Words reference meanings are defined by context. Study the context, glean the reference meaning. I'm not here to assist in the opposition's homework.

Instead of being condescending, why not simply reveal your personal view point on the subject.

Your first quote, look at the context.

Your second statement evidences poor logic. This commonly happens when one is in an agitated state. Satan wasn't created in the week of creation nor was he created when the visible universe was. Creation and existence do not mean the exact same thing. God existed in the beginning yet he was not created. Satan existed in the beginning of creation, was originaly created as Lucifer, but his creation was still independent of the beginning refered to in Genesis 1.

I see that you would very much like to use this to twist the facts. Twisting facts is an art form created by the great adversary who is also the father of lies. Neither scripture nor SOP say that the earth existed before the week of creation.

Interpretations of Greek and Hebrew are in fact clearer than English. This is becuase our language is a composite of many. Hebrew and Greek are older languages and are as a result, less convoluded.

I'm still waiting to hear some concrete proofs for this pre creation earth stuff.

I believe John was talking about the beginning as it relates to man. The beginning of man. He's talking about creation. Creation of man. You think differently?

Hmm... Good point. I haven't thought of it like that. I should study this chapter further and get back to you on that.

How would that work with "All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made"?

Any futher discussions regarding "when was the earth really created?" I'm directing to another thread. This topic is nothing but a distraction from the topics I care to discuss here.

http://www.maritime-sda-online.com/forum...amp;#Post124805

I've decided to look at this issue (that has now become a debating match) from another angle.

Only the First Flash model successfully accounts for scientific anomolies such as the Pioneer anomoly, the rift between QM and GR, conflicting time rate of distant supernova, and (most importantly) why the spherical harmonics of the cosmic microwave background have nearly zero temperature fluctuations between angles at or greater than 60 degrees. This last point indicates that light accelerates with distance.

This lack of fluctuations in the CMB at 60 degrees or greater shouldn't be possible according to the present understanding of how light travels. The maximum distance light should be able to travel in 13.73 billion years (according to modern astronomy text books) is 13.73 billion light years.

This is the currently measured distance from Earth to the light horizon. It is effectively the radius to a sphere representing the edge of our universe. The distance between two points 60 degrees apart on the surface of a sphere is always greater than the sphere's radius.

All of this indicates that these other Genesis interpretations (claiming that the universe is over ten thousand years old)are wrong. It also indicates that all of the variations of the Big Bang Theory are also wrong as far as our universe's age.

With all of the dicey arguments basicly saying that it isn't possible to correctly discern scripture I say, compare it to the hard evidence revealed in God's book of nature. If one wants to put down FF, they should ask themselves first why their own pet beliefs fail to match up with the evidence in the Bible and in nature.

Something that might be worth pondering..
http://www.ted.com/talks/stephen_wolfram_computing_a_theory_of_everything.html

All I can say is "WOW!". I am not effeminate in any way, but this video nearly made me cry.

Thank you for sharing this.

I just inputted my expanded energy equation on Wolfram Alpha. After waiting 6 or 7 seconds (expecting the thing to lock up or show an error message) it spits out 2abc/3 +c(ab/3)=d

abc= cosmic torque
c= curved time space
ab= mass times linear time space
d= total energy

I am VERY impressed with this program.

Thanks again vaster, I'm probably going to be using Wolfram alot more and be spending significantly less time here. (sorry)

Visualizing the math for actual physical properties, this result reveals two sources for cosmic torque. (Another universe)

I love it, I love it! This great stuff.

Wow!