Young Earth or Old Earth? Here is where to post your thoughts!

No idea why!

Dave !!!
Am I losing my mind ... or did 2 of your Posts
and my LAST Post just Vanish into thin air ???
WHAT HAPPENED ???
No more Mushroom Burgers for me!

Bret*

I thought you were referring to mine. I completely understand how this can drain the time; I am at the airport on the iPhone so it is easy to rapid fire now....

Dave, I haven't gotten to your post yet, I was working up the chain from Lee's...I'll try to get to it in the next day or so. Thanks for pointing this out.

I, like you, am busy with my own biz & its amazing how this blog can suck the time away if you aren't careful!

Keith

Can you offer the scriptures that clam the earth is 6,000 years old.

Are you saying my post doesn't address the issue? Can you please show me where I have it wrong?

Lee,

Short & sweet this time!

I've noticed you like to repeatedly use Jer 33:25 in your posts as proof of scientific laws (and really rates of decay, etc) that never change since the beginning of time. However this verse also refers to "order", that the LORD set patterns & ordinances with the heavens & earth. Like the moon & earth set in their paths around the sun. This doesn't necessarily mean that decay rates couldn't have been different in the past.

Also, you inferred in a recent post as one of the proofs for an old earth, that human DNA requires lots of time to develop all of its complex intricacies. Question: Do you also believe man is millions of years old, and do you believe in the evolutionary path and fossil record that man has supposedly taken?

Dave, Lee, Stu:

I would still like to see some scriptures that support an old earth, since it was posted recently that the bible supports an old earth as well as a young earth. So please Dave or Lee (or Stu) please provide these scriptures. So far all we have is the gap in Gen 1:1-2 which is really a LACK of scripture.

Blessings to you guys,
Keith

Here is what I believe concerning Genesis 1 and how it can match up with what science is observing. I have to say at the outset, this is what I think is true based on what I study and observe. I wasn’t there at the time, so it could have been different. However, as you will hopefully see, there is room in my opinions for things to be either way, which is how I think God wanted it. If he really wanted us to major in the Earth being 5 Billion years old or 6,000 years old, he would have said, “the Earth is x years old” in the Bible. But he didn’t.

So here we go…

Moses’ Genesis Account: How Did He Find Out?

The first question I think we should ask when we consider Moses’ Genesis Account is “How did he learn this?”. We know it was given by inspiration of God 2 Tim 3:16, but in these cases where we are offered accounts of what happened, how did God provide the information to Moses? I think if you read Chapter 1, we receive some clues. I have to say, I believe this to be the right way to look at this, but it is a “disputable matter” in my mind (Romans 14:1). Not that God did it all (which is NOT disputable) but how he did it. Just as important, how he did it CANNOT disagree with what scripture says; not at all. So how do I get to an old Earth in this case?

Moses’ perspective in receiving God’s Revelation of Creation

When you read Genesis 1, you get the sense that God revealed his creation activity through a vision and with Moses’ perspective being on the Earth. The vision is consistent with how God has shown big future events to the prophets, why not the past? Certainly it had to come some way, because literally no one but God was there. So it was either a vision or dictation of some sort. I think the vision is easier to believe.

With the exception of Day 1 where it seems God showed Moses a “formless, dark Earth” with waters covering everything and God’s spirit “hovering” (“rachaph” in Hebrew which also has a brooding connotation), the rest of the account is from the Earth perspective. Concerning the words he used; Moses also used a word that could mean “became” formless and void in Gen 1:2. So at this point you could honestly ask (without violating inerrancy or straining interpretations):

• Where did the water come from?
• If the word is “became” formless and void, could it have been there before God began this current process of creation?
• Why the word rachaph? Why could God be brooding over the surface of the deep?

None of this is conclusive, but it could mean something. So let’s keep going.

Day 1

Moses watches God reveal light over the “deep” and separate darkness from light. He had to see this somehow. He also saw “evening” then “morning” and the first day. Day is Yom, but I can’t understand how this must a 24 hour day if we assume the Sun hasn’t been created yet. Of course, God could have a good reason for why he would spend 24 hours doing this, but it wouldn’t be because of the Earth’s rotation before the sun. If the sun was there, it isn’t likely Moses could have seen it 1) because God’s light was what God wanted him to see and 2) the waters dominated the landscape (no sky yet). This was clearly God’s Light (see Rev 22:5) and the only constraint on the time here would be to superimpose a rotation of the Earth into and away from God’s light over a 24 hour period. If Yom here is a literal day (which is what it could be) then I believe that is exactly what God caused to happen. If yom is not meaning a 24 day, then I believe this could have taken as long as God wanted it to. However, and this is important, to Moses, calling it a “day” was logical, especially since he experienced an evening and morning. God wanted him to record it this way. Being honest, and accounting for God’s omnipotence, it could have been 24 hours or a longer period of time.

Next: Days 2 through 4

Bret, I am sincerely encouraged by your last post. I feel for you concerning your business; it has been a horrible ride for many in this regard. I will remember you in my prayers.

This might be more information than you wanted, but you asked for my testimony. Not being one to glaze over things (well, most of the time ) I thought I would tell the whole story (and you thought you were snoring before ZZZZZZZZZZZ?)

As for me, I was raised in southern CA as a Catholic and went to Catholic school through 4th grade. I remembered quite a bit from my catechism, and have pretty much always believed in the Trinity, in the sufficiency of Christ’s sacrifice for our complete atonement, and that God always knew everything about me. I always had a sense that he knew what was in the deepest places of my heart.

I also believed the Catholic teaching that my infant baptism washed away original sin and I was saved because of it. As I grew up, I pretty much affirmed that belief with my mouth but did whatever I wanted with my actions. While I had some moral compass, it was pretty flexible, if you know what I mean. Never mind all the exhortations in scripture; reconciling my actions with my beliefs was always a source of discomfort, but not enough to change my behavior.

In High School, I took this to its logical conclusion with going the way of pleasure. I learned how to play drums and joined a rock band in OC, and I was out all night when I was 16 and 17. The police weren’t bringing me home, so my folks thought things were OK I guess. But I was partying in a big way.

Then my life changed. I learned about 2 weeks before my 17th birthday that I was going to be a father, and in September, I had my oldest daughter Michelle (she is 27 now!). I had a picture of my daughter in my wallet through my senior year of high school. This caused me to get serious about my future, accept Christ in December of 1982, and make a go of being a dad. That lasted for 2 years, we broke up and I went back to doing what felt good. My 1982 dedication to Christ had little root, as I wasn’t connected to any community. So I went back to a lighter version of partying, transferred to UCLA as a chemical engineering student, graduated with the Chem Eng degree in 1988, and continued into young adulthood.

Following graduation, I connected with a new group of friends that really partied, and I partied harder. This continued until 1990 when I met my wife and got married in 1992. We had two kids; in 1995 (Briana) and 1998 (Danny) and started thinking we need to go back to church (Alexis was Catholic too). After being invited to CHCC in 1997, we began attending, and I begin to realize I missed much of what the Bible had to say concerning my role in sanctification and pleasing God. I formally accepted Christ again in 1999 and was baptized at CHCC in 2000. Being OCD concerning learning things, I began a study in the Bible at that time and have been very focused on learning God’s word since. I strongly believe in the inerrancy of scripture, and that God’s creation is something we can understand with respect to how it operates.

About 10 years ago I started a market research company and took a partner in 2003. We are doing alright now, all things considered.

I have strong feelings about the issue of the Earth’s age. It isn’t that I have to convince the world that it is old. It is more about convincing the world that it could be either, and an honest reading of his word can yield either view. The emotion you see in my posts is a reflection of that view. At the same time, in order for our faith to be a “reasoned faith” as Paul would put it, we can’t deny observations made by good science and with an open heart search the scripture to find out if there is an honest way to reconcile what we observe with God’s word. I believe this is not difficult with the creation account in Genesis. My next post will offer the details why I believe this. I think it is wise to take this stance in your book, personally. In fact, it is that very view I think is the best one. While it is interesting to discuss the evidence for and against, it is not in my mind an orthodox faith issue, and certainly does not mean we have to deny inerrancy.

I hope you feel you know me better now; I used to spend quite a bit of time debating people on message boards on Yahoo News around 2001-2002, but have since quit. I prefer to minister to men through our First Appointment Bible study at Coast Hills where I have been blessed to serve as a leader since 2005. I take the plain, inerrant word of God very seriously.

Coming next, Genesis 1...I am almost finished with it, and will post it in segments.

I don't Smoke!
But ... I could go for "A" Beer?
I would like to congratulate Keith for yet
another FINE ... & loving Post!
I would also like to congratulate Lee for
his excellent use of "Sarcasm" (Humor)!
Brother ... than last Post was Drip'n with it!
And lastly ... I would like to congratulate
Myself ... for winning $20 ... !!!
Dave!
I recently lost my Business ... which led to
also losing my House ... thanks to this
Wonderful Economy we're having!
YES! ... I'm sure that I have a little bit
more free time on my hands than you
these days?
My Faith in Jesus Christ has carried me
through this Valley of Death ... and has
provided for me ... so I shall not want!
NO! ... this isn't why I debate with mostly
knees & elbows ... that's just Me!
I'm actually using this time to write a Book
about Science, Philosophy, & Theology!
I asked to be included in this Debate to
confirm my gut feeling that Side-Stepping
the Age-of-the-Earth issue (in Book #1)
might be the Wise choice !!?
Not because Keith, Rob & I might be wrong?
But ... I'm afraid that Lee & possibly Dave would
rather Trash my Book rather than further
God's Kingdom with it ... because this issue
can BLIND even the very Elect of God !!!
The problem for me is ... that I'm not sure
how (in all Honesty) ... that I can claim both
Sides of this Issue can be Squared with the
Infallibility of the Bible ... which is Key to my
Thesis ... as well as to Christianity in General?
Even though I give Dave a hard time now & again ...
I believe that He might actually be of more help
to me with this issue ... as he has Stated that he
also believes in the Infallibility of God's Word !!!
Lee ...
You seem to be little more than a Deist?
You seem to know something about Science ...
but your TRUST in God's Infallible Word seems
wanting?
But I am interested in your views on
"Cosmic Inflation" ???
Am I wrong? ... or doesn't this claim that the
Universe expanded to nearly its present size
in less than a Blind of an Eye!
Also ... I can't help but feeling that You believe
life Evolved from Ameba to Man as well ???
Please share .......

Bret*

lordfry wrote:You tend to come across a bit Angry
in your Post! (Not Sarcastic)
You don't really know me ... but
you don't like me ... do you ???
(Christian Brotherly Love aside)
I'm an Enigma wrapped in a Conundrum!
You know that I know my stuff ...
But I don't see virtually anything through
your eyes? So you're fishing for an
ad hominem attack?
My Drug Smuggling Business has
nothing to do with this Debate!
$20 ... that you make another wasted
Post (even with your busy schedule) ...
before you Post your Stance & Testimony!

Bret*

Get a grip Bret. I am wasting the post you predicted.

No ad hominem attacks; just can't understand why it is so hard to answer such a simple question. I want to make sure what I say is thoughtful and correct, and that takes time for me.

Thanks Lee for your insightful perspective.

Thanks Keith for your thoughtful, honest, and caring response. It was just the thing I was hoping to get in a meaningful brotherly relationship and dialogue. This is the kind of interaction that I think will lead to a common solution related to our debate on the age of the earth.

Could our secular scientists be wrong about the age of the earth? No not at all! There was a time that it was in question before very much data had been collected. Today, there are too many independent ways of confirming its old age.

You have hit the nail on the head when you thought that I take nature seriously and filter a lot of the Biblical phrases against it for validity. This is because God made Nature understandable to humans and wants us to learn all we can about it. I want you to know that I also take the Bible seriously and reflect Nature off of it. In the final analysis for me, the Bible will win, but not before I look carefully at the various ways the passages could be interpreted or could have been misinterpreted during previous translations from Hebrew and Greek into the King James and other versions of the Bible we have today.

By the way which Bible are we reading literally today, there are a number of English Bibles to choose from and they all say different things. They all get the main tenets of Christianity across to us though. Collectively they are God's Word since he spoke them and Nature into existence. I don't think that Nature lies to us, nor do I think that God deceives or tricks us in the data we collect from natural sources. I believe both Bible and Nature testaments must agree in the end. I also believe that God works through Nature to accomplish his will. To that end, I believe God controls his Creation, but doesn't change his covenant with it or changes his laws. Je33:25. I believe we also need to test our interpretation of scripture against Nature as well and determine if it makes logical sense in light of what we know factually about the world. You know the phrase ‘Test Everything!’ When the two agree, great, there is no issue and we have a solid foundation to build upon. When there is total disagreement with what we know from Nature and an interpretation of a Biblical phrase such as the ‘day’ interpretation in Genesis 1 by some then we need to examine both in great detail to see where the problem is. Correct the problem and move on. I believe the young earth (YE) folks have fallen into this trap that was laid upon them by a misinterpretation of Hebrew words in modern translations and Nature is calling them on the error in spades. A non-believing secular society is making the most of it to ruin Christian credibility.

It seems that almost anything goes in making claims that the scientists don’t know what they are doing to sell the YE concept. I started to address the faulty premises the ICR likes to use to discredit widely used and accepted radiometric dating practices but Bryan seems to have abandoned that dialogue we were having. I guess I will never know why Bryan cited evidence that included carbon dated petrified wood that is made of silicon dioxide and water deposited minerals during decomposition that doesn’t include any of the original wood. Presently, we are touching upon one of the areas in this interchange: Cosmic Microwave background. I hope I will get you to see, before we migrate to other areas, that scientists do understand the universe in this area and have made a reliable prediction of the universe’s age as a result of obtaining detailed facts about the universe through starlight and other electromagnetic information. See Psalm 19 on why we should trust the data obtained. We have built several scientific instruments and satellites just to measure the Cosmic Microwave background and examine in detail what it tells us about God’s Creation. The stretched out wavelengths from the hydrogen line photons tell us the universe is 13.7 billion ± .1 years old. It added great credibility to the opening line in Genesis 1. In the beginning, God created the Heavens... He did it out of nothing and our telescopes and instruments have confirmed it scientifically from the data collected. God bless our scientists. Some people thought our universe was infinitely old prior to this measurement.

I don’t understand why the YE groups would want to undermine science in this area by insinuating that they don’t know what they are talking about. Our scientists have now made the first direct measurement of data from the Creation Event. This is a wonderful evangelistic opportunity and the Christians should be running with it. Yet we have YE Christians undermining credibility in this area because they insist on a one week creation, this hurts our credibility with the outside world and I hope you can see this. It hurts my credibility with other scientists when I explain to them I am a Christian and then I have to make excuses for the YEs and I am working with them to bring them along into the modern world. Guys it is getting embarrassing, so let’s move forward on this on the day age thing. It took several centuries to get over the flat earth issue, and I don’t have that kind of time. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure this one out. There are so many good sources of data that point to an old earth, you might want to be a little more open to the possibility of an old earth, at least reexamine your entrenched position based on narrow interpretation on one word ‘yom’. Do you enjoy shooting Christianity in the foot!?

There are many other areas that also add credibility to the old earth viewpoint: the time needed for galaxy formation, star formation, solar system accretion and formation, measurable tectonic plate motion, lithosphere structures that could only be caused by long periods of sedimentation, mountain building and erosion, the time it takes for some natural processes to occur (oil, gas, etc), ice core samples from glaciers, geo-magnetic field flips in the ocean plate, and yes, also, the time it takes for genetic information to accumulate in our DNA. They all overwhelmingly point to an old earth.

I will take however long is necessary to explain these to you, because I don’t want to leave you behind in our modern world. I also want you to be able to defend your faith rationally to others for the hope within you. I don’t want others to laugh at us any longer, at least not for our age of the earth views.
I will be addressing all of your miracles listed over the next few weeks and months because I think they are important in reaching harmony between our two different views of the world and will help to bring us together united against our real adversary: disinformation, and deception flooding into the secular world. You forgot to mention the pillar of fire, the parting of the Red Sea by a strong East wind, Daniel in the Lion’s Den and Shadrach’ furnace adventure as well. You’re slipping! But I will include these as well.

Lee

Bret, Dave (and Lee?),

Smoke a Peace Pipe guys, GEES! Maybe take each other to lunch or something.('')


Lee,

I will try to answer your question about the stretched universe in the following way. However keep in mind I'm not a professional scientist, I work in the business & music field. While I have a good scientific background, I'm probably not going to ever be able to go toe-to-toe with you on all current scientific issues as I'm sure you know more about them than I do. However that doesn't mean your knowledge automatically disqualifies my position. Bret asked if he could answer this question for me, its fine with me if he wants to give more of a PhD approach, but I'm going to go for a different angle below.

You have also stated once & implied other times that you are here to teach others. That's great, but I hope you are also here to learn. It sounds like you became a Christian fairly late in life, praise God for that. I have been a Christian for over 30 years, I have seen lots of seasons, times when I thought I knew everything, times when my theological position was immutable & I thought I was right about everything as a new believer. I am not saying this is you, but I am saying over time our perspective changes. I once came from the strict scientifically based view that you are coming from. That is, you tend to filter scripture and your view of the universe (and maybe God?) through your scientific knowledge first. Whatever comes through shapes your belief system about the universe & the nature of our heavenly father.

My point is, it seems to me that you feel God needs to follow the laws of physics and 'rules', otherwise it couldn't possibly work or the universe couldn't exist. You also asked me for some equations that would explain various expansion rates, etc. Well, consider this:

So, CAN YOU PROVIDE ME WITH THE APPLICABLE EQUATIONS AND SCIENTIFIC PRINCIPLES THAT EXPLAIN THE FOLLOWING:

1. how God made Eve from Adam's rib? Obviously more mass was required, and according to scientific known laws, mass & energy cannot be created, only conserved or transferred.
2. how did God make the sun stand still in Joshua's long day in Joshua 10:13 so his armies could prevail? (actually it was probably the earth that stopped rotating for a time to accomplish the "long day"). You must admit that if God stopped the earth from rotating suddenly & the sun stood still in the sky, this would cause untold calamities on the surface of the earth due to inertia and momentum. Not to mention the astrophysics behind this act, stopping the earth (and what about the moon?) in its rotation, then starting it up again. Obviously there is no explanation for this via physics--its a spiritual matter beyond our reasoning.
3. How did Jesus suddenly appear in the midst of the disciples post-resurrection? It was as if He could walk through walls. He was in a glorified body most would reason, yet He could could be touched and felt (Thomas and Jesus's hands, etc). So He was in a spiritual body which defies all laws of physics yet he was visible and could be touched.
4. Why does the earth float in space and not drift significantly to or from the sun? I don't think stating it is at equilibrium in its orbit so it just 'stays put' all this time is a good answer. Just like science cannot explain the concept of gravity (how or why it works, not how to measure it), it cannot explain something as familiar as the earth just hanging out there. The bible says the earth is "hung upon nothing...". How do you hang something on nothing?

Lee, I'm just trying to get you to think outside of your scientific box. One of the reasons I walked away from my faith as a post-high school kid is I didn't think the bible was a scientifically valid book as I got smarter & more educated, and could win fights with my Christian friends who didn't have the science background.... therefore the rest of the bible must be packed with errors, so I could pick & choose what I wanted to believe. We are all constrained by our belief systems, but I'm trying to show you that there are spiritual matters beyond our understanding that relate to the universe & creation. Just because we can't explain them scientifically doesn't mean they aren't valid.

In Christ,
Keith

PS BONUS QUESTIONS:

5. How do you scientifically explain volcanism on Jupiter's moon Io which stunned the scientific community when first discovered? If the universe is as old as you say, Io should be a cold, lifeless orb so far from the sun. Whatever volcanism occurred should be long cooled of & dried up. Secular science says this is due to Jupiter's gravitational tug warming the planet like tides (which is a stretch of the imagination), but if this were true & the tugging on the crust could create enough heat to make volcanoes, this little moon would have long been crushed into bits like an asteroid. The real answer is the universe is very young and so is this satellite.

6. How do you explain the presence of dinosaurs in the book of Job? I think its in Job 38 or 40 off the top of my head.

Bret
Do you not see how aggressive you are toward Dave's posts? You have been prodding and antagonizing him relentlessly over the past few weeks simply because he doesn't agree with your interpretation of Genesis 1. Do you do this with everyone that disagrees with you? Am I next? You may think this is humorous but I don't. I like to think that humor has a rightful place in relationships that are not at the expense of the other person. Mocking and goading someone back into a fight don't seem to meet my criteria for humor. As you state, I am working on mine, but I think you should also. Please assess your humor related tactics as well before someone gets hurt and goes home to stay; not willing to play with you any more. We are all trying to enjoy each other here; this isn't a playground gang fight.
Lee

Lee ...
While we're ALL waiting & waiting for Dave
to give us a quick Testimony ... and a Scoop
by Scoop explanation of his Creation Views ...
I'm just having a little HARMLESS "FUN"!
I understand that you have NO sense of Humor
as Stated in your Profile ... but you also say
that you're working on it?
I can't help finding Humor in the fact that
Dave keeps logging in several times a day
just to tell us that he's too busy to log in?
He is the one that got personal by asking
me if I didn't have anything better to do
than make empty replies to his empty Posts?
Then seeks information about my employ?
I have been enjoying your Posts ... and your
Serious banter back & forth with Keith!
Keith has been doing a FINE job of explaining
the Young Earth position on the Topic of
Astrophysics! And (trying to be more Civil)
I thought it polite to let Keith respond to the
Question that you directly addressed to him!
If Keith wants to defer this one to me? ... then
I would gladly respond to your challenge!
I've promised Dave answers to ALL of his
questions as well ... as soon as he fulfills Stu's
NEW requirements for the Blog!
You really don't think ANYTHING is Funny?
I'll pray that God will help you with that ...
in the Spirit or Christian Brotherhood !!!
Sorry if I scared the kids?

Bret*

Bret,
I will try to say this in the most Christian way that I can. I love your zeal for the Lord and the Bible. I love you as a Brother in Christ. In this love, I need to tell you that you are really annoying and harassing to your Brothers that disagree with you. Would you please stop the antagonistic chatter and get back to the debate. You say a lot but you are evasive and won't answer any direct question. How will we ever get anywhere with this type of behavior. If your intention is to make people that disagree with you annoyed and leave the playing field, it looks like it is working. You say you know what your talking about. If you really know your stuff, I have not seen the evidence for it. All I have been witness to is a lot of prodding and mockery of anything you disagree with. Please try to answer the question that I posed to Keith, if you really do know a lot about science, you should be able to provide a rational eludicating answer that shows why they screwed up the Nobel Prize award to Penzias and Wilson and gave it to the wrong guys. I would enjoy hearing a serious thoughtful response for a change that actually addresses the question in detail that is convincing logically. Otherwise go stand in the corner, and take some time out, because you're out of control. You're being so agressive, that I am sure others are now afraid to post a position or a view. There are people listening in that want to learn something and have a pleasant experience in doing it, and hear other views. Please try to practice some civility toward us, we are fellow Christians and we are going to be with you for a long time, like forever. What type of rapport and respect do you think you'll have with us after the debate is over? Will it be one that encourages fellowship or rejection. I will be praying for you that God will give you patience, kindness, and love toward your fellow man tonight and all eternity.

Lee

You tend to come across a bit Angry
in your Post! (Not Sarcastic)
You don't really know me ... but
you don't like me ... do you ???
(Christian Brotherly Love aside)
I'm an Enigma wrapped in a Conundrum!
You know that I know my stuff ...
But I don't see virtually anything through
your eyes? So you're fishing for an
ad hominem attack?
My Drug Smuggling Business has
nothing to do with this Debate!
$20 ... that you make another wasted
Post (even with your busy schedule) ...
before you Post your Stance & Testimony!

Bret*

In fact, I enjoy being busy.

So, what do you do again, seriously?

I print Money ...
Rob Banks ...
& Sponge off the Gov't!
OOOoooops .......
More Sarcasm!
*******
Take your time Dave!
And Please! ... just try
to enjoy Life a little.
Let Jesus handle the
stress & worry!
He's Good at it !!!

Bret*

Keith,
I agree in principle with your stretching rope concept, it is the same basic idea that all the scientists used when they calculated the frequency shift of the hydrogen recombination photons produced 300 thousand years after the Big Bang that produced the comic microwave background photons that Penzias and Wilson won the Nobel Prize for. That amount of stretching until now (13.7 billion years later) gives exactly what we expect to see in the frequency of the photons in the micro wave range filling all of space. The stretching of space was about a thousand fold during that period when gravity slowed the expansion rate of the universe. However, if you stretch the Heavens as the young earthers often suggest in roughly one day, there is an expansion factor of over a trillion. This would put the photon frequencies into the hertz range by lowering their frequency by another factor of a billion. This radiation we have not seen filling the Heavens nor do we see it coming out of the stars at great distances. What say you? How do you explain this discrepancy?

Lee

Certainly there are things for you to do while you are waiting instead of posting sarcastic posts.

Things are busy, and I want to put some time into this. Between business, my kids and family and ministry there is little time unfortunately.

In the meantime, what do you do for work, Bret?

So enjoy the suspense...

With all this suspense ...
and build-up ... You know
this better be Good?

Bret*

Coming soon!

O.K. ...
Maybe I do come across a little more
Supercilious than Endearing ... but
your Posts aren't actually dipped in
Sugar and Humility Sprinkles as well.
I don't want this to turn into just one
Big group Hug ...
But ... for Stu's sake ... I am trying to
be a little bit more Civil with my Posts!
Dave!
Let's NOT forget about that Testimony
and a CLEARER explanation of exactly
what You think God's Word really says
in Genesis ???
Looking forward to it !!!

Bret*