|
Moloch
|
 |
February 23, 2016, 06:41:00 AM |
|
The existence of Santa Clause can be disproven, but the existence of God can only be speculated.
I'd love to see this proof... considering it's impossible https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_absence#Proving_a_negativeIn 1992 during a presentation at Caltech, skeptic James Randi said "you can't prove a negative". He claims that he cannot prove a negative (such as that telepathy does not exist), but he argues that an individual who claims telepathy exists must prove it... Santa was created by the Coca-Cola company Santa is 300+ years older than the Coca-Cola company |
|
|
|
|
-XXIII-
Member
 Offline
Activity: 112
Merit: 10
|
|
February 23, 2016, 06:44:03 AM |
|
The existence of Santa Clause can be disproven, but the existence of God can only be speculated.
I'd love to see this proof... considering it's impossible https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_absence#Proving_a_negativeIn 1992 during a presentation at Caltech, skeptic James Randi said "you can't prove a negative". He claims that he cannot prove a negative (such as that telepathy does not exist), but he argues that an individual who claims telepathy exists must prove it... Santa was created by the Coca-Cola company Santa is 300+ years older than the Coca-Cola company You're right, I retract my statement. Santa Clause still does have an origin and story based off people who existed in time, my point is still valid. |
|
|
|
|
af_newbie (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2702
Merit: 1468
|
|
February 23, 2016, 07:04:59 AM |
|
You have the same evidence for God as young kids have for Santa Claus.
You're comparing a belief in something that is known to be untrue, and something that is unknown to be untrue. I'm comparing two fictional characters. There is absolutely no difference. What did God give you?
Free will, 'Pain, misery, wars, stake burning, chopping hands and feet, stoning, chopping heads off, etc.' are a direct result of said free will. People chopped hands off, burn people alive because they thought Bible is a word of God. Nothing to do with free will (not even sure what you mean). It has everything to do with the God's legal advice. There is no Santa Claus just like there is no God.
The existence of Santa Clause can be dis-proven, but the existence of God can only be speculated. God is not physically observable so by definition it does not exist. God is the most vengeful, hateful, masochistic, misogynistic being ever invented by a human mind.
You're right, God is all things including loving, forgiving, and righteous; Anything the human mind can imagine was put there by God. You have no proof our thoughts were put in our heads by God. You want proof: Burn the Bible. I became Atheist reading first few verses when he created Earth in the dark, then created plants before creating the Sun and the Stars.
A plant can be created without it growing; seeds can sprout in darkness. Besides, you got that verse twisted, read "whose seed is in itself", meaning it hasn't grown yet. You are twisting a bronze age dream to fit our current understanding of how the world was created. 1000 years ago people would not interpret this creation story the same way as you do today. You are injecting your own bias. There is no mention of physics behind the world creation which proves one thing: it is a bronze age story. If this creation story does make sense to you, you are clueless:
Day 1: He created Earth (formless and empty) and heaven in the dark. Spirit of God was covering waters, Then he created light
Day 2: He separated sky (the vault) from the water (some magic water that did not freeze)
Day 3: He created dry land (after he created Earth) and plants
Day 4: He created Sun and other stars (poor plants, they had to wait for Sun to show up)
Day 5: Created animals
Day 6: Started farming (no industrial revolution, no science, no Internet? Why not?)
That's a pretty twisted way of reading Genesis. Here's my interpretation: Day 0: Spirit of God gets an idea, the Earth and Heavens. Neither exist, thus void and formless and are referred to as "waters". Day 1: God creates light, divides it from the darkness, calls it night and day. Day 2: God "divided waters from waters" and separated matter from anti-matter, creating Earth and Heavens. Day 3: Dry land and oceans formed, then the Earth brings forth plants, whose seed is in itself (so the plants didn't have to wait for sun cuz they haven't grown) Day 4: Then God made the Sun and Moon, day and night, seasons, etc... Day 5: Sea creatures and flying things. Day 6: Land animals & Man in the likeness of God in Spirit. Day 7: Sabbath Day 8: God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. THEN, man started farming; industrial revolution came after. and so on... To add to the confusion, 'heaven' seems to be used in place of 'sky', 'space', and 'heaven as in dimention'. PS: NIV is terrible, KJV or Tanakh in Hebrew or go home. Except the Bible says he created Earth and Heaven on day 1. The waters refers to actual waters. The bronze age understanding of the world was that the heavens and Earth are separated by a dome surrounded by water. This dome was enclosing a flat Earth that was supported by pillars. I you are defending it, you are a despicable human being.
People do fucked up shit and a lot of that was recorded in the bible. In modern times, we keep our bullshit in what we call "history". But you guys say Bible was inspired by God. So the moral code was inspired by God as well, or you conveniently skip that part and only the nice (love your neighbor parts) are inspired by God? That is what I would call an intellectual dishonesty. I'd not even know how to twist these words.
Evil hearts spew evil from their mouths. Pointing out misunderstood bible verses is one thing, but you follow up with extremelt hateful speech: "unless you are already a psychopath" "a collective work of some sick, bronze age psychopaths" "you are a despicable human being" And I'm not even halfway through the thread yet. You are a psychopath if you think the moral code in the Bible is the correct moral code to follow. There is no question about it. Check yourself to a mental institution because you might be a danger to other people. Anyone who believes everything in the Bible is true and is word of God is either ignorant or dishonest.
Ok. Your blanket statements are starting to piss me off. See: 2 Timothy 3:16 "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness" Inspiration does not equal fact. Ever watch a movie that states "inspired by a true story"? Same idea: take the moral, leave the details. You are ignorant of modern moral code, modern legal systems and modern ethics. You are dishonest because you ignore nasty parts of the Bible and concentrate on the nice parts. That is dishonesty. Deal with the vile parts first. Reconcile those with modern times first, before you even read the rest of this vile book. After I saw responses from the Christians on this forum, I have changed the title of this thread.
Why not include "crazy shit atheists say"? Everyone here is an asshole so why point one group out over another? Atheist position is the most rational, most compatible with science position. We are in the mists of the scientific revolution, if you care to notice. Show us the wisdom of God.
Their silence is proof of wisdom. Wisdom to withhold the fuel that feeds the hateful fire you've started. Your God is dick on wheels. And he is imaginary. How can you not see it? Those aren't quotes, just some vague and inaccurate descriptions of a few verses.
And you copied and pasted them from Google anyway.
So go ahead and Google for answers if you're interested.
That is what I thought. Ignorance is a bliss. No, he's actually right. All you've done is copy+paste the most fucked up shit from the bible for the soul purpose of delivering hate. You're more evil than all the verses you've referred to. What are you talking about. It is your God inspired book. I did not write it. What I have problem is with people who try to tell me black is white. Believe it or die. I have a problem with shit disturbers like you. You've made absolutely zero points other than proof of hate for the bible. So what? Keep your shit to yourself, and if someone presses their white on your black then press back when it's appropriate. I'm not lying, it says the Earth is flat with 4 corners, squared in fact:
Give me a shape with an end four squares and which is not flat!
Not in fact, you've added the squared part. What is fact is words sometimes have two meanings. See here for the four corners and their corresponding ends:  I know, he thinks we are attacking his religion.
How are you completely blind to the fact that you are attacking religion?!  I'm pointing out the craziness and irrationality of this myth. |
|
|
|
|
Moloch
|
|
February 23, 2016, 07:07:31 AM |
|
The existence of Santa Clause can be disproven, but the existence of God can only be speculated.
I'd love to see this proof... considering it's impossible https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_absence#Proving_a_negativeIn 1992 during a presentation at Caltech, skeptic James Randi said "you can't prove a negative". He claims that he cannot prove a negative (such as that telepathy does not exist), but he argues that an individual who claims telepathy exists must prove it... Santa was created by the Coca-Cola company Santa is 300+ years older than the Coca-Cola company You're right, I retract my statement. Santa Clause still does have an origin and story based off people who existed in time, my point is still valid. You said you could DISPROVE Santa You don't know the origins of the Santa myth... nobody does Now you are just looking (more) foolish |
|
|
|
|
-XXIII-
Member
Offline
Activity: 112
Merit: 10
|
|
February 23, 2016, 07:08:27 AM |
|
The existence of Santa Clause can be disproven, but the existence of God can only be speculated.
I'd love to see this proof... considering it's impossible https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_absence#Proving_a_negativeIn 1992 during a presentation at Caltech, skeptic James Randi said "you can't prove a negative". He claims that he cannot prove a negative (such as that telepathy does not exist), but he argues that an individual who claims telepathy exists must prove it... Santa was created by the Coca-Cola company Santa is 300+ years older than the Coca-Cola company You're right, I retract my statement. Santa Clause still does have an origin and story based off people who existed in time, my point is still valid. You said you could DISPROVE Santa He's dead, I win. |
|
|
|
|
|
Moloch
|
|
February 23, 2016, 07:10:52 AM |
|
The existence of Santa Clause can be disproven, but the existence of God can only be speculated.
I'd love to see this proof... considering it's impossible https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_absence#Proving_a_negativeIn 1992 during a presentation at Caltech, skeptic James Randi said "you can't prove a negative". He claims that he cannot prove a negative (such as that telepathy does not exist), but he argues that an individual who claims telepathy exists must prove it... Santa was created by the Coca-Cola company Santa is 300+ years older than the Coca-Cola company You're right, I retract my statement. Santa Clause still does have an origin and story based off people who existed in time, my point is still valid. You said you could DISPROVE Santa He's dead, I win. So is God, I win |
|
|
|
|
-XXIII-
Member
Offline
Activity: 112
Merit: 10
|
|
February 23, 2016, 07:11:47 AM |
|
The existence of Santa Clause can be disproven, but the existence of God can only be speculated.
I'd love to see this proof... considering it's impossible https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_absence#Proving_a_negativeIn 1992 during a presentation at Caltech, skeptic James Randi said "you can't prove a negative". He claims that he cannot prove a negative (such as that telepathy does not exist), but he argues that an individual who claims telepathy exists must prove it... Santa was created by the Coca-Cola company Santa is 300+ years older than the Coca-Cola company You're right, I retract my statement. Santa Clause still does have an origin and story based off people who existed in time, my point is still valid. You said you could DISPROVE Santa He's dead, I win. So is God, I win How can you say this when you can't prove he ever existed? |
|
|
|
|
af_newbie (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2702
Merit: 1468
|
|
February 23, 2016, 07:12:44 AM |
|
The existence of Santa Clause can be disproven, but the existence of God can only be speculated.
I'd love to see this proof... considering it's impossible https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_absence#Proving_a_negativeIn 1992 during a presentation at Caltech, skeptic James Randi said "you can't prove a negative". He claims that he cannot prove a negative (such as that telepathy does not exist), but he argues that an individual who claims telepathy exists must prove it... Santa was created by the Coca-Cola company Santa is 300+ years older than the Coca-Cola company You're right, I retract my statement. Santa Clause still does have an origin and story based off people who existed in time, my point is still valid. You said you could DISPROVE Santa He's dead, I win. So is God, I win How can you say this when you can't prove he ever existed? Didn't your God died on the cross? |
|
|
|
-XXIII-
Member
Offline
Activity: 112
Merit: 10
|
|
February 23, 2016, 07:13:59 AM |
|
The existence of Santa Clause can be disproven, but the existence of God can only be speculated.
I'd love to see this proof... considering it's impossible https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_absence#Proving_a_negativeIn 1992 during a presentation at Caltech, skeptic James Randi said "you can't prove a negative". He claims that he cannot prove a negative (such as that telepathy does not exist), but he argues that an individual who claims telepathy exists must prove it... Santa was created by the Coca-Cola company Santa is 300+ years older than the Coca-Cola company You're right, I retract my statement. Santa Clause still does have an origin and story based off people who existed in time, my point is still valid. You said you could DISPROVE Santa He's dead, I win. So is God, I win How can you say this when you can't prove he ever existed? Didn't your God died on the cross? No, that would be God's begotten Son. Don't get it twisted. |
|
|
|
|
af_newbie (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2702
Merit: 1468
|
|
February 23, 2016, 07:15:18 AM |
|
The existence of Santa Clause can be disproven, but the existence of God can only be speculated.
I'd love to see this proof... considering it's impossible https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_absence#Proving_a_negativeIn 1992 during a presentation at Caltech, skeptic James Randi said "you can't prove a negative". He claims that he cannot prove a negative (such as that telepathy does not exist), but he argues that an individual who claims telepathy exists must prove it... Santa was created by the Coca-Cola company Santa is 300+ years older than the Coca-Cola company You're right, I retract my statement. Santa Clause still does have an origin and story based off people who existed in time, my point is still valid. You said you could DISPROVE Santa He's dead, I win. So is God, I win How can you say this when you can't prove he ever existed? Didn't your God died on the cross? No, that would be God's begotten Son. Don't get it twisted. Who is one with his Father. Son/Father/And Holy spirit, you forgot the mantra. They all died on the cross. God send his son (who is God himself) to die on the cross, remember? Or you forgot that twisted part too? |
|
|
|
-XXIII-
Member
Offline
Activity: 112
Merit: 10
|
|
February 23, 2016, 07:17:03 AM |
|
The existence of Santa Clause can be disproven, but the existence of God can only be speculated.
I'd love to see this proof... considering it's impossible https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_absence#Proving_a_negativeIn 1992 during a presentation at Caltech, skeptic James Randi said "you can't prove a negative". He claims that he cannot prove a negative (such as that telepathy does not exist), but he argues that an individual who claims telepathy exists must prove it... Santa was created by the Coca-Cola company Santa is 300+ years older than the Coca-Cola company You're right, I retract my statement. Santa Clause still does have an origin and story based off people who existed in time, my point is still valid. You said you could DISPROVE Santa He's dead, I win. So is God, I win How can you say this when you can't prove he ever existed? Didn't your God died on the cross? No, that would be God's begotten Son. Don't get it twisted. Who is one with his Father. Son/Father/And Holy spirit, you forgot the mantra. They all died on the cross. You misunderstand: God created the angels, Jesus was one of them, he sent Jesus to Earth, we crucified him. |
|
|
|
|
|
Moloch
|
|
February 23, 2016, 07:18:43 AM |
|
You misunderstand: God created the angels, Jesus was one of them, he sent Jesus to Earth, we crucified him.
You misunderstand your own dogma https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TrinityThe Christian doctrine of the Trinity defines God as three consubstantial persons, expressions, or hypostases: the Father, the Son (Jesus Christ), and the Holy Spirit; "one God in three persons". The three persons are distinct, yet are one "substance, essence or nature". |
|
|
|
|
-XXIII-
Member
Offline
Activity: 112
Merit: 10
|
|
February 23, 2016, 07:20:15 AM |
|
You misunderstand: God created the angels, Jesus was one of them, he sent Jesus to Earth, we crucified him.
You misunderstand your own dogma https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TrinityThe Christian doctrine of the Trinity defines God as three consubstantial persons, expressions, or hypostases: the Father, the Son (Jesus Christ), and the Holy Spirit; "one God in three persons". The three persons are distinct, yet are one "substance, essence or nature". By that same article: "According to this central mystery of some Christian faiths," which means, some, not all. |
|
|
|
|
af_newbie (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2702
Merit: 1468
|
|
February 23, 2016, 07:20:19 AM |
|
The existence of Santa Clause can be disproven, but the existence of God can only be speculated.
I'd love to see this proof... considering it's impossible https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_absence#Proving_a_negativeIn 1992 during a presentation at Caltech, skeptic James Randi said "you can't prove a negative". He claims that he cannot prove a negative (such as that telepathy does not exist), but he argues that an individual who claims telepathy exists must prove it... Santa was created by the Coca-Cola company Santa is 300+ years older than the Coca-Cola company You're right, I retract my statement. Santa Clause still does have an origin and story based off people who existed in time, my point is still valid. You said you could DISPROVE Santa He's dead, I win. So is God, I win How can you say this when you can't prove he ever existed? Didn't your God died on the cross? No, that would be God's begotten Son. Don't get it twisted. Who is one with his Father. Son/Father/And Holy spirit, you forgot the mantra. They all died on the cross. You misunderstand: God created the angels, Jesus was one of them, he sent Jesus to Earth, we crucified him. What Christian denomination are you? Jesus was God's son and God himself. Holy trinity (son+father+holy spirit) that is what Roman Catholics thought me. So according to their twisted logic, the whole trinity died on the cross. Like three Musketeers. One for all, all for one. |
|
|
|
|
Moloch
|
|
February 23, 2016, 07:21:36 AM |
|
You misunderstand: God created the angels, Jesus was one of them, he sent Jesus to Earth, we crucified him.
You misunderstand your own dogma https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TrinityThe Christian doctrine of the Trinity defines God as three consubstantial persons, expressions, or hypostases: the Father, the Son (Jesus Christ), and the Holy Spirit; "one God in three persons". The three persons are distinct, yet are one "substance, essence or nature". By that same article: "According to this central mystery of some Christian faiths," which means, some, not all. Name a denomination that does not believe in the Trinity |
|
|
|
|
af_newbie (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2702
Merit: 1468
|
|
February 23, 2016, 07:25:01 AM |
|
You misunderstand: God created the angels, Jesus was one of them, he sent Jesus to Earth, we crucified him.
You misunderstand your own dogma https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TrinityThe Christian doctrine of the Trinity defines God as three consubstantial persons, expressions, or hypostases: the Father, the Son (Jesus Christ), and the Holy Spirit; "one God in three persons". The three persons are distinct, yet are one "substance, essence or nature". By that same article: "According to this central mystery of some Christian faiths," which means, some, not all. Name a denomination that does not believe in the Trinity He is frantically searching...What a bozo? Jesus was an angel, WTF? That is a new low, even for a Christian. |
|
|
|
|
Moloch
|
|
February 23, 2016, 07:26:21 AM |
|
You misunderstand: God created the angels, Jesus was one of them, he sent Jesus to Earth, we crucified him.
You misunderstand your own dogma https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TrinityThe Christian doctrine of the Trinity defines God as three consubstantial persons, expressions, or hypostases: the Father, the Son (Jesus Christ), and the Holy Spirit; "one God in three persons". The three persons are distinct, yet are one "substance, essence or nature". By that same article: "According to this central mystery of some Christian faiths," which means, some, not all. Name a denomination that does not believe in the Trinity He is frantically searching...What a bozo? Jesus was an angel, WTF? That is a new low, even for a Christian. Why do the Atheists always prove they know Christianity better than the Christians? Christians are so eager to spout bullshit that they look foolish |
|
|
|
|
-XXIII-
Member
Offline
Activity: 112
Merit: 10
|
|
February 23, 2016, 07:26:50 AM |
|
The existence of Santa Clause can be disproven, but the existence of God can only be speculated.
I'd love to see this proof... considering it's impossible https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_absence#Proving_a_negativeIn 1992 during a presentation at Caltech, skeptic James Randi said "you can't prove a negative". He claims that he cannot prove a negative (such as that telepathy does not exist), but he argues that an individual who claims telepathy exists must prove it... Santa was created by the Coca-Cola company Santa is 300+ years older than the Coca-Cola company You're right, I retract my statement. Santa Clause still does have an origin and story based off people who existed in time, my point is still valid. You said you could DISPROVE Santa He's dead, I win. So is God, I win How can you say this when you can't prove he ever existed? Didn't your God died on the cross? No, that would be God's begotten Son. Don't get it twisted. Who is one with his Father. Son/Father/And Holy spirit, you forgot the mantra. They all died on the cross. You misunderstand: God created the angels, Jesus was one of them, he sent Jesus to Earth, we crucified him. What Christian denomination are you? Jesus was God's son and God himself. Holy trinity (son+father+holy spirit) that is what Roman Catholics thought me. So according to their twisted logic, the whole trinity died on the cross. Like three Musketeers. One for all, all for one. You misunderstand: God created the angels, Jesus was one of them, he sent Jesus to Earth, we crucified him.
You misunderstand your own dogma https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TrinityThe Christian doctrine of the Trinity defines God as three consubstantial persons, expressions, or hypostases: the Father, the Son (Jesus Christ), and the Holy Spirit; "one God in three persons". The three persons are distinct, yet are one "substance, essence or nature". By that same article: "According to this central mystery of some Christian faiths," which means, some, not all. Name a denomination that does not believe in the Trinity I have no denomination, but I believe in righteousness and have a strong moral code. What you folks are doing is purely hateful, calling out others for the sake of attacking them and their beliefs. I'm ashamed to share this forum with you. |
|
|
|
|
|
Moloch
|
|
February 23, 2016, 07:28:24 AM |
|
I have no denomination, but I believe in righteousness and have a strong moral code. What you folks are doing is purely hateful, calling out others for the sake of attacking them and their beliefs.
I'm ashamed to share this forum with you.
Nobody asked you to come in here and make a fool of yourself... you did that voluntarily |
|
|
|
|
electronicash
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3234
Merit: 1055
|
|
February 23, 2016, 07:30:56 AM |
|
I became Atheist reading first few verses
No you didn't. If you had good reasons, you wouldn't have to lie. I'd start with the light (big bang) if I were him. If this creation story does make sense to you, you are clueless: Day 1: He created Earth (formless and empty) and heaven in the dark. Spirit of God was covering waters, Then he created light Day 2: He separated sky (the vault) from the water (some magic water that did not freeze) Day 3: He created dry land ( after he created Earth) and plantsDay 4: He created Sun and other stars ( poor plants, they had to wait for Sun to show up) Day 5: Created animals Day 6: Started farming ( no industrial revolution, no science, no Internet? Why not?) Genesis 1New International Version (NIV)
The Beginning
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.
3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.
6 And God said, “Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water.” 7 So God made the vault and separated the water under the vault from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the vault “sky.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.
9 And God said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.” And it was so. 10 God called the dry ground “land,” and the gathered waters he called “seas.” And God saw that it was good.
11 Then God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.” And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.
14 And God said, “Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth.” And it was so. 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.
20 And God said, “Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the vault of the sky.” 21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living thing with which the water teems and that moves about in it, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 God blessed them and said, “Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth.” 23 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fifth day.
24 And God said, “Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: the livestock, the creatures that move along the ground, and the wild animals, each according to its kind.” And it was so. 25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.
26 Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals,[a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”
27 So God created mankind in his own image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them.
28 God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.”
29 Then God said, “I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. 30 And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds in the sky and all the creatures that move along the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food.” And it was so.
31 God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day. i might be wrong but a day of God might not be just 24 hours just like what we have. remember he has his own world and that he lives in the 7th heaven, god knows where it is. so basically he didn't create the world in seven days like monday to sunday. |
|
|
|
|
