Replies

I ask that question of myself and others for this reason: If God could create a man that, even though he was only a day old, he appeared in every way to be a full grown man (and all of the previous development time that would cause one to infer), why could he not create a planet that, the day after it was created it appeared to be “fully developed” (and all the previous development time that would cause one to infer). OTOH, I think our current world really IS best explained by the movie “the matrix”. Think about it. Matter does not really exist. It is just “coagulated energy”. It is merely perceived to exist in the form we “see and touch” it. IOW, I feel like we are basically the equivalent of a bunch of first graders, after our first exposure to a teacher telling us those points of light in the night sky are just suns a long way away, trying to explain everything. We don’t know what we don’t know by so many orders of magnitude that these discussions sometimes actually make me laugh out loud. I’m not so much impressed with what we know as I am with so much that we DON’T know

Ah. Interesting that I so noted the point of what I could not know with the information given, specifically in regard to the age a full grown Adam.

The claims are not over what God 'could' do, they are statements of FACT called theories or religious doctrines explaining what God did or did not do which are against what He elected/predestined some to put into writing.

Genesis 1:2 is probably the most overlooked, and least understood verse in the whole of the WORD. It says there was an event wherein this earth was made inhabitable after a 'time' declared in Genesis 1:1.

Genesis 1:2 says there was a flood and Peter affirms this as another witness in IIPeter 3. Now some claim they hold Peter's keys, but they willingly ignore what Peter's keys unlock. What Peter got were keys that Peter put into writing it was not a locksmith business that evolves as politically correct pressures require a new set of keys.

Yes, absolutely God could do anything He decides. But to ignore what He said He did is called 'sottish' by Him.

I would like to respond to you saying that Genesis 1:2 said there was a flood. I think that is not really accurate. At least as I see it. When taken in context with 1:9 I see it as the earth being like a cue ball with a relatively uniform earthen surface covered by a relatively consistent layer of water.. And then the ground lifted up in places to be above the water and in 1:10 He calls the dry ground “land”.

To interpret the scripture to say “there was a flood” is kinda like saying there is “a flood” in the middle of the Pacific. A flood implies normally dry ground that is flooded with water. I think Genesis 1:9 describes the first time ever that land was above the water.

In fact, one could argue that in Genesis 1:2, where it says the earth was “formless and empty” that it was sort of describing an “earth” that was nothing BUT water. Of course, within the context of our current physical laws, that would not be possible. there would be interesting pressures on the water at the center of this giant water drop in space.

But I am starting to argue how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. We all run the risk of arguing information that is our inference only.