forward a bit. As a result, snakes now have no neck vertebrae --- they are all thoracic and abdominal. Since, genetically, front limbs appear right where the cervical vertebrae begin, snakes can't have front limbs. The vestigial rear limbs appear where the abdominal vertebrae meet the tail. As photos show, the tail of a snake is extremely short. So, even though a snake LOOKS like it is all neck or all tail, in reality, it is all body."
Creation "Science" Debunked
My Reptile Page

Scientists do not know when snakes lost the ability to grow forelimbs. In the evolutionary history of snakes, the loss of the genetic information occurred at some time or another and they don't know when... they would need actual fossilized tissue of snakes to analyse the DNA to know exactly "when". Sorry, that is not available. Just because snakes did not grow forelimbs, did not automatrically mean, they didn't possess the genes to regrow forelimbs! Big difference. To this day, many creatures are absent of limbs, yet still carry genes that lay dormant. Until this day, snakes retain genes to sprout hind limbs, even though they haven't grown them in millions of years... just as some birds retain genes to grow teeth. There is no scientific "evidence" from genetics that millions of years ago, snakes "lost" any gene, just simply, they stopped growing forelimbs and hindlimbs. The loss of limbs vs. genetic information, are two very different issues. This shift in the Hox Gene, may have occured 100 thousand years ago, even a million... or it could've happened only about 10,000 years ago, like it is stated in the book of Genesis.

Last but not least, but here's outright denial of what's written in black and white text by this person, pretending to be a Christian :

ok. 1. no snake in the garden. come on. we know that this was passed down orally for hundreds of years before the hebrews and others ever developed writing. but for the sake of argument, the animal 'snake' was not itself cursed. the snake was already a snake.

Quoting the "Curse on the Serpent" : The serpent in Genesis is clearly a serpent, "the shrewdest beast of the field that the Lord God had made," and it was cursed to crawl on its belly and eat dirt "all the days of its life," and was understood to be a serpent by ancient Hebrews according to even the Evangelical Christian Wheaton College professor of Old Testament, Walton, who wrote the NIV APPLICATION COMMENTARY on GENESIS (2002), available at any major Christian bookstore.
Serpent figures were common in the ancient world, and the description in Genesis of the serpent being stepped on and biting the heel of the seed of woman is merely a generic description of conflict. Hardly proof of anything. Consider Genesis, chapter 49 when Jacob blesses his children before his death, part of his blessing to Dan in verse 17 is: "May Dan be a snake beside the road, a viper by the path, that bites the heels of the horse so that its rider falls backward," (NET Bible). The generic term for serpent, "nahash," is used here (just as in Genesis when the "nahash" spoke to Eve). Most commentators believe that the serpent image in this passage is positive since this is a blessing. Dan, though a small tribe, will be as shrewd as a serpent, able to bite its enemies' heels so that they are defeated.
[NET Bible, 131, note no. 6; Sailhamer, 278; Henry, 92; The Wycliffe Bible Commentary, 46; H. C. Leupold, Leupold on the Old Testament. Vol. 2, Exposition of Genesis (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House and The Wartburg Press, 1942), 1188-1189]"

...the devil was cursed and told that he would remain in that form of the animal he took and would therefore be cursed to crawl on his stomach, get his head stomped, etc...just like all the oither snakes were doing before he appeared in the garden in that form. the devil was cursed, not the snake.

No where does the term "devil," "satan," "evil spirit" or any such superstitious garble appear in the Garden of Eden account. It states "beast of the field," implying the serpent.

jesus people. jesus is going to be expecting more than what he gave you when he returns, and our most valuable talent is our minds- too afraid to use it 'cause you thought that massa was a hard man, so you bury it in the dirt? i think when god returns or we get to him (whichever first) you are going to be some shocked people, because it isn't even close to what you have been duped into beleiving by guys like Gish, etc. they'd be better off having a swim with a millstone necktie than having spout out the garbage they have (knowingly, mind you) in order to try to defend their faith. oh yes. Jesus will demand interest on his loans.

Sure. Okay. You say.

"Hard Sayings of the Bible", (Intervarsity Press)


The demon and satan babble has got to end. It's the very same idolatry that lead to God destroying Israel and Judah.

Solomon's Idolatry (Excerpt from scribd.com)

Read More »

What Science has done for Science, Or, Why Charles Darwin felt Atheism was Completely Useless

0

For certain persons of the Anti-Theist persuasion, who take pleasure in the delusion that "Atheism" has any way contributed to science? If this were so, where were the "Atheist Physicians, Physicists, Biologists, Chemists, etc.," 5,000 and 10,000 years ago? Before the time of Christ. Where is all the "Atheist" science achievements? If Atheism were truly "intellectual" as it claimed, we should have achieved human immortality in all this time, and paradise by now!

"...rapid increase in scientific progress with the introduction of atheism into society..."

Atheist propaganda, without any substance of truth in it. The first, true Atheistic experiment was the Paris Commune which lead to the immediate slaughter of people of religion, which was followed by another disastrous Atheist experiment in Russia, which would see around 50 million massacred, by the time Satan Stalin was murdered by his staff who couldn't stand his paranoid died of natural causes. Between that time, the disastrous experiment in Spain, China, and elsewhere, leading to genocide, widespread famine, poverty, warfare and human suffering.

Does this look like "Science" to you?

Because it sure doesn't look like Science to me.

Under Atheist Mao's regime, in the so-called "Great Leap Forward," 25,000,000 citizens starved to death due to idiotic political policies created by the Atheist ruling party. That is, Twenty Five Million. This is not counting the insane policies of Lenin (Five Million starvation victims) or the insane policies of Stalin (7 million between the short time span, of merely 1932-1933). Yet, Atheists boast that all progress is due to "introduction of atheism into society".

"...it appears to me (whether rightly or wrongly) that direct arguments against christianity and theism produce hardly any effect on the public; & freedom of thought is best promoted by the gradual illumination of men's minds, which follow from the advance of science. It has, therefore, always been my object to avoid writing on religion, & I have confined myself to science..."
- Charles Darwin, refusing dedication of his name in an Atheist publication,
http://friendsofdarwin.com/articles/2000/marx/

#1. "it appears to me (whether rightly or wrongly) that direct arguments against christianity and theism produce hardly any effect on the public"

Mr. Darwin did not say, the scientific illiteracy of Atheism "illuminates" and "opens the mind" .. if Mr. Darwin felt for one moment that Anti-Theist rabble-rousing had a "positive effect," he would've surely said so, but rather, Mr Darwin said, "Direct arguments/attacks on religion produce hardly any effect on the public." Therefore, Mr. Darwin saw no benefit, nor positive effect to be gained from Atheism (which belongs put away in a corner with philosophy... which is completely useless!) Mr. Darwin proceeds to separate himself from Atheism, by saying he AVOIDS writing on Religion. Yes, indeed Mr. Darwin distinguishes a clear difference between Atheist rabble-rousing hatemongering and genuine Science.

#2. "...freedom of thought is best promoted by the gradual illumination of men's minds, which follow from the advance of science."

Mr. Darwin did not say, "illumination of men's minds follows the advance of atheist rabble-rousing and hatemongering." Instead, Mr. Darwin made it abundantly clear, "illumination of men's minds follows the advance of SCIENCE," Did Mr. Darwin say Atheism leads to human progress? No, he did not. Mr. Darwin said SCIENCE alone, leads to human progress... not, ignorant foam at the mouth atheist bigotry and hatemongering. In fact, Mr. Darwin seems to indicate in his statement, that while atheism has zero positive effect on the public, Science does have a positive effect.

Therefore, Mr. Darwin's legacy to the world is, Atheism is completely useless and worthless in any relationship to "Science".

#3 "..therefore, always been my object to avoid writing on religion, & I have confined myself to science..."

Mr. Darwin clearly separated himself from all worthless philosophical areas (such as anti-theism and religion which are completely unrelated to Science) and has confined himself to *Science*. If Mr. Darwin had earnestly felt Atheism had anything to do with "Science," then why does he emphasize he has no desire for entanglements in such philosophical areas, With an emphatic "AVOID WRITING ON RELIGION,". Obviously, Darwin feels that ATHEISM BELONGS CLASSED AMONG RELIGION, and in his life work and experience arrived to the conclusion: Atheism is completely worthless in regard to Scientific progress.

It can be deduced that Charles Darwin felt,
1. Science alone, has the power to enlighten and illuminate the human mind.
2. Atheism, is completely useless.

Read More »

What Does In The Image of God Mean?

0

I salvaged this conversation from youtube, during a conversation on what "the image of God" may mean, thought I'd share for anyone seeking possible answers. Some of the comments are no longer in their original posted order, which may explain if some of the comments seem out of sync with the conversation.

November 18, 2009...

Ferdinand Lasalle. I learned of him in Henry C. Sheldon, 1895, "History of the Christian Church." Sheldon mentions embrace of mild socialist reforms, by Bismarck/German Empire and denunciation of Marxism which demands terrorism and worldwide revolution. Complete meltdown of civilzation. Socialism began with good intent, and corrupted by anti-Christ Marx. Marx' parasitical followers began putting posters of Lasalle w/Marx, to create the false impression Lasalle supported Marx, LEECHING off Lasalle's success.

Aside of Lasalle's success being preyed on, Darwin was also victimized. Gaining widespread notoriety among scientists (I've read Catholics have no problem with Evolution) Marx tried wedging into Darwin's success. See friendsofdarwin.com/articles/2000/marx/. Darwin refused request for dedication in an Anti-Theist book. Darwin would not associate with Atheist bigots. MARXISTS BEGAN PRINTING POSTERS OF MARX' BOOK ON TOP OF DARWIN AND LASALLE, tho Darwin/Lasalle both had denounced atheist bigotry.

"I've read Catholics have no problem with Evolution"

And I read somewhere that L. Ron Hubbard wasn't crazy. lol..

I can tell you that in My Diocese, Karl Marx, Darwin or Evolution are NOT looked upon with kind eyes. We teach from the Gospel, no not the Catholic Bible but from The King James Version. Mass is completely centered on the Bible from the readings to the homily. I don't think most Protestants understand Catholicism and it's a shame because it contains allot of Christian history.

Perhaps then, SOME Catholics are accepting. NC-PBS Evolution: Triumph of an Idea (Carl Zimmer), the Bishop featured to represent Catholicism seemed to feel Evolution was not a problem. For me too, I do not see contradiction. After years of publishing among Darwinists, then converting to Christianity, I went through Genesis 1 verse by verse, and it aligns in perfect chronology with all that science has discovered, including solutions to serious mysteries, i.e., the Cambrian Explosion.

My Darwinist compadres were aghast when I provided concrete evidence, AMG KJV Study Bible, states "attempts to join the biblical account of creation and evolution are not supportable... because the order of creation is in direct opposition to modern science (e.g., the creation of trees before light.)"
-- DO WHAT??
I knew this was a LIE. In fact, the elusive "tree" in Genesis was discovered, Prototaxites. Not angiosperms (flowering), but spores(seed) non-photosynthetic, fruiting fungi 'tree'.

So in essence, if I'm following you correctly, you accept the ideas of people like Cormac Murphy-OConnor?

Heyyyy, that's an insult.

"...During this time it was brought to his attention that a priest, Michael Hill, was a child sexual abuser. Instead of reporting Hill to the police, Murphy-O'Connor allegedly allowed the crime to be covered up..."

I found an article by this person Murphy-O-Connor. He has very little understanding of Science or Genesis.

HE WRITES: "It is a mistake to treat the theology of creation in the Book of Genesis as a scientific textbook."

Hmm.. after years publishing in thick of Darwinists and sometimes peer review of variegated scientists -- I converted to Christianity.

I can only say after all I had learned from science, I read Genesis verse by verse. And, interpreted so, it is SPOTLESS modern science!

No. I do not accept Connor's views. He has no understanding of Science or Genesis.

To make a long story short:
Science teaches earth once was "without form and void". Science teaches plant_ancestors arrived first (algae, fungi, etc).

Most profound truth of all. Science teaches that animal life began in the water and emerged on land. That's precisely what Genesis 1:20 says. God said, "Let the waters bring forth the moving creature."
etc

Genesis is identical chronology w/fossil record.

Ok, cool. My apologies. I thought your views ran somewhat parallel with his. I do see where your coming from now though.
I'm a white Catholic (1/4 Iroquois) but the rest is Euro. I see the depictions society has produced of Jesus or Adam and Eve for that matter and I know they're probably not right. I cannot bring myself to toss out history i.e. time and places of origin. I don't think anyone really has a clue what God looks like. So, did he model Adam and Eve entirely of himself? Or

God is spirit. When I checked the KJV footnotes, I found something very interesting compared to other interpretations (especially Atheist) . . it is written, God said "Let us make man in our image...." and I had to ask what "us" means. In the footnotes, it states (Heb.)"plural, majesty" -- and the "us" is followed by "male and female (plural) created he them".

So in God's image, both male and female.
Sadly, some have tried to teach woman could not be in the image of God...

did he just give free will to the Adam and Eve? What does "in his likeness really mean" I know God didn't create a monkey after his likeness because then that would collide with the evolution of that mammal. I think these questions can only be answered by God. I believe that there is allot missing from the Bible and the New Testament as far as preciseness is concerned. Which is understandable giving the age of such writings. Also, is the Bible Vague on purpose?

Do we really think we could ever understand what God really looks like or sounds like. I don't think so. If we did know these things, that would leave God open to judgment and we know thats not gonna happen.

It was my conclusion, after reading the scripture, where it says let (us=plural majesty) create man in our image, male and female (plural) created he them...

I believe the very words that follow after "in our image," is the explanation:

... Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth...

I still cannot say for sure what exactly "in our image" or "In his Likeness" exactly details. We have God in us but how much is to exact detail? I'm not sure we can ever truly understand the magnificence of God as earthly beings. I would suppose the quick and easier answer would be that Cro Magnons and the Sons of God reproduced at sometime. Sometimes The easiest answer is the right answer but we are talking about very complex issues here that have been discussed for thousands of years.

Scientists research for signs of animals using "tools". Evidence of intellect that sets man apart from animals.
Man had already achieved great things by the time Adam was created 10,000 years ago. Cro-Magnon were the first to be true artists, leaving cave paintings of Aurochs (cattle that have long went extinct), they carved beads, and even "venus idols". But they did not know how to farm.
People were nomadic hunter-gatherers, until man learned to farm and were then able to create settlements.

Day Six or an "Epoch" (fair Hebrew usage) Heb."Yowm" does not always mean 24 hour day. That word is used often to imply indefinate period of time, i.e., "in that day you eat thereof you will surely die." But Adam lived 900 years. So it was in "epoch" usage of the word, not a 24 hour "day". Adam was created 10,000 yrs ago. In Epoch Six, humans are created. Those were the primitive, early man-kinds that paleontologists continue to find. i.e., homo erectus, sapien, neanderthal, cro magnon, etc

Genesis 1 and 2 aligns PERFECT with science. i.e., Chapter 6 mentions "man of old" (Cro-Magnons who lived 40,000-10,000 which were giant (six ft tall on average), powerful built people, Adam descendants "the sons of God" interbreeded with them.) Genesis says of Adam, there was "no man... to till the ground". He's father of Agriculture, not the first human.

Adam, was the first farmer. Scientists have known Mesopotamia is where farming began at the same time Adam is described being created. But people like O'Connor misinterpreted that it was saying Adam was the "First Human". Genesis only says, "there was no man to till the ground"

Agriculture History
Over the 10000 years since agriculture began to be developed, ..... agriculture in the Middle East was static, and Mesopotamia, for example, ...
adbio com/science/agri-history.htm

Well I definitely understand your arguments (Conclusions). I might not agree with every thing but I certainly respect your opinion.

Some gray areas are still present in me as the traditional Christian teachings collide with my God given intellect.

Speaking of the image of God.. when you read about the creation of Adam and Eve. They broke God's commandment, and partook of the knowledge of Evil. Then, they began to populate.. it is not written, "God saw that it was good," (like it was with the earliest man who lived in simplicity and did not harm anyone) but rather, "And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually."

That's modern man.

"...what exactly "in our image" or "In his Likeness" exactly details..."

The fossil record shows man rose above, and dominated the environment, above all the beasts. And "God saw that it was good". But the one thing man could not do, was farm to settle.

It is written in Genesis 2, "there was not a man to till the ground." So God created the first farmer in Mesopotamia, apprx 10,000 years ago. In God's Image? No, to do continual wickedness.
It is written, God then repents he even made man.

It was my (personal) conclusion, that in the image of God, is explained "to have dominion". Early man developed innovative tools, weapons, spears, etc., mastered his environment.

Of interest too, "I have given you every herb bearing seed...upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat."

Early hominids and humans (i.e., A. Robustus) are believed by Paleontologists to have been vegetarian (due to dentition).

Primitive man are still among us.
Descendants of Adam who took of the knowledge of evil, "their eyes were opened and knew they were naked".
There are still primitive people living to this day in jungles disconnected from modern world and lived nomadic for 10,000's of years. They run around naked, and do not have that perverse "knowledge of evil"... peacefully living as a "tribe". They still hunt and gather foods, and do not farm.

Atomic bombs, Frankenstein genetics... who's the SAVAGE?

Creationism teaches falsely that man (Adam, the fallen one who disobeyed God's commandment), was created in God's image, but it only says "there was no man to till the ground". Only primitive man was described as "in the image of God". Adam' descendants began plundering Cro-Magnon women, who's children were the same "mighty men, men of old," Nephalim, bullies. Continual wickedness; violence. God REPENTED he made man.

In the image of God? No. CRIMINAL man. Man are far more evil than monkeys.

Creationism may teach primitive man coming from apes, is... evil or unbelievable. TELL ME THEN what is so "holy" about modern man? What sets man above animals? Monkeys are better! Gorillas don't crack your skull open for a line of crack cocaine. Chimps don't sell their own mother for a dime. Orangutans don't go pedo on juveniles in the troop.
Animals only kill for food. Wicked man does it for sadistic sport... even preying on humans in the same manner.

It is written, God repented making man.

I don't always know the answers. When I converted to Christianity, I arrived at this conclusion:

Through Jesus Christ... we can read scripture, and the answers we seek will be given. "Knock, and the door will be open to you. "Seek and ye shall find."

Jesus is the only intermediator between a person, and God (The Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Truth) to provide all revelations.

So God must answer you. I cannot.

"So God must answer you. I cannot."

Thats the way I see it also.

I also understand allot has been lost in translation like you bring to attention. Take the simple word "carpenter" that describes Jesus and follow that translation all the back to when that was written. It actually means "one who works with his hands". Giving the era I would tend to think he was more of a stone layer than a carpenter. But in my experience most Christians think of him as a carpenter who built houses.

--

... that's MY belief. The false teaching that man is "holy" or somehow "morally superior" compared to monkeys... as if it were proof against Evolution? No. Genesis describes that God grieved at man's ignorance, evil and criminality. Think pedophiles, armed robbery, violent assault, etc on human nature and ask yourself, "Are chimps in your neighborhood trying to rape kids?" I'd say monkeys are morally superior to many so-called "humans". Genesis concurs, that their thoughts were continual wickedness. therefore, a massive flood was sent on Mesopotamia..

Beyond "dominating the earth"... what is left? Every wicked thing under the sun? Image of God?? NO. More evil than many animals.

Man does create God in his own image though.

On a positive note, it states further on (it is known God gave them his commandments) they refused to obey... the same wicked men... God broke Israel and Judah and scattered them throughout the Earth.. and said he would yet make a new covenant through his son, (Despite the wickedness and enmity to God), ... see John 3:16

(I've said it 1000x already), "who is the SAVAGE"? When I point out atom bombs, genocide, and other wickedness that is in the heart of man... I guess it troubles inerrantists' and their impression of man's "special" status over monkeys and other creatures. Nope, God created ape, and it was good. God created modern man, and God grieved.

I am all too familiar with the false dogma taught by the churches -- adherents mindlessly nodding their heads in agreement against human Evolution, as if man had something "so special," about him, "so morally superior," ... compared to animals. Oh, contraire! Genesis is emphatic on this! Emphatic enough, that God flooded the Mesopotamian region, wiping out the hotbed of the human failure called modern man. Followed by raining down fiery sulphur on Sodom due to their wretched treatment of people.

Those fundamentalists nodding their heads in church. When they head out the door with the Bible they never read, they'll play the devil the rest of the week... I have never figured out what makes them believe humans have any moral high ground over animals. From my personal experience, animals make better friends than most humans.

Read More »

Archaeological and Geological Evidence for Biblical Flood in Mesopotamia Was A Localized Flood And Theologians Knew This Already

0

The denial of Science by anti-Theists must end.

I'm providing copies of documentation for the following,

Evidence that theologians are very well aware of scientific criticism raised in regard to a "worldwide flood" and problems with all species on earth on a single boat, among other issues.

The actual interpretation of the original Hebrew which meant "localized" flood.

Scientists who theorize the Black Sea (brackish water) may itself have been the result of a catastrophic flood in the same region. A great flood of historic proportions that was immortalized into remembrance, through ancient mythology.

Geological evidence of a massive flood like that described in Genesis, but only exists in the region of Mesopotamia, where the book of Genesis was recorded.

Other scriptural evidence that supports what Dr. Geisler has proposed below, for the Hebrew term implying a "localized" flood

HEBREW TEXT EVIDENCE
namely, Genesis 10:2 (speaks of Japheth and descendents, spreading outward after the flood): "The sons of Japheth; Gomer, and Magog, and Madai, and Javan, and Tubal, and Meshech, and Tiras... By these were the *isles of the Gentiles divided in their lands; every one after his tongue, after their families, in their nations.

*Both Atheists and Fundamentalists are guilty of perpetually evading this question in their attempts to status quo the heck out of a "worldwide flood," perhaps in hope to discredit Genesis, but the question will not go away: Just whom does "isles of the Gentiles," refer to, and whom were these Gentiles who survived the flood?

The text clearly implies the sons of Japheth divide the land of the Gentiles, according to their tongues. So, the whole earth was not of the "same language".

Yet, in the very next chapter, Genesis 11, we see the opening verse (in supposed contradiction with Genesis 10?)
Genesis 11:1 "And the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech."

It can not be both. Needless to say, it is not both.
Skeptics might wish this faulty interpretation be perpetually propagated in their sole aim to nullify Genesis). But Dr. Geisler definitively points out, the Hebrew usage is referring to the immediate, localized region.

According to http://www.bible-history.com/isbe/I/ISLES+OF+THE+GENTILES/

"...the American Standard Revised Version "isles (margin "coast-lands") of the nations," said of the territories of the sons of Japheth. The reference is to the coasts of the Western Mediterranean, with their islands (compare "isles of the sea," Est 10:1; Ezek 26:18, etc.).

Take a look at the location of "Western Meditteranean" in contrast to the location of Mesopotamia, where actual geological evidence exists for a massive local flood. Therefore, it can be deduced the Noachian flood never actually reached the Western Meditteranean and the "Gentiles" spoken of in Genesis 10, did survive the flood.


SCRIPTURAL CRITICISM
Another item to consider is from "Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics," by Dr. Norman Geisler. Skeptics really should stop pretending they have discovered a cutting-edge line of questions to overturn theology. Dr. Geisler's commentary is ample evidence the issues have been considered long before now, by himself and other credible theologians. Whether or not the church at large is teaching these truths to mainstream Christians is another story.


Flood, Noah, Pg. 258
Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, Dr. Norman Geisler
Fourth Edition, ©1999

Christians are usually the last to be taught facts about these matters by the corrupt religious establishment, who seem to feel truth is on a "need to know" basis. Therefore I'll provide the information Pro Bono.

Note: As it were back in the dark ages of the Catholic Church's height of power, depriving the common person access to the scriptures.. at threat of death some men like Tyndall, Wycliffe, Luther and others took it upon themselves to translate and make accessible, scripture, for the common person.
How sad, with history showing brave men who sometimes suffered the fate of death for this "heresy," most Christians today, don't even read their Bibles. Was the sacrifice in vain, or is it rather that the church is guilty of convincing adherents they lack the ability to properly understand scriptures without an establishment intermediator from organized religion?
Did Jesus Christ die in vain, or is not Jesus the only intermediator between a person and God? They will be taught by God! When Christians depend on men to teach, the blind lead the blind and they both fall in the ditch.
But that's only my opinion, after becoming saved, actually reading the scriptures... and God's promise to reveal the truth to those who ask, so what could I possibly know?

Flood, Noah, Pg. 258
Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, Dr. Norman Geisler
Fourth Edition, ©1999

So why do Darwinists and Agnostics and Atheists continue to pretend these issues were never raised and acknowledged by Christian theologians? Evade as they may, this publication is dated 1999, at least a decade since its publication! Yet the same outdated arguments will continue to churn from the Darwinist side, who are perpetually in denial of the more reasonable explanations already offered by leading theologians. In my personal experience with Darwinists (those certain Agnostics who seek to shed doubts on Scripture in hopes of winning over prospective converts to Atheism) share a preference for false, misleading and outdated information, sticking with status quo controversies such as 200 year old outdated beliefs; flat earth, geocentrism and other beliefs that the majority of Christians wouldn't even have known existed... and by making arguments against such things, one may be lead to presume Christians are "less intelligent," than an Atheist, or other Ad Hominems. Dishonesty seems to be the Atheists' preferred Modus Operandi over solid, honest debate as in addressing the full spectrum of the issue, instead of perpetually cherry-picking what may be distorted to make one's side seem more "intellectual." But of course, it boils down to nothing more than intellectual dishonesty, in hopes of creating the illusion they (the Atheist) hold the monopoly on scientific truths. Doesn't every religion claim to hold the monopoly on the one true, "absolute truth"? Atheism is no different than any other religion.



The side that stands with TRUTH doesn't need to use lies, to win support... the truth stands on its own. The purpose however is more along the lines of deceitful propaganda, to create a false impression that no original thought ever enters the brain of a Christian. Character assasination, in contrast to the "intellectual, scientific discourse" they are so famed for boasting to adhere to.

BLACK SEA FORMATION THEORY

http://www.natgeochannel.co.uk/Programmes/Schedule.aspx?Id=678
National Geographic produced a special on the question of the formation of the Black Sea. This theory was proposed by two scientists who were veterans in geology and question if ancient mythologies may possibly hint at the flood described in Genesis, devastating enough to form the Black Sea.

Robert Ballard, the man who found the Titanic, ventures beneath the 'dead zone' in the Black Sea. Will he discover clues about one of the most dramatic events in the Bible?

MESOPOTAMIAN ARCHAEOLOGY AND GEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE




Reference: January 1930, National Geographic Magazine, Page 118-120

Read More »