We were unable to load Disqus. If you are a moderator please see our troubleshooting guide.

Mark in St. Louis, MO • 7 years ago

Well Bill Nye, when you breathe your last breath in this life, you will then regret not believing in Creation and having become a Christian.

You are presently on the down elevator headed for the unhappy hot place. Your choice, your eternity. I pity you.

melissasmom • 7 years ago

He will be a believer then and it will be too late. i pray he doesn't take too many with him.

BohdanUke1 • 7 years ago

Nye is a worthless liberal Putz. A Godless nobody. Until all the answers in biology, technology and cosmology do not beg any more questions; is when the purpose of our existence will be revealed.

Michael Skok • 7 years ago

He doesn't explain why it would be a disaster to believe that creationism is possible. In college, when you make a statement like that, you need to back it up with at least two reasons. He didn't even give one reason for his statement. Evolutionists only have two weapons against creationism: 1) censorship and 2) ridicule.

SirWilhelm • 7 years ago

“We need these kids to be part of the future. We need them to innovate and change the world. But if you raise a generation of students who don’t believe in the most fundamental idea in biology, it’s a formula for disaster. This is against our national interest, and if you raise a generation like this, they’re victims,” he added. My goodness, how did humanity get by before Darwin came along and "created" the Theory of Evolution? Obviously, human life has been so much better since Darwin published his book in 1859. All the humans that died in all the wars since then, were just part of the process of natural selection, weren't they? All Leftists are Evolutionists, aren't they? Marxists don't believe in a God, a Creator, do they? Even though Hitler was supposed to be a Christian, he was a National SOCIALIST, a Leftist, right? He believed the Aryan race was superior, didn't he? He believed Jews were inferior, and sent 6 million of them to their deaths in the Holocaust, a form of "natural selection" didn't he? How many millions of their own people did the godless Communists, who believed in the "science" of Evolution, Stalin, Mao, Castro, and Pol Pot, murder, as part of their means of implementing their ideologies, and to maintain their control over their people? Apparently, their beliefs in Evolution did not lead them to value human life. And Nye believes "the most fundamental idea in biology" has prevented disaster? If anything, Evolution has been against our national interests, and created victims everywhere it's been taught, so that it's believers have overruled Creationists, and the Creator. Then they come to believe such things as "natural selection" and abortion, are not murder.

far2right • 7 years ago

Yes, let's not forget that wretched segment of humans that have slaughtered 56 million babies. Hitler and Stalin combined did not murder so much. The American feminist is responsible for the most murders in the history of the world.

Secularism fueled by the "idea" of evolution (note Nye did not call it theory - oops) gives license to kill. Nye is worried about the kids? Give me a break. What about the 56 million dead? He does not give a blank about them.

Lou • 7 years ago

Nye sounded like a fool, but Ham sounded like an idiot. Ham made the Christian position look like one had to stop using their brain to become a Christian. God has left two records of His revelation to mankind. The Creation and The Bible. The creation was first and The Bible followed far later. The Bible says that The Creation declares the glory of God. The Creation is from God not science. The Bible and Creation agree. But I also have found that conventional doctrine is seldom correct. The earth centered creation came from a man who claimed to be the Pope. Augustine, who preceded that so called Pope, believed that the six days of creation were very long. He did not have science to come by this belief, but he got this revelation from reading The Holy Scriptures. I have had The Holy Spirit reveal the same thing to me. The first day of creation could NOT be a 24 hour earth day. The Lord clearly tells us that the earth was NOT formed yet. So you can not have an earth day with no earth.

keyboardshark • 7 years ago

Genesis 1 does not say the earth was not formed on Day 1. It says it was "without form and void". There certainly was an earth on Day 1, it simply wasn't in the round shape we observe now, and there was nothing on it ("void") So you are using a straw man argument to 'prove' that Day 1 could not have been a 24 hour day. It clearly says in Genesis that evening and morning were Day 1, just like it says evening and morning were day "x" for the other Creation days:

1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.

5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

(Genesis 1)

So we would have no reason nor scriptural validation to claim that Day 1 was anything other than a normal day of about 24 hours. And ditto for the other Creation days. If the "days" were actually long periods of time, say, 10,000 years, then there would be 5000 years of light, and 5000 years of darkness. What happens to plants when they are placed in darkness for even a few weeks? They die. Obviously, we observe living vegetation today, so we know from that fact alone that the "days" could not have been long periods of time.

edwinrad • 7 years ago

We don't know how much time there was between verses 1 and 2 of Genesis. What is described appears to have been cosmic war.

keyboardshark • 7 years ago

Just curious as to how you arrived at that conclusion...

edwinrad • 7 years ago

Look at verse 2. The earth was already created but was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. What God creates is perfect but this looks far from perfect. It appears it was a chaos of wasteness, emptiness, and darkness. Such conditions would not result from God's creative work; rather, in the Bible they are symptomatic of sin and are coordinate with judgment.
I site scripture for what I post but I don't have scripture for this post. It's just that it appears to be part of the destruction when Lucifer rebelled and became Satan and there was war. What do you think?

keyboardshark • 7 years ago

It's good to see that you are thinking outside the box, but it seems like you may be applying a fair bit of creative inference on your part. What God creates IS perfect, but the earth and all it contained wasn't finished until Creation Day 7. Just because it was without form and void on Day 1 doesn't mean that God had created imperfectly, it simply wasn't in its finished form. That is what I get from the passage.

You can infer that there was some kind of 'cosmic war' if you wish, but by your own admission, there doesn't seem to be a clear scriptural basis for your belief. It's true that we don't have a lot of detail to flesh out exactly what happened, or how it happened during Creation Week, but I think we need to be careful to not 'read between the lines' too much lest we add something that doesn't belong there. In my opinion, God has already written all we needed to know, and we'll find out the rest of the details when we get to Glory.

edwinrad • 7 years ago

You're right. Like I said I hardly ever post without backing it up with scripture. It's opinion on my part that there was angelic warfare.
We look through a glass darkly(1Cor. 13:12) and right now there's more questions than answers. But like you said, we'll get the details. Peace.

Lou • 7 years ago

KBS- My 4 year old was able to understand that " the earth was without form" meant that the earth had not been formed yet, so was without form. But those who cling to their beliefs even though they oppose The Holy Scriptures can not understand. Just as the Pharisees could not understand even though The God they claimed to worship stood right before them and raised the dead right before their very eyes.

3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.

5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

Look up the definition of the word "day". One meaning is the light of "day". We use the word day like that today. Is it day or night out. It has NOTHING to do with time, but only has to do with light or absence of light.

God DEFINES the word day for us right in this passage. And God called the LIGHT Day, and the darkness he called Night.

There is nothing spoke about time here. The first day was simply the first coming of light. There was darkness and God spoke let there be light, and there was light. That first coming of light was the first DAY. It was night out, and God made it become day, or light.

Mankind is always worried about time and many have made the focus of Genesis 1 about time. But God is not so concerned about time and tells us to be the same. God is concerned about light and darkness. God is light. Man can not live in darkness.

God calls Himself, "The Ancient of Days". I do not consider that God, who says a thousand years is like day to Him, would call 6000 years "ancient" anymore than we would call 6 days ancient. But billions of days would be ancient. An old universe and a very large universe declares the glory of God.

Read The Book, there were no plants until God had THE EARTH BRING FORTH PLANTS that took place AFTER the second DAY. So there were no plants as you say before the first day.

And since you object to plants not being able to live without light of the sun, do you agree with Ham, that the Sun was not created until after the third day ? Then how did those plants, that came forth from the earth before the third day, come to have life without the light of the Sun. Ham claims that there was no Sun during that time.

Are men born again to receive LIFE BEFORE they receive LIGHT from Christ. Or do they receive LIGHT from Christ and are then born again to life. The natural coming of life in plants declares this truth about God. There can be no life without light from Christ.

BUT, God says, " in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." Tell me what natural thing is not included in the heavens and the earth ? Is not everything material included in the heavens and the earth ?

Also NOTICE that God only uses the word CREATE three places in Genesis 1. All other places, God uses the words, let there be, or made. If God uses a different word, He must have a reason. God does not do anything without a reason. What is His reason for doing this ?

I caution anyone and ask everyone, have they sought God about this for 40 years. I had these questions and asked God about it. I have studied this passage for 40 years with prayer. God has kept his promise, and answered my prayers. He revealed His Truth about this to me and answered my questions. There is a difference between assuming the traditional doctrines of man are true, and seeking the Truth from God. God keeps his promise to reveal truth to anyone who truly seeks the truth.

After all, if plants can come to have life without light, surely they should be able to keep living without light. The Sun is shadow of Christ. There is no life without Christ. There is no natural life without the light from the Sun. After all, the natural is a sign of the spiritual is it not ?

What kind of plants do we have today. The kind that come from seeds sprouting in the light of the sun. But the plants that God told the earth to bring forth, brought forth plants after their kind. So these original plants were the same KIND we have today. They can not come forth without the light from the Sun. This declares the glory of God, that there can not be life without the Spiritual LIGHT from Christ.

To say that plants could come forth to life without the light from the Sun, is to say that there can be life without light from Christ, which is antichrist. Why not pray about this and ask The Lord to show you His truth. What can anyone lose by asking this from our dear Lord.

He who shed His blood for us while we were still great sinners, will certainly also reveal his truth to anyone who would bother to seek Him instead of following the traditions of mere men.

keyboardshark • 7 years ago

"My 4 year old was able to understand that " the earth was without form"
meant that the earth had not been formed yet, so was without form.
"

Not being "formed" (created) and being without form are two different things. The word "form" in English has 29 separate definitions according to my Random House Dictionary. When the Bible says it was "without form" it means it did not have a distinct shape, not that it didn't exist. Otherwise, how could verse 1 be true where it says "in the beginning God CREATED the heaven and the earth."? When God created it, it began its existence.

"What kind of plants do we have today. The kind that come from seeds
sprouting in the light of the sun. But the plants that God told the
earth to bring forth, brought forth plants after their kind. So these
original plants were the same KIND we have today. They can not come
forth without the light from the Sun.
"

First, it does not say the plants came from seed. It says the EARTH brought forth the plants. In other words, the plants themselves were created, not seed.

Second, there already was light from Day 1 as verses 3 and 4 say. But even if we disregard that light, the plants were created on Day 3, and the sun on Day 4. Plants can certainly live 24 hours without light.

Third, the "days" of creation could not be long periods of time for two reasons: 1) The word translated as "day", (yom), when used the same way as in Genesis 1, always refers to a literal day., and 2) If the Creation "days" were really long periods of time, let's say 100,000 years, there would be 50,000 years of light and 50,000 years of dark, and all plants would die.

Lou • 7 years ago

KBS- you are walking in a world of your own and following the doctrines of mere men. It is pure ignorance, or refusal to face the truth when you say that every time YOM is used it refers to a 24 hour day. How about the scriptures that say, in his day, they are NOT referring to a 24 hour day, but the lifetime of the man. Words have meaning and you can not dictate what they mean.

1- after the beginning the earth was without form. To say that does not mean the earth was not formed yet is plain ignorance of the meaning of language. The only difference is the ORDER of the words, they mean the same thing. If you can not understand that, and refuse to see a language teacher, then I can not help you.

2- did God say that the plants will bear seeds and bring forth plants after their kind. What kind of plants do we have today. The kind that sprout from seeds in the light of the sun Jesus said unless a grain of wheat falls to the ground and die, it can not bring forth seed. This was to illustrate the way Jesus would die for us. Are you actually saying that God created a world that did not illustrate this fact. Are you saying that the creation did NOT reveal His glory.

3 -Here is a Hebrew scholar writing about YOM

What does “yom” mean in Genesis 1 ?
by Rodney Whitefield, Ph.D.
© Rodney Whitefield 2006 This document may be freely distributed provided it is complete and unchanged.
Recently, a reader of my book Reading Genesis One 1 asked about the use of a number with the Hebrew
word “yom.” Specifically, I was asked to comment on the statement, “Day” with numerical adjectives in
Hebrew always refers to a 24 hour period.”, which appears in John MacArthur’s Study Bible in reference
to Genesis 1:5.
The quoted statement is one which is commonly offered to justify eliminating the long “extended period of
time” meaning of the Hebrew word “yom” in Genesis 1:3-31. Eliminating the “extended period” or “age”
meaning would then give support for a 24 hour interpretation for the duration of the creative times. In the
first chapter of Genesis, the singular Hebrew word “yom” appears with a number at the conclusion of
each of the creative times. Subsequently, in this article, “yom” refers to this singular Hebrew word form.
In order to illustrate the differing opinions which have been offered as interpretation, I will very briefly
quote two well-known Bible scholars about the numbering of the word “yom.” Both scholars hold “extended
period” or “age” views of the meaning of “yom” as describing the duration of the creative times.
Subsequently, I will explain why the opinion of these two scholars has substantial support in the Hebrew,
in contradiction to the claim in the MacArthur Study Bible. First the quotes:
Gleason L. Archer, Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, pages 60-61, Baker 1982:
“ There were six major stages in this work of formation, and these stages are represented by successive days
of a week. In this connection it is important to observe that none of the six creative days bears a definite
article in the Hebrew text; the translations “the first day,” “ the second day,” etc., are in error. The Hebrew
says, “And the evening took place, and the morning took place, day one” (1:5). Hebrew expresses “the first
day” by hayyom harison, but this text says simply yom ehad (day one). Again, in v.8 we read not hayyom
hasseni (“the second day”) but yom seni (“a second day”). In Hebrew prose of this genre, the definite
article was generally used where the noun was intended to be definite; only in poetic style could it be
omitted. The same is true with the rest of the six days; they all lack the definite article. Thus they are well
adapted to a sequential pattern, rather than to strictly delimited units of time.”
Gleason Archer was Associate Editor of the Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament. In the quote above,
the first two italicized letters ha of words like harison indicate the Hebrew prefix “heh” meaning “the.”
Norman L. Geisler, Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, page 271, Zondervan 1999:
“Numbered days need not be solar. Neither is there a rule of Hebrew language demanding that all numbered
days in a series refer to twenty-four-hour days. Even if there were no exceptions in the Old Testament, it
would not mean that “day” in Genesis 1 could not refer to more than one twenty-four-hour period. But there
is another example in the Old Testament. Hosea 6:1-2 . . . . . . Clearly the prophet is not speaking of solar
“days” but of longer periods in the future. Yet he numbers the days in series.”

4 - I wonder if you are looking for the truth. It seems you are only trying to justify your beliefs. To say the word "day" always means a 24 hour day, is just plain unbelievable. In his day - means during the mans lifetime ; is it day out - means is it light out; I did a full days work - means I worked hard for 8 hours ; do you know anyone who can work for 24 hours straight.

Here is the Hebrew word study for Yowm out of Strongs

Lexicon :: Strong's H3117 - yowm

יוֹםTransliteration

yowmPronunciation

yōm (Key) Part of Speech

masculine nounRoot Word (Etymology)

From an unused root meaning to be hotDictionary Aids

TWOT Reference: 852Outline of Biblical Usage

day, time, year

day (as opposed to night)

day (24 hour period)

as defined by evening and morning in Genesis 1

as a division of time

a working day, a day's journey

days, lifetime (pl.)

time, period (general)

year

temporal references

today

yesterday

tomorrow

Strongs clearly says that the word can mean a 24 hour day, work day, lifetime, year, or any period of time

Anyone can lead a horse to water, but no one can make it drink.

keyboardshark • 7 years ago

I am going to make my answer rather short as I am running low on patience and time on having to cover the same material. Re-read what I wrote. I did NOT say "every time YOM is used it refers to a 24 hour day". I said, and I quote, "The word translated as "day", (yom), when used the same way as in Genesis 1, always refers to a literal day.,". Big difference. What I actually wrote covers the objections you raise from your "scholars".

I do find it humorous that you start out saying "KBS- you are walking in a world of your own and following the doctrines of mere men.", then you go on to quote SCHOLARS (who, the last time I checked, are mere men) instead of simply quoting the Bible. In other words, you are contradicting yourself. I find nothing wrong with using Strong's Concordance, as I do myself, because it is simply a means for finding words from the Bible, but you cannot simply look at an individual word out of its context, and then attempt to shoehorn a definition from Strong's into a certain specific context.

Not only that, but the 'definitions' offered by Strong's are not what is meaningful. What is meaningful is how the original Greek or Hebrew word is used in the same context in a different passage. And what we find, as I originally said, is that "The word translated as "day", (yom), when used the same way as in Genesis 1, always refers to a literal day." Please read more carefully the next time.

There is no biblical justification for making the Days of Creation into long periods of time, and it would not make sense either from a biological standpoint, as all the plants would die during the thousands of years of darkness. How does you 'long ages' theory handle THAT objection, I wonder?

Lou • 7 years ago

Unbelievable - no one claimed that the period of time, or day, did not have many earth days in it. You are welcome to your beliefs. The Lord Jesus will judge us both in the DAY of judgment. Of course I suppose you would say that The Lord will judge everyone in 24 hours..

keyboardshark • 7 years ago

First, let me go back and re-emphasize that the phrase "without form and void" cannot mean the earth was not yet created, because Genesis 1:1 CLEARLY says "In the beginning God CREATED the heaven and the earth." How you could understand that to mean that the earth had not been formed (created) is beyond me. You are using bait-and-switch tactics by substituting one meaning for the word "form" in the English language with another meaning that does not fit the clear context.

You are making the same mistake when you compare the DAY of judgement with the Creation days in Genesis 1--a different context. So no, I do not necessarily believe the DAY of Judgement will be 24 hours long, but then again, it could be. We simply don't have enough information to decide. But it certainly does not invalidate the fact of literal 24 hour days in Genesis 1. It is apples-to-oranges.

Notice I constantly emphasize context, context, context. Much misunderstanding of doctrine arises when we carelessly ignore context, or try to substitute a meaning of a word that applies in one context to a different meaning that applies in another context. In real estate the principle is location, location, location, and in Bible study it is context, context, context. Never forget that, and you won't be led astray.

Lou • 7 years ago

KBS - sorry I missed your comment about the earth being CREATED in Gen 1 - exactly the point I was trying to make earlier. The heavens include the sun also. But Ham claims the Sun was not created until day four. The heavens and the earth include the whole universe ! So how could God CREATE the whole universe and yet the Sun and earth be without form ? God left man evidence to reveal His glory in His creation. We read it like we read His Book. IF we are truly seeking the Truth he promises us we will find the truth. God has left us a record of the Big Bang, just as he described the Big Bang in the first verse of Genesis. In the beginning, or the very first instance of time, God created, out of nothing, the heavens and the earth, or God created all of the matter and energy that is in this uninverse. BUT it was all without form. It took time to form into stars and galaxies and planets.God hints at this by saying the earth was without form.

God put our planet in an almost empty place in our galaxy so that we could look out into the heavens. The further we look, the further we look back into time. For it took light a long time to get from there to us. We can see stars forming as we look, and we see stars dying as we look. So we know that stars were not all formed in the beginning, but the matter was created in the beginning and God formed them as time goes on. This reveals the cycle of life to us. Men are born and die every day, just as stars are born and die every day.

We see giant clouds of gas that are colliding and just starting to form into a star. We see other stars that gravity has formed into a smaller and more dense star out of a cloud of gas. We see yet other stars that are just starting Hydrogen fusion and it is that systems "let there be light" moment. Why did God do it this way ? Because He loves to reveal his secrets to the people who seek the truth ( Jesus is the truth ) We see other star systems that have a disc of dust around the star, but the planets are only chucks of rocks and have not formed into planets yet. Kind of like the asteroid belt in our system. But we observe when the star starts fusion, it sends out a solar wind ( just as our Sun does constantly since it started producing light). That solar wind then blows the dust out of the star system and the star then can be seen from the planets in that system. Before that dust was blown away the light from the star could be seen, but not the star. Just as we have light on a cloudy day, but we can not see the Sun. After the Sun started making light, when God commanded it to do so, it blew the dust away and the Sun appeared in the sky. Some translations even say "appeared" instead on "let there be".

We KNOW that both His CREATION and His Book AGREE. When we look at both, we can see they do agree. But stubborn scientist and stubborn Bible readers both insist on looking at only one account and then insisting that there version of truth is correct. Most men in both groups have some things right and also many things wrong.

The solution is to humble one self before God and ask Him to reveal the truth to them. Of course once one asks, they need to be patient and wait for God to answer. And while they wait they should be seeking His answer in both His Creation and His Book.

It is a great sin to neglect His Book as many scientist do. I am thankful to know many that read His book every day. It is also a great sin to neglect studying His creation, for God has said in His Book that his Creation reveals His Glory.

So in summary, God created all the matter and energy in the whole universe in the beginning as He said. BUT it was not formed into stars and planets yet as He also says.

We can also see the natural laws of God in His creation, just as we see His spiritual laws in His Book. The natural is a sign of the spiritual. God never breaks His spiritual laws or His natural laws. God is NOT a lawbreaker and tells us not to be one either.

As Augustine said, "Miracles are not contrary to nature, but only contrary to what we know about nature".

http://www.fortressoftruth....

Recognizing_Truth • 7 years ago

Even atheistic Jewish scholars - who understand the language as it is written in scripture, but don't believe what it says is true - conclude that the author of the Genesis account describes creation in 6 regular (approximately 24 hour) days (and that the universe is young, and that the flood was global). Dr. James Barr (deceased) formerly Regius Professor of Hebrew at Oxford is on record as saying:
“Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1–11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that: creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience; the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story; Noah’s flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark.”

The language of Scripture, which in the English versions lead us to conclude young earth creationism is the answer, is the same in the original Hebrew. No other conclusion can be drawn from the Scriptures but what it so clearly says. Unless one tries to inject "long age" days, or gaps of unmentioned eons, or assumes an allegorical or poetic intent for Genesis, there is no way to take a Genesis day to be other than 24 hours or year other than 365+/- days, and that the genealogies add up to a young earth.

If you believe God is the ultimate author of Scripture, then Scripture is true. Since it is true, then it needs no further verification. But God in His grace and mercy allows us to observe and discover and to obtain knowledge (science) so that we do have verification of its truth (Rom 1:20).

What's "disastrous" isn't a recognition of the Truth which is readily seen in Scripture, but the fact that people would believe a flawed human who denies God exists who says that there was no creation. God is true, even if (though) every man lies (Rom 3:3-4).

So how does someone who wants to believe the Bible is true reconcile the fact that some "science" seems to indicate the Bible is not true or that it can't mean what it obviously says? You have to decide which will be your authority: God or man.

My favorite statement that defines that position clearly enough so anyone can understand it is a well thought out quote from a movie: Time Changer. "Science and scientific finding do not make the statements in the Bible true. Scripture is always true and never needs verification. Scientific support of the Scripture only means the science is true. Because we know the the Scripture already is."

So if your scientific conclusion is in opposition to the clear meaning of Scripture - your conclusion is wrong.

Lou • 7 years ago

RT - you actually use men who do not even know God or even believe in Him as evidence to support your doctrine. Who are you going to use next, Satan himself. Does not the Bible say that no one can understand the Holy Scriptures unless they have the help of The Holy Spirit. But you are claiming that these men who do not have the Holy Spirit know the truth. Ridiculous !

Recognizing_Truth • 7 years ago

I see the logic of the proof escapes you, so let me explain - without the Holy Spirit, the atheist cannot agree with what Scripture says, but he still recognizes what the language states. Christians (if they are Christians) have the Holy Spirit, but many attempt to redefine the language since they do not listen to the leading of the Holy Spirit about the truth and instead try to fit their understanding of Scripture into worldly dogma (e.g. no creator, big bang, long ages, evolution)

Now, let me use demons, and Satan, to further define my point: That truth is true, no matter who says it:
- On more than one occasion, when Jesus commanded the demon to depart from someone, the demon's response was "What have you to do with us, Jesus, Son of God…are you here to torment us before the time?" The demons knew who Jesus is, even though most people then and now had no clue.
- When Satan tempted Jesus in the wilderness, twice he said "If you are the Son of God, command these stones to be turned into bread". The if, is grammatically rendered "since" - He knew Jesus was the Son of God. This is even more clearly shown when He tells Jesus "If you are the Son of God, cast yourself from the temple…for it is written 'He will command His angles concerning you, on their hands they will bear you up, so that you will not strike your foot against a stone". Again, He knew Jesus was the Son of God ("if" is grammatically rendered as "since") and He showed also that He knew the Messiah, the one who God promised His protection to, was this same Jesus - showing Jesus to be the Messiah and the Messiah to be the Son of God; something that many in christendom still deny.

Truth is true no matter who says it. When EVEN an atheist knows what the language says, but lacking the Holy Spirit doesn't believe it, then Christians (if they be Christians and not self deceived) who have the Holy Spirit, should be absolutely convinced that what the language in Scripture says is the absolute truth and is to be believed.

Lou • 7 years ago

Rt - Your argument simply stated says that atheists can not recognize truth without the Holy Spirit, BUT these atheists recognize that your interpretation of Genesis 1 is the TRUE interpretation of the scriptures. You do not seem aware that you are contradicting yourself.

The reason atheists agree with your interpretation of Genesis 1 is that they know that view makes the Bible look like a fairy tale. Your view is the main reason we are losing most of our children that attend any University and learn math and science and have your view proved to them that it can not be true. They lose their faith over it. I taught my son the truth of The Holy Scriptures and he has a degree with a MATH and PHYSICS major and he had no problem with his faith all through school.

I have seen him stand for Jesus and do the right thing under very heavy persecution from his peers in public school.

He has found that he was persecuted in public school for his Christian beliefs, and then he went to a Christian school only to be persecuted for his old earth view. I know that Jesus does not treat his children this way. He was able to recognize that the treatment from heathens and so called Christian teachers was the same. He was treated well by the students and made lifelong friends there, but many of the teachers were a shame on the Christian faith.

I replied to a Ken Ham article on a Christian web site. He answered and was condescending and talked down to me. When I blew apart his arguments he was simply rude instead of simply answering them point by point. I have a friend who is a Baptist preacher from Texas. He went to Ham's museum ( he agrees with young earth view) and he said he was ashamed how many people who simply asked questions about the displays were treated.

Another young earth preachers, Kent Hovind, videos were posted on a site that I moderated. He mocked those who disagreed with him, and was very arrogant. He called himself Dr Dino. But in investigating him, another member found out that he had no doctorate. He had only a fake one ( in Education) from a diploma mill.

As I approached the subject with great care, I found that there was only one young earth person that was on the site that treated me with respect. All of the YE people were arrogant and mocked those who disagreed. I am still friends with the one man who discussed the whole subject with respect.

But I do not want to be associated with ken Ham any more than I would any other person who brings shame on Jesus by his behavior. I can be friends with YE believers that act like Jesus has taught us to act. I do not retreat from Ham because of his YE views, but because of the way he behaves.

I feel sure that The Lord Jesus is far more concerned with the way I treat others, than he is my YE or OE view.

Recognizing_Truth • 7 years ago

Lou,

You still miss the fact that the Truth is true, no matter who states it. Or, more accurately - the Truth is true even if no one believes it. (If some did not believe, their unbelief will not nullify the faithfulness of God, will it? May it never be! Rather, let God be found true, though every man be found a liar, as it is written, “That you may be justified in your words, and prevail when you are judged."

There is no contradiction in the argument presented. Not from an atheistic linguist, not from the demons, not from Satan. All are under the control of God - who allows and hinders as He will. Remember Balaam. Paid and wanting to curse the Israelites, God would only allow blessings to proceed from his mouth. Satan and the demons hate God, hate Jesus. But they were vocal witnesses to the person of the Son of God. Barr and other linguists don't believe the Bible or want its words to be true - but for whatever their purpose: pride, reputation, or even as a pejorative, they were instruments of opposition to God used to show that the Bible states exactly what it appears to state. What they intend, even if it was for evil, God intends for good.

However, when someone denies God, denies Christ, denies what God has done - then that person is wrong. Bill Nye is wrong. God created. To say otherwise is to deny God.

All that being said, do I think that salvation is predicated on a belief in a young or old earth and cosmos? Or that salvation comes by any other means than a trust in the person and finished work of the Lord, Jesus - the Christ, God the Son, and the Son of God? No. Of course not. Because my Lord does not tell me (through His Word) that this one item makes or breaks faith. Abraham, from idolatrous Chaldea, was not sure of and didn't know a lot of things regarding one God who called him out of his home and country on a promise, yet he believed and trusted God - and his faith was counted as righteousness. The criminal on the cross next to Jesus was certainly not educated on origins, or probably much linguistics, or virtually any other scholarly pursuit. Yet He was able to recognize the Truth being crucified next to him - and believed and is with Jesus in His paradise. So it has always been with God and fallen man. So, by His grace and mercy is it for anyone who believes Him even today. it is not necessary to know and understand all of Scripture to be saved, or to enjoy the relationship of God as Father. God's word makes it clear - "if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. For the Scripture says, “Whoever believes on Him will not be put to shame."

I didn't create the universe, and it's not my handiwork, or nature you see when you look at what God has made. I am not sovereign, cannot tell the end from the beginning, or things that are not yet as though they are. I do not own the cattle on a thousand hills (only 3 :-) and I did not die to save sinners. That is all the purview and position and power and possession of God. If your faith is built or can stand on only a portion of the Word of God - then God be praised! Everyone, really, starts that way. But for those who have been reading, perhaps because they are unsure of whether ALL of the Scriptures can be believed; or who have doubts because some supposed scientific discovery seems to show something in the Bible is "wrong"; and who therefore wonder if ANY of the Bible can be believed - they can be assured. God wants to be known and from the very first Word of Genesis to the last word of Revelation gives proof of Himself. From Creation to the New Creation, read Scripture and you will find a God who is Justice, and Righteousness, and Grace, and Mercy, and Love.

Lou • 7 years ago

RT - If you read my first post, I state that Bill Nye sounds like a FOOL. He is mocking The Lord Jesus Christ, who is God Almighty and The Everlasting Father. (Isaiah (9:6). He is mocking his Creator and The Creator of everything that exists.

The Lord Jesus is my only Hope and I have no hope outside of Him. The man that possesses Christ possesses everything there is to possess and lacks not one thing.

Yes, Balaam's donkey stated the truth, but he did not understand what he was saying and did not ever state the truth again. Yes Balaam also stated the truth, but did not believe it himself and went to destruction trying to help the evil King destroy Israel. Yes the Chief priest prophesied that it was better that one man die than a whole nation. BUT he did not believe the truth and went on to work to have Jesus crucified. That Chief priest did not live a life of stating and understanding the truth. But he opposed Jesus as every opportunity, just as Balaam did.

While I may agree with some of the science Bill Nye used in his argument, he never stated the whole truth one time in his appearance. I would never use Nye to bolster my case for he is a fool who mocks God. The truth is only true when it is the whole truth, and Nye tainted every statement of his with his mocking of God.

WHO opposed the Big Bang when first proposed. It was the atheists who opposed it. Led by Hoyle, they worshiped the "cosmos" and believed it had no beginning and no end. They did not believe Gen1:1 and said there could be no beginning because they believe there was no God. They were smart enough to realize that if there was a beginning there had to be a Beginner. They fought against it for many years. But in the end they had to accept it for it had been proven in so many different ways.

Anthony Flew, who was the chief atheist, finally wrote a book and stated he was no longer an atheist. He stated that the proving of the Big Bang was one of the main reasons he was no longer an atheist. For if there was a beginning, then there and to be a Beginner. But Flew is still a foolish man who does not trust Christ for his salvation. He believes there is a God, but has not surrendered to Him.

No man can say "Jesus is Lord" without the Holy Spirit speaking through him. No man can say Jesus is not Lord and have The Holy Spirit. While I use Flew in my argument, I do not use his beliefs as evidence, or his ability to know truth as evidence because the man is still a fool. I simply state that it was the Big Bang that convinced him to no longer be an atheist. I certainly would not recommend him as source of facts or truth, being that he is a fool. ( I am hoping that he has surrendered to The Lord Jesus, but I am using his last stated position in calling him a fool, for any man who denies Christ is certainly a fool)

I would never say anyone should believe anything because Flew believes it. I would never use fools to bolster my case. But I am saying that it was the BIg Bang that convinced him to no longer be an atheist. Nothing more. I am recommending the Big Bang, not Flew.

God is supreme in wisdom. There is no more important statement of Truth than Gen 1:1 - In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. There was no time before the beginning. There was no space or matter before the beginning. It was the beginning of time and space and all matter. God is perfect and this one act of creating time. space and matter never had to be done again. Just as His death on the cross is ONCE FOR ALL. He will never die on the cross again. The RCC is in gross error claiming that they put Him on the cross over and over to take away the sin of their followers. Jesus died ONCE for all.

Just as The Lord Jesus created all space, time, and matter ONCE for all. He then did two more acts of creation that are recorded in Genesis 1. He created the soul for some of the animals had souls, and He created the spirit for man, and breathed the spirit into man. It was that spirit that made man a man and not an animal.

Then God RESTED. That does not mean that he rested from everything. He died on the cross after that. BUT what did He rest from. He rested from creating. God will not create again till the new beginning of the 8th day. He will create a new heaven and a new earth.

NOTICE that God states about the start of the 7th day, but He does not say it ended. There was no end given to the 7th day. That is because God is still at rest. This is why he stated that many in Israel would never enter His rest. He is still at rest. Those that have given their life to Christ have entered His rest. We rest in the true Sabbath, which is Christ.

So the 7th day is still going on and will go one until the 8th day starts when Jesus returns.

Can you show me and end to the 7th day in the Holy Scriptures ?

If the 7th day is not a earth day, we have no reason to think the others are.

Lou • 7 years ago

RT - You are still claiming that men that do not have The Holy Spirit can understand what God has written. When God Himself says that no man can understand His Holy Scriptures without the help of His Holy Spirit. It seems to me that you may be calling God a liar.

Lou • 7 years ago

RT - you write - Because my Lord does not tell me (through His Word) that this one item makes or breaks faith. - The Holy Scriptures tell us that The Word is the person of The Lord Jesus Christ, not The Book. So it is The Holy Spirit of The Lord Jesus Christ that speaks the Truth to us. The Book can not speak. Paper and Ink is not alive. The Book is part of His creation, and we are told to worship the Creator and NOT the creation. So I look to The Author of The Book when I read His book. The Book does not speak to me, but He does. Don't you agree ?

Lou • 7 years ago

RT - you seem to keep assuming that I do not believe Genesis 1 because I do not agree it says what you say it says. I have asked The Lord about that chapter 40 years ago and have been studying it for 40 years. I believe EVERY SINGLE WORD THAT GOD SAYS IN THAT CHAPTER AND EVERY OTHER CHAPTER OF THE BIBLE. ( not shouting just trying to make it stand out). You see God said He created the heavens and the earth in the beginning, and I believe Him. The heavens and the earth is everything in this material universe. Ken Ham, on the other hand does not believe what God said, and believes that God created the sun after the BEGINNING. But God never even uses the word create in that passage about the sun and the moon.

CREATE and MADE or LET THERE BE are different words with different meanings.

God does use the word CREATE later in the chapter when God says - LET THE EARTH BRING FORTH ANIMALS - God also says He created these animals. But God had already created all the matter and energy in the universe. So what did He create in this passage. I think God created the soul for the animals that had a soul. The soul is the intellect, emotions and will. Many animals have an intellect, emotions, and will. Your dog may not always obey you because he has a will of his own. But the soul is not made of just mere matter. So it required another act of creation.

The only other place God uses the word CREATE is when He speaks of man. God says He MADE man and then again that He CREATED man. So God MADE man from the matter that He created in the beginning. Then God CREATED the spirit of man and breathed the breath of life into man. So God MADE man, God CREATED man. For the spirit in NOT made of mere matter.

Again, God does not speak of an end to the 7th day, but only the beginning of that day. So I believe what God says and do NOT put words into His mouth and say that the 7th day ended. I find additional evidence that this is true when God says they will not enter His rest. So God is still resting, or we are still in the 7th day of His rest.

People point to the Sabbath days of rest that God commanded man to take on the 7th earth day. But Paul also tells us in Col 2:

16 Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day.

17 These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ.

So we see here that the 7th day Sabbath was NOT the REALITY, but only a SHADOW. The real SABBATH is The Lord Jesus Christ. We rest in Him so we have entered His rest.

So we do not rest in Christ once a week on the 7th 24 hour day. But we rest in Him for the whole 7th day which will be until he returns on the 8th day, or the day of new beginnings when He creates a new heaven and a new earth.

So we see that there are three acts of creation. God created all MATTER, then God created the SOUL Then God created the SPIRIT for man.

I do not follow the crowd or the religious traditions of men. The Pope was the one who started the days of creation being earth days when he stated that the creation was earth centered. It has long ago been well proven that the creation is NOT earth centered and so the earth days should have gone with the fact that the earth is NOT at the center as the Pope said. Also many church fathers, such as Augustine, wrote that the days of creation were NOT earth days, but very long days or periods of time. Augustine lived long before that Pope who stated that the creation was earth centered.

Instead of believing whatever I was told by other preachers, I bothered to ask The Lord Jesus about this chapter. The above it what He revealed to me. After all NO man can understand that chapter unless they would ask The Holy Spirit to reveal the truth to them and then wait for His answer.

Recognizing_Truth • 7 years ago

Lou, it's clear that you "do not follow the crowd or the religious traditions of men" - but that doesn't make you anywhere near right on many fronts. For instance, it was God, not "the Pope" who put forth that creation was 6 actual days and not some sort of long ages. "For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day.[Exodus 20:11]

Further you are grossly mistaken about a continuing sabbath and some fictitious coming "8th day".
1) God rested from His work when He saw that it was 'very good' [Gen 2:2]. This was the start of His sabbath rest.

2) But God's rest was interrupted when sin entered the world. Since then He has been working ceaselessly as Jesus informs us in John 5:17 "My Father has been working until now, and I have been working".

So, no. God is not currently resting. But that does not leave us without hope.

3) In Hebrews 3 and 4 we see that God intended Canaan to be the rest for His people, but because of their unbelief [Heb 3:19] they could not enter that rest.

4) Even though the rest was not obtained, the promise of the rest remains [Heb 4:1], with the warning to all now to be sure not to miss the goal (entering into rest) as the Israelites in the wilderness did - that is, not to have a heart of unbelief like theirs, which would keep us from God's rest.

5) Believers today enter into a rest of conscience, knowing that penalty for our sins has been paid by Christ's finished work. This is the rest Jesus speaks of when He says in Matthew 11:28 "Come to me all you who are weary and heavy laden, and I will give you rest".

6) Believers also have rest in their service to the Lord. For while we who believe are called to work [Eph 2:10] it is not the heavy work of trying to keep the law, but a light burden and easy yoke of Service to our Lord [Matt 11:29]

7) But the eternal rest, the final and continuing rest (sabatismos), is still in the future, in the Father's house. This future rest is called a Sabbath rest. [Heb 4:9] and it is the one for which all the other rests were a type or picture.

Lou • 7 years ago

RT - I have never said that God did not create the heavens and the earth in 6 days. But the scriptures never state that the 6 days are 24 hour earth days. The passage in NOT only about the creation of the earth, but also the heavens. Why would God use an earth day to measure time of a whole universe. A galactic day is around 250 million earth years. But as I have already said, the Hebrew words translated "day" means a period of time. You are welcome to believe whatever you decide. And it was the Pope who started the earth day interpretation. Before that there was much discussion of what kind of day God was speaking of. But I asked The Lord to reveal the truth to me, and His promise is that he will do just that if we seek The Truth. I had no care what the truth was, just wanted to know the truth. Are you saying he did not keep His promise. Did you ask Him to reveal the truth about this to you ?

Did you read the passage I copied in Col. It is clear that the 7th earth day Sabbath was NOT the reality, but only a shadow of the real Sabbath, The real Sabbath is Christ. Do you deny that Christ is the real Sabbath ? I rest in Him, do you. I no longer work for my salvation, but trust in Jesus to save me. Yes, Jesus gives me light tasks to do, but they are not heavy, or hard work. They are a pleasure and not work. I worship Him 24-7 and not just on one day a week. I seek Him 24-7 and not just one day.

Hebrews 4

A Sabbath-Rest for the People of God

1 Therefore, since the promise of entering his rest still stands, let us be careful that none of you be found to have fallen short of it.

2 For we also have had the gospel preached to us, just as they did; but the message they heard was of no value to them, because those who heard did not combine it with faith.

3 Now we who have believed enter that rest, just as God has said, "So I declared on oath in my anger, 'They shall never enter my rest.' " And yet his work has been finished since the creation of the world.

4 For somewhere he has spoken about the seventh day in these words: "And on the seventh day God rested from all his work."

5 And again in the passage above he says, "They shall never enter my rest."

6 It still remains that some will enter that rest, and those who formerly had the gospel preached to them did not go in, because of their disobedience.

7 Therefore God again set a certain day, calling it Today, when a long time later he spoke through David, as was said before: "Today, if you hear his voice, do not harden your hearts."

8 For if Joshua had given them rest, God would not have spoken later about another day.

9 There remains, then, a Sabbath-rest for the people of God;

10 for anyone who enters God's rest also rests from his own work, just as God did from his.

11 Let us, therefore, make every effort to enter that rest, so that no one will fall by following their example of disobedience.

God makes it clear in this passage that those who trust Him to save them have entered His rest. NOW if we enter HIS REST, it should be obvious that he is in that rest with us.

That does not mean that God does not work. He is resting from creating, but still works in other ways.

Just as I no longer struggle to make my self righteous. That was very hard work with no rest, because it was a job that I could not ever get done, I could never rest from that struggle. But now I have entered His rest and depend on His blood to cover me with his forgiveness.

Denis Deeborn • 7 years ago

It's rather interesting because years ago an email to Mr. Nye was sent asking him to account for the scientific law that states "DNA Cannot co exist outside of itself" hence, that the next question needs to be, Then who created life? This law of science tosses the evolutionist theory out the window within seconds of the debate. If you want to see some rather hysterical debate, look up the debate of 1986 at Oxford University between Dr. A.E.Wylder-Smith against not 1, but 2 of the worlds leading ignorants, one being the ever so condescending and pompous Richard Dawkins who during this event showed up with his jedi master in an attempt to take on Dr. Smith. For those who do not know about Dr. Smith, he was one of the several scientist hand picked to find out what we came to know as being HIV. Dr. Smith was also a big voice for ID which is actually a true science but has been grouped together with creationism in order to keep it out of the classroom. During this debate, Dawkins and his master get rather humiliated. Dawkins constantly looks to his master to save him at almost every point that Dr. Smith counters him with. Dawkins was asked to touch on the above scientific law concerning DNA in one of his rants around 2012 and the video footage is priceless. Dawkins goes off on the person asking him the question. He attacks him, calling him a religious this and that, blasts him for not being on the same thinking level of one Dawkins etc,etc,etc.... and as is obvious, avoiding the question like the plague. Funny thing was, the guy who asked Dawkins the question? Was himself an Atheist and wanted to get a recorded response to prove that the DNA/co existing law was nothing more than a religious persons stump point. One has to ask though, how can anyone in science not know the basic foundation of Quantum Physics? Anyone with half a brain knows that this one little scientific law destroys the entire Darwinian cause. Science can never seem to get it right about how long man has been waling the earth. We now have yet another jaw bone that they now say fils in a gap in the evolution chart. Problem once again is even in thier fabricated chart, not a single shred of proof shows the human genetic code evolving from one species to the next. This has been yet another burden to the evolutionist argument from it's inception. Forget humans, the cannot even show this in common animals such as feline or k-9 species. What makes dogs and cats different is not a genetic evolution, their biological spreadsheet who's them to be the exact same species, meaning zero evolution yet they shove this fabrication down the throats of many already ignorant kids due to the indoctrination camps that used to be called schools once upon a time. Even though people like Nye and Dawkins can get many people who do not subscribe to their fairy tails upset with their pompousness and arrogance, we have to remember folks that we are supposed to represent Christ in all things. It is so easy for us to attack these people and what is sad is they expect this. IT is how they justify and say "see, we told ya so". The more Dawkins is called names and attacked, the more he can say that this life changing event with Christ is nothing more than a delusion because he is not experiencing Gods true love for him through His believers. We all know that Biological Geneticist, the vast majority of them believe in God due to their field of study and how it destroys the evolution claim within moments.

S&WM&P • 7 years ago

Well said D.D. If we sink to the same name calling and berating as the Nye's and Dawkins' of the world, we are no longer salt and light. Personally, I pray that both believe one day before it's too late. To wish that either would burn in Hell is contrary to being the witnesses we have all been called to be.

far2right • 7 years ago

If Dawkins never experiences God's love it is because God never at any time loved him (1 Jn 4:19).

God does not love all men, Esau being a type of one side of humanity (Rom 9:11-13).

Mark it down. Whoever God loves, the Lord Jesus Christ saved (Matt 1:21).

He will lose not one of His sheep (John 10:26-29).

The Lord upbraided the pharisees calling them vipers.

Holding men like Dawkins in derision is fine.

But I think it better not to attempt to reason with rebels.

Recognizing_Truth • 7 years ago

God takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked. Neither should we.

far2right • 7 years ago

Completely agree. And I never so much as hinted of such. Actually, I pity men like Nye and Dawkins, despite their ignorant arrogance.

I believe the Lord's upbraiding of the pharisees was in part for the purpose of His elect.

The amazing thing to me is not that God set His wrath on most.

But rather that He would purpose and predestinate some to His mercy.

"Who is a God like unto thee, that pardoneth iniquity, and passeth by the transgression of the remnant of his heritage? he retaineth not his anger for ever, because he delighteth in mercy" (Mic 7:18).

How He devised a way to do that to deserving rebels is the most amazing thing to me I have ever heard in my life.

onerightstand • 7 years ago

If he really believes that, then why is it so important to him to shut up the opposition? Surely, his intellectual reasoning and excellent communication skills in the art of persuasion would be no match for something "fictional!"

ONTIME • 7 years ago

So freedom of choice and debate are dead meat in his point of view on human life......For a guy who thinks he is a great confrontationist, his ability to doubt himself is thin to none and I have seen him shredded because of his inability to consider......

Bram Sortwell • 7 years ago

Therein is the crux of the matter. Evolutionists declare that creationism hamstrings scientific progress but never explain how, nor or they required to by the institutions of learning. From the standpoint of science, the particulars of biological and geological history are irrelevant because only that which is testable, observable, and repeatable in the present is of value for discovery and progress in science. History is a different field of study with different purposes from science. It is in the field of philosophy or metaphysics that the implications of creationism become unpalatable to the humanist. They entwine, equivocate, and confuse the pursuit of empirical knowledge by the scientific method with their humanist or naturalist philosophy, and therefore cannot perceive how anyone can pursue science aright apart from their humanist mindset.

David • 7 years ago

REAL Science is NOT incompatible with the Bible and Christianity. It is, however, incompatible the the Fundamental "supernatural" interpretation of it. Ironically, Bill Nye and Ken Ham are BOTH right and BOTH wrong!

Bill is right in that Creationism is a dangerous illusion that has resulted in replacing REAL Science with "pseudoscience" which has allowed the "elite power broker Uncle Toms" who have been seduced by the "dark powers" revealed in Ephesians 6;12 to bring Novus Ordo Seclorum upon the world. Bill is right especially when it comes to children who are easily brainwashed. However, Bill is wrong that man evolved from apes by Darwinian Natural Selection. If Science did not reject God and the Wisdom revealed in the Bible, they would KNOW man could not have evolved from apes. In fact they would also realize that the plant and animal PHYLA did not evolve either! The irony is that Science actually knows how God Created Adam and Eve and the major PHYLA yet they are completely unaware of it!

Ken is right that man was Created by God in the image of God. However, Ken is wrong about how God did it. Ken and all Creationists suggest that God Created man by supernatural powers or "magic" and then claim Science supports this. This is dishonesty of the highest order because we ARE Created in God's Image and God is PERFECT which makes His Laws PERFECT. One of God's great "gifts" to His children is Science, a specific process that reveals reality. When the Bible was written by men inspired by the Spirit of God..there was very little knowledge of "reality" because the Scientific Method was a future "gift" that would reveal Biblical Truth for those living in the "end times." What was observable with the naked eye was all they had. This does not invalidate God's Word but reveals that its' message was more about man's destiny and less about the reality of Creation for those in past generations. The Book of Daniel specifically states its' "message was hidden" (sealed) until the "end times." (culmination of man's destiny)

God's "gift" of Science has allowed man to discover God's PERFECT Laws. Bill and all atheists will never understand how God Created man because they obviously reject the existence of God so they are "forced" to explain man's Creation througn Darwinism which is dishonesty to their basic principles. Ken and Creationists will never understand how God actually Created man and are "forced" to create the illusion of the "supernatural." The reason for this is that very few people "know" the God revealed to the Hebrews in the Book of Genesis in the "plural" Word for God...."ELOHIM" and in the "flesh" in the Incarnation of Yeshua ben Joseph.(Jesus the Christ) Christianity believes the creation of the Doctrine of the Trinity resolves the plural issue. The problem with this explanation is that the plural requires "totally independant separate parts" and Jesus made it clear that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are ONE. The Three Persons are manifestations of the the ONE GOD.. The "key" to understanding the God "ELOHIM" is found in the following Scriptures..........

Psalm 82:3-6, John 14:8-23, Galatians 3:26-28, Colossians 1:27, 1 Corinthians:3:16-17, 1 Corinthians 6:19-20, 1 John 4:11-16

In conclusion...if Bill and Ken are both wrong about the Creation of man, how did God "ELOHIM" Create man? As I said, Science knows the answer but is totally unaware of it..........................................................

THE ANSWER IS RECOMBINANT DNA

Until a person knows the God "ELOHIM" they will not understand this............

In Christ...David Brown

Lou • 7 years ago

Hi David, so true that one has to know God to understand His Holy Scriptures, His nature, and His ways. Even then his ways are far beyond our understanding. Hear O Israel, the Lord your God is ONE. Jesus said this was the most important command of God. But mere man must think that Jesus did not know of the word three or even three in one. The very doctrine written by Athanasian ( that the Pope used for his trinity doctrine) says, Yes there is The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit, but he is NOT three but ONE.

How about this scripture:

Isaiah 9:6 1599 Geneva Bible (GNV)

6 For unto us a child is born, and unto us a Son is given: and the government is upon his shoulder, and he shall call his name, Wonderful, Counselor, The mighty God, THE EVERLASTING FATHER, The prince of peace.( I ADDED ALL CAPS TO MAKE IT STANDOUT) God Himself calls the child, Jesus, The Everlasting Father.

Or this scripture Isaiah 43:10

“You are my witnesses,” declares the Lord,
“and my servant whom I have chosen,
so that you may know and believe me
and understand that I am he.
Before me no god was formed,
nor will there be one after me.

David • 7 years ago

thanks Lou......The first thing any human needs to understand is that God LOVES all life because GOD IS LOVE. When I learned this I then understood the Scripture that says God is aware of the sparrow that falls d from the sky etc......Gid bless..david

Bill Ludlow • 7 years ago

Bill Nye is a hell of a lot better known than Ken Ham will ever be and he's reached many more people with his best selling book and by speaking to packed auditoriums filled with college students since the debate. Meanwhile Ham is trying to save his floundering museum and is spending the last of his money trying to build an ark, lol. Oh, and he speaks to half filled churches filled with old people. It's clear who is winning here.