(Gen 1:14-17 NRSV) And God said, "Let there be lights in the dome of the sky to separate the day from the night; and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years, and let them be lights in the dome of the sky to give light upon the earth." And it was so. God made the two great lightsthe greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the nightand the stars.
God set them in the dome of the sky to give light upon the earth,
(Prov 8:26-27 NRSV) when he had not yet made earth and fields, or the worlds first bits of soil. When he established the heavens, I was there, when he drew a circle on the face of the deep,
It is he who sits above the circle of the earth, and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers; who stretches out the heavens like a curtain, and spreads them like a tent to live in;
Not sure but I'll check it out- National Geographic is notoriously anti Christian- so use discernment.
There are a lot of articles on reasons org about this topic by experts who are Christians. I have the book "Who Was Adam" Ive read a bit of it - there's a lot to learn about - I'm still processing it.
When you say "anti christian" what you really mean to say is reality is anti-fundamentalist. Some of the worlds most respected scientist are christian, even Evolutionary scientist, why must you rely on the lunatic fringe to tell you what it is to be christian? Maybe the problem isn't with science, maybe the bible should not be taken litteraly. Have you considered the contradictions in the bible? Have you considered the history of the bible canon? Maybe you should.
No the problem isn't science I never said it was. The Bible agrees with science - the problem is the atheist spin imposed on science by naturalists. What you don't realize is this is a legitimate phd astrophysicist in this video. He takes a lot of heat from the young earthers. I myself am taking heat from people on youtube for posting this lecture. I support good science - but not the assumptions of atheists.
I hear you friend, but I disagree, the bible contradicts science (the natural world) over and over. It contradicts itself over and over. Sure you can cherry pick here and their, but that is cowardly and ignorant. Your phd has not submitted creation to the science community in due course, no one has ever.
Because it is not science, it is faith. Creation has not even qualified as a hypothesis with enough evidence to be talked about in the community. Ask your phd to submit it.
Newsflash:: you have a fundamental misunderstanding of terms. Big Bang theory only covers microseconds AFTER the big bang, not the instant of, or anytime before. He is selling books, he is not moving science anywhere with his "model " as he has not submitted it in due course,
Please introduce me to anyone or any publication of this "Darwinist Faith" you speak of.
"the bible contradicts science (the natural world) over and over. It contradicts itself over and over. Sure you can cherry pick here and their, but that is cowardly and ignorant."
I can say the same about your alleged contradictions - they are invariably little misrepresentations cherry picked out of context and the vast majority have been debunked over and over for 1500 years - yet there is an endless stream of psuedo scholars to step up and fill the shoes of the last ignoramus.
(Dan 4:10-11 NRSV) Upon my bed this is what I saw; there was a tree at the center of the earth, and its height was great. The tree grew great and strong, its top reached to heaven, and it was visible to the ends of the whole earth.
Have you watched... Search For Adam - Special DNA Mysteries? watch?v=b5A5IRyV_tU The thing about Science is the more they dig the more God throws a monkey wrench into the evolution theory. But of course national geographic has to somehow make it right to the evolutionist by making a statement at the end that there had to be other men besides Adam..they just died out. How convenient and that is only a theory and a statement..there is no scientific evidence to back up that theory.
You need to watch again, "the oldest human fossils come from Africa dating back MILLIONS of years", "pre-human remains have been found in Asia" "These mutations (evolution) originating in Africa, appear on every Y chromosome on every man around the world today",.."he is SCIENTIFIC Adam", "thousands of years of evolution" (to reconstruct Scientific Adams appearance).
The science does not support the bible, the coran or any other belief, the Narrator just offers intellectual training wheels.
"this is not the man god creates in the book of genesis," narrator of Search for Adam
He goes on to say we now know their was one father of humanity, this is true, it is also required, furthermore it also is yet further evidence supporting evolution, it was predicted by Darwin (also a christian) and is contrary to your representation.
Thanks for the tip though, it was a decent program.
"this is not the man god creates in the book of genesis," narrator of Search for Adam...well of course he is going to say that! He is relying on people like you to be uninformed to what Genesis says. There is more however. Now watch The real Eve watch?v=1CfgEnLGkLg After you watch then come back in tell me that the first man and woman comes from the same location as just a coincidence? Common man THINK! You final destination depends on it.
Regardless of the narrator's motives (whatever they be) the science does not support the bible, the bible doesn't even support the bible, their are multiple sources of the story of Gen, predating the bible, I have wasted many years studying the bible and I don't intend to spend another minute with that trash.
The first man and later a woman appearing at the same time and place in history is required by the natural state of the world, it does not support your fairy tale.
Sounds like you are trying to convince yourself but its not working. Good science clearly supports the Bible. Even that National Geographic special landed on a single man 60,000 years ago which fits the creation model perfectly and falsifies Darwinism.
Of course it does and that is why Nat geographic tries its best to dumb it down with Darwinism evolution. What is funny is I belong to a forum that has a mix of people like Christians, atheist, wiccans, etc.. anyway this Doc was posted there and even a few atheist started asking questions about God saying stuff like maybe the bible is right etc... The Darwinist sometimes will bite off their own noses to spite their faces.
(Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NLT) If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.
This is actually a good law to protect the woman. Nobody in that culture would marry a raped woman. Also, fifty pieces of silver is quite a bit if I'm not mistaken.
When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)
Absolutely, this is a good command and law which was established in order to guard against abuse. It is in no way condoning the beating of slaves, furthermore this is a law pertaining to the entire nation or society.
Please account for an absolute moral standard before making such judgments.
This is a good command? Really? If the slave dies quick, the master is punished, if the slave survives for a day or two, suffering, bleeding, maybe puking, likely crying, it's ok, the slave has evidently been protected.
Working together (looking out for our family/tribe) what you are calling "moral standard" is a trait that survives because it increases the chances of passing on our genes.
That verse is a law to protect women. The Hebrew word which you read as rape simply means "to lie with" - you imposing a 2009 context on 1500 BC which doesn't equate - In the ancient culture no one would marry a non virgin - so the is was a law that forced a man who fornicated to provide for her for life - so wouldn't be abandoned. Note he also had to pay the dowry to her Father. If this was abusive rape he would likely be stoned.
The point is the bible is nonsense. When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)
Even if the character in your video is a scientist, he has not submitted creation to the scientific community in due course, no one has, it has been laughed out of court and serious discussion everywhere. No respectable scientist will (regardless of his or her beliefs) because their is no science to back it up and mountains of legitimate science to discount it. If you hero were even a little sure he would submit in due course.
fomenter666 I see you got a few answers about how one more time a atheist likes to misinterpret scripture, but I have to ask ..what does Deut 22:28-29 have anything to do with this documentary about creation? Will I guess when you can't argue with FACTS you have to resort to playing the strawman. I can hear you screaming damn this guy Hugh Ross makes since....NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
It has as much to with this nonsense as this nonsense has to do with science. This guy Hugh Ross makes no "since", if he had anything, he would submit it in due course to the scientific community.
watch Hugh Ross , Journey Toward Creation documentary and see if this one makes better since to you then. watch?v=r7hXHMco7tU&feature=channel_page BTW Ross earned a BSc in physics from the University of British Columbia and an MSc and PhD in astronomy from the University of Toronto; and he was a postdoctoral research fellow at Caltech, studying quasars and galaxies. Ross was the youngest person ever to serve as director of observations for Vancouvers Royal Astronomical Society. He makes since!
The credentials of a believer do not change beliefs into science. Creation has not been submitted to science in due course by anyone because it is not science. Creation has been laughed out of court and every serious debate world wide for over a 100 years. I am laughing at you fools now.
Why would you trade bronze age myth for reality? Should'nt you swear off all science has blessed us with, (your computer, the net, your car, a round planet, ext.) these things are all contrary to your bible
Science was created by Christians. The scientific method was codified by a monk Francis Bacon. Atheists have simply misused it to indoctrinate people who blindly trust without researching for themselves.Wake up from your coma or just follow the pied piper to doom.
True many of first scientist were believers. That does not however change belief into science. The scientific method excludes super natural force as an answer for anything. Blind trust is not allowed in science.
There is still many scientist today that are believers. You are doing no more then turning science into a religion. Let me explain, In grammar school a frog turning into a prince is taught as a fairytale, but in high school and college a frog turning into a prince is taught as a fact (evolution) BTW wonder what Jesus would say if he sit in one of these classes? Watch Stranger Series - SALT 1-3
A frog turning into prince is a fairy tale, perhaps that is how you got confused. It seems you have a weakness for fairy tales. Jesus would say nothing, if he was ever more than a fairy tale hes is dead now! Unless you believe in Zombies?
No I don't believe in fairytale like a frog turning into a prince. Isn't it the evolutionist that think that? That all life came from some magical goo munk. BTW isn't Zombism a form of mutation? That is y'all deal not ours!
Evolution means change over time, nothing changes from one thing to another all at ounce. I believe you must be talking about Abiogensis when you say magical goo, that is not evolution and it does not involve any magic. If you search for info it is readily availible.
To be clear, frogs don't turn into princes, evolution is not a belief or a belief system. Evolution is the area of study pertaining to how lifeforms change over time. Modern medicine depends on evolution, ever had a flu shot?
Afraid not, have waisted many years studying the bible, it is likely I have forgotten more about the bible than you have ever known. It is certain I know more about the bible than you do, I'm afraid you don't even know when it was put together, buy who, and from what.
awesome, very impressive
flyorra 2 months ago
Great video!
MavericKLongRange 2 years ago
Excellent play list. I will have to get some of his books. Thanks for the posts. God bless
goosejoy20 2 years ago
(Gen 1:14-17 NRSV) And God said, "Let there be lights in the dome of the sky to separate the day from the night; and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years, and let them be lights in the dome of the sky to give light upon the earth." And it was so. God made the two great lightsthe greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the nightand the stars.
God set them in the dome of the sky to give light upon the earth,
fomenter666 2 years ago
(Prov 8:26-27 NRSV) when he had not yet made earth and fields, or the worlds first bits of soil. When he established the heavens, I was there, when he drew a circle on the face of the deep,
(Isa 40:22 NRSV)
It is he who sits above the circle of the earth, and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers; who stretches out the heavens like a curtain, and spreads them like a tent to live in;
fomenter666 2 years ago
Bigwhammy have you seen those two documentaries, Search For Adam and the real Eve? I would like to hear what your thoughts are on this?
jesusrules2012 2 years ago
Not sure but I'll check it out- National Geographic is notoriously anti Christian- so use discernment.
There are a lot of articles on reasons org about this topic by experts who are Christians. I have the book "Who Was Adam" Ive read a bit of it - there's a lot to learn about - I'm still processing it.
bigwhammyRocks 2 years ago
When you say "anti christian" what you really mean to say is reality is anti-fundamentalist. Some of the worlds most respected scientist are christian, even Evolutionary scientist, why must you rely on the lunatic fringe to tell you what it is to be christian? Maybe the problem isn't with science, maybe the bible should not be taken litteraly. Have you considered the contradictions in the bible? Have you considered the history of the bible canon? Maybe you should.
fomenter666 2 years ago
No the problem isn't science I never said it was. The Bible agrees with science - the problem is the atheist spin imposed on science by naturalists. What you don't realize is this is a legitimate phd astrophysicist in this video. He takes a lot of heat from the young earthers. I myself am taking heat from people on youtube for posting this lecture. I support good science - but not the assumptions of atheists.
bigwhammyRocks 2 years ago
I hear you friend, but I disagree, the bible contradicts science (the natural world) over and over. It contradicts itself over and over. Sure you can cherry pick here and their, but that is cowardly and ignorant. Your phd has not submitted creation to the science community in due course, no one has ever.
Because it is not science, it is faith. Creation has not even qualified as a hypothesis with enough evidence to be talked about in the community. Ask your phd to submit it.
fomenter666 2 years ago
Newsflash:: Creation is FACT - Big Bang cosmology has established that there was a creation event.
He has published several books and is openly inviting competition between his model and that of the Darwinist faith.
bigwhammyRocks 2 years ago
Newsflash:: you have a fundamental misunderstanding of terms. Big Bang theory only covers microseconds AFTER the big bang, not the instant of, or anytime before. He is selling books, he is not moving science anywhere with his "model " as he has not submitted it in due course,
Please introduce me to anyone or any publication of this "Darwinist Faith" you speak of.
fomenter666 2 years ago
Big Bang theory says nothing of the instant of or anytime *before* the big bang.
Only microseconds after the big bang. It says nothing of the origin of matter/energy.
fomenter666 2 years ago
"the bible contradicts science (the natural world) over and over. It contradicts itself over and over. Sure you can cherry pick here and their, but that is cowardly and ignorant."
I can say the same about your alleged contradictions - they are invariably little misrepresentations cherry picked out of context and the vast majority have been debunked over and over for 1500 years - yet there is an endless stream of psuedo scholars to step up and fill the shoes of the last ignoramus.
bigwhammyRocks 2 years ago
(Dan 4:10-11 NRSV) Upon my bed this is what I saw; there was a tree at the center of the earth, and its height was great. The tree grew great and strong, its top reached to heaven, and it was visible to the ends of the whole earth.
fomenter666 2 years ago
(Job 38:13 NIV) that it might take the earth by the edges and shake the wicked out of it?
(Job 11:9 NRSV) Its measure is longer than the earth, and broader than the sea.
fomenter666 2 years ago
(Gen 1:6-7 NRSV) And God said, "Let there be a dome in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters."
fomenter666 2 years ago
(Mat 4:8 NRSV) Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor;
fomenter666 2 years ago
(Psa 148:4 NRSV) Praise him, you highest heavens, and you waters above the heavens!
fomenter666 2 years ago
DNA supports a bottle neck at Noah - now that's a prediction from genesis that can't be denied...
bigwhammyRocks 2 years ago
DNA supports a bottle neck something like 250,000 years ago. It also proves humans and our relatives came from Africa, and are apes/monkeys.
fomenter666 2 years ago
It's only 50,000 and there's no evidence at all we came from monkeys.
bigwhammyRocks 2 years ago
Have you watched... Search For Adam - Special DNA Mysteries? watch?v=b5A5IRyV_tU The thing about Science is the more they dig the more God throws a monkey wrench into the evolution theory. But of course national geographic has to somehow make it right to the evolutionist by making a statement at the end that there had to be other men besides Adam..they just died out. How convenient and that is only a theory and a statement..there is no scientific evidence to back up that theory.
jesusrules2012 2 years ago
You need to watch again, "the oldest human fossils come from Africa dating back MILLIONS of years", "pre-human remains have been found in Asia" "These mutations (evolution) originating in Africa, appear on every Y chromosome on every man around the world today",.."he is SCIENTIFIC Adam", "thousands of years of evolution" (to reconstruct Scientific Adams appearance).
The science does not support the bible, the coran or any other belief, the Narrator just offers intellectual training wheels.
fomenter666 2 years ago
the oldest human fossils come from Africa dating back MILLIONS of years",
They offered no evidence for that just vague claims. Probably just hominids.
The actual HUMAN evidence said 60,000 years.
bigwhammyRocks 2 years ago
"this is not the man god creates in the book of genesis," narrator of Search for Adam
He goes on to say we now know their was one father of humanity, this is true, it is also required, furthermore it also is yet further evidence supporting evolution, it was predicted by Darwin (also a christian) and is contrary to your representation.
Thanks for the tip though, it was a decent program.
fomenter666 2 years ago
"this is not the man god creates in the book of genesis," narrator of Search for Adam...well of course he is going to say that! He is relying on people like you to be uninformed to what Genesis says. There is more however. Now watch The real Eve watch?v=1CfgEnLGkLg After you watch then come back in tell me that the first man and woman comes from the same location as just a coincidence? Common man THINK! You final destination depends on it.
jesusrules2012 2 years ago
Regardless of the narrator's motives (whatever they be) the science does not support the bible, the bible doesn't even support the bible, their are multiple sources of the story of Gen, predating the bible, I have wasted many years studying the bible and I don't intend to spend another minute with that trash.
The first man and later a woman appearing at the same time and place in history is required by the natural state of the world, it does not support your fairy tale.
fomenter666 2 years ago
Sounds like you are trying to convince yourself but its not working. Good science clearly supports the Bible. Even that National Geographic special landed on a single man 60,000 years ago which fits the creation model perfectly and falsifies Darwinism.
bigwhammyRocks 2 years ago
Of course it does and that is why Nat geographic tries its best to dumb it down with Darwinism evolution. What is funny is I belong to a forum that has a mix of people like Christians, atheist, wiccans, etc.. anyway this Doc was posted there and even a few atheist started asking questions about God saying stuff like maybe the bible is right etc... The Darwinist sometimes will bite off their own noses to spite their faces.
jesusrules2012 2 years ago
(Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NLT) If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.
fomenter666 2 years ago
This is actually a good law to protect the woman. Nobody in that culture would marry a raped woman. Also, fifty pieces of silver is quite a bit if I'm not mistaken.
God will ultimately deal with the man's sin.
FillTheirVoid 2 years ago
hahaha you beat me to that fallacy.
Its amazing they just recycle the same canards like little atheist robots..
bigwhammyRocks 2 years ago
Yea, it's ridiculous ... they don't even believe in morality.
FillTheirVoid 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)
Really, are gonna fill a moral void with this?
fomenter666 2 years ago
Absolutely, this is a good command and law which was established in order to guard against abuse. It is in no way condoning the beating of slaves, furthermore this is a law pertaining to the entire nation or society.
Please account for an absolute moral standard before making such judgments.
FillTheirVoid 2 years ago
This is a good command? Really? If the slave dies quick, the master is punished, if the slave survives for a day or two, suffering, bleeding, maybe puking, likely crying, it's ok, the slave has evidently been protected.
Working together (looking out for our family/tribe) what you are calling "moral standard" is a trait that survives because it increases the chances of passing on our genes.
fomenter666 2 years ago
How is this relevant? Its not.
just to expose you...
That verse is a law to protect women. The Hebrew word which you read as rape simply means "to lie with" - you imposing a 2009 context on 1500 BC which doesn't equate - In the ancient culture no one would marry a non virgin - so the is was a law that forced a man who fornicated to provide for her for life - so wouldn't be abandoned. Note he also had to pay the dowry to her Father. If this was abusive rape he would likely be stoned.
bigwhammyRocks 2 years ago
The point is the bible is nonsense. When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)
fomenter666 2 years ago
The point is your level of comprehension of what you criticize is nonsense.
bigwhammyRocks 2 years ago
Even if the character in your video is a scientist, he has not submitted creation to the scientific community in due course, no one has, it has been laughed out of court and serious discussion everywhere. No respectable scientist will (regardless of his or her beliefs) because their is no science to back it up and mountains of legitimate science to discount it. If you hero were even a little sure he would submit in due course.
fomenter666 2 years ago
fomenter666 I see you got a few answers about how one more time a atheist likes to misinterpret scripture, but I have to ask ..what does Deut 22:28-29 have anything to do with this documentary about creation? Will I guess when you can't argue with FACTS you have to resort to playing the strawman. I can hear you screaming damn this guy Hugh Ross makes since....NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
jesusrules2012 2 years ago
I guess its a wall of denial that is necessary from the very real fact that they are in danger of Hell that causes such irrationality and immaturity.
bigwhammyRocks 2 years ago
It has as much to with this nonsense as this nonsense has to do with science. This guy Hugh Ross makes no "since", if he had anything, he would submit it in due course to the scientific community.
fomenter666 2 years ago
watch Hugh Ross , Journey Toward Creation documentary and see if this one makes better since to you then. watch?v=r7hXHMco7tU&feature=channel_page BTW Ross earned a BSc in physics from the University of British Columbia and an MSc and PhD in astronomy from the University of Toronto; and he was a postdoctoral research fellow at Caltech, studying quasars and galaxies. Ross was the youngest person ever to serve as director of observations for Vancouvers Royal Astronomical Society. He makes since!
jesusrules2012 2 years ago
The credentials of a believer do not change beliefs into science. Creation has not been submitted to science in due course by anyone because it is not science. Creation has been laughed out of court and every serious debate world wide for over a 100 years. I am laughing at you fools now.
Why would you trade bronze age myth for reality? Should'nt you swear off all science has blessed us with, (your computer, the net, your car, a round planet, ext.) these things are all contrary to your bible
fomenter666 2 years ago
Science was created by Christians. The scientific method was codified by a monk Francis Bacon. Atheists have simply misused it to indoctrinate people who blindly trust without researching for themselves.Wake up from your coma or just follow the pied piper to doom.
bigwhammyRocks 2 years ago
True many of first scientist were believers. That does not however change belief into science. The scientific method excludes super natural force as an answer for anything. Blind trust is not allowed in science.
p.s. your threat is funny, and ridiculous!
fomenter666 2 years ago
There is still many scientist today that are believers. You are doing no more then turning science into a religion. Let me explain, In grammar school a frog turning into a prince is taught as a fairytale, but in high school and college a frog turning into a prince is taught as a fact (evolution) BTW wonder what Jesus would say if he sit in one of these classes? Watch Stranger Series - SALT 1-3
jesusrules2012 2 years ago
A frog turning into prince is a fairy tale, perhaps that is how you got confused. It seems you have a weakness for fairy tales. Jesus would say nothing, if he was ever more than a fairy tale hes is dead now! Unless you believe in Zombies?
fomenter666 2 years ago
No I don't believe in fairytale like a frog turning into a prince. Isn't it the evolutionist that think that? That all life came from some magical goo munk. BTW isn't Zombism a form of mutation? That is y'all deal not ours!
jesusrules2012 2 years ago
Evolution means change over time, nothing changes from one thing to another all at ounce. I believe you must be talking about Abiogensis when you say magical goo, that is not evolution and it does not involve any magic. If you search for info it is readily availible.
To be clear, frogs don't turn into princes, evolution is not a belief or a belief system. Evolution is the area of study pertaining to how lifeforms change over time. Modern medicine depends on evolution, ever had a flu shot?
fomenter666 2 years ago
not a threat - it is a warning - you are uninformed.
bigwhammyRocks 2 years ago
Afraid not, have waisted many years studying the bible, it is likely I have forgotten more about the bible than you have ever known. It is certain I know more about the bible than you do, I'm afraid you don't even know when it was put together, buy who, and from what.
fomenter666 2 years ago