[galveston]

No. Satan was fallen before he met Eve. You cannot deny that.

Therefore, sin existed before Adam's fall.

[Tj3]

No. Satan was fallen before he met Eve. You cannot deny that.

Therefore, sin existed before Adam's fall.

I did not say otherwise.

[N0help4u]

No. Satan was fallen before he met Eve. You cannot deny that.

Therefore, sin existed before Adam's fall.

Yep that is ONE reason why I believe there is more before the creation days.

[Tj3]

Yep that is ONE reason why I believe there is more before the creation days.

And why does that suggest that there must be more time that a simple reading reading of scripture would suggest? I don't understand the reasoning. Please clarify.

[N0help4u]

Some people here claim that nothing existed before creation. They say God created the angels during the 6 day creation.
Others say there were the angels and satan's fall. They say satan was cast down and lived on what we now know as earth but it was in a prior form. God can recreate something so they believe that the earth existed in basic form where satan and the dinosaurs lived and the pyramids were made, until he did the 6 day creation.
He says he takes us who were sin and cast away or sin so why couldn't he take a basic rock form and regenerate it into what we now know as the earth?

[Tj3]

Some people here claim that nothing existed before creation.

Remember - time itself is a creation, so how can we talk about "before"? That is on the timeline. God is not on our timeline.

They say God created the angels during the 6 day creation.
Others say there were the angels and satan's fall. They say satan was cast down and lived on what we now know as earth but it was in a prior form.

When we are speaking about things where scripture is not explicit, we cannot be dogmatic.

God can recreate something so they believe that the earth existed in basic form where satan and the dinosaurs lived and the pyramids were made, until he did the 6 day creation.
He says he takes us who were sin and cast away or sin so why couldn't he take a basic rock form and regenerate it into what we now know as the earth?

Whether he "coul;d" or not is not the question. The question is did he?

Also, I still don't see why, if Satan fell before Eve, that is a problem with a 6 day creation. That what the specific question that I was asking right now.

[N0help4u]

[QUOTE=Tj3;1753646]Remember - time itself is a creation, so how can we talk about "before"? That is on the timeline. God is not on our timeline.

Not saying God is on our timeline. But either the angels existed before creation and time or they did not. My point was that some people here have said that absolutely nothing existed before creation other than God himself so when and where did the angels come in?
Before Gen 1:1 or after?

When we are speaking about things where scripture is not explicit, we cannot be dogmatic.

Whether he "coul;d" or not is not the question. The question is did he?

I'm not trying to be dogmatic or questioning I just like picturing what might it been like


Also, I still don't see why, if Satan fell before Eve, that is a problem with a 6 day creation. That what the specific question that I was asking right now.

I am not saying there is a problem with Satan falling before Eve because obviously he did.
Not sure what you are saying you are asking on that one.

[Tj3]

Not saying God is on our timeline. But either the angels existed before creation and time or they did not. My point was that some people here have said that absolutely nothing existed before creation other than God himself so when and where did the angels come in?
Before Gen 1:1 or after?

I already responded to that in an earlier post with a detailed answer of what we find in scripture. I am not entirely clear on what this has to do with the topic at hand, though.

I am not saying there is a problem with Satan falling before Eve because obviously he did.
Not sure what you are saying you are asking on that one.

This was brought up by someone else claiming that this was a reason for believing in the gap theory. I don't understand why. And if that was not the reason for raising this point, then how does it relate to the topic at hand?

[paraclete]

I agree with you there is no conflict, but you have to agree something unique happened six thousand years ago to cause mankind to emerge from darkness. Whether it took a long time or a short time to bring the Earth to what we know now, God tells us he took the dust of the Earth to make man, he didn't tell us what form that dust took, think seriously about it, there is evidence the Earth has existed for a long time but there is no real evidence mankind has been around for very long

[cadillac59]

I agree with you there is no conflict, but you have to agree something unique happened six thousand years ago to cause mankind to emerge from darkness. Whether it took a long time or a short time to bring the Earth to what we know now, God tells us he took the dust of the Earth to make man, he didn't tell us what form that dust took, think seriously about it, there is evidence the Earth has existed for a long time but there is no real evidence mankind has been around for very long

Modern man has been around from 100,000 to 250,000 years. That's longer than your 10,000 year Adam and Eve fairytale.

[paraclete]

Modern man has been around from 100,000 to 250,000 years. That's longer than your 10,000 year Adam and Eve fairytale.

Really, where did you get that "fact" from? There are some who would say it started in Africa over one million years ago but I haven't heard your theory. The Australian Aborigine is said to have been in Australia for 40,000 years but we have no evidence that large populations existed anywhere even that long ago. The reality is we have only theory about what existed before man began recording history and the rate of development since then is astronomical, so the question remains; what could possibly have been going on for eons? The Earth is not such a harsh place that development couldn't have taken place. We are expected to believe that mankind is essentially lazy and did nothing for hundreds of thousands of years. It beggars belief!

[paraclete]

My working hypothesis is that there is no conflict between scientific estimates of the age of Earth and the Bible.

This is a bold statement so perhaps we should hear your theories which reconcile the biblical creationist view and the scientific view. And please let's stick to facts not theory.:)

[galveston]

This is a bold statement so perhaps we should hear your theories which reconcile the biblical creationist view and the scientific view. And please let's stick to facts not theory.:)

Most have been addressed already in this thread.

My contention is that true science cannot disagree with the Bible, because the Bible is true, understanding that we do have to get to the original meaning of various details.

If you have something specific in mind, we can discuss that.

[paraclete]

Most have been addressed already in this thread.

My contention is that true science cannot disagree with the Bible, because the Bible is true, understanding that we do have to get to the original meaning of various details.

If you have something specific in mind, we can discuss that.

As I though theory

[galveston]

As I though theory

If you disagree, state your case and we will debate it.

Now don't take everything at once, but name the specific place where you feel there is a disagreement between the Bible and science, (not theories).

[paraclete]

If you disagree, state your case and we will debate it.

Now don't take everything at once, but name the specific place where you feel there is a disagreement between the Bible and science, (not theories).

I'm not making the running for you, buddy, you made a statement and you need to defend it with evidence but let's start with Genesis Chapter 1 and obvious difference The Bible does not assume a creation period of millions of years

[galveston]

I'm not making the running for you, buddy, you made a statement and you need to defend it with evidence but let's start with Genesis Chapter 1 and obvious difference The Bible does not assume a creation period of millions of years

That's true. How do you answer the evidence for more than 6,000 years of history?

You will say that God created everything with that evidence built in. I would not argue against that because I know that He can do what He pleases.

But if something IS demonstrated as fact, and it seems to contradict our UNDERSTANDING of what Scripture says, then we should ba able to re-think. If our re-thinking conflicts with other Scripture, then obviously what was assumed to be fact is not fact. On the other hand, maybe we have THOUGHT the Bible said something that it did not really say.

Here is an example from a different Scripture that may illustrate what I am talking about.

Heb 11:3
3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.
(KJV)

This is an accurate statement from a scientific viewpoint.

Since we have learned that the visible universe is made up of atomic and sub-atomic particles, we now know that this Scripture is literally true.

As to the gap theory, TJ3 and I debated that pretty fully earlier in this thread.

[cadillac59]

Really, where did you get that "fact" from? There are some who would say it started in Africa over one million years ago but I haven't heard your theory. The Australian Aborigine is said to have been in Australia for 40,000 years but we have no evidence that large populations existed anywhere even that long ago. the reality is we have only theory about what existed before man began recording history and the rate of development since then is astronomical, so the question remains; what could possibly have been going on for eons? The Earth is not such a harsh place that development couldn't have taken place. We are expected to believe that mankind is essentially lazy and did nothing for hundreds of thousands of years. It beggars belief!

I rely on what the best science has to offer, which is as I said an age of modern man of 100,000 -250,000 years. Sorry if this doesn't fit with your pathetic little adam and eve fairytale and 6 day creation myth. You've embraced mythology and are trying to modernize it and make it fit when science is proving it wrong. It is obvious. You might as well be reading the Book of Mormon.

[galveston]

I rely on what the best science has to offer, which is as I said an age of modern man of 100,000 -250,000 years. Sorry if this doesn't fit with your pathetic little adam and eve fairytale and 6 day creation myth. You've embraced mythology and are trying to modernize it and make it fit when science is proving it wrong. It is obvious. You might as well be reading the Book of Mormon.

Present your evidence that the Bible record of Adam and Eve is a "fairytale".

After you have done that, explain Hebrews 11:3. How did the author know that bit of scientific fact?

I'm not going to let you tiptoe around this. You can either present your evidence, or show that you are full of hot air.

[paraclete]

I rely on what the best science has to offer, which is as I said an age of modern man of 100,000 -250,000 years. Sorry if this doesn't fit with your pathetic little adam and eve fairytale and 6 day creation myth. You've embraced mythology and are trying to modernize it and make it fit when science is proving it wrong. It is obvious. You might as well be reading the Book of Mormon.

Do you even read what is written? Who said anything about Adam and Eve? What I said is that the myth that man has been around for thousands even millions of years is unsubstantiated by the facts of what man is. Intelligent, inventive, adaptive and a builder. Where are all the buildings, the indications of even rudamentary civilisation, they aren't there, so it is possible, and not unscientific, to suggest something else was going on.

You really do need to get off your anti-Christian gig and realise that there are others who also don't think as you do. In fact, I would say, about 98% of all the people who have ever lived, and the majority can't be wrong