littlejimberry
Inactive Member
|
|
Message 3 of 18 (1441)
01-01-2002 12:10 PM
|
Reply to: Message 2 by RetroCrono 01-01-2002 10:05 AM
|
|
Dear RetroCrono, I have read your reply and your links. And in doing so I have come to agree with what you are saying. You are right. I am at fault for not considering the negative impact that my site would have on someone who is a struggling Christian or anyone else. You are right, if someone does find my site to be "wrong" then it is possible that it would turn him or her away from the Bible or his or her walk with God. And in doing so, my website has been permanently deleted to prevent such a tragedy to occur. I thank you for bringing this to my attention. Thank you and God Bless. - littlejimberry
This message is a reply to: | | Message 2 by RetroCrono, posted 01-01-2002 10:05 AM | | RetroCrono has replied |
Replies to this message: | | Message 4 by Percy, posted 01-01-2002 1:32 PM | | littlejimberry has not replied | | Message 5 by RetroCrono, posted 01-02-2002 10:52 AM | | littlejimberry has not replied |
|
littlejimberry
Inactive Member
|
|
Message 12 of 18 (4312)
02-12-2002 9:54 PM
|
Reply to: Message 11 by gene90 02-12-2002 9:11 AM
|
|
It is true, the site was only down for 48 hours. It was not to avoid sarcasm or avoid any questions, it was to gather my thoughts about my site, the information on the site, and how I presented it. I do believe that some of the information came across in the wrong way, and throughout the duration of my site being down, I have changed those mistakes. I haven't changed the evidence material, only the way it was presented. The evidence that is on my site will always be there and will always speak for large amounts of opinions that some have on the topics. Once again, the site wasn't taken down to avoid any questions or hassels from this message board, only to better my site. And I thank RetroCrono for pointing those flaws out.
This message is a reply to: | | Message 11 by gene90, posted 02-12-2002 9:11 AM | | gene90 has replied |
Replies to this message: | | Message 13 by gene90, posted 02-14-2002 12:06 PM | | littlejimberry has replied |
|
littlejimberry
Inactive Member
|
I hope that this will answer your question. It is also believed that the stars are millions upon millions of years old. Because it takes thousands and millions of years for the light to reach us. Right? The age of the stars co-inside with the age of the earth. If you can, just for a moment, consider that God did create the heavens (universe), the earth, and man. It states in the Bible that God created man as a man, not as a child. So my belief is that when God created the stars, (along with the earth), he created them in the same manner that he created man, as a mature object, not a young one. You see, when God created the stars, some were created as mature stars, that is why we see their light now, without having to wait for such a long time. Thus the misunderstanding of the true age of the stars. The earth was created in the same way, as a mature earth, and in the same way he created man, as a man. We know that God created man this way (and that He did create man) because the Bible has endured thousands of years of copying and re-righting. But you would think that some things in the bible would change, right? Wrong, since the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls in 100 BC, we can compare the scrolls to the modern day bible, they are almost identical, therefore, we know that the Bible is a credible source due to the fact that it has endured in it's entirety for hundreds of years. I don’t believe that God is, or has tried to fool us. Rather, he has placed obstacles such as an seemingly old earth and universe before us, in order for us to put our faith in Him. He did that so He can show us the true way, and for us to totally rely on Him for our answers. He does want us to come to Him but in order to find Him we need to seek Him out through our faith and try to overlook the common misunderstandings of the universe.
Replies to this message: | | Message 18 by no2creation, posted 02-16-2002 8:38 PM | | littlejimberry has not replied |
|