The Christ in Prophecy Journal

Science In The Bible


Is there any science in the Bible? Or, is the Bible scientifically illiterate, misleading people into thinking the Earth is flat?

Dr. Jobe MartinAn academic who once held that the Bible was just not worth reading by any intelligent person was Dr. Jobe Martin, former dentist, professor and Evolutionist. Having clearly seen God’s eternal power and divine nature from what has been made (Rom. 1:20), Dr. Martin came to faith in Jesus Christ and a trust in the biblical account of the six days of Creation. He and his wife Jenna Dee have since formed Biblical Discipleship Ministries based in Rockwall, Texas to teach on campuses, classrooms and churches that we can trust the Bible’s account of the Creation and Jesus as Savior.

What would you say is the greatest argument for the Bible’s account of Creation?

I think the greatest argument for Special Creation is the Bible.

What does it say? If we call ourselves a Christian, we should look at the Bible and just take it for what it teaches about the Creation. Now, praise God, there’s other evidences that come in, and there are huge weaknesses with the Evolution side of thing, though we are never taught what those things are.

Some think that we can’t go to the Bible to find anything that is scientific, but the Bible is in part a science book. When it deals with things that have to deal with science, it is not exhaustive in that it doesn’t tell us everything, but what it does tell us is true.

For instance, the Bible tells us that God made the heavens and the Earth and He did so within a six day week. Well, that is science. What do the Evolutionist say? Their science says it was billion of years. How can they say if we talk about days that’s not science, but if they talk about billions of years that then is science? There’s a contradiction there.

The Bible is full of revelations that science discovered later on. For example, some people would say that anybody who believes in a Special Creation in six days probably also believes in a flat Earth. They always call us “Flat Earth People.” But, the Bible teaches that the Earth is a circle in Isaiah 40:22a, “He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth.”

Then there is the hydraulic system is in the Bible. I mean, there is one scientific system after another that is revealed in the Bible.

Another that comes to my mind is what Paul says over in Romans 8:21, that all of creation is in bondage to decay. He wrote that in the First Century. It wasn’t until what the Nineteenth Century that science discovered the Second Law of Thermo Dynamics which says the same thing. Paul said all kinds of things that we think today he shouldn’t have known.

In 1 Corinthians 15:39, Paul says there are these different kinds of flesh. “All flesh is not the same: Men have one kind of flesh, animals have another, birds another and fish another.” They just discovered in my lifetime that at the cytoplasmic level of the cell there are basic different kinds of flesh. Two-thousand years ago God’s apostle under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit said there are different kinds of flesh.

And so, the Bible is thousands of years ahead of modern scientific discoveries.


The Evolution of a CreationistThe Evolution of a Creationist Book by Dr. Jobe Martin:
This fascinating book describes Dr. Jobe Martin’s personal journey from an evolution-trained scientist to a Bible-believing creationist. Dr. Martin examines many of the claims and theories of prominent evolutionists, comparing their often incredible, inconsistent, pseudo-scientific explanations of origins to the clear and simple description of the Creation as depicted in the Bible.
Creation ProclaimsCreation Proclaims Video by Dr. Jobe Martin:
Come face-to-face with some of the world’s most fascinating creatures! You’ll discover how Creation proclaims the character, majesty, power and, glory of our Creator God. In each creature feature, you’ll learn how God is reaching out to mankind by making Himself known in unmistakable ways.
God of WondersGod of Wonders Video by Eternal Productions:


ABOUT AUTHOR View all posts Author Website

Nathan Jones

Nathan Jones


31 CommentsLeave a Comment

  • Very interesting topic which I have long had a big-time fondness for. Things "scientific" with a Biblical flair have always been something which immediately grab my undivided attention.

    On this subject, particularly the "six days of creation," there was a two-part program a few years ago aired by the late-Zola Levitt which featured Israeli nuclear physicist Dr. Gerald Schroeder.

    The program titles were: “In the Beginning” and “The Days of Creation.”

    What was absolutely fascinating about these programs was Schroeder's translation of the original Hebrew text of Genesis One as applied to the theorem of "time dilation." This is also called the "day-age" theory.

    Simply stated this theorem holds that 6 literal days can also literally be 15 billion years of time. Does that blow your mind? It did mine.

    Allowing Dr. Schroeder to explain how time before the creation of Adam was on a different, and eternal God-scale, and how time after Adam's creation was on a earth-based time scale is the key to wrapping your head around these programs.

    As Dr. Schroeder explained it, within these different time scales the days within the time dilation effect were as follows:

    Day One – 8 billion years.
    Day Two – 4 billion years,
    Day Three – 2 billion years,
    Day Four – 1 billion years,
    Day Five -500,000 years,
    Day Six – 250,000 years.

    These epochs of time correspond to the earth's geologic record – or in other words – the earth's geologic record confirms the Word of God in the Genesis One creation account explicitly and in magnificent detail.

    I simply can not do this topic justice in this small space… but if you will Goggle search for Dr. Schroeder's work online in videos or at Zola's website you'll definitely have a different perspective afterwards when it comes to Genesis One.

  • How could time dialations work when the Genesis account says that the plants were created on Day 3, but the sun on Day 4? Plants could go without sunlight for photosynthesis for a day, but not for millions of years. We'd have to conclude then the Genesis account has the order mixed up, and there goes inerrancy out the window. The true error, as Dr. Martin will explain in tomorrow's article, lies with the dating techniques.

    Also, remember that Genesis 1 goes out of its way to say morning and evening for each day to denote a literal 24-hour day.

    In the end, it is impossible to merge the Bible and evolution. They are at total odds with each other.

  • Nathan,

    What was shown of Zola levitt's program does not support Evolution is any way, shape, or form.

    On the contrary, Dr. Schroeder's two part presentation with Zola scientifically shows that:

    1. Looking backwards, science sees fifteen billion years since the Big Bang. Looking from God’s perspective, this vast time period all happened within six literal 24-hour days.

    2. Time as we understand it is not a constant. Similar to how astronauts weigh less on the moon versus the earth, experiments have shown that atomic clocks actually go slower on high-speed aircraft. Since the universe is expanding, time can be perceived differently. The pattern of the universe’s exponential growth is evident in the spiral of a seashell, a sunflower and a galaxy.

    3. Science observes that the universe has expanded a million million times. Dividing 15 billion (the number of years as observed by science) by a million million equals .015 years or approximately six days.

    4. Using the Hebrew translation, Gerald and Zola analyze the first day of the Creation account. Out of a chaotic system, humanity will come six days later. The ordering force is the Spirit of God. Physics has found that light can be trapped inside high temperature plasma, but as it cools, it separates from the darkness.

    5. Gerald and Zola analyze the second and third days of creation. Genesis 1:6-13 reveals that a firmament was created, water was formed and then life began on earth. Science echoes this sequence of events and each one’s place in time, according to Gerald’s computations.

    6. As the earth cooled, the atmosphere changed from translucent to transparent so the heavenly bodies could be seen. The sun, moon and stars can now be seen, but how could this occur in day four? The words evening and morning in English when compared to their Hebrew roots, chaos and orderly, reveal the overall trend of creation. Random evolution is proved impossible.

    7. The Bible mentions animal life for the first time in the fifth day of creation. Science reveals an explosion of life that fits in sequence and time placement with the Biblical narrative and Gerald’s computations. Science doesn’t have a clue as to what brought our universe into being, only that there was a creation. Even Charles Darwin refers to the Creator in his book, Origin of the Species.

    8. Zola reviews the content of the previous seven programs on Gerald Schroeder’s comparison between the observations of science and the creation account of Genesis 1. Science is not in conflict with the Bible. Technologically, we are only now coming to the point of finding out how true and accurate the Bible really is.

  • Nathan Jones said…


    Don't forget that the Earth was surrounded by a firmament. The Earth was vastly different in both appearance and physical properties then as opposed to how the Earth was transformed after the firmament was removed and how the Earth is now.

  • Even with a water firmament, the plants would need sunlight for photosynthesis (unless they lived off of God's emmanations, of course).

    Time Dialations is an interesting theory, but again it's an attempt to substantiate flawed dating techniques to explain a literal biblical account.

  • ??? I my viewing of those programs – which date to over 10 years ago (circa 1998) – and in my reading of the several volumes of books which were published in the interim, it has become my understanding that this material confirms the literal 6-day creation account of Genesis One.

    So, by saying that Dr. Schroeder's scientific explanations are "an attempt to substantiate flawed dating techniques to explain a literal biblical account" are we intimating that Zola Levitt and those family members and associates still running his website remain engaged in some type of false teaching regarding Genesis One?

    I'd be interested in reading what other folks think after viewing the sum of the video presentations linked above.

    Also, regarding the "firmament," I do not believe it was composed of water per se. The Hebrew word translated as "firmamenet" is "raqiya`" which is defined primarily as an "extended solid surface." The Hebrew sense of the word raqiya` was that it was a solid mass (i.e. the vault of heaven") which supported waters above it.

    Genesis 1:7 vividly describes how God divided the waters under the raqiya` from those waters above it.

  • I'm not attacking Zola's ministry, Sean. I find many strong, doctrinally sound Christians, though, who are just downright puzzled about what they believe in regards to the Creation. Jack Van Impe being the latest with his strong promotion of the Gap Theory (and his jumped-the-gun claim that Dr. Reagan also believes it, which he doesn't).

    Dr. Martin gives some good insight tomorrow into why our dating methods are just not good enough to determine the billions of years that these other scientists are claiming. If we can't trust our dating methods, then we can't be saying that the days of Creation took billions of years.

    I'll stand on faith with the literal, 24-hour, six-day Creation account of the Bible, and if it's more technical than that will have God fill in the details in Heaven. Our science is just to primative otherwise to make any other claim.

  • I'd have to say a big AMEN to your last post, Nathan. Worldly people and some believers often call me naive and downright stupid for believing that when God said six days, He meant six 24-hour days. I go back to this: When the plain sense makes the most sense, then don't look for any other sense.

    I have no problem with God creating the world in 6 days, and it baffles me as to why some believers see a need to try to explain it away. If you can explain that away, it seems you can explain away all kinds of things in the Bible (Jesus' virgin birth, his death on the cross, his resurrection) just because "it doesn't make sense to you." Well, then, THAT settles it. If it doesn't make sense to you, then God's obviously off His rocker and we need to figure out what really happened. (Excuse my sarcasm, but that's what we're saying!)

    Hmmm, I think I hear satan saying, "Did God REALLY say . . . ?"

    Also, if you have these billions (or even thousands) of years between when the animals were created and when death first entered the world (when God killed the animal to clothe Adam and Eve), then you'd have some mighty OLD animals wandering the earth. I just don't buy it! God said six days and He went to GREAT lengths to show that these were regular days with the sun coming up and going down! My foundation is that the Bible is correct, is meant to be taken literally in most places (except for some obviously figurative passages), and means what it says. Any other "evidence" that doesn't fit with the Bible is dead wrong.

  • Nathan,
    I have been pondering your statement about the plantlife needing "light" to survive. It is true, they do. And it is likewise true that some plants need darkness. I had a night blooming Jasmine in my yard, a perfect example, it needed the nighttime to bloom.

    Having said all that, Revelation chapter 21 and 22 gives us a good discription of what the new earth will be like when Christ resides with us, and specifically in chapter 22, verse 5 is states this:


    Genesis tell us that on the first day, God said let there be light, and then He went on to separate the light from the darkness, calling the light "day" and the darkness "night".

    However, It was not until the forth day, that God created the lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night. He said that He created two great lights, the greater light to govern the day (the sun?) and the lesser light to govern the night (the moon?).

    It appears to me that since life, us and vegitation, will not need the sun or the moon to exist and thrive on the new earth, because God will radiate light for us, it appears that this was the case for the first 3 "days". I'm just saying….

  • Sean,

    Have not seen those videos that you mentioned. I will check them out though. Thanks.

    But you know of course, even if we could come up with a "scientific" explanation that proves the Biblical account of the six days of creation, there would still be many people that still would not accept Christ. To do so would mean making some major lifestyle changes, for a whole bunch of people!!!

    Not gonna happen ~



    God is my creator, my Heavenly Father. My knowledge, in fact the knowledge of EVERY man that ever lived combined, is nothing, absolutely NOTHING compared to the all-knowing God. We ARE like little children from that perspective.

    And like a child with limited knowledge, I believe, with faith, every Word of God (the creation, the OT miracles, the life, death and resurrection of Jesus, etc.) without question or doubt.

    I don't need science, education, explaination, evidence, rationale, etc. to explain the unexplainable. It is enough only that I believe. And I do.

  • And…I always liked what Dr. Reagan said about creation vs. evolution:

    "Another problem I found with Theistic Evolution is that it demeans the character of God. The Bible says God created instantly and majestically and that the creation was "good."

    Theistic Evolution presents an entirely different picture. It holds that God used a very vicious and violent method of creation — "the survival of the fittest." In other words, creation occurred in a dog-eat-dog atmosphere that was anything but good."

    Amen! God's creation was GOOD! Can anyone say that about evolution?

  • One thing that always got me about the dating thing (and according to Dr. Carl Baugh all evolutionary dtaes are assigned) was they say stars are millions and billions of light-years away. Einstein himself proved that light distends. So the light we see from Sirius or wherever didn't take millions of years to get here. It started very nearby and the light stretched as the star sped away at many times the speed of light.

    Most people don't realize that our planet's position in the universe is the only we can measure where we are in relation to other stellar objects. Also, most people don't realize that earth is literally the center of the known universe.

  • Nathan,

    I wasn't saying that you were attacking Zola's ministry, I was just inquiring about the comment you made, and not being sure if you've had the time previously or recently to fully review those video's or the teaching of Zola Levitt on the topic of Genesis One.

    I know for sure that Zola was not confused on this subject and he most definitely agreed with and embraced the meaning of the original Hebrew text in the lessons from Dr. Schroeder and the strong science behind it all. When I finally got my head around what Dr. Schroeder was teaching, (I've always been a technically, scientifically oriented individual) the Spirit lept within me, the excitement I felt was exhilarating.

    The teaching of Genesis in the original Hebrew text, when we get right down to it, is about as literal as one can possibly get regarding God's Holy Word. That's what so excites me about this – we're getting this information directly from God and our scientific understanding – as Daniel foretold regarding an increase of knowledge – is confiming in detail the Biblical record as 110% accurate.


    I also want to be perfectly clear that none of this "explains away" anything. On the contrary, it highlights the absolute literalness of what the Lord inspired to be written in Genesis One. And that is all the the glory of the Most High God.

    I would suggest folks review the teaching before making broad generalizations and conclusions about it.

  • Sean said "These epochs of time correspond to the earth's geologic record"

    Actually, the Earth's "geologic record" can't be determined with any exactness by examining today's Earth in my opinion. I say this because I think the Earth of today (in it's third form) was so radically changed during the flood that any "geologic record" of it's past was likely destroyed or altered to the point of being useless to today's scientists.

    The first Earth was the good perfectly created one by God.

    The second Earth was transformed when the fall of man occurred.

    The third Earth was radically transformed during the flood in which the whole Earth was reshaped under the water (our current Earth). In the Nov-Dec 2005 Lamplighter Magazine Dr. Reagan wrote "The unified land mass was split apart, forming the continents as we now know them (which is why they fit together like a jigsaw puzzle – see Genesis 10:25)."

    The fourth Earth will be the one Jesus reigns over for 1,000 years and the fifth and final Earth will be the one totally re-done by God after the Millenial reign.

    Any "scientific" examination of the Earth without factoring in these Biblical transformations are suspect in my view.

  • 1. Laura, I can honestly say AMEN. We are in complete agreement on this particular subject.

    If God were unable to clearly and concisely communicate with His creation what kind of God would He be? He is a God of science, He is a God of order and He is a God who created us to worship and fellowship (read communicate) with Him. So I wonder why there seems to be a need to try and second guess and come up with "new and improved" translations for the words He originally chose to communicate with His people. This is a slippery slope that leads us to interpret God's Word as we see fit, and I guarantee you we could find a "scholarly" opinion to back up ANY opinion we have to justify OUR position.

    2. Sean, I am confused about how Dr. Schroeder came up with that. In your post you said Day 1=8 bn years, Day2=4 bn and so on. So that would mean that the same word which was used in all the Genesis creation verses had multiple meanings in each verse, each with significantly huge differences in time frames. I find it interesting myself that the "new" interpretation came up with the same chronological time frame espoused by "science" which uses faulty evolution and dating techniques. You say that this only shows that mankind has only proven what the Genesis account says, and I guess there is some argument in that. But I still fear this is more an effort to make God fit into our observations than an effort to make our observations conform to God. It takes away from God being able to communicate to each and every person in a way that is understandable by all. Using Dr. Schroders example, as I am understanding it from your post, it will take PhD scholars and calculators and mind bending mental gymnastics to understand God. At least this is my own personal observation without having read Dr. Schroder, so I will claim ignorance in my observation. BUt I am afraid I am with Billy that I am too simple for these big arguments and will be stubborn in my belief in 6 24 hour days.

    Rob from Alabama

  • Rob from Alabama,

    Please, have you viewed the video presentations I linked to Zola Levitt's website?

    Anyone who takes the time to do so will realize that this is not a "new and improved" teaching of anything.

    Again, as stated above, what I'm referring to is the two-part program, the first was “In the Beginning” and the second was “The Days of Creation,” which originally aired on Zola Levitt's television program about 10 years ago.

    The "Special Creation" which Dr. Jobe Martin is talking about is the exact same subject matter as was discussed in the Levitt programs.

    The teaching Nathan presents here from Dr. Martin is being done in the English language.

    The Levitt program with Dr. Schroeder translated the meanings from the original Hebrew text of Genesis.

    ALL of us do the same thing in interpreting Scripture – we get the meaning of the words of the original text irregardless if it was Hebrew or Greek, the two original, primary languages God inspired everything from Genesis to Revelation to be written in.

    Dr. Schroeder is an MIT-trained nuclear physicist and Dr. Jobe Martin was schooled in biological sciences at Buchnell, a U. of Pittsburgh dental grad and former USAF/NASA dentist.

    BOTH discuss "Special Creation" and that the act of creation occured in six literal days.

    BOTH cite modern scientific discoveries or scientific systems which confirm the Biblical record… Dr. Martin's emphasis is on the biological, Dr. Schroeder on the sub-stomic and time dimensions.

    This is why I am excited about this series Nathan is posting here, the subject matter is exciting and the resources are excellent.

  • sean
    i used to think about that, but genesis states "and the evening and the morning was the first day"
    this seems to make clarification that the days were literal days (24 hours), rather than the symbolic type

  • just thought i'd mention something that is very rarily ever mentioned (even on the internet)
    concerning the "circle of the earth", some people (who hate the bible),try to discredit it by saying the bible says that the earth is a FLAT circle, LOL (talk about clutching at straws)
    but the bible says (in the book of job), that god drew a circle upon the face of the waters
    if you stand on the beach and look to the horizon with a clear view with no obstructions, you will notice that the line between the sea and the sky is actually curved, not dead straight!
    this was known by job before colombus ever found out, and proves that the earth is a sphere!

  • Glen,

    I read Genesis 1 very carefully carefully, word by word in Hebrew and also in common English, I observed for the first time thanks to Dr. Schroeder's insights, that when 'echad yom (first day) occurs – this is the creation of the matter of the entire universe.

    Genesis 1:2 tells us that the Earth was tohuw (meaning formless, confused, unreal) and bohuw (meaning emptiness, void, waste).

    Clearly, the earth as we currently comprehend it does not yet exist.

    What God created on this "first day" is the separation of light from dark.

    Since there is no earth to revolve around a sun in the sky how can there be a 24 hour day? The time perspective here is from God's eternal perspective and relative to the forward progression from His perspective at the beginning of all creation – not in the reverse from mankind's perspective.

    Sheniy yom (second day) is the creation of a firmament and the separation of waters above from waters below by the firmament.

    Two days now and no reference to a created earth or a star (sun).

    Here Genesis gets really, really interesting.

    On shĕliyshiy yom (the third day) the living earth (grass, herb trees) is formed.

    However, note carefully here that the day light (the Sun) and the night light (moon stars) are not created until rĕbiy`iy yom the fourth and subsequent day.

    We have life created on a formed earth prior to the creation of the sun. This is diametrically opposed to what all of humanity has been taught by "science."

    Yet, the literal Word of God says it was so, and I believe it unquestioningly without reservation.

    What the Word of God also literally tells us in these first verses of Genesis is that our measurement of time (a revolving earth orbiting around a revolving sun) do not BOTH exist until Day 4.

    Therefore, how can day's 1 through 3 be 24 hour long days?

  • Oh, how I laugh at all this.

    When you have the Biblical childlike faith that simply allows you to accept that a day is a day without studying volumes of research materials, comparing different languages, examining scientifically, searching for physical evidence…

    How blessed I feel just to simply believe. How blessed indeed!

  • No, Sean I admit that I have not seen Dr. Schroeders video. I am relying on your posts interpretation and what I have read and understood from other sources, equally credible. If I can find the time I will view, but until then I will go on the views I have learned from the other sources. Sorry, that is my baseline.

    But I will stand by my unscientific position based on my understanding of who God is, without any positing of what He may, or may not have, done in the annals of time… His eternal time or time as we humans must experience it. I am too simple in my understanding to believe that God would use words that are unclear or are subject to so many interpretations by His creation, mankind. I choose to believe God is not obtuse in communicating with us because to be vague could lead us astray as we twist and turn to find the "right" meaning of His words. Yes, there are many highly educated folks much more adept at linguistics than I could ever hope to be who have improved on our interpretation of ancient Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic. So I admit Dr. Schroeder could be correct, I really have no problem with theistic evolution of any kind per se.

    But it is not just the issue of the day interpretation that bothers me. There is the issue of God creating each part of His creation according to their kinds…a bear is a bear and a lemur is a lemur, a lily is a lily. If I understand what you are saying about Dr. Schroeder he is allowing for a God driven evolution and that precludes Him creating according to specified kinds, since they are changing and mutating to a final form. Is this correct?

    One other thing please. If this is not a new translation can Dr. Schroeder offer evidence to show that the original Hebrew audience for whom the Genesis account was written understood the meaning of the words to be millenia and not days? Were they capable of understanding the difference in God's time frame and man's timeframe in relation to Creation? Language is so much more than words-there is also a conceptual component that we tend to ignore and the original audience must have been able to conceptualize the millenia described by the word. Again I would think this is very important since, regardless of this particular discussion, I believe God is always clear and only reveals Himself so we have no doubt what He means and who He is. Based on what you have said, at this point the only way I could begin to believe in Dr. Schroeders view is if the Hebrews to whom Moses addressed the Genesis account understood the words as did Dr. Schroeder does today. That would indicate to me the clearness of what God originally intended to reveal about how He created their world. Any other understanding and there would be confusion and God is not a GOd of confusion.

    Sean, I am not arguing with you, this is just a discussion on the web. But I don't know, I am simple minded enough to believe in the simplicity and straightforwardness of God's Word and for me all these permutations of words, while interesting can lead to error.

    But not a hill I can die on today, perhaps another day
    Rob from Alabama

  • Off topic (sorry) but someone sent me an e-mail that had this quote that I just have to share.

    Ronald Reagan – "If we ever forget that we’re one nation under God, then we will be a nation gone under."

    (How I miss Ronald Reagan! Wouldn't it be great if we could have another Reagan as president who also has the title of doctor?)

  • Rob asked:


    No, my understanding Dr. Schroeder's position on this issue is, based upon what I have seen in the tapes and in text of his books, the text of Isaiah 45 verbatim.

  • I guess my post got overlooked, or ignored 🙁

    Sean, I have not seen any of the stuff you brought up, and still have not had the chance to check it out from the link you provided.

    From my other post, I am in no way saying that the earth was not formed in the time that God said it did. Nathan, anyone, someone, read my other post and see if you see this as I do, between what it says in Genesis and Revelation. I am curious as to what others think about this, or if they have linked the two as I have.

    Buggg 🙂

  • Buggg,

    I re-read your comment and think it's great! You hit the nail on the head in my opinion.

    When the Earth was created it was GOOD! Plants grew and thrived and there was no death or deterioration (of anything). Only after the fall of man did things start to deteriorate and die. And this is how it will be when the final Earth is created for eternity.

    Things were completely different in the pre-fall of man and will be so in the post-Millenium.

    The problem is, a lot of people in this conversation are applying man's limited scope of knowlegde and understanding to the unlimited scope, ability and ways of God under Whom ALL things are possible and not limited to what we can imagine.

    Buggg, your post was EXCELLENT in my opinion.

  • Bugg, if you're still looking at this I think you had a good post. I 100% agree with you, God is more than sufficient "light and glory" to cause things to grow and survive. And even better His glorious light will illuminate our way for all eternity.

    Billy, AMEN! 1.) Death is required for constant changing/mutation and the so-called fossil record requires death for things to be encased in rock. 2.) Since sin did not enter the world until Gn 3:6 then death cannot have entered until then either (Paul say in Romans that by one man Death entered into the creation Rom 5:12)
    3.) And this sin/death problem was AFTER the act of Creation, so evoultion of any sort is ruled out.

    I am interested in this topic because of my background & training and I sometimes use lots of words to try to sound more intelligent than I really am. But Billy I am with you, the simplicity of the Bible is really where we should stand, our wisdom and words to add to or explain what God said is pure folly.

    Rob from Alabama

  • Junbuggg,

    When you find the time to review the video presentations drop me a line with your take on them.

    With respect to your first post above and the light required for life … you are absolutely correct. The literalness of the last sentence in Gensesis 1:2 contains all the proof required.


    The Hebrew words "Spirit of God" here are "ruwach 'elohiym
    " ('elohiym being the plural form of the singular 'elowahh (God)) and which literally convey that Father, Son and Holy Ghost moved upon the face of the waters – also explicitly and literally confirming John 1:1.

  • In regard to the Flat-earth myth; I did a little research presentation at church last year… It is a late 1800s myth created by anti-Christian atheists to diss Christians. None of the Ancients believed such garbage and many of them had done extensive calculation on the earth's circumference. Who-da-thot-it!?!

Leave a Reply to Web Minister Cancel Reply
