Creationist Conundrum: For Genesis to be true, God would have to be the Great Deceiver (Satan)!

This theory could explain how that God created in 7 days...literally.

Scientists: Time Itself May Be Slowing Down

www.wired.com...

If time increases in speed exponentially as you go back in time toward the moment of initial creation, then billions of years in past time could equal one day in today's time.

Originally posted by Doc Velocity

Originally posted by AlreadyGone
Lucifer rebelled and subsequently became Satan... as he was Satan in the Garden of Eden in Genesis.

Correction... Nowhere in Genesis is the Serpent of Eden identified as Satan or the Devil or anything else except as a serpent.

You are correct, but scripturally, AlreadyGone is accurate.

Revelations
012:007 And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels,
012:008 And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven.
012:009 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.

There are many monikers associated with Satan, and "that old Serpent" is just one. Chapter 12 is fairly clear about this.

www.jesus-is-lord.com...

Ciao

Shane

Originally posted by Chainmaker
This theory could explain how that God created in 7 days...literally.

Scientists: Time Itself May Be Slowing Down

www.wired.com...

If time increases in speed exponentially as you go back in time toward the moment of initial creation, then billions of years in past time could equal one day in today's time.

The bible it's self says that 1 day is not 1 day and it's an interpretation.
Check my last post before this one. The genesis refrence is made up so it's more simplified. If 1 day is thoulsands of years then it would have to explain every detail of what happened in that time. I don;t think it would fit in a few pages. So god first sent some asteroids, then the asteroids merged into one, then bacteria formed, then that, then that happened.
The genesis would be too big. A short version was made so people at that time would undesrstand it, they knew nothing about formation of planets and how micro organisms grow and evolve.

The bible does say after a while that 1 day is not 1 day and that one day is with four zeros at the end in god's perception.



[edit on 25-12-2009 by pepsi78]

The 'Old' Earth is explained by Creationists as Gods way of 'ageing'
the world we live in so that we have the resources and necessary
biosphere to support & accomodate mankind.

iow, fossiles were created to provide a logical sequence of how fossil fuels like coal
and a resource like petroleum came into existance...
because for coal or petroleum to magically appear from 'thin-air'
would not be compatable with the rest of the physical universe/& world.

creating an apparently 'Old' Earth and Universe sometime around 4k BCE
is what the Creationists believed happened.


(if your interested, just think of How Jesus turned plain water into fine wine at the Wedding...
after-all wine is carefully aged, fermented, with the properly mature
grade & variety of grape.
Viola' "Instant Aging", just as how the Creationists see the World/Earth being begat-made)

++++++++++++


Just how is it that a 4004 BCE date of creation is made....

in one instance, persons have calculated the age of creation using the Bible genealogies
as they (more than one) are listed.

secondly, religions' think-tank scholars have interpeted
the Genesis creation of 6 days + 1 day rest = the creation 'week'...
and referenced another verse in scripture which tell us
that a 'Week' has been determined for Mans time on Earth...

And since God's 'Day' is as 1,000 years to man...then it is logical that
6,000 years are assigned to man.
It is stated in scripture that man's government, rule of the planet, etc
will have a predetermined duration of 6,000 years,
after which the Milennial Kingdom of 1,000 yrs will be set up --
this formula is reflecting the 'creation week' model @ ~365,000-1 ratio

+++++++++++

i however depart from the human interpetation of the 'creation'

i suggest that the Earth is +4billion YO
the Universe/Cosmos is +13billion YO

that 'God' established a 'Garden' on Earth some '6,000 YearsAgo'
during which the 'Adamic' breed/race of humanity was begun,
the process of 'naming' of plants/animals/natures' phenemona, was the onset of organization=aka; 'creation'

A unique sub-set of the grander 'creation'... set apart from the somewhat chaotic world that Lucifer/Satan had dominion over prior to the establishment of 'Gods' Edenic Garden


♫ ♫.... Zippidy Do-Dah ....♫ ♫

[edit on 25-12-2009 by St Udio]

Our creator from the Orion galaxy I think, put us here Eve and Adam (created in His image as the ideal mate for her). Unfortunately Eve was seduced by a Zeta Reptilian and bore Cain, son of the evil one instead.
This totally messed up God's plans and he punished Adam and Eve severely for letting that happen. Later on He decided He just couldn't handle those kids and He tried to rid the planet of them altogether. He offered to save the line of Seth since it was still pure and as He intended.
Christ was sent to remind us how we are supposed to behave.
Satan is the snake, the great deceiver, the Zeta Reptilian. You can't trust them. God is the head of your line...or He isn't. It is as simple as that.

reply to post by pepsi78

One day is as a thousand years.
There was a Bang, a cell, it divided, kept dividing, and here we are!
Who created the Bang and was there any interference, even much interference in this and if so why and by whom? These are the questions.

reply to post by JaxonRoberts

Which account of creation are we talking about?

There are two accounts in Genesis, which one do you wish to discuss?

reply to post by JaxonRoberts

If evolutionists could actually 'prove' origins there would be no argument.

The fact is science is the study of the observable and reproducible...
...so if origins can not be observed or reproduced you have no basis on which to assert your conclusions.

Science then by its own definition has nothing to say about origins.

Case closed.

reply to post by troubleshooter


Nice try at thread derailing, but your post has absolutely nothing to do with the OP, thus has no bearing on the conversation... This thread has nothing to do with Science, evolution, etc. It is dealing solely with the Creation Myth... Do try to stay on topic!

Originally posted by JaxonRoberts
reply to post by troubleshooter

 

Nice try at thread derailing, but your post has absolutely nothing to do with the OP, thus has no bearing on the conversation... This thread has nothing to do with Science, evolution, etc. It is dealing solely with the Creation Myth... Do try to stay on topic!

Ok...I can play by your rules...
...which of the two creation myths in Genesis do you want to discuss?

reply to post by troubleshooter


Reread the OP and get back to me... I do hate repeating myself!

Originally posted by troubleshooter
reply to post by JaxonRoberts

 

If evolutionists could actually 'prove' origins there would be no argument.

The fact is science is the study of the observable and reproducible...
...so if origins can not be observed or reproduced you have no basis on which to assert your conclusions.

Science then by its own definition has nothing to say about origins.

Case closed.

Science has proved origin of the species. There are questions that remain but for the most part it is clear we are most closely related to the chimpanzee and we can follow our evolution backward from there to a single cell.

reply to post by troubleshooter


Then again I do not believe in myths. No one ever carved gossip into a rock. It was the truth as they knew it.
There are stories told in the Bible, the Dead Sea Scrolls and Sumerian Tablets that either gained extra details or lost important details in the translations. The stories may lack understanding and even true accuracy of what took place but they are trying to describe something fairly incredible that actually did take place.
Of this I am certain.
Religion is not a scam or a trick it is the end result of facing, knowing and living through something supernatural that cannot be understood or described in any words we know.

Originally posted by rusethorcain

Originally posted by troubleshooter
reply to post by JaxonRoberts

 

If evolutionists could actually 'prove' origins there would be no argument.

The fact is science is the study of the observable and reproducible...
...so if origins can not be observed or reproduced you have no basis on which to assert your conclusions.

Science then by its own definition has nothing to say about origins.

Case closed.

Science has proved origin of the species. There are questions that remain but for the most part it is clear we are most closely related to the chimpanzee and we can follow our evolution backward from there to a single cell.

Micro-evolution can be observed and reproduced but evolutionary origin is still theoretical projected back as models...
...but this can not be 'proven'.

Questioning Flawed Assumptions #1

Originally posted by JaxonRoberts
If Genesis and the Bible are truly the 'Infallible Word of God'...

Genesis was written by Moses post Exodus from Egypt about 1500 years before Christ.
...(God is not represented as an author in any canonical manuscript).

The two different creation accounts in Genesis are a preamble to the history of Israel and were never intended as a detailed explanation.



[edit on 26/12/09 by troubleshooter]

Questioning flawed assumptions #2

Originally posted by JaxonRoberts
By Biblical standards, the Earth (and the whole Universe itself) are only 6,000 years old (give or take a century or two).

This assumption is based on Ussher's chronology.
I don't know of any 'creationists' that would rely on this 17th century work...
...a few non-academic fundies maybe.

Meanwhile, the physical evidence says quite a different story. It points to a Universe that is over 13 BILLION years old, and Earth that is over 4 BILLION years old, and that mankind is over 100,000 years old... Quite a difference!

The calculations of these time periods are based on the assumption of uniformitarianism that also influenced Charles Darwin.

Quantum Physics and Chaos theory have challenged these assumptions.

Chaos theory suggests that advances can be rapid punctuations of accelerated development...
...Quantum realities suggest a holographic universe...
...that could have been 'switched on' and complete in an instant.

Duplicate post...

[edit on 26/12/09 by troubleshooter]

reply to post by troubleshooter


So you are admitting it is TRUE but only question it's origin. Then we agree. Evolution is not a theory as a layman uses the word theory. Evolution itself is a fact. This can be denied with all manner of argument but it will not change a thing.

Questioning Flawed Conclusions...

Originally posted by JaxonRoberts
Now if the Bible is correct and all of the physical evidence (let's just leave the origin of life and the diversity of species out of this one, shall we?) is false, then God is deceiving us... lying to us... leading us away from the Truth... Hmm, I seem to remember that being the purview of Satan, Lucifer, the Devil, the Serpent, or whatever name you wish to use for that entity... I don't care how you slice it, it is the equivalent of holding up an apple and stating, "THIS IS AN ORANGE!!!"

Flawed conclusion based on flawed assumptions have no value.

So, since there is absolutely ZERO evidence supporting the Creation Myth, and it must be taken on Faith alone, why would the Creator intentionally try to deceive His children, whom He proclaims to love??? (This out to be good!)

Btw regarding origins I am an agnostic...
...because no theory of origins is based on 'gnosis' (knowledge).

Are these the best arguments you got?

Originally posted by rusethorcain
reply to post by troubleshooter

 

So you are admitting it is TRUE but only question it's origin. Then we agree. Evolution is not a theory as a layman uses the word theory. Evolution itself is a fact. This can be denied with all manner of argument but it will not change a thing.

A scientist can accept that micro-evolution is a fact because it is observable and reproducible...
...but a scientist can not affirm this process as origin because it is not open to scientific enquiry.

It can be 'believed' but not scientifically investigated...
...it may fit your worldview or you 'philosophy of science'...
...but it is not science until observed and/or reproduced...
...and if that could be achieved there would be no more ground for argument.