Is it ethical to claim the earth is only 6000 years old? Considering scientists are unified in proving the universe is 13.7 billion years old and earth about 4.5 billion years old. And who is the cause of death and killing of plants and animals in the pre-endemic period, and why was day 2 not called a good day? Among the creation views, there is only one that I know of that address these adequately which makes the six days days of restoration not creation and Lucifer, his fallen angels, and the demons to blame.
Creation Ethics
- Thread starter Revivin
- Start date
Boanerges
Member
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2009
- Messages
- 3,892
It seems like you like to stir the pot with the questions you ask- LOL.
Creationism is valid science.
Evolutionists date the strata by the fossils and the fossils by the strata.
It is a dog chasing it's tail concept.
Carbon dating a freshly harvested mollusk showed it to be millions of years old.
Radiometric dating is even more silly, dating an object the state of decay in ( the presence of) uranium atoms when without laboratory conditions from day one no one knows how much uranium an object originally contained.
Then of course you have features like the Grand Canyon eroded by the Colorado river over " millions of years but then to jump to that conclusion you would have to compleltely ignore the evidence presented below:
From Eric Hovin's blog:
Evolutionists and the Grand Canyon!
Two weeks ago I flew from Dallas, Texas to Sacramento, California on a beautiful Wednesday afternoon. Halfway through the flight we went directly over the Grand Canyon. As I looked out of the window, I was even able to see the spot where I went on a helicopter tour with my Dad, my wife, and my oldest daughter! That whole landscape was absolutely breathtaking! It is amazing, how can anyone look at that landscape and not see the evidence of Noah's flood? In 2 Peter 3:5-7, the Bible says people will be willingly ignorant of the Creation, the flood, and the coming judgment of God.
We produced a Creation Minute episode called "Grand Canyon" that was released two weeks ago, and boy are the comments flying in from the evolutionists.
Ranson said, "Umm...wow. I can't...wow...that's too dumb to respond to."
Astrounit said, "And oh, boy, is Eric Hovind's latest argument a winner: the current level of the Colorado River is several thousand feet lower than the peak elevations of the Grand Canyon, therefore the river must have flowed uphill to cut the canyon when it was formed."
No, no, no, Astrounit, you missed the point completely! Watch this video again then I will try to elaborate.
Let's point out some facts, then draw some conclusions.
Fact #1 The Top of Grand Canyon is higher than the bottom.
Fact #2 The Colorado River runs through the bottom.
Fact #3 The Colorado River enters the Canyon at 2800 feet above Sea level.
Fact #4 The Colorado River exits the Canyon at 1800 feet above Sea level.
Fact #5 As the Colorado River flows downhill, the ground around it rises uphill.
Conclusion: The Grand Canyon was formed when a large post flood lake breached the top of the current Grand Canyon and eroded a canyon very rapidly. Now the Colorado River is flowing in the bottom, but it did not form the entire canyon. If the Colorado River formed the Grand Canyon over millions of years, it would have had to flow uphill. My point is that it did not happen that way!
For about 100 years scientists believed that Laramide Orogeny would account for the difference in the land level and the river level, however further research has shown that this can not be true.
Creationism is valid science.
Evolutionists date the strata by the fossils and the fossils by the strata.
It is a dog chasing it's tail concept.
Carbon dating a freshly harvested mollusk showed it to be millions of years old.
Radiometric dating is even more silly, dating an object the state of decay in ( the presence of) uranium atoms when without laboratory conditions from day one no one knows how much uranium an object originally contained.
Then of course you have features like the Grand Canyon eroded by the Colorado river over " millions of years but then to jump to that conclusion you would have to compleltely ignore the evidence presented below:
From Eric Hovin's blog:
Evolutionists and the Grand Canyon!
Two weeks ago I flew from Dallas, Texas to Sacramento, California on a beautiful Wednesday afternoon. Halfway through the flight we went directly over the Grand Canyon. As I looked out of the window, I was even able to see the spot where I went on a helicopter tour with my Dad, my wife, and my oldest daughter! That whole landscape was absolutely breathtaking! It is amazing, how can anyone look at that landscape and not see the evidence of Noah's flood? In 2 Peter 3:5-7, the Bible says people will be willingly ignorant of the Creation, the flood, and the coming judgment of God.
We produced a Creation Minute episode called "Grand Canyon" that was released two weeks ago, and boy are the comments flying in from the evolutionists.
Ranson said, "Umm...wow. I can't...wow...that's too dumb to respond to."
Astrounit said, "And oh, boy, is Eric Hovind's latest argument a winner: the current level of the Colorado River is several thousand feet lower than the peak elevations of the Grand Canyon, therefore the river must have flowed uphill to cut the canyon when it was formed."
No, no, no, Astrounit, you missed the point completely! Watch this video again then I will try to elaborate.
Let's point out some facts, then draw some conclusions.
Fact #1 The Top of Grand Canyon is higher than the bottom.
Fact #2 The Colorado River runs through the bottom.
Fact #3 The Colorado River enters the Canyon at 2800 feet above Sea level.
Fact #4 The Colorado River exits the Canyon at 1800 feet above Sea level.
Fact #5 As the Colorado River flows downhill, the ground around it rises uphill.
Conclusion: The Grand Canyon was formed when a large post flood lake breached the top of the current Grand Canyon and eroded a canyon very rapidly. Now the Colorado River is flowing in the bottom, but it did not form the entire canyon. If the Colorado River formed the Grand Canyon over millions of years, it would have had to flow uphill. My point is that it did not happen that way!
For about 100 years scientists believed that Laramide Orogeny would account for the difference in the land level and the river level, however further research has shown that this can not be true.
what? do you have a point or am i missing something. not trying to be irritating or rude. but im not sure where this is going.
Well I'm a more Liberal Christian so I don't think the Earth is 6000 years old, but I also don't think we know how long it actually took God to form the Earth. Its pretty apparent that God is the creator of our Earth, Galaxy and Universe, but how long that took is still up for debate. When the Bible speaks of a certain period of time, it isn't like it is now. The twenty four hour periods of days we currently use did not come into practice until around 100 A.D (C.E). Some societies kept track of hours in a day differently, but most used the Egyptian 365 day calendar.
Boanerges
Member
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2009
- Messages
- 3,892
It is okay to disagree about this as folks have probably been disagreeing about it for at least 6,000 years- LOL!:shade:
Seriously, there are many views on this and that is okay but to question if it is ethical to believe in a young earth is not only out of line but shows a real lack of any serious thought.
Seriously, there are many views on this and that is okay but to question if it is ethical to believe in a young earth is not only out of line but shows a real lack of any serious thought.
What you might find interesting is that only the gap restoration view explains why day 2 was not called a good day like the other days, and unlike the other views, it explains why there was killing in pre-Adamic men and preendemic animals, for it was due to the fall of Lucifer and his angels, and the demons, so God made the earth desolate and waste in Gen. 1.2, followed by the restoration creation.
I believe dinosaurs, for example, were in the preendemic period, were killing machines and influenced by the evil spirit.
God created not for killing when He created perfectly in Gen. 1.1.
I believe dinosaurs, for example, were in the preendemic period, were killing machines and influenced by the evil spirit.
God created not for killing when He created perfectly in Gen. 1.1.
Boanerges
Member
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2009
- Messages
- 3,892
That is certainly one theory.:shade:
It is one that has been much debated but there is no conclusive proof one way or the other, at least as far as I have seen demonstrated.
Personally I believe that it takes a lot of "reading between the lines" to agree with that view.
It is one that has been much debated but there is no conclusive proof one way or the other, at least as far as I have seen demonstrated.
Personally I believe that it takes a lot of "reading between the lines" to agree with that view.
what i find intersting is it never talks about the angels being created. when did that take place?
now there is something to wrap ur think tank around.
Only the gap restoration view shows God's judgment when He made desolate and waste in Gen. 1.2. The others either shut their minds down to the fact dinosaurs were on earth 65 million years ago, or consider killing part of God's desire.
It takes a lot to read into the Scriptures earth is only 6000 years old or that God does not judge sin of the inhabitants of earth's earliest ages or leaving it unexplained why day 2 was not called a good day.
You are really left with no option except the gap restoration view. The judgment of Gen. 1.2 explains the destruction of the dinosaurs and also explains why the demons were cast into the deep, that when the firmament was split some came out, one of which went into the garden to tempt even through the serpent doing Satan's bidding.
Only the gap restoration view addresses the negative influence fallen Lucifer and his angels and demons had on earth prior to man being made in God's image.
It takes a lot to read into the Scriptures earth is only 6000 years old or that God does not judge sin of the inhabitants of earth's earliest ages or leaving it unexplained why day 2 was not called a good day.
You are really left with no option except the gap restoration view. The judgment of Gen. 1.2 explains the destruction of the dinosaurs and also explains why the demons were cast into the deep, that when the firmament was split some came out, one of which went into the garden to tempt even through the serpent doing Satan's bidding.
Only the gap restoration view addresses the negative influence fallen Lucifer and his angels and demons had on earth prior to man being made in God's image.
Last edited:
Boanerges
Member
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2009
- Messages
- 3,892
Gen 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
Most folks view Genesis 1:2 as one of the steps in the process that God took to create the earth. There is certainly no mention of judgment in that verse but only of the Spirit of God moving over His creation in it's second day.
I have added some comments to your quote and I would genuinely be interested if you could produce an actual bible verse that supports your theory.
Most folks view Genesis 1:2 as one of the steps in the process that God took to create the earth. There is certainly no mention of judgment in that verse but only of the Spirit of God moving over His creation in it's second day.
I have added some comments to your quote and I would genuinely be interested if you could produce an actual bible verse that supports your theory.
you are certinaly reading alot into the scriptures. it never really says the firmament was split. it never really says dinosoars where destroyed.
Read day 2 regarding the firmament. Dinosaurs are not destroyed? You're reading way too much into your own theory. Put your feelings aside and let the evidence guide you.
In the original Hebrew, this initial verse of the first chapter of Genesis contains seven words which carry within themselves a sense of independence. These divinely revealed words do not say that in the beginning God “formed” or “made” the world out of certain raw materials. No, the heavens and the earth were created. This word “created” is “bara” in the original. So that in the beginning God bara the heavens and the earth. This word “bara” is used three more times in Genesis 1 and 2: (1st) “And God created [bara] the great sea-monsters, and every living creature that moveth, wherewith the waters swarmed, after their kind, and every winged bird after its kind” (1.21); (2nd) “And God created [bara] man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them” (1.27); and (3rd) “And God blessed the seventh day, and hallowed it; because that in it he rested from all his work which God had created [bara] and made” (2.3). To “create” is to “call the things that are not, as though they were” (Rom. 4.17). These sea-monsters and living things not only had physical bodies but also had an animated life within them. They therefore required a direct creative act of God. Thus it is only reasonable that the Scriptures should use the word “created” rather than the word “made” in these passages. In similar manner, though man’s body was formed out of the dust of the ground, his soul and spirit could not be made out of any physical material, and hence the Bible declared that “God created man in his own image.”
In the first two chapters of Genesis three different words are used for the act of creation: (1) “bara”—calling into being without the aid of pre-existing material. This we have already touched upon; (2) “asah”—which is quite different from “bara,” since the latter denotes the idea of creating without any material whereas “asah” signifies the making, fashioning, or preparing out of existing material. For instance, a carpenter can make a chair, but he cannot create one. The works of the Six Days in Genesis are mainly of the order of “asah”; (3) “yatsar”—which means to shape or mold as a potter does with clay. This word is used in Genesis 2.7 as follows: “And Jehovah God formed man of the dust of the ground.” Interestingly, Isaiah 43.7 illustrates the meaning and connection of all three of these words: “every one that is called by my name, and whom I have created for my glory, whom I have formed, yea, whom I have made.” “Created” signifies a calling into being out of nothing; “formed” denotes a fashioning into appointed form; and “made” means a preparing out of pre-existing material.
The words “In the beginning” reinforce the thought of God creating the heavens and the earth out of nothing. There is really no need to theorize; since God has so spoken, let men simply believe. How absurd for finite minds to search out the works of God which He performed at the beginning! “By faith we understand that the worlds have been framed by the word of God” (Heb. 11.3). Who can answer God’s challenge to Job concerning creation (see Job 38)?
“In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” This heaven is not the firmament immediately surrounding the earth; rather, it points to the heaven where the stars are. It has not undergone any change since it was created, but the earth is no longer the same.
To understand the first chapter of Genesis, it is of utmost importance that we distinguish the “earth” mentioned in verse 1 from the “earth” spoken of in verse 2. For the condition of the earth referred to in verse 2 is not what God had created originally. Now we know that “God is not a God of confusion” (1 Cor. 14.33). And hence when it states that in the beginning God created the earth, what He created was therefore perfect. So that the waste and void of the earth spoken of in verse 2 was not the original condition of the earth as God first created it. Would God ever create an earth whose primeval condition would be waste and void? A true understanding of this verse will solve the apparent problem.
“Thus saith Jehovah that created the heavens, the God that formed the earth and made it, that established it and created it not a waste, that formed it to be inhabited: I am Jehovah; and there is none else” (Is. 45.18). How clear God’s word is. The word “waste” here is “tohu” in Hebrew, which signifies “desolation” or “that which is desolate.” It says here that the earth which God created was not a waste. Why then does Genesis 1.2 state that “the earth was waste”? This may be easily resolved. In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth (Gen. 1.1). At that time, the earth which God had created was not a waste; but later on, in passing through a great catastrophe, the earth did become waste and void. So that all which is mentioned from verse 3 onward does not refer to the original creation but to the restoration of the earth. God created the heavens and the earth in the beginning; but He subsequently used the Six Days to remake the earth habitable. Genesis 1.1 was the original world; Genesis 1.3 onward is our present world; while Genesis 1.2 describes the desolate condition which was the earth’s during the transitional period following its original creation and before our present world.
Such an interpretation cannot only be arrived at on the basis of Isaiah 45.18, it can also be supported on the basis of other evidences. The conjunctive word “and” in verse 2 can also be translated as “but”: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, but the earth was waste and void.” G. H. Pember, in his book Earth’s Earliest Ages, wrote that...
the “and” according to Hebrew usage—as well as that of most other languages—proves that the first verse is not a compendium of what follows, but a statement of the first event in the record. For if it were a mere summary, the second verse would be the actual commencement of the history, and certainly would not begin with a copulative. A good illustration of this may be found in the fifth chapter of Genesis (Gen. 5.1). There the opening words, “This is the book of the generations of Adam,” are a compendium of the chapter, and, consequently, the next sentence begins without a copulative. We have, therefore, in the second verse of Genesis no first detail of a general statement in the preceding sentence, but the record of an altogether distinct and subsequent event, which did not affect the sidereal [starry] heaven, but only the earth and its immediate surroundings. And what that event was we must now endeavour to discover.
G. H. Pember, Earth's Earliest Ages, New Edition, edited with additions by G. H. Lang (Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 1975), p. 31. (The original work of Pember, under the same title, was initially published in 1876 by Hodder and Stoughton. Later editions were issued by Pickering and Inglis and the Fleming H. Revell Co.)
Over a hundred years ago, Dr. Chalmers pointed out that the words “the earth was waste” might equally be translated “the earth became waste.” Dr. I. M. Haldeman, G. H. Pember, and others showed that the Hebrew word for “was” here has been translated “became” in Genesis 19.26: “His wife looked back from behind him, and she became a pillar of salt.” If this same Hebrew word can be translated in 19.26 as “became,” why can it not be translated as “became” in 1.2? Furthermore, the word “became” in 2.7 (“and man became a living soul”) is the same word as is found in Genesis 1.2. So that it is not at all arbitrary for anyone to translate “was” as “became” here: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, [but] the earth became waste and void.” The earth which God created originally was not waste, it only later became waste.
“In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” (Gen. 1.1) and “in six days Jehovah made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is” (Ex. 20.11). Comparing these two verses, we can readily see that the world in Genesis 1.1 was quite different from the world that came after Genesis 1.3. In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. In the Six Days God made the heaven and earth and sea. Who can measure the distance that exists between “created” and “made”? The one is a calling into being things out of nothing, the other is a working on something already there. Man can make but cannot create; God can create as well as make. Hence Genesis records that in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, but later on the earth had become waste and void due to a tremendous catastrophe, after which God commenced to remake the heaven, earth and sea and all the creatures in them. 2 Peter 3.5-7 expresses the same thought as well: the heavens and the earth in verse 5 are the original heavens and earth referred to in Genesis 1.1; the earth mentioned in verse 6 that was overflowed with water and which perished is the earth covered with water which became waste and void as mentioned in Genesis 1.2; and the heavens and the earth that now are as spoken of in verse 7 are the restored heavens and earth after Genesis 1.3. Hence the works of God during the Six Days are quite different from His creative work done in the beginning.
The more we study Genesis 1, the more we are convinced that the above is the true interpretation. In the first day, God commanded light to shine forth. Before this first day, the earth had already been existing, but it was now buried in water, dwelt in darkness, and was waste and void. On the third day, God did not create the earth. He merely commanded it to come out of water. F. W. Grant has stated that “the six days’ work merely sets the earth into a new program; it does not create it out of nothing.”* On the first day, God did not create light, He instead commanded light to shine out of darkness.
The light was already there. Neither did God create heaven on the second day. The heaven here is not the starry heaven but the atmospheric heaven, that which surrounds the earth. Where, then, did all these come from if they were not created during the Six Days? The one answer is that they were created at the time of the first verse of Genesis 1. So that subsequently, there was no need to create but simply to remake.
Last edited:
The Second Day
On the second day, God once more gave His order. He put the firmament in the air so as to divide the waters from the waters. He separated the waters under the firmament from the waters above the firmament. Science once again must appreciate this beautiful description. This is the effectiveness of the expanse or atmosphere. It divides the waters above and beneath it, and yet it is not inflexible. The firmament can contain moisture that can hang over us. It is not a solid reservoir which stores the waters in the sky since the “birds fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven” (Gen. 1.20).
“And God called the firmament Heaven” (1.8a) This “heaven” is different from the “heavens” mentioned in verse 1. For in verse 1 the term “heavens” points to the universe and its fullness, whereas the “heaven” here refers only to the air or atmosphere above our earth. The heavens mentioned in the first verse have never been corrupted; only the earth and its celestial bodies were changed due to God’s judgment. Concerning the Six Days of work, God pronounced each day’s work as good except the second day. Did God forget? Not at all, for what He says or does not say is equally full of meaning. The Scriptures are God-breathed, word for word. He did not pronounce the second day’s work good because the firmament or air is somewhat related to Satan. Is not Satan “the prince of the powers of the air” (Eph. 2.2), and are not the demons that are under him called “the spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places” (Eph. 6.12)? Seeing that this firmament would be the habitation of Satan and his evil spirits, God did not sum up this day’s work as being good. Yet how did these evil spirits ascend to the air? We have already mentioned how they were detained in the depths of the sea, which was the waters here. Now as God divided the waters above and beneath the firmament, these wicked beings had the opportunity of escaping at the moment of the lifting of waters into the air where their prince dwelt. Hence the New Testament speaks of the evil spirits of the air who today work upon the earth. Though they are escaped convicts, they nevertheless are allowed to be free for a while till they shall be cast into the abyss. The air thus becomes the headquarters for the kingdom of darkness. Do we not notice that the works of Satan usually begin from the air? For this reason, while we are meeting or praying, we need to ask God to clear the air by means of the precious blood of our Lord so that we may not be oppressed by the enemy.
my feelings are not the issue. i dont care one way or the other. I know The One who made all of it. He is my issue.
Boanerges
Member
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2009
- Messages
- 3,892
Very well spoken, very well thought out. An excellent and detailed response my friend, I really enjoyed reading this.
Thanks and many blessings in His Name,
your brother Larry.
PS: may I share this with a friend?
i think this comment is to me. i have had hands laid on me and ive got the Holy Ghost. the meat of my previous post was to point out you telling me to put my feelings aside when my feelings where never involved. now in your next post you tell me i dont have the Holy Ghost. I am not angry with what you say. my feelings are still not "an issue". i am hoping there is a miscommunication. i also hope if i said something to offend you, which i didnt do it intentionalyand dont know what it would be, that you will forgive me.
what i was trying to say previously is i dont care either way gap theory or non gap theory. i KNOW HIM. i dont have to understand everything i have faith. sorry if that rained on your parade. but here is something He showed me while he was rebuking me. faith is how he made all creation. its a different level of faith. faith isnt just a belief. the bible says every man is given the measure of faith unto salvation. if we already have that measure why is there a "gift of faith" which is a gift of the spirit. (Holy Spirit) just like the gift of word of wisdom or word of knowledge or interpretation of tounges/dreams or prophecy ?
I got the Holy Ghost. (look at my avatar thingy.)
Last edited:
In this you would also question whether it is ethical to make any claim. Whether just Einstein's claims, or the claims of the US Government.
Whether one man is claiming his right to do what he feels to be right, or just the simple thought and one claiming that the world was create one way or another.
Is it really so hard to see that it is not history, nor is it the fault of the devil and his followers? It is neither the fault of god or the simple things he gave us control over. It is us, everything we have done does it truly matter? Bill gates and all his money could not make anything any better. Because this is no longer the physical world you deal with but the supernatural.
the claims we make are nothing more than a pitiful attempt to explain the unexplainable. Thus the reason we try to justify these mere guesses by calling them theories. But these theories no matter how well founded people believe they are, are no more well founded than the next thoery.
Many theories exist. However which on is true, and right in its claim? You have many varying forms of Young Earth Creationism, and several Old Earth Creationism theories, not to mention the thousands of others. Truth be told each individual creates their own theory as they grow up in life, also known as the outlook on the world. Whether positive or negative, will depend on the actions and events surrounding the indivoidual.
As one grows up in life each one tries to decifer right from wrong, all because of one choice made thousands of years ago, not by one man but by man-kind. In this they build upon this what they believe to have happened. Some do not believe somethings happened while others do, one such example is the holocaust. The same goes for what people believe to be impossible.
You can only place faith in what you have found to be truth, and hope that what you believe to have happened is right. No more, this is why there is faith, hope, and belief... It is because some thousands of years ago gave up, in believing.
I could type out everything I believe, or rather try. but would it mean you believe the same? No, perhaps not however some out there possess a very skillful way of explaining themselves. In reality what is it we are trying to explain when it is unexplainable? Our feelings?
Science is the study of the observable, so what is the study of the unobservable? There is no word in the dictionary or world to fit the definition.
Yes I have placed faith in what I believe to be true. Yes, I believe the world was created in seven days, however I have my reason. just as everyone does, no matter what they believe.
In my case. Yes I could give you reasons why, but really what would be the use of this? Nothing more than to produce conflict?
RJ
Active
- Joined
- Jun 1, 2009
- Messages
- 4,080
Hard Evidence
Who needs hard evidence to convince one that all this is true about the Bible and Christ? I really don't care how old the earth is, it is going to be a lot older before I leave eternity!
I have never been a follow the crowd, highly excited sort of person or a tendancy towards emotionalism but my "Spirtual", "Born Again" experience is enough for me to know that God, Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit is as real and true as you or me.
You want evidence:
Jesus Christ has fullfilled hundreds of prophecies. It is vertually impossible that he is not who he said He was. The best computers in the world have already calulated that if Jesus only fullfilled just 9 of His fullfiled prophicies,there would only be one chance in 10 to the 16th power that he was not the "Anoited One". Thats 10 with 16 zeros behind it ( 100,000,000,000,000,000). That is one chance in one hundred thousand trillion!
Jesus Christ is the way and the truth!
Blessings
Who needs hard evidence to convince one that all this is true about the Bible and Christ? I really don't care how old the earth is, it is going to be a lot older before I leave eternity!
I have never been a follow the crowd, highly excited sort of person or a tendancy towards emotionalism but my "Spirtual", "Born Again" experience is enough for me to know that God, Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit is as real and true as you or me.
You want evidence:
Jesus Christ has fullfilled hundreds of prophecies. It is vertually impossible that he is not who he said He was. The best computers in the world have already calulated that if Jesus only fullfilled just 9 of His fullfiled prophicies,there would only be one chance in 10 to the 16th power that he was not the "Anoited One". Thats 10 with 16 zeros behind it ( 100,000,000,000,000,000). That is one chance in one hundred thousand trillion!
Jesus Christ is the way and the truth!
Blessings
