Jesus would believe in Evolution?

[River Jordan]

Thanks for your input.

 

[Born_Again]

Okay, lets get back on track. :) This is not bringing glory to God. Perhaps this thread has run it's course. :/

 

[DogLady19]

Okay, lets get back on track. :) This is not bringing glory to God. Perhaps this thread has run it's course. :/

Thank you! I am totally ok with that...

 

[Forsakenone]

Thanks for your input.

Since nobody cared to comment on the question I posed then it is obvious that they agreed with you.

If there was a canopy of water above the earth, in order for it to remain in place and not dissipate into space, it would have to be close enough to be affected by the earth's gravity.

As far as your rejection of the water canopy theory being erroneous, I agree.

The scriptures represent that the earth [dry ground] was void [spherical without mountains or valleys] and covered under water [ice] and aboded in the darkness [no visible light]from Genesis 1:2 and associated scriptures. Taking in consideration that in Genesis 1:3 was the first step of the process which resulted in a habitable planet that begin as the light began illuminating from the celestial body we call the sun.

While there are those argue that the light that was formed in Genesis 1:3 wasn't the light emitted from the Sun, Jesus put forth this question.John 11:9-10 "9 Jesus answered, Are there not twelve hours in the day? If any man walk in the day, he stumbleth not, because he seeth the light of this world. 10 But if a man walk in the night, he stumbleth, because there is no light in him." And you will find those who claim that the Sun wasn't created until the fourth day do not comprehend what the 12 hours in a day regarded.

Thus 1/2 or 12 hours of a 24 hour day would be exposed to the light emitted from the Sun, moreover that electromagnetic forces emitted from the sun earth would not have instantaneously cause the earth to begin rotation on it axis.

However, in regards to the dividing of the watersfrom the waters as written in Gen 1:6; And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. As the light hit the surface of the frozen waters they begin to melt. Thus, in Gen 1:7 it is written, "And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so."

Being passionately interested in desalination,, even thought 71% of the earth surface is covered in water, over 95% of all water is salt water which is not suitable for human consumption unless desalinized. In the frozen state the water would have remained on the earth's surface even without a atmosphere, and without an atmosphere there is not atmospheric pressure. However, as the waters begin to melt on the surface of the earth they would have immediately began to vaporized and thus refroze due to the temperature of space. However, the radiant heat would have still continued to melt the waters under the frozen surface of water above. Thus the division of the waters from under the firmament from the waters above the firmament as represented by the canopy theory simply means that one didn't listen to what the scripture said, it said divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters above the firmament which would have been the the waters in the middle of the two frozen layers of water.

Since the atmosphere is approximately 74% nitrogen, 24% oxygen and the remaining being trace elements one could say that they were not divided because they are not equal. However, water is one atom of O and two atoms of H1 Now if you consider that there is virtually no hydrogen in the atmosphere then it is easy to see that the division of the water resulted from the forces exerted on the waters as the water rose thus the information in Noah's flood would provide greater detail; but the force of the waters rising basically sheared the hydrogen atoms from their bond to the oxygen atoms. [No I do not believe God slaughtered humanity by a great flood..but as written to paraphrase, it isn't what we hear or read that defiles us but a man says is that which defiles him] But I digress, if you add the 2 hydrogen atoms for each atom of oxygen in the atmosphere then the numbers would be [74% nitrogen, and 24% oxygen and 48% hydrogen, or 72% water] which is approximately 50/50. of course you know free H1 atoms would have floated off back into space once separated from the heavier oxygen atom.

Anyway I typed this relatively quickly and haven't proof read it, please excuse any typos.

 

[lforrest]

Thanks BA,


Please keep in mind the new rules, especially the parts I highlighted as they pertain to what is going on here.

• No Flaming, Goading or Harassment
  All members should be treated with the utmost respect and courtesy at all times following the rules of civil discourse, this includes heated debate discussions or even in daily discussion in the shoutbox.
• No insults are allowed.
• Included in this are all forms of flaming, harassment, and trolling/goading as determined at the discretion of the Christianity Board Team. Trolling/Goading is defined as repeated attempts through the use of images, cartoons, smileys or text that is designed to be explicitly demeaning, patronizing, embarrassing, or otherwise upsetting to a member or group of members in the community.
• This further includes making false statements or accusations about a member.
• Sarcasm is not included under this rule.

As for the discrepancy between Forsakenone's user group and declared faith, that appears to be an error on our part.

 

[StanJ]

As far as your rejection of the water canopy theory being erroneous, I agree.

I don't think so Tim!

 

[Forsakenone]

The picture isn't even legible, can you put into words how the waters were divided from the waters.

From what I can read it says that the Biblical firmament is synonymous with space. I would suggest you consider the term 'atmosphere' hence by the formation of the atmosphere during the period referred unto as the second day, the dry ground was able to come forth during the period referred unto as the third day.

Gen 1:8-9
8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.

Which is to say:

And God called the firmament "the atmosphere". And the evening and the morning were the second day.
And God said, Let the waters under "the atmosphere" be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.

 

[lforrest]

Hold control and spin the mouse wheel to zoom.

 

[Forsakenone]

Hold control and spin the mouse wheel to zoom.

Thank you. it makes it larger but it blurs out

 

[DogLady19]

I don't think so Tim!

Where did that tiny picture come from? I can't view it adequately. And where is the whitepaper that goes with the picture?
Please provide your sources.

1. "Firmament" does not translate to "canopy of water"... it merely translates to "expanse"... In Genesis 1:8, God called the "canopy of water" Heaven??? The birds flew in the "canopy of water"? I don't buy it.

2. If God created the universe in six 24-hour days that He spent (apparently) all of saying the simple words, "LET THERE BE..." I don't buy that either. And what did He have to rest from? And why did it take a whole day to say one sentence?

No, each "day" was a milestone, another completed piece of His universe-buiding project with no known time span... (If it was important to our relationship with Him, He would have had Moses write about it in more detail. just sayin')

In the meantime, logic and science show that the universe was created over a much longer period than 6 days. I doubt he would have disobeyed His own physical laws to create the entire universe.

I don't buy it.

The earth was a rain-forest type climate when Adam and Eve came on to the scene. Simple as that. No big canopy of water over their heads.

 

[Forsakenone]

It seems as if Stan is trying to say that the firmament that seperated the waters on earth from Jesus in heaven was space.

 

[StanJ]

The picture isn't even legible, can you put into words how the waters were divided from the waters.

From what I can read it says that the Biblical firmament is synonymous with space. I would suggest you consider the term 'atmosphere' hence by the formation of the atmosphere during the period referred unto as the second day, the dry ground was able to come forth during the period referred unto as the third day.

Gen 1:8-9
8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.

Which is to say:

And God called the firmament "the atmosphere". And the evening and the morning were the second day.
And God said, Let the waters under "the atmosphere" be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.

You really should not read the KJV if you can't understand it.

NIV - Gen 1
And God said, “Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water.” 7 So God made the vault and separated the water under the vault from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the vault “sky.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.
9 And God said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.” And it was so. 10 God called the dry ground “land,” and the gathered waters he called “seas.” And God saw that it was good.

Where did that tiny picture come from? I can't view it adequately. And where is the whitepaper that goes with the picture?
Please provide your sources.
1. "Firmament" does not translate to "canopy of water"... it merely translates to "expanse"... In Genesis 1:8, God called the "canopy of water" Heaven??? The birds flew in the "canopy of water"? I don't buy it.
2. If God created the universe in six 24-hour days that He spent (apparently) all of saying the simple words, "LET THERE BE..." I don't buy that either. And what did He have to rest from? And why did it take a whole day to say one sentence?
No, each "day" was a milestone, another completed piece of His universe-buiding project with no known time span... (If it was important to our relationship with Him, He would have had Moses write about it in more detail. just sayin')
In the meantime, logic and science show that the universe was created over a much longer period than 6 days. I doubt he would have disobeyed His own physical laws to create the entire universe.
I don't buy it.
The earth was a rain-forest type climate when Adam and Eve came on to the scene. Simple as that. No big canopy of water over their heads.

You can go to the following site to see a slide presentation.

http://slideplayer.com/slide/2865507/

It seems as if Stan is trying to say that the firmament that seperated the waters on earth from Jesus in heaven was space.

Not even close.

The BIBLE says God made a water canopy that surrounded the earth above the sky. Heaven is NOT a physical place, and Jesus was born in Bethlehem, not in heaven.

 

[Forsakenone]

You really should not read the KJV if you can't understand it.

You insult is noted, but may I ask is that the reason you use the NIV interpretation?

But as I am sure you already know, as written in 2 Peter 1:20 that the scripture is of private interpretation. So I do not take offense at your insult since it is written in Isaiah 29:11, "And the vision of all is become unto you as the words of a book that is sealed, which men deliver to one that is learned, saying, Read this, I pray thee: and he saith, I cannot; for it is sealed:" So I do not deny that I don't understand on my own what the meaning of Biblical scriptures are.

If you do that is good for you, unless you were taught how to read. If you don't mind me asking, were you taught how to read the written spoken word?

The BIBLE says God made a water canopy that surrounded the earth above the sky. Heaven is NOT a physical place, and Jesus was born in Bethlehem, not in heaven.

Actually a Bible does not talk, you merely perceive what the words mean according to your own experience and perception.

Heaven is not a physical place? so are you implying it is an imaginary place?

Please don't say it is a spiritual place because the spirit is physical, it's physical nature is a substance which merely has no mass, like photons that form a body of light.

 

[DogLady19]

You really should not read the KJV if you can't understand it.

NIV - Gen 1
And God said, “Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water.” 7 So God made the vault and separated the water under the vault from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the vault “sky.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.
9 And God said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.” And it was so. 10 God called the dry ground “land,” and the gathered waters he called “seas.” And God saw that it was good.

You can go to the following site to see a slide presentation.

http://slideplayer.com/slide/2865507/

Not even close.

The BIBLE says God made a water canopy that surrounded the earth above the sky. Heaven is NOT a physical place, and Jesus was born in Bethlehem, not in heaven.

I have no doubt that the earth had a layer of water in the atmosphere. In our modern day, we call that vault/canopy of water vapor "clouds" or "fog"...

What I doubt is that it never rained until Noah's flood. Genesis 2 says it didn't rain in the first stages of creation because there was no one to till the land. Because there was no rain, no plants sprouted and grew. So obviously the mist was not enough to sustain plant-life. Once Adam came on to the scene, that problem was solved. The rains came because plants began to grow and sprout.

PS: That slideshow does not cite any scientific sources. It doesn't even say who made the slide show!

 

[River Jordan]

That slideshow does not cite any scientific sources. It doesn't even say who made the slide show!

It doesn't matter to some people. All that matters is that it tells them what they want to hear. Once they have that assurance, all is well and they can ignore everything and everyone that says otherwise. It's quite the little emotional comfort zone.

 

[StanJ]

You insult is noted, but may I ask is that the reason you use the NIV interpretation?

But as I am sure you already know, as written in 2 Peter 1:20 that the scripture is of private interpretation. So I do not take offense at your insult since it is written in Isaiah 29:11, "And the vision of all is become unto you as the words of a book that is sealed, which men deliver to one that is learned, saying, Read this, I pray thee: and he saith, I cannot; for it is sealed:" So I do not deny that I don't understand on my own what the meaning of Biblical scriptures are.

If you do that is good for you, unless you were taught how to read. If you don't mind me asking, were you taught how to read the written spoken word?


Actually a Bible does not talk, you merely perceive what the words mean according to your own experience and perception.

Heaven is not a physical place? so are you implying it is an imaginary place?

Please don't say it is a spiritual place because the spirit is physical, it's physical nature is a substance which merely has no mass, like photons that form a body of light.

Again an observation. Sorry for your insecurity.

I use the NIV as one of my preferred versions, because it is far more accurate than most, and way more than the KJV.

Peter is talking about PROPHECY, NOT scripture itself, and in that context of course he was correct. Is 29:11 was against the religiosity of Israel, which you would know if you actually read the whole thing and didn't try to just cherry pick a verse to prevaricate on.

I think it is VERY obvious who understand God's written word and who doesn't in this and many other threads. The hypocritical remarks are also very evident as you keep saying you are being insulted then do the very thing you complain about. At least your own words are evidence of my observations, whether you like them or not.

No, you are saying that. I am saying it is NOT a physical place where physical beings exists. Not surprising that you have no understanding of the metaphysical.

Physical [fiz-i-kuh l]
Physical, bodily, corporeal, corporal agree in pertaining to the body. Physical indicates connected with, pertaining to, the animal or human body as a material organism: physical strength, exercise. Bodily means belonging to, concerned with, the human body as distinct from the mind or spirit: bodily pain or suffering.

 

[StanJ]

I have no doubt that the earth had a layer of water in the atmosphere. In our modern day, we call that vault/canopy of water vapor "clouds" or "fog"...

What I doubt is that it never rained until Noah's flood. Genesis 2 says it didn't rain in the first stages of creation because there was no one to till the land. Because there was no rain, no plants sprouted and grew. So obviously the mist was not enough to sustain plant-life. Once Adam came on to the scene, that problem was solved. The rains came because plants began to grow and sprout.

PS: That slideshow does not cite any scientific sources. It doesn't even say who made the slide show!

That layer was enough to FLOOD the earth, so it wasn't just vapor.

What a surprise. You have already demonstrated you don't believe in Genesis as an accurate historical account of creation so there is no need for me to refute you when you won't accept it.

Feel free to show something that refutes it, but I was just supplying what I thought was a good depiction of what was being discussed.
I already know the science you believe in, and that contradicts the Bible, is where your allegiance is, so there's NO common ground is there?

 

[DogLady19]

That layer was enough to FLOOD the earth, so it wasn't just vapor.

What a surprise. You have already demonstrated you don't believe in Genesis as an accurate historical account of creation so there is no need for me to refute you when you won't accept it.

Feel free to show something that refutes it, but I was just supplying what I thought was a good depiction of what was being discussed.
I already know the science you believe in, and that contradicts the Bible, is where your allegiance is, so there's NO common ground is there?

You have not shown me any evidence that the layer was enough to flood the earth... and that would violate the laws of physics, since that volume of water suspended above the earth would have prevented life on the surface.

You are claiming that a "canopy" of water that is 5.5 miles thick can hover over the earth until the Great Flood. The earth's surface would have no sunlight, and the temperature would be over 200 deg. F. It would be impossible for a vapor to mist the earth with that volume of water in the sky, much less sustain any life on the planet.

I already know the fad science you believe in, and it makes radical assumptions about things that are not explicit in the Bible, so you're right, there is no common ground here. The science I believe in is based on God's own laws of physics. You can't even come up with any validation of your own theories.

 

[StanJ]

You have not shown me any evidence that the layer was enough to flood the earth... and that would violate the laws of physics, since that volume of water suspended above the earth would have prevented life on the surface.

You are claiming that a "canopy" of water that is 5.5 miles thick can hover over the earth until the Great Flood. The earth's surface would have no sunlight, and the temperature would be over 200 deg. F. It would be impossible for a vapor to mist the earth with that volume of water in the sky, much less sustain any life on the planet.

I already know the fad science you believe in, and it makes radical assumptions about things that are not explicit in the Bible, so you're right, there is no common ground here. The science I believe in is based on God's own laws of physics. You can't even come up with any validation of your own theories.

It's not up to me to speculate how much was there, just that it was, and it was enough to flood the earth. I've lived in cities where flooding occurs where cars are submerged in water after a day of heavy rain, never mind 40 days.

I'm pretty sure I've stated clearly that I don't believe in any so-called science that contradicts the Biblical account of creation. I don't need to validate my theories because they come from God's word and the Holy Spirit through my faith has already validated them.
That you choose so-called worldly science over God's word is your problem, not mine.

 

[Forsakenone]

But as I am sure you already know, as written in 2 Peter 1:20 that the scripture is of private interpretation.

Apparently you didn’t because it is not written that prophecy of scripture is of private interpretation.

Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. 2 Peter 1:20

Since the term prophesy is derived from Deuteronomy 18:18:

I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him.

Peter is talking about PROPHECY, NOT scripture itself, and in that context of course he was correct.

So it is intention that Peter is God since you state the following:

I think it is VERY obvious who understand God's written word and who doesn't in this and many other threads.

But as I stated, the prophesy of scripture is of private interpretation, or rather means what one says it means. But do you know him?