Does an old-Earth view contradict scripture?

[LordSauceness]

Isaiah 40:42"...the Lord sits upon the circle of the earth.." Even in my fundy days this verse bothered me because the earth is a SPHERE, not a circle. Take a flat  round foot stool, and view it from above. This verse is consistent with a flat earth view A sphere does not make a good foot stool. A flat one does.

The universe is an very vast place. Billions of galaxies with billions of stars in each of them! How very arrogant of you to believe the earth is some specially created place!

[angryspidertv]

@LordSauceness Haha... so you haven't looked into it. The Hebrew vocabulary was waaaaaaay smaller than ours. The same word for circle could be applied for sphere. Back then it would have made sense to the Hebrews, but now us with our scientific understanding look back at that verse and say 'ooooh, this is what it meant!"

[LordSauceness]

@angryspidertv Yes I have looked into Isaiah 40:22. And I'll have to agree with the KJV translators. Interesting to me how modern fundies ALWAYS spin-doctor ancient wordls to fit in with modern thinking

Cricle is the better translation, given the context. Would God sit upon the sphere of the earth? Not unless he needed a stability ball workout!..lol

Ancient Christians clearly had no idea about our universe and the bible proves it Take off your glasses fitted with modern lenses and see!

[angryspidertv]

@LordSauceness Incorrect. Obviously the Jews had it in their tradition that the Earth was flat, only us, now in the future, can look back in the verse and know exactly what was meant by God. You now know the Hebrew word for circle 'chuwg' was meant for sphere also. It has a double meaning. Us with our science and technology now know much about the heavens. God does not have a body. Definitely this is poetic (the Bible teaches God doesn't have a body) that he fills the Earth with his presence.

[LordSauceness]

@angryspidertv So then, why even bother reading any English bible translation since none of the them got the right interpretations? Whenever a skeptic points out the very many flaws in the bible, right away the apologist starts his spin-doctor machine and voila`! All of a sudden, the verse now fits in with science!

No, clearly, the Genesis account of the history of the world is a fantasy filled, man-made story. Homo Sapien Adam is not the specially created human made in God's image.

[angryspidertv]

@LordSauceness Hmmm, why bother reading an English Bible. Well for one thing most people do not understand Hebrew or Greek. It can refer to BOTH a circle or a sphere. We all know that. We know the Earth is a sphere now. Therefore what was meant in this verse was that the Earth was a sphere. And yes, the Genesis history account of the world is accurate

[LordSauceness]

@angryspidertv *Therefore what was meant in this verse was that the Earth was a sphere*

The idea beig conveyed in this verse is that God is above all. That He is above the *circle* of the earth. Why then does nobody interpret that word as *sphere*? He sits above the sphere of the earth? No----clearly, you & all modern Christians now see this as meaning sphere because we know it does NOT look circular from above. No Church Father ever saw this as 'spherical'!

[LordSauceness]

@angryspidertv *yes, the Genesis history account of the world is accurate*

How in the world can Genesis be accurate when we know beyond certain doubt that homo sapiens (of which clearly, Adam & Eve must have been), were not the only human hominids on the planet? That we've been here for tens of thousands of years? geesh....That we today most definitely did NOT come from Adam & Eve? Those 2 never existed, there was no Garde of Eden. Man was not made from the dust of the ground!

[angryspidertv]

@LordSauceness You are ridiculous. What misconceptions!  First homo sapiens is the only spiritually aware of all the animals. It doesn't matter how anatomically similar other animals are to us - none of them had a concept of religion or philosophy, none were spiritual. I do believe Adam was created circa 50,000 years ago. Also, the Bible says Adam was made 'ex nihilo' or out of nothing. Even if it did mean out of dust, it's a reference to tons and tons of dead material from stars - stardust.

[LordSauceness]

@angryspidertv  Wow... your arguments sound just like the born again bible believing slave owners of the old south. They considered their African slaves to be sub human,. Adam was created 50,000 years ago?? lmao.... it's a good thing for Neaderthal man that he is extinct. The good Christians on this planet would only have put a leash around his neck and made slaves of this race of people. You got some very strange & completely unprovable ideas.

[angryspidertv]

@LordSauceness In ancient Israel, people who could not provide for themselves or their families sold themselves into slavery so they would not die of starvation or exposure. In this way, a person would receive food and housing in exchange for labor.You are so wrong, you can't even get your facts right about the ancient concept of slavery. For your information, the anti-slave side of the civil war was made up of bible believers as well. And the spiritually aware humans appeared 50,000 years ago.

[LordSauceness]

@angryspidertv *For your information, the anti-slave side of the civil war was made up of bible believers as well*

Indeed.... I've forgotten so much of what I've read about born-again Christian brothers killing each other in the civil war. If ever there was testament as to why Christianity is such a perverse religion, the Civil War just has to be the answer. People in the south justified their ownership of slaves based on the bible and the sons of Noah. Do some research and learn.

[angryspidertv]

@LordSauceness Hah, you're telling ME to do some research? The south wanted slaves because they made profit of it, not because the Bible said it was okay. Point to a single verse in the Bible that indicates slavery was racial. The southerners believed they were better than colored people. No hint in the Bible of this. In fact most people knew slavery (the way it was being practiced) was a form of evil. So no, it was not justified by the Bible.

[LordSauceness]

@angryspidertv *Hah, you're telling ME to do some research?*

Genesis 9:24,25> "24 And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him. 25 And he said , Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren"

It's long been considered that Ham was the father of the black race. The 'curse of Ham' was the justification for white slave traders to capture Africans & sell them. Indeed they did profit from them.

Yep, you need to dig a bit deeper!

[LordSauceness]

@angryspidertv btw...Ham was the father of Canaan & also Cush ( Kush-which means black) The 3 branches of homo sapien races have long been considered to have descended from Noah's 3 sons. I've heard this & read it many times back in my fundy days. I'll bet they ain't broadcasting that too much these days tho...lol...the ever changing evidence of bible -believing Christians!

>fyi....I've spent many long hours in bible study. It's highly un-likey you'll present a view I've not looked at.

[angryspidertv]

@LordSauceness a. A curse upon a race reflects the general disposition of that people and does not condemn all in that race.

b. Among the Canaanites we find Rahab, who believed God and turned to Him. There was certainly other individuals who made a choice to serve God. Those who chose wickedness did so of their own volition... CONT (1)

[angryspidertv]

@LordSauceness 2. .CONT..certainly Noah was speaking prophetically here. God would use this occasion to show the natural consequences of Canaan's sinful disposition. This statement should be seen as prophetic rather than proclaiming of a curse upon Canaan. interesting that at least one commentator states that the original Hebrew is better translated "cursed is Canaan" instead of "cursed be Canaan." This would suggest a statement of current fact, rather than a wish.

[LordSauceness]

@angryspidertv I don't need a bible lesson from you with your private interpretation, thank you very much. It matters not to me what YOU think those verses mean. It is a historical fact, that MANY bible-believing, born-again Christians, used those verses to justify their enslavement of black Africans.

How you or any other Christian today wants to spin it, you cannot change what history has done. ...Thanx for proving my points for me:

Christians will spin verses to fit the modern facts!

[angryspidertv]

@LordSauceness So you are obstinate, admit it. You didn't even listen to what I said about that stuff. Don't tell me the north didn't use the Bible to justify their claims as well. There's something called voluntary slavery in the Bible that poor people would sell themselves into slavery. God makes it clear every human is equal, nobody's better than anybody else. The southerners were a bunch of people trying to justify their claims by pointing out only a few obviously misunderstood verses.

[angryspidertv]

@LordSauceness You are obviously one of those people who doesn't listen no matter what somebody says to them. I told you, everybody, EVERYBODY makes mistakes, all humans are blemished, all are sinners. The Bible nowhere promotes any sort of racism and forced slavery. "He who kidnaps a man, whether he sells him or he is found in his possession, shall surely be put to death." (Exodus 21:16) Obviously the southerners did not do Bible studies. The north won because God was on their side.

[glutinousmaximus]

It was written down that way so that some idiots would spend the rest of their lives arguing about it! ... The thing is, that there are many 'holy' books, texts and traditions that have a very similar storyline to the old testament. I'm a gnostic about all of this. (not 'agnostic') [gnostic = 'knowing' Agnostic is a christian derogatory term for 'unknowing] I neither believe or disbelieve, but remain to be convinced one way or the other.

[Abernathythedull]

It seems obvious to me in an English translation that Jesus was referring to the beginning of "humans," not to the beginning of all creation. The context doesn't support that. In the Greek, Jesus' phrase doesn't match Genesis 1:1. He says "from the beginning," not "in the beginning." So whereas John 1:1 is an allusion to Genesis 1:1, Matthew 19:4 is not.

[puffin51]

Jesus was asked to rule on a human institution - marriage. So he began by saying that it was enjoined from the beginning. Beginning of what? Why, the beginning of humans, of course. That's what he was asked about. He is saying that God ordained marriage at the beginning of the human race, and that there was then no divorce, which only started with Moses and Mosaic law.

In other words, there is no need to believe that he was saying that the Earth is young, or that humans didn't evolve.

[batesblazin]

JESUS IS AWESOME!!!!!

[PneumaAnima]

the question I have is whether the 7 days mentioned in the Bible are 7 Days as interpreted from the perspective of Earth, or 7 days as interpreted from somewhere else in the known Universe, or 7 days as interpreted from somewhere else in the entirety of existence (meaning outside the known universe). If 7 days as interpreted from earth that doesn't give alot of time for creation. If 7 days from anywhere else that raises the question of interpretation of the book of genesis.

[mcdinkity]

religions are man made myths if there is a god or some kind of creator he didnt write book or start religions

[angryspidertv]

@mcdinkity Why not? If there was a God he would have revealed himself to us, correct?

[mcdinkity]

@angryspidertv if there was a god why would he have to reveal himself maybe hes too busy with the other billions of galaxys and planets maybe he just made the big bang then left it to evolve but if you think he has revealed himself why has he done it so badly i mean why so many differnt religions and why would he need or want to be worshipped

[angryspidertv]

@mcdinkity too busy with the other billions of galaxies and planets? If you read scripture you'll know God is omniscient, meaning he fills the universe with his being and sees all. He knows your personal issues and EVERYTHING about everybody. He created life on Earth, fine-tuning the universe for us spiritual beings.. he didn't create it to evolve (well he could have but that's not what I think) if he was the all-powerful creator of time and space don't you think that demands worship?

[mcdinkity]

@angryspidertv no i think its all made up fairy tales if there is a god he's got nothing to do with any religion they are just man made brainwashing

[TrunkMonkey3000]

The gnostic gospels have the most excellent creation stories !

[gregrutz]

@TrunkMonkey3000 Every religion has a creation story and a creator god. All Stories.

[TrunkMonkey3000]

@gregrutz Ok thanks but these explanations of creation are given by Jesus . I don`t know more than Jesus, so I like to listen to Jesus. I guess since everything is just a story to you, to you there is no truth to be found.

[gregrutz]

@TrunkMonkey3000 Jesus didn't write anything down. And there is no truth in a story.

[TrunkMonkey3000]

@gregrutz The inner voice did not say to him as it did to Isaiah: "Take a large volume and write therein with a man's pen!" The voice of God tried out to him, "Rise and speak!" The word of life must be found, the faith which removes mountains, the strength which shatters the bulwarks of evil.

Don`t let yourself become blind to the truth. The words of the living one are heard throughout eternity. Blessings.

[gregrutz]

@TrunkMonkey3000 What?!  inner voice? word of life? faith removes mountains? words of the living one? If you are hearing voices I think you need help.

[TheJamesjames123]

LordSaucenesse has a good point. Old earth creationists are as bad as evolutionists. The point is that in the 18th century the idea that the earth is not the same age as what the Bible said fueled the atheists back then. So as the Gap/ old earth thoery got more into the public the church in england/scotland acepted the thoery, the same way they now belive evolution and in gay minsiters.

[gregrutz]

@TheJamesjames123 Sorry that the discoveries Scientists make keep proving the Bible Wrong.

Dinosaurs ruled the earth for 160 Million years, get over it.

[LordSauceness]

The only reason Christians believe that the creation days are longer than 6 literal days is due to science discovering the real truth of how old the universe is. For centuries before, they believed in 6/24 hours days. That's how we wound up with a day of rest. 6 literal days of creation, 1 day of rest. Consistency demands the literal version.

[MindTheHeart]

@LordSauceness

That is pure baloney! Several of the church-fathers did not believe in 6/24 hours days. And what do you mean by "literal" here? If you take the word "yom" which is used in Genesis, you need to choose from 3-4 different, literal meanings. Sometimes the word is translated "day", sometimes "epoch", and sometimes just "time". There are several ways to interpret Genesis. You sound like a fundamentalist who demand one interpretation when there are several valid ones.

[LordSauceness]

@MindTheHeart Oh ya right...the church pappies believed in evolution then? Did they believe the God made the world over billions of years? Got any quotes?? I think not. The Sabbath is the evidence they believed in a LITERAL 6 day creation....

"For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy". EXODUS 20:11 NIV

God rested for an 'eon'? Mwaahahaha

[angryspidertv]

@LordSauceness God ceased creation after man's creation. Don't you know that? He has not made any more life.  Some of the natural forces he has set in motion are still going, but he's stopped creating. We're in the seventh day still. God has been resting for thousands of years. And FYI, many early church fathers believed each day was 1,000 years. or LIKE a thousand years. This means each day was longer than just 24 hours. You can make them as long as you please.

[LordSauceness]

@angryspidertv * And FYI, many early church fathers believed each day was 1,000 years. or LIKE a thousand years. This means each day was longer than just 24 hours. You can make them as long as you please*

FYI... Blessed Augustine, beloved church Father of all 3 branches of the Christian Fable, defended the 6k year old earth in the City of God, Bk 12, chpt. 12.

Why anyone would quote ancient people ignorant of our modern knowledge of the universe as being reliable on anything is beyhond me!

[angryspidertv]

@LordSauceness Well, unless you're including him as the only authority, sure... Ancient people ignorant of modern knowledge? For your information, sir, the Bible speaks of the Big Bang around 16 times. You might call them ignorant, but they had Godly wisdom. No wonder they somehow 'came up' with these scientific accuracies.

[LordSauceness]

@angryspidertv *For your information, sir, the Bible speaks of the Big Bang around 16 times.*

I've read the bible 7 times, Genesis-Revealtion. I've done numerous topical studies & there is no way possible the 'big-bang' is even remotely referred to! You, like many modern christians, read the bible with the lense of modern discoveries and whitewash verses that only a few hundred years ago would have resulted in you being accused of heresy. There's no such thing as a 'big-bang' anyways.....

[angryspidertv]

@LordSauceness - Isaiah 40:22, 42:5, 42:5,45:12, 48:13, 51:13, Jeremiah 10:12, 51:15, Job 9:8,26:7, and 37:18, Psalms 18:9,104:2, 144:5, 2 Samuel 22:10, Zechariah 12:1 tell me those do not refer to the continuous expansion of the heavens. Give me one piece of evidence against the Big Bang theory. For your information, the Big Bang was a theory presented by a ukrainian priest Georges Lemaitre. Atheists were forced to accept it only when the evidence was overwhelming.

[LordSauceness]

@angryspidertv The 'Big Bang' never happened and has never been proved to have happened. What Edwin Hubble discovered is that the uiverse is expanding and we know now through the Hubble telescope that expantion is excellerating! All we kow is that at some point in the distant past (certainly way beyond any time period any church father could have imagined), is that there was a VERY fast intial expansion.

"Stretching out the heavens" in no way implies a big bang or an expanision. con't

[LordSauceness]

@LordSauceness Those verses imply a FIXED setting for the stars as per Genesis 1:15 --"And let be them for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, and it was so.

This verse shows the ancient ignorance of men. God placed the stars (or lights) in the 'firmament' to give us light at night..lol. They had NO idea what those lights were, how far away they were, & NO idea those stars were exactly like the sun. No idea of the BILLIONS of galaxies with billions of stars

[LordSauceness]

@angryspidertv I defy you to cough up one church father that didn't believe in a 6 thousand year old earth. I defy you to present any christian dogma prior to Darwin that stated Adam & Eve were not real people. I defy you to present ANY Christian at any time before Darwin that did not believe in the literal translation of Genesis. Fruit that makes you live forever? Talking Snakes? Man made from the dust of the ground? The firmanent? Come on now, this just ancient superstitious ignorance!

[angryspidertv]

@LordSauceness

1. first, the early church fathers believed each creation day was 1,000 years or more. They believed in a 6,000 year old earth that began after this. This was before scientific knowledge came around and we took a second look at the Bible and realized what it meant.

2. I believe Adam/Eve were real people.

3. I think it was meant spiritual life, not physical.

4. The demon spoke through the snake.

5. The firmament refers to the clouds. Egad, you are ignorant.

[LordSauceness]

@angryspidertv So, then..the earth is 12 k old by church father reasoning? No matter how they slice it, it was waaaay wrong. Adam & Eve were real HOMO SAPIENS? What about Neanderthal? Clearly a different speicies of human being that had NO relation to Adam & Eve. Evolution clearly dismantles the creation story of the garden. The firmament does NOT refer to the clouds at all. Where do you get this from? It's a fixed place where God attached the stars to! "Let there be lights in the firmament

[LordSauceness]

@MindTheHeart and..btw. Why bother using an English version if it's all wrong? Obviously biblical scholars can't figure out if a day means day or an eon or both or it doesn't matter?

Good thing you showed up here on youtube to set them King James/NIV scholars straight. Christians can't agree on anything and that is just more proof it's all b.s. Why did God allow so much confusion for what is supposed to be 'His Revealed Word'? The only revelation I see are people deluding themselves!

[MindTheHeart]

@LordSauceness

I'll get back to you in a week or something. Kinda busy now. But as a starter, let me remind you that you are following the reasoning of Kent Hovind in what you are saying here. Shouldn't that be a concern?

To put it a bit differently: Since you are following the reasoning of Kent Hovind about Genesis, I find your hostility understandable.

[LordSauceness]

@MindTheHeart Let me remind you that I am a strident atheist that was a fundie christian for decades/turned Orthodox. Hovind is one of many. If yer gonna try and make some claim that the ancient's thought this world was created over the course of billions of years, then yer clearly wrong. ALL of them thought of the creation story to be completed in 6 days. SOME church fathers (catholic) had some things to say about this, but no one (until Darwin) thought any deeper on this.

[MindTheHeart]

@LordSauceness

I wonder who has taught you these things, because they are simply wrong. Here is an easy example: Isaac Newton wrote this in 1681 - 170 years before Darwin's "Origins of the Species":

“For ye number and length of six days, by what is set above, you may make ye first day as long as you please, and ye second day too.”

Anyway, who says that everything God says or does should be easy to understand? Even the Apostle Peter says (2. Pet 3) that some things are difficult to understand.

[LordSauceness]

@MindTheHeart Newton was NOT a church Father. The bible is always used to prove the bible. Many scholars follow that line of thinking. Exodus 20:11 makes it very clear. Please explain the Sabbath 'day of rest'? Clearly, a 'day' is a 'day' when it comes to the Sabbath. How does it then become 'as long as you please'? This is nothing but word twisting to fit modern facts. Newton probably knew the Genesis story was crap and tried to get around this by stretching the word day.

[MindTheHeart]

@LordSauceness

Of course Newton was not a church father. But he is an example of Bible-believing Christians who lived long before Darwin and understood that a "day" in Genesis is not 24 hours - contrary to what you said.

If you bother to read Exodus you will see that there are several sabbaths. For humans the sabbath is 1/7th of a week, for the land the sabbath is 1/7th of several years - making the point that a sabbath is not about 24 hours, but a portion that relates to the biological need.

[LordSauceness]

@MindTheHeart *If you bother to read Exodus....* >> I have. Many, many, times. Apparently you are content to deal only with generalizations and not specific verses. EX. 20:11 deals directly with resting on the 7 th day, because God created the world in 6 days. I don't care about any other Sabbaths. You have to re-write Genesis then if a day is not a day. It's only day to YOU, when it suits your needs. A day is an 'eon' now ONLY because science has proven the earth to be billions years old

[LordSauceness]

@MindTheHeart *Even the Apostle Peter says (2. Pet 3) that some things are difficult to understand.*

The only difficult thing to understand is how Christians will continue to twist & torture the bible to fit modern facts. The folks at the creation museum know that you cannot make 6 days into eons, so they have to be young earth creationists. NOBODY before Darwin put the facts together about the origin of species as well as he did. God did not make man from the 'dust of the ground'

[gregrutz]

Believe in the Bible...

- If you work on a Sabbath, you should be killed [Exodus 31:15]

- If your son disobeys you, murder him [Deut 21:18 -21]

- Sell your daughter into slavery to pay the bills [Exodus 21:7]

- If your children curse you, kill them [Lev. 20:9]

- Women are subservient, they must remain silent [1 Tim 2:11-12]

- Slaves must perform any act you wish [Titus 2:9]

[renaissongsman]

I think Youtube won't let me post much more, but if you would, consider:

4. The Anthropic Principle, proposed 1st by Robert Dicke, 1961. There are now more than 75 finely-tuned parameters considered to fall under this principle.

5. The Anthropic Principle Inequality (Brandon Carter, John Barrow, Frank Tipler, more) would indicate that God very *definitely* put us here for a high purpose.

6.  The biblical prophet Jeremiah cites God's fixed physical laws. No argument from science there.

[renaissongsman]

3. The Bible says God "stretches the heavens like a tent" at least twice, & gives other references to His "stretching" the heavens. Consider that the cosmos does indeed expand (e.g., law of redshifts).

Much more compelling is the fine-tuning of the cosmic mass, which studies indicate can't vary by more than 1 part in 10^60 in order for solar systems to form, or the cosmic dark energy density, which is fine-tuned on the order of 10^120 ("Is Physics Watching Over Us?", Nature, 8/12/2002).

[renaissongsman]

2. The Bible states that God is trans- and extra-dimensional (for example, "three Persons in One", "He can be anywhere, anytime", "Jesus walked into a locked room", etc.). Andrew Strominger's groundbreaking work in "extremal" black holes/string theory, which explains how gravity can co-exist with quantum mechanics in the early universe, indicates that for a brief instant at the beginning there were at least six additional dimensions in existence.

[renaissongsman]

Nonthiest, thanks for asking for evidence. Would you be kind enough to consider the following?  It's by no means comprehensive, &, unfortunately, isn't my own work, but is the position I think Dr. Rogstad coming from?

1. The Bible states a cosmic beginning, and a Creator who transcends this beginning. The universe (matter, energy, space, & time) had a singular beginning (Hawking/Penrose, 1970, and many others since, standard "space-time" theorems of general relativity, now widely accepted).

[blackshadowsnoopy]

Evolution would say death and struggle led to mans existence. The Bible says mans rebellion led to death. To read an excellent online book on the matter, please see answers in genesis dat org/home/area/the-lie/index.as­p

[gregrutz]

@blackshadowsnoopy 99% of all species that every lived on the earht are extinct, dead. I guess evolution is right.

[angryspidertv]

@gregrutz No, not necessarily. If you're not being sarcastic.

[LauderdaleBaptist]

look up ANSWERS IN GENESIS

Read THE ULTIMATE PROOF OF CREATION by Dr. Jason Lisle

[gregrutz]

@LauderdaleBaptist Ken Ham is wrong.

[LauderdaleBaptist]

@gregrutz no i think you are wrong

[angryspidertv]

@gregrutz You said it brother :P

[LauderdaleBaptist]

@nonthiestnc the proof is all there, if you can't see it... the problem isn't with the proof, it's with your interpretation of it.

[Gorteenminogue]

Genesis 1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. In other words, according to this idiot, the creation took 13.5 billion years and 6 days, and god did it all in the dark. Wow. I wonder where all the light from galaxies billions of years old came from?

[LauderdaleBaptist]

There is more proof for the Bible than anything.

There is no proof for evolution.

I don't know what proof you are looking for but the proof is everywhere if you open your eyes.

[flpete]

hello Lauderdale: give me some examples that God had a direct connection and proof that he created this earth or anything beyond it. give me actual connection of this supernatural beign created this beautiful place

[LauderdaleBaptist]

it makes no sense that God would not be powerful enough to do it in 6 days, and it even makes less sense that God would have to lie about it...

[LogosApologia]

@LauderdaleBaptist

"But do not overlook this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day." (2 Peter 3:8)

[LauderdaleBaptist]

@LogosApologia This verse has nothing to do with the context you are trying to fit it into.

Read the whole passage, it has to do with the long suffering nature of God that all should come to repentance.

[LogosApologia]

@LauderdaleBaptist In context it means that lots of time is rather inconsequential to an eternal God. So your incredulity that "it makes no sense that God isn;t powerful enough to do it in 6 days" is silly. Especially since a "day" is typically defined by the earth rotating - no earth = no such thing as a day. Young earthism is just a mistaken interpretation.

[LauderdaleBaptist]

@LogosApologia God created everything you see in 6 literal days.

Take His word for it and stop looking for a loophole to fit evolution into the picture.

So tell me then when did death enter into the world?

Was it before Adam sinned or after?

Or do you not even believe there was a first man named Adam?

The Bible is right, anyone who disagrees is wrong.

Case closed.

And the evening and the morning were the first day.