Results 1 - 20 of 89
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: Ancient Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Lucifer, Satan, Devil? | Not Specified | Ancient | 126841 | ||
doctrinsograce, I apologize that I have to repost this to you. There is good information to be shared, and the original thread of our conversation is now restricted because of that debate earlier today. I had previously written: Something else that is not in the Bible, as often believed, is the name Lucifer as pertaining to the devil. This was a Latin word that means "to bear light," or light-bearer. The word was used in vulgar Latin to translate the Hebrew word Haylal, which means "morning star," a title Jesus takes for himself. Also, the word lucifer (small "l") actually appears twice in the Vulgate, not once. The second occurence is in 2nd Peter 1:19, where he says, " ... until the day dawn, and the morning star (lucifer) rises in your hearts." I found this interesting. Since discovering it, I have been doing a rather in depth study on the Fall of Satan, trying to verify the veracity of the theory. So far, I have found it grossly flawed. The theory, as it originally started, was in the third century. Origen, a founding church father, expressed the spiritualized view of the heavenly rebellion and subsequent fall in his treatise, "The First Principles." Lacking anything definitive from the Apostles, he sought to deduce from scripture a position regarding the origin of opposing powers that might be more credibly maintained. Origen, while a magnificent man, was known quite notoriously for spiritualizing things. You responded: Interesting! In the KJV I only find Lucifer in Isaiah 14:12. It is difficult in the OT because names often meant things, which means that the meaning and the name could be used interchangably. With no other clues in the text, its hard to know if a word should be transliterated or translated. I don't envy the job of the translators! This is my point precisely. "Interesting! In the KJV I only find Lucifer in Isaiah 14:12." The word lucifer (small "l") is a Latin word. It never existed in the Hebrew text. Origen's spiritualized theory gave birth to a legend, and because of the teaching, by the time the Bible got translated into English in the 1611 King James Version, the word lucifer was no longer associated with its actual meaning, but now held the honor of a name. Lucifer (capital "L"). The 1611 King James Version was translated from the Latin Vulgate, assembled by Jerome in the late fourth century by means of the first actual criticism of text. In the Latin Vulgate, you will find the word lucifer twice, not once. Because of the word's association with the theorized name of the highest angel who rose up in rebellion against God, the monks responsible for the English translation left the word Lucifer intact in Isaiah, but translated the same word according to its correct definition in 2nd Peter 1:19. Morning Star. You will find that all other copies of the Bible today use the word Morning Star, Day Star, Shining Star, or something akin to that. Only the King James Version holds to Lucifer in their Isaiah translation. In truth, Lucifer is not the name of Satan's former being. Satan is his former name. Although, in all fairness, the name Lucifer genuinely belongs to him at this point because of all the deceit that surrounds the name. I have tons more on the subject if you are interested. Ancient |
||||||
2 | The Doctrines Please? | Not Specified | Ancient | 127408 | ||
Dear forum members, Post #127351 has been restricted after only a few posts. I was clear that I didn't have much interest in the particular topic, but I thought I made a valid point that searching the topic to conclusion was a good and edifying thing. Someone has disagreed and restricted the thread. This is disturbing, but beyond my say so. Because of this action, it is abundantly clear to me that this forum is not about discussing the Bible and determining truths in humility to the Word, but about discussing topics according to a predetermined doctrine. I have read books both for and against every major doctrine in the church today, and I find that both sides offer substantial evidence for their points of view. One particular doctrine is not necessarily correct, and the point of study and discussion is to determine the truth of scripture. Now, knowing that this is a doctrine forum by practical evidence and vehement objections to scholarly, educated, and accredited points of view based on scripture, I need not offer any scripturally based advice, except what conforms to the said doctrine. I have my own points of view based on diligent study, but I can be silent on some issues as required to avoid dissension. I need to know what the doctrines are on this site so I can properly conform my answers so as not to make myself a stumbling block to others. This is not a gripe or a post in anger. I am not trying to bait or tempt anyone. This is something I need to know, because it is a waste of time to put my knowledge into a post that no one will see. Please list the doctrines by their common titles, indicating a for or against position on each. Your assistance in this matter would be of great help. Ancient |
||||||
3 | Things people THINK in the BIBLE but not | Bible general Archive 2 | Ancient | 126635 | ||
I think I have an answer to the fruit thing. In The Song of Solomon 2:3 is says "Like an apple tree among the trees of the forest, so is my beloved among the young men. In his shade I took great delight and sat down, and his fruit was sweet to my taste." Some early church speculations, Gnostic if I'm not mistaken, suggested that the original sin was sexual in orientation. Hence, Adam's "apple" in correlation with the passage in Song of Solomon which uses familiar terminology for a man's love. I don't know that I hold to this view as truthful, but in the pursuit of truth, I at least consider the possible credibility of the concept. I'm undecided. Hope this sheds some light on where the phrase came from. Ancient |
||||||
4 | Things people THINK in the BIBLE but not | Bible general Archive 2 | Ancient | 126639 | ||
Wow, I didn't know the Samson thing. That was something learned for me today. I knew about Noah. He took seven of the clean animals, for eating I presume. Luke was not an original disciple, so I knew that one. The Red Sea was parted, and so was the Jordan when the Israelites crossed over towards Jericho. David took some smooth stones, plural. I knew that one. The others I hadn't thought about. Thanks for some interesting information doctrinsograce. Ancient |
||||||
5 | Things people THINK in the BIBLE but not | Bible general Archive 2 | Ancient | 126666 | ||
Angel, Interesting thought. You make a reasonable point on a material and physical level. I will have to disagree with you, though, on the grounds that we are speaking of two different things. Your statement has merit, but is of a different nature from my statement. This is not to say that you are wrong, only that your answer addresses my statement on the wrong level. You are speaking physically. I am speaking metaphorically. According to the previously related hypothesis, the knowledge of good and evil is quite readily available in the world today. If the creation story is part allegory, and many do believe that, then the fruit, while growing on a tree in the Garden of Eden, is merely symbolic, and still within grasp. Ezekiel 31 gives an interesting analogy on the Garden of Eden, reckoning it to be the world, and the trees the people in it. What I was saying is that, according to the hypothesis, the fruit, as opposed to being something material, was something spiritual; knowledge of good and evil. When she tasted the fruit, being supposed as something sexual according to this hypothesis, it can also be correlated to the figurative use of the apple tree in the garden portrayed in the Song of Solomon. Which tree, as it is there written, is recognized as being a man, and the fruit of the apple tree being his love (whether affectionate or physical is not clearly stated). In other words, the knowledge of good and evil is in the world, and this originally came by way of the fruit. As said knowledge passes from one generation to the next, it is reasonable to consider that the fruit has either a long-lasting taste, or the fruit, perpetuating seeds, has generated new trees from which to taste that we all might die and find new life. Let me reiterate what I said before: I am undecided as to whether this has credible merit. However, we should be quick to listen, and we should never silence wisdom. If we don't consider the possibility, we can never find truth. Thank you for your response. Again, you make a good point, and it is worth consideration. Ancient |
||||||
6 | Things people THINK in the BIBLE but not | Bible general Archive 2 | Ancient | 126667 | ||
Yes, agreed. You are full of fun knowledge, doctrinsograce. These other things I knew as well. I was just agreeing with you to give you a little support. *smile* Something else that is not in the Bible, as often believed, is the name Lucifer as pertaining to the devil. This was a Latin word that means "to bear light," or light-bearer. The word was used in vulgar Latin to translate the Hebrew word Haylal, which means "morning star," a title Jesus takes for himself. Also, the word lucifer (small "l") actually appears twice in the Vulgate, not once. The second occurence is in 2nd Peter 1:19, where he says, " ... until the day dawn, and the morning star (lucifer) rises in your hearts." I found this interesting. Since discovering it, I have been doing a rather in depth study on the Fall of Satan, trying to verify the veracity of the theory. So far, I have found it grossly flawed. The theory, as it originally started, was in the third century. Origen, a founding church father, expressed the spiritualized view of the heavenly rebellion and subsequent fall in his treatise, "The First Principles." Lacking anything definitive from the Apostles, he sought to deduce from scripture a position regarding the origin of opposing powers that might be more credibly maintained. Origen, while a magnificent man, was known quite notoriously for spiritualizing things. Perhaps one of these days I will post a topic for a discussion on this theory. For now, though, it's a little more in depth than I can relate in a single, casual post. Thanks for your response doctrinsograce. Ancient. |
||||||
7 | Things people THINK in the BIBLE but not | Bible general Archive 2 | Ancient | 126680 | ||
Whoa ... folks ... I said this was a Gnostic theory, not what I personally think. I consider the possibility because I do not discredit the potential for hidden mysteries in scripture, as in the example of Jesus Christ himself, but I do not hold to this opinion of the Creation. I typed the original response to explain where the idea of the apple came from. I'm quite hurt. I feel like I'm being attacked here. Did you not read what I said and why I said it? With love, Ancient |
||||||
8 | Gnostic gosples | Bible general Archive 2 | Ancient | 126683 | ||
mikec, The Gnostic gospels are considered New Testament Apocrypha. There are books available that contain most of them. Higher learning is an admirable goal, but I wouldn't recommend polluting yourself with that stuff unless you are well read. Some of them can be quite convincing if you don't recognize why they are flawed, and why they were rejected as canon. The one I have here is: The Apocryphal New Testament, A Collection of Apocryphal Christian Literature in an English Translation based on M. R. James. Edited by J. K. Elliott. From the Oxford Press. Again, I do not recommend it lightly. Please take such literature with a grain of salt. Ancient |
||||||
9 | Things people THINK in the BIBLE but not | Bible general Archive 2 | Ancient | 126694 | ||
Hey guys, I wanted to answer what you said, but I want to also reiterate that I am not making statements of fact, just statements for consideration. The Bible says that through one man, sin entered the world. I am not aware of a scripture that says it is transmitted through the blood. Please advise on this. Jesus was born of a woman, but he did not sin. Jesus also, while in the image of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be exploited, but humbled himself, taking the form of a slave, and being made in the likeness of men. So was he also formed in iniquity? Please advise on this. Josephus writes: "I returned back to the city, being bow nineteen years old, and began to conduct myself according to the rules of the sect of the Pharisees, which is of kin to the sect of the Stoics, as the Greeks call them." Paul writes: "If anyone else has a mind to put confidence in the flesh, I far more: circumcised the eighth day, of the nation of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; as to the Law, a Pharisee; as to zeal, a persecutor of the church; as to the righteousness which is in the Law, found blameless." Josephus writes also: "Moreover, Moses, after the seventh day was over, begins to talk philosophically; and concerning the formation of man, says thus: ... (created from the dust, etc.)" Antiquities of the Jews 1.1.2 Josephus and Paul both being of the same sect or religious order gives us some insight into the mind of Paul on some base levels. They considered part of the creation philosophical. Is it therefore wrong to at least consider such possibilities? As for being attacked, I feel like your answers are condescending, and I take exception to that. I haven't said anything bad that I'm aware of. This is a bible study forum, yes? So I'm offering information that the study can be more thoroughly furnished to all good works. I don't think it's nice to treat my offering so poorly. Ancient |
||||||
10 | Things people THINK in the BIBLE but not | Bible general Archive 2 | Ancient | 126698 | ||
Love to you Norm, If you disagree with the information, say that you disagree. Your explanation, in particular about the blood, sounded condescending, and I feel like you were implying that I am stupid. Perhaps it was just the way you worded it. I recognize that we can't hear the inflection of voice on a computer screen, so I admit that I could have misperceived your intent. Nevertheless, that's how I took it, and as I go out of my way not to hurt other's feelings, I am especially sensitive to those that would hurt mine. Please forgive if I misunderstood you, as I also forgive you. Ancient |
||||||
11 | ok to sin because of the flesh | Bible general Archive 2 | Ancient | 126827 | ||
Brother, may I respond to you on this subject? Ancient |
||||||
12 | marriage and masturbation. | Bible general Archive 2 | Ancient | 126836 | ||
Brother, I will not say masturbation is right or wrong. I have my opinion, but I choose to keep it to myself. I will say that Galatians 5:22-23 doesn't say a word about masturbation, and it surely does not address the act under the specific circumstances as mentioned by the author of the question. Exercising self-control does not define as masturbation, and there is nothing anywhere in the context to suggest that he is assuredly speaking of this act. I know of no scripture that ascribes sin to masturbation, short of the laws of cleanliness in Deuteronomy. But these laws weren't concerning the act, only the defiling of the body and the necessary physical purification after getting issue on yourself, your bed, your clothes, your chair, etc. Now, I hope you don't take this note personally. It is my intent to edify to all good works, not to make you angry or indignant. I mean well, and I hope I gave you good and worthy information. Ancient |
||||||
13 | Lucifer kicked out of heaven | Bible general Archive 2 | Ancient | 126996 | ||
LSmith, There was never an angel named Lucifer. This word is a Latin word that means "light-bearer," and was, in the second century, taught by Origen in "The First Principles" to be the "identification" of an opposing power (though he quoted it more than specified it as a name) that rose up in rebellion against God. The passage this theory comes from is Isaiah chapter 14, but many scholars are in agreement that the prophetic statements are referring to the fallen king of Babylon. Another passage often used to describe the fall (though the person in question is not called Lucifer here) is Ezekiel chapter 28. These prophetic statements are of the same ilk. Other scripture, if carefully observed, will show that this passage, too, is relating to the stated subject of the passage; the king of Tyrus. The only clear reference we have to Satan being kicked out of heaven is in Revelation chapter 12. Here, the dragon is identified as being the devil and Satan, and at the conclusion of a battle between himself and his angels against Michael and the host of heaven, he is finally cast down to the earth. The events of these happenings, based upon the earlier passages of this same Revelation chapter 12, relate this event as taking place after the ascension of Christ. The woman, commonly recognized by many as being Israel, brings forth a manchild that will rule all nations with a rod of iron. If you search the scriptures, you will find that Jesus is the one commonly spoken of as being ordained to rule in such a manner. Then this woman's child is caught up to God and to his throne. The woman flees into the wilderness, "and there was war in heaven." It is not my intent to provoke a discussion of premillenialism/preterism, but to address the question. According to the chronological order of events in Revelation 12, Satan falls after the ascension of Christ. If Revelation 12 deals with the future, as premillenialists hold to, then it hasn't happened yet, and perhaps the manchild is a symbolic reference to the church being taken up to God and his throne. If Revelation 12 is a forgone conclusion, then he fell after Christ ascended. Either way, I haven't read anything to positively conclude that Satan fell before the creation of man. All other scriptures indicate that he still spoke with God, and that he was "going to be" punished in the Great Day of the Lord. See Isaiah 26:16-27:1 for a comparison to Revelation chapter 12. The two correlate well. Thanks for your patience. This, as always regarding Revelation based topics, is my view according to what I have seen, not absolute fact. I hope I was able to edify you. Ancient |
||||||
14 | Lucifer kicked out of heaven | Bible general Archive 2 | Ancient | 127090 | ||
Hi Norm, This is what I think regarding Luke 10:18: I think, based on the contextual circumstances, that it's not out of the question that it was not a literal statement, but a jesting statement. Let me demonstrate what I mean if I am able and if God be willing to allow to me to do so adequately. Looking at the circumstances, Jesus had sent the disciples out ahead of him into all the cities where he was going to go and minister. [Luke 10:1-16] After doing as instructed, the disciples "returned with joy." They exclaim to him how all went well (paraphrased by the circumstances), and how that even the demons were subject to them. Jesus then, amidst their joy and excitement (for surely they were excited after doing what a man simply cannot do naturally) suddenly and stoically states a historical happening completely irrelevent to the situation, "I beeeehellld Saaatan fallllling like liiightninnng." Then he proceeds to spoil their mood by rebuking them for being joyful at their sucess, exclaiming that they should instead be happy that their names are written in the book of life. After this, HE rejoices greatly in the Holy Spirit. Personally, the 10:18 passage always seemed out of place to me when viewing it in this traditional way. What I see is that He is cutting up with them. They are joyful and excited, and so too is He joyful and excited for them. Imagine, if you will, a child and his bike. The father sends him outside to ride the bike, assuring him he will not fall. The child, being faithful, goes outside and rides, and upon coming back inside, excited and happy at having ridden the bike on his own for the first time, he says to his father, "I rode the bike! And I didn't even fall down!" The father then says to him, "The kid down the street fell off his bike. Do not be happy that you rode your bike. Be happy that you have a bike not to fall off of." No father would behave this way. He would instead be happy with the child and encourage him. "Good job! You did well! I have taught you how to ride a bike, and now you will never fall again. But be mindful that you don't go into the street. Knowing how to ride a bike doesn't protect you from the cars." So to look at 10:18 another way, by situation: The disciples return, joyful and excited, exclaiming, "Lord, even the demons were subject to us! It was amazing! You should have seen it!" Jesus, appreciating their joy, and joyful with them for their excitement as a father would be joyful for his excited child that just rode his bike, he says to them, "That's fantastic guys! You did good! You gave Satan a real boot in the jewels! Now you can SEE that I have given you authority to tread on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy, and that nothing will injure you! But be mindful...! Although the spirits are subject you, and I'm greatly excited for you in that, the thing you should really be excited about is that your names are recorded in heaven. Nevertheless, you did well. Just focus on the things that matter." In other words, I see the statement of 10:18 as a circumstantial exclamation of praise for their accomplishment, not as a stoic statement of historical happening that has no real relevence to the situation. The traditional way of interpreting what's going on there sticks out like a sore thumb to me, and it doesn't fit the chronological factors of the fall. In regard to the fall, I think the issue is that we are all assuming there had to be one. The Bible doesn't actually say that. The serpent was cursed, but still stood before the throne, accusing us day and night, and it is plain that he was not bound in Hell, nor his angels. Besides Satan, there are lying spirits, spirits of calamity, and evil spirits of the Lord recorded in Samuel, Kings, Job, Zechariah, etc. If they were bound in Hell, what were they doing running amuck? Unless they had not fallen from heaven at all, and were being used to God's divine purpose, reserved to be punished at the coming of the Great Day of the Lord. I hear your thought, but it seems ambiguous to me. He fell from heaven, but hasn't been cast out. Did God only kick him out for the evening for coming home drunk? Know what I mean? I DO understand where you're going with it, but it doesn't seem logical. If he fell, but he can come back in, then he didn't really fall. As for the angels of Jude and 2nd Peter that are reserved under chains of darkness ... while the book is not cannon, this description is almost a direct quotation from the psuedopigraphic book of 1st Enoch, and referred to those angels that took the daughters of men to wife, creating the race of giants in the days before the flood. 1st Enoch describes them being bound for seventy generations until the time of their judgment. These are my thoughts on the matter of Luke 10:18. I'd love to discuss the theory in general more. Let us sharpen and edify one another. All my love, Ancient |
||||||
15 | The Doctrines Please? | Bible general Archive 2 | Ancient | 127413 | ||
Dear forum members, Post #127351 has been restricted after only a few posts. I was clear that I didn't have much interest in the particular topic, but I thought I made a valid point that searching the topic to conclusion was a good and edifying thing. Someone has disagreed and restricted the thread. This is disturbing, but beyond my say so. Because of this action, it is abundantly clear to me that this forum is not about discussing the Bible and determining truths in humility to the Word, but about discussing topics according to a predetermined doctrine. I have read books both for and against every major doctrine in the church today, and I find that both sides offer substantial evidence for their points of view. One particular doctrine is not necessarily correct, and the point of study and discussion is to determine the truth of scripture. Now, knowing that this is a doctrine forum by practical evidence and vehement objections to scholarly, educated, and accredited points of view based on scripture, I need not offer any scripturally based advice, except what conforms to the said doctrine. I have my own points of view based on diligent study, but I can be silent on some issues as required to avoid dissension. I need to know what the doctrines are on this site so I can properly conform my answers so as not to make myself a stumbling block to others. This is not a gripe or a post in anger. I am not trying to bait or tempt anyone. This is something I need to know, because it is a waste of time to put my knowledge into a post that no one will see. Please list the doctrines by their common titles, indicating a for or against position on each. Your assistance in this matter would be of great help. Ancient |
||||||
16 | The Doctrines Please? | Bible general Archive 2 | Ancient | 127415 | ||
EdB, I did not ask why the topic was restricted. I asked for a list of the doctrines represented by this site. Your opinions are for another time and another discussion. Please do not expound on the topic in question, as I want answers, and I do not want this thread restricted as well. If you know the doctrines, please list them as I requested. "Anything, as long as I'm in fact seeking truth," has led to my question. If you do not know the doctrines, then please allow someone else to list them. Thank you for your response. Ancient |
||||||
17 | is remarriage possible | NT general Archive 1 | Ancient | 126672 | ||
John 20:23 If you forgive the sins of any, their sins have been forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they have been retained. Matt 18:32-35 "Then summoning him, his lord *said to him, 'You wicked slave, I forgave you all that debt because you pleaded with me. Should you not also have had mercy on your fellow slave, in the same way that I had mercy on you?' And his lord, moved with anger, handed him over to the torturers until he should repay all that was owed him. "My heavenly Father will also do the same to you, if each of you does not forgive his brother from your heart." Matthew 19:9 And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for fornication, and marries another woman commits adultery. It would be my opinion based on the scriptures provided that it will be okay for him to remarry. If she has left him for another man, then he is not bound to her and can "put her away," albeit involuntarily on his part if he wants her back. I would advise that he be forgiving, however hurtful the situation. But I would conclude from scripture that he can remarry unless the information you gave is not correct. Ancient |
||||||
18 | Skeletons of evolution? False? | Genesis | Ancient | 126833 | ||
Yes, I would have to agree with Hank. We must have faith in the work of the translators. If you read several different versions, you may notice some small discrepencies from one to the next over small things as each believed their rendering was the best choice of a finite number of choices. On major portions of translation that are likley weighed heavily for accuracy because of the known doctrines, true or false, it would be irresponsible of them to not get the translation right if it would make an impacting difference. Again, I have to agree with Hank. As a matter of dispensation, you have to weigh all the evidence, then form the doctrine. You can't form the doctrine on incomplete data and bend or spiritualize what doesn't fit. Or worse yet, change it. That's like the Jehovah Witnesses adding words like "a" to prove their point that Jesus was not God himself, but a lesser God, and this without weighing the clear evidence in Isaiah that states that he will be called Wonderful, Counselor, Almighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace. I'm undecided about the gap theory. There are other ways to look at it. No time period is actually specified from the formation of the heavens and the earth to the time God declared that light should exist. Perhaps this is a mystery God has reserved for those that seek it. Myself, I don't know. I don't care. It doesn't affect my salvation one way or the other. If you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus, and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. Well, hear me now ... Jesus Christ is Lord. He is King of kings and Lord of lords. He is the Son of God, the Eternal Father incarnate, died blamesless on the cross for my sins, and rose again on the third day that God may be forever glorified. This thing I believe, and I will confess always. What I believe about the creation has no bearing on this, my salvation. As a note of good will, may I suggest that you focus on Christ and less on the creation? How creation happened is not the power unto salvation. Jesus is; and this is the thing that brings people to life. All my love to you both, Ancient |
||||||
19 | Skeletons of evolution? False? | Genesis | Ancient | 126837 | ||
Always brother. Amen, and Amen again. May I offer some thoughts in regard to topics like this? |
||||||
20 | Skeletons of evolution? False? | Genesis | Ancient | 126839 | ||
Perhaps you folks would be interested in some concepts that give weight to biblical creation. 1. We don't really have any records, finds, artifacts, or any other evidence that predates the bible. Ancient Egypt is by far the most ancient most historians deal with. There are others, but this as just an example. If man existed prior to biblical record, where are the findings, archaeological or otherwise? 2. As Mark pointed out, the skeletons on the evolutionary chart were almost all hoaxes. The only one that was genuine was the skeleton just before ours, and it is so close to what we are, there is really no difference. 3. Mark addressed the dinosaurs insomuch that they existed at the same time as man. To add to that, it is a biological fact that reptiles continue to grow their entire life, as opposed to mammals that stop at a certain point and regress. If man was living an average of 1000 years, by comparison in scale, just how big would a six hundred year old lizard be? 4. Under a pressurized, oxygen rich environment, some species, as observed in controlled environment experiments, were shown to grow to abnormal size. Most specifically, the beaver and the dragonfly. Such an environment also promotes good health, and most importantly, it eliminates the amino acids that contribute to decay. i.e. People have the potential to live forever in such an environment. Also, in this particular environment, iron does not rust orange. It rusts white. The same controlled experiments have shown this truth through observation. In the middle east, near the area of the Jordan, artifacts were found. Iron implements that had rusted white. 5. Scientists (of Christian orientation) have concluded and concurred with secular scientists that the earth at one point did not have clouds as we do now in our stratosphere (right sphere? I forget.) They belief in what is called "the greenhouse theory." This theory, briefly stated, suggests that the earth was covered by a layer of water in the sky. This layer did at least three things. It created a pressurized environment. It created an oxygen rich environment. It caused the world to be at one moderated temperature. Some evidence put forth on this theory are the frozen ferns in Antarctica. 6. If this dome of water collapsed, the world would be flooded, the temperature would become horribly unregulated and cause some places to freeze, like the polar caps which are farthest from the sun's rays, the pressurized environment would dissipate, and the oxygen would thin causing death, decay, and significantly shorter life spans in humans. Compare these facts to what you know from the creation through the flood. See what you think. Ancient |
||||||
Result pages: [ 1 2 3 4 5 ] Next > Last [5] >> |