Who Believe the Earth is 6000 Years Old???

[FFH]

Jewish Calendar

 

[s2a]

Sorry, didn't see it until now...
Any suggestions ???

Nope.

I'm not a qualified apologist of either Chrisitianity as a whole, or the LDS interpretation of such as a particular sectarian branch.

You're on your own here...

Would you like a reiteration of the pointed questions put to you for apt rebuttal, or does your web browser limit such reflective examinations of previous postings (If so, I'll be pleased enough to lend aid)?

 

[FFH]

Nope.

I'm not a qualified apologist of either Chrisitianity as a whole, or the LDS interpretation of such as a particular sectarian branch.

You're on your own here...

Would you like a reiteration of the pointed questions put to you for apt rebuttal, or does your web browser limit such reflective examinations of previous postings (If so, I'll be pleased enough to lend aid)?

I think like Soyleche said, it's a dead thread, and If I were to say anything more on this subject I would start my own thread....

Entitled "The earth is 13,000 years old"....

 

[FFH]

Again I think I need to reiterate this point.

6 days/6,000 years the Lord created this earth/labored and 1 day/1,000 year/s the Lord rested from all his labors

6 days/6,000 years man has labored on this earth, since the fall of Adam and Eve and 1 day/1.000 year/s we will rest from our labors when Christ returns to set up his kingdom.

I will post this in a new thread shortly...

 

[s2a]

I think like Soyleche said, it's a dead thread, and If I were to say anything more on this subject I would start my own thread....

Entitled "The earth is 13,000 years old"....

Thank goodness then for SoyLeche as a wizened and determinatively dispensational authority of abjectively qualified "dead threads".

C'est la guerre...

I look forward to your premised presentation and resultant testable hypothesis suggesting that "The earth is 13,000 years old".

I've always hoped that someone would...especially the part that defines what requisite evidences (if available/provided) would emphatically disprove such an hypothesis.

To save some time, would you care to outline/specify any exacting empirical disproofs that would immediately nullify/falsify such a presented claim?

 

[FFH]

I've always hoped that someone would...especially the part that defines what requisite evidences (if available/provided) would emphatically disprove such an hypothesis.

To save some time, would you care to outline/specify any exacting empirical disproofs that would immediately nullify/falsify such a presented claim?

I've already given this link.

www.creationevidence.org and have posted their thoughts, which agree with mine 100 percent...

Here it is again: The earth is 13,000 years old

 

[s2a]

I've already given this link.

www.creationevidence.org and have posted their thoughts, which agree with mine 100 percent...

Here it is again: The earth is 13,000 years old

BZZZZTTT.

You're not paying attention.

Save me some time, and others the effort, in referencing--EXACTLY--within www.creationevidence.org the parameters/evidence/qualifiers that would unequivocally falsify/discredit/refute any presented hypothesis that "The Earth is 13,000 years old".

I'm familair with the CLAIM.

What do the claimants point to/suggest as fasification of that hypothesis?

Evolution theorists make it easy.

If one were to find dated human skeletal remains within the identically-dated skeletal remains of a T-Rex (as one example), then the entire theory (of Evolution) would be out on it's ear. Evolution theory both posits and predicts that such a find would invalidate the very basic understandings and underpinnings of the theory itself.

What similarly then, would serve to discredit/disqualify any claim/hypothesis that "The Earth is 13,000 years old"?

It's not a trick question.
It's not a difficult question.

For any hypothesis to be consisdered demonstrably valid, there is an equal and expectantly concommitant invalidation available upon objective and independent testing.

If I flip a wall switch, and the ceiling light fails to illuminate the room, I can either: 1) offer an assumptive claim--"The light bulb is burned out"
..or...
2) I can proffer an (as yet) untested opinion--"It would seem that the light bulb is burned out".
...or...
3) I can proffer an (as yet) untested opinion--"It would seem that the electricity is out"
...or...
4) I can proffer an (as yet) untested opinion--"It would seem that the switch is malfunctioning"

...or claim that ...

5) "It's God's Will that we remain in darkness at this time".

...or...

6) We may freely avail ourselves to test each lent 'possibility', and positively eliminate testable circumstances that permit us to disallow/reject certain presumptions as unfounded/falsified ("Nope. The electricity is still on to that outlet, so that's not the problem...").

If your god "flipped the switch" on existence 13,000 years ago, then what test can we objectively employ (to your satisfaction) that would definitively exclude that (as yet) untested hypothetical "explanation"?

 

[FFH]

If your god "flipped the switch" on existence 13,000 years ago, then what test can we objectively employ (to your satisfaction) that would definitively exclude that (as yet) untested hypothetical "explanation"?

Faith

My hypothesis is based on scripture and the patterns set by God in the beginning...

We cannot accurately date the earth...

Why you say, because what would you date, and how do we know there isn't something older than what we have dated so far ???

Is carbon dating accurate ????

Does the earth's magnetic field give us clues ???....

There is no way of really knowing, except by faith, which brings about truth revealed to the human spirit...

 

[s2a]

Faith

My hypothesis is based on scripture and the patterns set by God in the beginning...

Which is testable (in any way), or not?

We cannot accurately date the earth...

Is this conclusion based upon Scripture?

If so, please cite specific Chapter and Verse as support.

Why you say, because what would you date, and how do we know there isn't something older than what we have dated so far ???

Perhaps we can not know at this time. But the burden of disproof remains upon believers to discredit the supportive science behind it's conclusive claims of age, not just present doubts and suppositions of "what ifs". Supposition is not science. Extraordinary alternatives are certainly welcomed, but must be served by equally extraordinary proofs that are more compelling and convincing than what contemporary scientiic understandings have to offer.

Is carbon dating accurate ????

As best as can established and independently verified/validated today...YES.

Can you cite or provide compelling disproof (not facile "doubts", misgivings, or "holes") of such claimed accuracies.

Does the earth's magnetic field give us clues ???....

Yes, to a great many things...do you offer alternative theological "clues", or scientific disproofs?

There is no way of really knowing, except by faith, which brings about truth revealed to the human spirit...

As Yoda might say...

"THIS...is why you fail".

If and when you encounter the day that your car fails to start because of a dead battery...then all of the "revealed truth [by faith]" in the world will not wish or hope your car to start. Even "true believers" sign up for AAA...

And that's the most revealing "truth" I can offer you at this time...

 

[gnostic]

Gnostic, you brought up some good points....

First of all Genesis 1-13 is missing quite a few pages in the King James. Joseph Smith had to restore about 13 pages of it and is recorded here; Book of Moses

Well, I don't use KJV. Lately, I have been using the Jewish Tanakh, from JSP (Jewish Society Publication, 1985).

I still haven't read Joseph Smith's version, so thank you for the link to LDS's literature.

The only problem I have with this is that Joseph Smith's version is only authoritative to LDS members.


Nevertheless, I will be interested in reading the Book of Moses, since I have interested in Creation myths of the Judaeo-Christian religion as I do on mythology of other civilisations. I have read others, such as the Gnostic texts from Nag Hammadi, and a fair bit of non-canonical Jewish literature, such as the Haggada, Book of Enoch, Book of Jubilees, etc, in relationship to the Genesis' Creation, for curiosity and fascination on how such evolved.

 

[SoyLeche]

Actually what I have relied on is what is written. I didn't jump to on what has not been added. I may have taken what it is written in the Genesis, perhaps literally, but that's because it doesn't provide anything else.

You are basically jumping to conclusion that years or thousand of years has passed between Adam's creation and his Fall.

The only mean of more time had passed is when seasons are mentioned to divide the year. I don't remember what day that was, but it doesn't mention how many days or years had passed, except just one day.

Lot of parts in Genesis' Creation can be opened to interpretations, but you can only do so to certain extent.

Show me lines or passage that 1000 years...or even 1 year for that matter...had passed in any part of Genesis 1, 2 or 3, and only then would I believe or agree with yours or FFH's assumption that there was long interval between the time Adam was created to the time he ate the fruit.

You are misreading me. I am not concluding that thousands of years passed. I am concluding that thousands of years might have passed. That is very different. You, however, are concluding that they did not, which is not backed up by the text. The text doesn't tell us how long passed, so saying that thousands of years didn't pass is just as wrong as saying that they did. The only thing the text tells us about it is nothing.

You are also assuming that the word that was translated as "day" literally means "day" in the sense that we understand. I'm not a hebrew scholar, so I couldn't tell you if that is the case or not.

I really can't tell you whether this has anything to do with FFH's assumptions either.

 

[gnostic]

You are also assuming that the word that was translated as "day" literally means "day" in the sense that we understand. I'm not a hebrew scholar, so I couldn't tell you if that is the case or not.

Then you are not reading the Genesis properly, soyleche.

One day doesn't equate with a thousand years, or even possibly a thousand year, no matter how you look at it. One day doesn't equate even with one year, one month, one week or one hour.

I suggest that you (and FFH) read the Genesis again, particularly chapter 1.

You are misreading me. I am not concluding that thousands of years passed. I am concluding that thousands of years might have passed. That is very different.

Reading literature and interpreting them, "might" is wishful thinking. What is "not written", but that it might be possible doesn't hold that much weight. That's simply presuming what has happened, "but it could have" is more like trying to rewrite your own ending to the book. I need more certainty than just "might".

FFH, on the other hand, is basing his certainty on what he believed to be real fact, that it actually happened, as the way Joseph Smith's had reinterpreted it. I have come across other reinterpretations that are found in the Haggad, the Book of Jubilees, the Gnostic texts on creation, Muhammad's interpretation or so-called revelation on the Creation.

How do I know if JS's translation and revelation are any better than other prophets' writings?

I can't. I can only based on what I have read. The thing is that FFH is basing all his theories and placing them in one basket. He might be right, I am very doubtful. Am I right? Could be, but probably not.

Your "might have happened" that way are only assumption, just like mine and FFH's assumptions are too. We can only assess on "what and reliable our sources are" and deductions, but in the end, they are all the assumptions, because we can never no for certain....although FFH seemed to be certain that it really happened that way. Well he is entitled that belief, but I see holes in his assertions.

And personally I don't like to throw everything in one basket....just yet. Perhaps, when I become some sort of Christian or Muslim or Jew, I will do so.

You, however, are concluding that they did not, which is not backed up by the text.

I can back up what I have written in replies, and that is without using FFH's Book of Moses. (Let me assess the Book of Moses, and I will let you all know. For now, I will only used what the books that are found in Jews and Christians.)

It has stated repeatedly in the Genesis that "And there was evening and there was morning..." to a particular day -

• the 1st day (Genesis 1:5),
• 2nd day (1:8),
• 3rd day (1:13),
• 4th day (1:19),
• 5th day (1:23)
• and 6th day (1:31).

How am I misreading the Bible about day only passed and not years or a thousand year had passed?

Just because I don't believe in the Bible's Genesis, doesn't mean I can read such literature and 2-and-2 together. This "might" of yours and certainty in FFH are merely assumptions of great number of time have passed, but that not evident in the Genesis. Joseph Smith may be both of your prophet and his version of the Genesis (Book of Moses) may be exception to the rule, but only FFH or other such Mormons are equating 1 day to 1 thousand against all other versions of the Bible (and not just to KJV).

 

[FFH]

How am I misreading the Bible about day only passed and not years or a thousand year had passed?

Just because I don't believe in the Bible's Genesis, doesn't mean I can read such literature and 2-and-2 together. This "might" of yours and certainty in FFH are merely assumptions of great number of time have passed, but that not evident in the Genesis. Joseph Smith may be both of your prophet and his version of the Genesis (Book of Moses) may be exception to the rule, but only FFH or other such Mormons are equating 1 day to 1 thousand against all other versions of the Bible (and not just to KJV).

Sorry, I didn't mean to allude to the one day equals a thousand years as being in the Book of Moses, but is found in 2 Peter 3:8

Joseph Smith Translation 2 Peter 3:8
But concerning the coming of the Lord, beloved, I would not have you ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years and a thousand years as one day.

King James 2 Peter 3:8
But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

Moses 7:64
And there shall be mine abode, and it shall be Zion, which shall come forth out of all the creations which I have made; and for the space of a thousand years the earth shall rest.

Moses 7:65 And it came to pass that Enoch saw the day of the coming of the Son of Man, in the last days, to dwell on the earth in righteousness for the space of a thousand years;

 

[FFH]

Which is testable (in any way), or not?

Fatih is testable.

Fatih is an assurance of things hoped for but not seen, according to the Joseph Smith translation of this verse in Hebrews 11: 1 of the King James.

We are assured that something is true, by reading scripture, which speaks of many truths and mysteries of the universe....

We can test if something is true or not by asking God if it is or not and his spirit will speak directly to our minds by flooding it with knowledge after we have studied it out thoroughly... God confirms truth and reveals it.

We cannot accurately date the earth...

Is this conclusion based upon Scripture?

No, but now that I think of it, scrptures do tell us that "matter" is eternal or has always existed. There is no beginning or end to it...

If it is possible to date a rock, then we would have an accurate date of the earth, or would we ???

What substance of the earth could we date that would give us clues as to the approximate time the earth was created ??? Water, land ???

Even if we could date these things it would not help us, becuase they have always existed in one form or another ??? We cannot create or destroy water, rock, soil, sand, etc... So could we not assume they have always existed and will always exist in one form or another ?? So how could anyone possibly date these things, which the earth consists of... Can we date gold, silver, copper, aluminum, etc ???

Is there a datable substance on this earth that we know was formed at the time of creation or has every non living substance on this earth always existed...

The accounts I have read of creation tell me that God organized matter, and in this way created the earth. He did not create it out of nothing, but organized existing matter....

This may explain why scientists are coming up with such dates as millions, billions, trillions, quadrillions, etc...

Perhaps we can not know at this time. But the burden of disproof remains upon believers to discredit the supportive science behind it's conclusive claims of age, not just present doubts and suppositions of "what ifs". Supposition is not science. Extraordinary alternatives are certainly welcomed, but must be served by equally extraordinary proofs that are more compelling and convincing than what contemporary scientiic understandings have to offer.

I will do some more research and see what I can find to prove that the earth is young and not old. The matter the earth is made of may be eons of years old or, according to scripture, has always existed, but the formation of the earth happened only a few thousand years ago, not millions...

Is carbon dating accurate ???

As best as can established and independently verified/validated today...YES.

Can you cite or provide compelling disproof (not facile "doubts", misgivings, or "holes") of such claimed accuracies.

Carbon Dating

A less-common form of the carbon atom, carbon-14, is used today by scientists as a method to date once-living organisms. Many people believe that carbon dating disproves the Biblical time scale of history. However, because of the difficulties with current C14 dating techniques, the dates produced have been shown to be faulty.

Carbon-14 is produced in the upper atmosphere by action of cosmic rays. Once the C 14 has been formed, by converting nitrogen-14 into carbon-14, it behaves like ordinary carbon-12, combining with oxygen to give carbon dioxide, and freely cycling through the cells of all plants and animals. Carbon-14 is used for a dating material because once it has been formed, C14 begins to decay radioactively back to nitrogen-14, at a rate of change that can be measured. As soon as an organism dies, the C14 atoms which decay are no longer replaced by new ones through respiration.

Consequently, the ratio of C14 to C12 in that once-living organism decreases as time goes on. The problem with the carbon dating method is—scientists can not be sure of what the C14/C12 ratio was when the organism died. Carbon dating assumes that the ratio has remained constant; however, events, such as the industrial revolution, are known to have raised C12 levels.

Other possible factors, such as the presence of a water canopy, would have lowered the amount of C14 in the pre-Flood world. Because pre-Flood specimens had so little carbon-14 in them, some might appear to have been decaying for tens of thousands of years. Also, the decay of the earth’s magnetic field would have direct effects on C14 level, again, giving artificially old ages the farther you go back in time. Finally, carbon dating has been shown untrustworthy with some present day aquatic specimens that were concluded to be thousands of years old.

For example, the shells of living snails’ were carbon dated and showed that the snails had died 27,000 years ago. Other specimens have been carbon dated more than once, each time producing a different date varying by thousands of years. In overview, we see that the radiocarbon dating method is certainly no embarrassment to the Biblical creationist who believes in a young earth. In fact, when all data, such as the decay of the magnetic field and the canopy, is taken into accord, carbon dating seems to support a young earth.

Reference

Does the earth's magnetic field give us clues ???

Yes, to a great many things...do you offer alternative theological "clues", or scientific disproofs?

 

[FFH]

[SIZE=+1]The Earths Magnetic Field[/SIZE]

Many people know that the earth has a magnetic field, but few are aware that this field is shrinking. This decrease has been measured over a period of 150 years, and the rate of the decrease shows that something very earth-shaking took place less than 6000 years ago. The fossil record contains evidence of great disturbances in the field that give us an idea of the magnitude of the geologic events during Noah's flood. This fact sheet answers some common questions on this subject, beginning with basic questions about magnetism and ending with some current theories about geomagnetism.

What's a magnet?

Everyone knows what a magnet is, or what a magnet does. An invisible force (the magnetic field) attracts iron objects. This force can be very strong. A better question is ``Why does a magnet attract iron objects?''. For this we must take a look at what a magnet is made of.

If you take a bar magnet and break it in half, you end up with two smaller bar magnets. If you break the halves into fourths, you get four small bar magnets. If you have enough patience and time you can repeat this until you have millions of microscopic magnets.

All magnets have two poles; a north pole and a south pole. We call this a dipole (two poles). Two north poles or south poles repel each other. Try forcing the two north poles of two bar magnets together. The unseen magnetic field makes it feel like there's a water balloon between them resisting your push. Opposite poles (a north and a south) attract strongly.

How do you make a magnet?

Since opposite poles attract, you can put two magnets together to make a larger magnet. If you have many little magnets, you can keep adding magnets into a larger mass and have one large, strong magnet.

Some molecules, some atoms, and all electrons are little magnets. So why isn't everything magnetic? In most matter, the molecules, atoms, and electrons are all jumbled up together. In a strong magnet, most of the little magnets (magnetic domains if you want to get fancy) point in the same direction. This makes the magnetic force of all the little magnets add up to make a large magnet, called a permanent magnet.

Free magnets tend to align with each other. You can try this by placing one magnet on a table and slowly moving another magnet toward it. The magnet that is loose on the table turns to align with the magnet in your hand. If you stroke a piece of iron with a magnet, you gradually align the little magnetic domains, and the result is a larger magnet.

Electric current is the flow of electrons through a conductor. A conductor is a material that lets the electrons hop from atom to atom when influenced by an outside force. If you move a wire (which is an electric conductor) through a magnetic field, you force (induce) the electrons to travel in one direction through the wire. Electrons flowing through a conductor create a magnetic field around the conductor. This is called electromagnetism.

Can you ´unmake´ a magnet?

A stronger magnet can partially realign the magnetic domains of a weaker magnet.
Many different substances can be made into permanent magnets. However, for all these materials, there is a critical temperature called the Curie point. At this temperature or above, the molecules within the material are moving around too much for the material to retain the magnetic alignment necessary to exhibit a magnetic field.

How big can a magnet be?

We live on a magnet. The earth itself has a large magnetic field called the geomagnetic field. You can see the effects of the field when you use a compass to find out which direction is north.

Earth's magnetic field is very complicated. It can be thought of as being one large magnetic dipole with twelve more small magnets arranged at various angles.
A curious fact about Earth's magnetic field is that it is not lined up with the spin axis. Its alignment is about 11 degrees off the axis defined by the north and south poles. (Without knowing this, you can't find the North pole using only a compass!)
What does Earth's magnetic field do for us?

The magnetic field helps us find our way around. Using a compass, we can tell which way is north even when there are no familiar landmarks in sight.
The magnetic field shields us from much harmful radiation. Cosmic rays come from all directions, and the sun sends out a steady stream of high-energy particles known as the solar wind.

Genesis 1:6 describes the firmament (Hebrew raqia) separating the water below from the water above. Before the flood described in Genesis, the magnetic field may even have helped to suspend the firmament above the earth.

Is the Earth's field changing?

Scientists have made many careful measurements of the magnetic field over 150 years. These measurements show that the magnetic field is slowly shrinking. The intensity of the field decreases by half in 1400 years. This means that as time goes on we have less protection from cosmic radiation and the solar wind.

How strong has it been?

In 560 A.D. the field was twice as strong as it is now. In David's kingdom it was four times as strong. In Noah's time it was eight times as strong. There are limits to how intense the magnetic field could have been. If we assume that the field has been decaying at the same rate for 10,000 years, the field would have been more intense than that of a magnetic star. The heat and electrical extremes from such conditions would have made life on earth impossible.

This presents a significant problem for evolutionists and their belief in a 4.6-billion-year-old earth. Their answer is the dynamo theory, which assumes that the core of the earth is made of molten metal (iron-nickel mixture). Molten material inside the earth is far hotter than the Curie point, which means that the earth as a whole is not a permanent magnet; it must be an electromagnet. The dynamo theory is that slow, internal convection currents or planetary rotation generates the magnetic field, and that this mechanism has operated for the assumed 4.6 billion years. Since This theory also claims that the field reverses over extremely long periods of time.

Did the field ever change directions?

Of course, it's dangerous to observe a process for a relatively short period of time and then declare that the process has been behaving in exactly that way for all of time. This approach is routinely seen in traditional geology and paleontology (``...the present is the key to the past.''). However, in this case uniformitarianism is denounced by the evolutionists. They point to paleomagnetic measurements in rock formations.

As sediment accumulates or as molten rock cools, the earth's magnetic field is believed to have aligned the magnetic domains within the material as it hardened, locking in a record of the orientation of the geomagnetic field at the time. Measurements of the magnetic-field polarity in ancient volcanic lava flows show that Earths magnetic field gyrated wildly at one point in time. Other evidence for a change is that the residual magnetic fields in rock formed on the ocean floor where the great tectonic plates are pulling apart show a number of different orientations. The traditional assumption here is that these processes went on at the same rate in the past as we observe today. However, during the flood, when cataclysmic geologic events were occurring at a rapid pace, these processes may have been recording what happened to the magnetic field over weeks or months instead of hundreds of thousands of years.

Dr. D. R. Humphreys has studied the physical evidence of magnetic-field reversal and decay and developed a model that describes the magnetic field as having a high initial strength, a series of rapid reversals during the flood year, slower variations until the time of Christ's earthly ministry, then gradual steady decay.

The idea that the geomagnetic field could have rapidly reversed was rejected by the evolutionary community, even though a much larger body, the Sun, reverses its field every eleven years.

Recent discoveries have added more weight to Dr. Humphreys model. The April 5, 1995 edition (Vol. 14) of Science News reported on a Nature article that researchers are finding fresh evidence of extremely-rapid field orientation shifts, as much as six degrees per day. The article states that ``if that happened today, compass needles would swing from magnetic north toward Mexico City in little over a week''. The article quotes one geophysicist as saying ``that shows the core to be violently active in terms of the magnetic field''.
Violently active? ``...on that day all the fountains of the deep were broken up...''
Genesis 7:11, NKJV.

Will the field build back up again?

- Earth seems to have a broken generator. More of the observable facts support the model proposed by Dr. Humphreys. Whatever happened in the past, hard evidence exists for a freely-decaying geomagnetic field now. A collapsing magnetic field encounters resistance, which generates electrical current, which generates more magnetic energy. The result is a slow decay unless new energy is released into the decaying system from an outside source.

``He who was sat on the throne said `Behold, I make all things new!'''... Revelation 21:5, NKJV.

Reference

 

[FFH]

There is no way of really knowing, except by faith, which brings about truth revealed to the human spirit.

As Yoda might say...

"THIS...is why you fail".

If and when you encounter the day that your car fails to start because of a dead battery...then all of the "revealed truth [by faith]" in the world will not wish or hope your car to start. Even "true believers" sign up for AAA...

And that's the most revealing "truth" I can offer you at this time...

I rely no more on God fixing my car than you do...

But I do use prayer when repairing my car. I find the job goes much smoother when I pray for help, than if I don't, and just rely on my own wisdom and knowledge. If I fail to do this before hand, I always seem to run into trouble when trying to attempt a difficult repair...

Manufactures put cars together, not keeping in mind the person repairing the car... Sometimes it takes a little creativiey to repair a difficult to reach part....

I have succuesfully repaired or replaced every aspect of a car without help, after a quick reading of that particular car's manual....

I'm living in the world, but I am not of the world...

I am not ignorant of many things....

I regularly take apart computers to repair, replace or upgrade.

I never call a repair man, tow truck, etc... and can judge if a particular part of a car needs replacing before it dies...

If my computer starts to die, I fix it, the same goes for my car or anything else I own..

I have repaired almost every aspect of a home...

I'm not a "pray to God please fix this type of guy", but am very very practical, as you are....

I did however pray that my foot would heal, after a bad motorcycle accident, in which my foot was left all but dead, horrible looking colors, grey, purple, yellow. The doctors could do nothing for me. I was unable to use that foot for 3 months and I lay here helpless....

Prayer and faith and the bodies built in ability to heal got me back on my feet and walking normal with no side affects whatsoever.... It took a while but I have no pain, whereas before. I prayed about it. I had constant pain and discomfort and could not work. I waited a year before I finally asked someone to pray over me and I was immediately able to go back to work...

We need to rely on this type of faith in God in order to uncover the mysteries of our particular universe..

Sometimes truth comes to us in the form of a vision in our mind. We can see the truth of any particular mystery. It comes clear to our minds and there is no confusion whatsoever, but only peace..

 

[fantome profane]

Then you are not reading the Genesis properly, soyleche.

That’s right. People have to understand that there is a proper way to read Genesis. And that is drunk. I personally never even pick up the Bible until I am absolutely falling down drunk. That is the proper way to read Genesis.

I can tell by reading some of these threads lately that some people (and I am not naming names) are reading Genesis while high, and that is not the proper way to read Genesis.

 

[FFH]

That’s right. People have to understand that there is a proper way to read Genesis. And that is drunk. I personally never even pick up the Bible until I am absolutely falling down drunk. That is the proper way to read Genesis.

I can tell by reading some of these threads lately that some people (and I am not naming names) are reading Genesis while high, and that is not the proper way to read Genesis.

Well, for what it's worth, I have never touched alcohol or any type of illegal drug....

Never had the desire to for some reason...

I am on a natural high....

Seriously life sucks just as much for me as the next guy, but I find other things that help to distract me from thinking too much about the bad side of life...

The forum is my distraction at the moment....

 

[fantome profane]

Well, for what it's worth, I have never touched alcohol or any type of illegal drug....

Never had the desire to for some reason...

I am on a natural high....

Seriously life sucks just as much for me as the next guy, but I find other things that help to distract me from thinking too much about the bad side of life...

The forum is my distraction at the moment....

And what makes you think I was talking about you? I think someone is being a little sensitive.

:drunk: <--- my bible study group.

 

[FFH]

And what makes you think I was talking about you? I think someone is being a little sensitive.

Yeah, probably...

:drunk: <--- my bible study group.

Well at least they're not reading the Bible and driving...

I used to read and drive. Don't do it anymore, I'm an RA (Readaholics Anonymous) graduate......