Plant buried in permafrost 30,000 years back!

http://www.physorg.com/news/2012-02-russians-revive-ice-age-frozen.html

Originally posted by sonhouse
http://www.physorg.com/news/2012-02-russians-revive-ice-age-frozen.html

It's a trick of the Devil just to fool you .

Originally posted by sonhouse
http://www.physorg.com/news/2012-02-russians-revive-ice-age-frozen.html

But those dating techniques are inaccurate so you'd best throw that baby out after the bathwater ,thanks

Originally posted by karoly aczel
But those dating techniques are inaccurate so you'd best throw that baby out after the bathwater ,thanks

HalleluYah !!! 😏

Originally posted by sonhouse
http://www.physorg.com/news/2012-02-russians-revive-ice-age-frozen.html

Wow totally cool for a very long time.

Originally posted by sonhouse
http://www.physorg.com/news/2012-02-russians-revive-ice-age-frozen.html

What do you think this has to do with spirituality?

Originally posted by RJHinds
What do you think this has to do with spirituality?

What do you know about Spirit?

Originally posted by RJHinds
What do you think this has to do with spirituality?

It is yet another reminder that the Earth is not 6000years old. Halleyuahwehyah 😏

Originally posted by sonhouse
http://www.physorg.com/news/2012-02-russians-revive-ice-age-frozen.html

Wasting your time with me. I"m an OEC.

Originally posted by whodey
Wasting your time with me. I"m an OEC.

How do you reconcile the 6000 year old thing with what we think we know now about the Earth and universe being billions of years old?

Originally posted by sonhouse
How do you reconcile the 6000 year old thing with what we think we know now about the Earth and universe being billions of years old?

OEC, not YEC. Whodey thinks he's being clever.

Originally posted by sonhouse
How do you reconcile the 6000 year old thing with what we think we know now about the Earth and universe being billions of years old?

The Bible does not say creation is only 6000 years old, does it?

Originally posted by whodey
The Bible does not say creation is only 6000 years old, does it?

For sure not. That is why I don't understand how people can be so duped by the words of other people since in their eyes, only the lord should be talking to them, but yet they blindly accept the 'analysis' of people dead for hundreds of years and still swallow the tale hook line and sinker, so they can look at something like the Grand Canyon and still conclude the Earth is only a few thousand years old. It boggles my little mind anyway.

Originally posted by sonhouse
For sure not. That is why I don't understand how people can be so duped by the words of other people since in their eyes, only the lord should be talking to them, but yet they blindly accept the 'analysis' of people dead for hundreds of years and still swallow the tale hook line and sinker, so they can look at something like the Grand Canyon and still conclude the Earth is only a few thousand years old. It boggles my little mind anyway.

It's simple really. It all comes down to belief. Basically, you get a preacher up there saying that evolution is all evil and the world was made in six literal days and you get people believing him. The added emphasis is that if you don't believe that then you don't believe the Bible and you are not then "saved". I used to fall into this category.

At the other end of the spectrum, you get people who don't believe in God and insist that the Bible claims to have had God made creation in six literal days, hence, the theory of evolution and the age of the earth disprove that the Bible is accurate regarding the Creation account in Genesis. My guess is that this is where you fall.

I guess my eyes were opened when reading some in depth investigation regarding the Genesis account. The literal word for "evening" and "morning" is "chaos" and "order". Of course, the kicker is that how could there be a literal day before the sun and earth were formed? There is substantial rabbinical evidence that the literal day interpretation everyone extrapolates from the King James translation was rejected by Jewish scholars long before the King James version was even written. All the confusion stems from a mistranslation of sorts.

In short, it's not that Genesis should not be taken literally, rather, it is that perhaps it was not taken literally enough.

Originally posted by whodey
It's simple really. It all comes down to belief. Basically, you get a preacher up there saying that evolution is all evil and the world was made in six literal days and you get people believing him. The added emphasis is that if you don't believe that then you don't believe the Bible and you are not then "saved". I used to fall into this category.

At t ...[text shortened]... be taken literally, rather, it is that perhaps it was not taken literally enough.

I am a YEC, but I never said Earth was only 6000 years old. It has to
be older than that. The problem is how much older. Certainly, I do not
believe the earth is more than a billion years old. I don't know exactly
what you mean by OEC because you give no age. By YEC, I mean an
approximate age of about 7,000 to 10,000 years.

You apparently have departed from the Christian faith. You write,
The literal word for "evening" and "morning" is "chaos" and "order".
Where you read this, I have no clue, but it is wrong, wrong, wrong. The
Jewish interpretation has always favored the literal day interpretation
for the "evening and morning" days.

It is true that confusion has resulted from mistranslation of certain parts
of the Holy Bible, but this evening and morning part is not one of them.
Maybe you should study and learn the Hebrew language yourself and
then you would know this.

I am sure God could tell time as soon as light was created to divide the
day from night regardless of the time He created the Sun and the moon.
Stating the time it took for the creation was for our benefit anyway so we
would be able to know the truth. If you had read Genesis, you should
have known the Earth with water and light was created on the first day.
😏