Universe Is Over 13 Billion Years Old

Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

No…. he didn’t. Heaven and earth were not created simultaneously.

The Truth Is…

The universe started with the Big Bang approximately 13 BILLION years ago.

The Evidence is …

  • Over the last 400 years, many have contributed to the store of knowledge that has led to our present knowledge of the universe.
    • People like Nicolaus Copernicus,Sir Isaac Newton, Albert Einstein, Georges Lemaître, Stephen Hawking, and thousands of others, have come to the universal conclusion that the universe was formed by a Big Bang some 13+ Billion years ago.
  • This finding is supported by the research of over 100,000 scientists in the last 400 years, engaged in the disciplines of Cosmology, Astronomy and Geology that shows, without a doubt that:
    • the Big Bang is the origin of our universe,
    •  the universe is approximately 13 billion years old,
    • our solar system is approximately 4.5 billion years old and
    • the earth was formed after our solar system was formed; approximately 3.5 billion years ago.
  • These scientists who do direct research on the cosmos, are supported by over 200,000 scientists who, over the years, have provided the tools (radiometric dating techniques, advanced telescopes, etc) used by the cosmos researchers. The Big Bang is now accepted by all Cosmologists and Astronomers as being the event that initiated the universe.
  • The Big Bang theory does not claim to explain the cause of the Big Bang; merely to describe what happened afterward.
  • The evidence for the Big Bang has been strengthened by two colossal finds:
    • The  confirmation of the Higgs Boson Particle
      On 8 October 2013 the Nobel prize in physics was awarded jointly to François Englert and Peter Higgs “for the theoretical discovery of a mechanism that contributes to our understanding of the origin of mass of subatomic particles, and which recently was confirmed through the discovery of the predicted fundamental particle, by the ATLAS and CMS experiments at CERN’s Large Hadron Collider.”
    • The First Direct Evidence of Cosmic Inflation
      The First Direct Evidence of the Biggravity waves in the universe’s oldest light show that the universe expanded to 100 trillion times its size almost 14 billion years ago — all in less than a second. Those waves have been described as the first tremors in the Big Bang and led to the theory of inflation — the epoch immediately following the big bang (10-34 seconds later) when the universe expanded exponentially (by at least a factor of 1025) — causing quantum fluctuations to magnify to cosmic size.
  • .
  • Irrefutable physical evidence that earth is > 6K years old
    • Tree Rings
      The bristlecone pine, being exceptionally long-lived and slow growing, has been used for this purpose, with still-living and dead specimens providing tree ring patterns going back thousands of years. Currently, the maximum for fully anchored chronologies is a little over 11,000 years from present.
    • Ice Cores
      The length of the record depends on the depth of the ice core and varies from a few years up to 800 kyr (800,000 years) for the EPICA core.
    • Varve
      In 2008, although varves were considered likely to give similar information to dendrochronology, they were considered “too uncertain” for use on a long-term timescale. However, by 2012, “missing” varves in the Lake Suigetsu sequence were identified in the Lake Suigetsu 2006 Project by overlapping multiple cores and improved varve counting techniques, extending the timescale to 52,800 years

      Another article on varve
      A 60,000 Year Varve Record from Japan Refutes the Young-Earth Interpretation of Earth’s History
    • Coral
      The geological record indicates that ancestors of modern coral reef ecosystems were formed at least 240 million years ago. Most established coral reefs are between 5,000 and 10,000 years old. Although size sometimes indicates the age of a coral reef, this is not always true.

Are the thousands of scientists at hundreds of universities in dozens of countries, having published hundreds of thousands of articles over a dozen decades, all getting together to promote a giant conspiracy against a specific literal interpretation of an iron age origin story, or do you think they might be on to something?

Every component of the Creationist argument is debunked and refuted in this excellent article How Old is the Earth? by Steve McRoberts. I dare you to read it. Don’t talk to me until you have.

How Do You Get Something From Nothing?

That is the wrong supposition. And it is all beautifully and amusingly explained in this video, A Universe From Nothing by Lawrence Krauss, a theoretical astrophysicist. Until you have your Nobel Prize in hand for refuting the laws of astrophysics, do not even bring up “Something From Nothing” ever again.
Stephen Hawking believes he can explain the why and even explain what came before the Big Bang. Here, read this “Space Ripples Reveal Big Bang’s Smoking Gun” explanation.

The Bible Proves Itself Wrong

Should you fail to be persuaded by the evidence of millions of scientists over 400 years, then let the bible itself prove it is wrong about the creation.
The bible presents two different accounts of the creation; two different orders of the arrival of plants, animals, man, women. Two different descriptions of how Adam and Eve came to be.  If you don’t believe the truth, you have to admit that one of the two biblical descriptions of creation has to be wrong. A complete and excellent presentation of the two accounts is presented HERE.


Some believers, seeing how ridiculous is the position of a young earth, claim that each “day” is really an “eon” of some undetermined length. Dr. Jack L. Arnold (1935-2005) was President of “Equipping Pastors International” and Pastor Emeritus of Covenant Presbyterian Church in Oviedo, FL. Read what he has to say about “Eons“. In short, he proves a Day in the bible is a 24 hour day, not an eon.

The Origin Of The Genesis

Genesis was a rival creation myth—a reaction against the Enuma Elish, the Babylonian creation myth, or Marduk or  other Ancient Near Eastern creation myths. Genesis was most likely redacted in roughly its current form during the Babylonian occupation and was specifically designed to keep the Hebrew narrative alive during a time of occupation. Their survival as a people depended on these stories. As such it is a qualitative, polemical tale about the Hebrew God over against the Babylonian (and other) gods, rather than a quantitative description of origins. The authors of Genesis could not possibly have been aware of or concerned with Enlightenment questions of truth and historicity.

Think About This…

If God created the universe, there was a time when he commenced to create. Back of that commencement there must have been an eternity. In that eternity what was this God doing? He certainly did not think. There was nothing to think about. He did not remember. Nothing had ever happened. What did he do? Can you imagine anything more absurd than an infinite intelligence in infinite nothing wasting an eternity?

71 comments on “Universe Is Over 13 Billion Years Old

  1. corynski says:

    Best Explanation: Your culture has lied to you….. that’s right, your mother and father, your teachers, your pastors and priests, they have all lied to you. Men create gods, gods don’t create men. Each human culture creates its own spirits and gods and devils, and that creation identifies them to all other men. It’s been documented, both by Michael Jordan in his book “Encyclopedia of Gods – Over 2,500 deities of the World”, and Marjorie Leach in her “Guide to the Gods”, over 850 pages of the gods and goddesses of the world.
    You likely don’t know that because you’ve not been taught anthropology, a subject that is prohibited by the churches which have assumed command of our society. Anthropology teaches of the thousands of years of human evolution, the bulk of which was in small hunting and gathering groups, which attempted to create and maintain an identity which included a unique God or Goddess. The gods and goddesses today are simply the latest in this progression.
    Regarding the ‘Big Bang’, I would suggest there isn’t even enough evidence for such a theory…… many guesses and ideas but nothing solid enough to build on.

    • tomschaber says:

      Regarding the ‘Big Bang’ – not enough evidence – many guesses ??? What an ignorant statement. Many guesses? Did you not read the post? There is ample evidence..I doubt you have the credentials to refute all the scientific evidence that has been accumulated : Higgs Boson, Cosmic Inflation, Globular clusters, Hubble Constant, etc.

      Don’t insult the hard work of those who are obviously much smarter than you by referring to their work as “guesses”. What makes you say “nothing solid enough to build on”? What do you know that they don’t? Until you have evidence that refutes their discoveries quit insulting them.

  2. Gerry says:

    “The First Direct Evidence of the Biggravity waves in the universe’s oldest light show that the universe expanded to 100 trillion times its size almost 14 billion years ago — all in less than a second.”

    How unscientific. Smacks of religion. Science – knowledge and the quest for it – is based on
    1. Observation
    2. Repeatability
    Origin of the cosmos was not observed.
    Origin of the cosmos is not repeatable – to the best of our knowledge.
    Therefore the cosmic evolution theory and all its various schools is speculative and unscientific.
    There are no records of creation other than “revealed,” direct communication from a creator-god, which at best is a record of someone’s claim of “god told me.”
    To extrapolate 13 billion, trillion, googolplex to the googolplex power years from recorded history is about as speculative as can be. Result: nonsense.

    • Dear Gerry
      You are not telling the whole story about the scientific method, forgetting that science builds up a body of knowledge based on ideas, observations, peer review and re-testability. Sometimes a person has an idea/hypothesis and they or others investigate this. Other times someone observes and collates data that they or others use to create a hypothesis. There may be challenges or exceptions observed by others in which case the original hypothesis has to be modified to accommodate anomalies. The Peer review process allows others to look at an idea or hypothesis and test it for themselves. When other scientists corroborate discoveries then the hypothesis may then be regarded as a theory. A Theory meaning that an original idea about how or why a natural phenomenon occurs has gained sufficient observational evidence, is accepted by the scientific community. This allows us to make predictions … this is one of the things you overlooked.

      To use your reasoning that if something was not observed then any hypothesis or theory is speculative and unscientific, we would never be able to solve murder cases. The murder was not observed except by the killer and maybe their victim. Therefore we cannot convict anyone of murder unless some other external third party witnessed the event. Would you try telling the jury in a court of law that the forensic, fingerprint and DNA evidence was all speculative because the actual murder was not observed by anyone? We can solve cold cases many decades after the event, even when any potential witnesses have died. Why? We can look for other evidence that places the killer at the crime scene with the victim without the original murder being observed by anyone else. Just as there is tell tale evidence for why Johnny Doe killed Jane Doe, so there is for the origins of the cosmos. Is it speculation that the Earth revolves around the Sun instead of the Sun orbiting the Earth? Personally I have never been in a position to actually observe this from space, but does that mean that we cannot calculate the orbits of planets and conclude that the sun is the centre of our solar system and not the Earth? We are back to one of the things you overlooked … science allows us to make predictions.

      True, some parts of all branches of science will be speculative, “will we find life on Mars?”, “How did Saturn’s rings form?”. Other times we must be cautious, but in the case of the origins of the universe I direct you to the COBE satellite (1989) that detected residual radiation from the initial expansion of the universe, that was predicted by earlier scientific theories. The observations further supported the theory, and was accepted by the majority.

      What do you have to replace our scientific knowledge with? A religious text written by pre-scientific, superstitious, bronze age primitives? I’m sorry but you are going to have to do better than relying on pleading special privileges for a religious text book. Why the Christian bible and not the religious texts from even older civilisations? Especially when the creation legends contained in the Old Testament are merely re-tellings and re-workings of even older legends from Egypt and Sumerian civilisations, especially those that captured the Northern Kingdom of Israel (Sargon II of Assyria ~722 BC) and Judah (Nebuchadnezzar II of Babylon ~587 BC) that in turn are based upon older Sumerian, Chaldean and Akkadian legends.

      I won’t knock these old legends, because they were our very first attempt at trying to formally make some sense of the universe around us and our place in it. However, we have moved on a long way since then, as superstition was replaced by fact. The more we learn, the more we question, the more precise our knowledge becomes, the more reliable and accurate our predictions are. Cosmology has come a very long way during the last 100 years or so.

    • tomschaber says:

      Did you read the entire post?

      You think you know more than Nobel scientists? You have evidence that proves they are wrong. You can disprove radiometric dating, Higgs Boson,Cosmic radiation? What about tree rings, varve, coral? Your little stupid attempt at a logical disproof is ridiculous.

      You deny mountains of evidence but chose to believe in “revelation” – you are stupid.

      • tomschaber says:

        Oh my God, atheosastronos reply above my snarky response is so much better. Read his, ignore mine.

      • Atheos AKA Atheosastronos says:

        Tombschaber your reply was far more brief and concise, but thanks for the compliment. I’m not sure I’d agree that Gerry was stupid, but the idea is in the face of the overwhelming evidence collated across many different scientific disciplines over the last couple of centuries of progress.

  3. Zira237 says:

    I know there is proof of the Big Bang. I believe it did happen. I do have a Christian friend who just happens to be a really good debater.(in everything) He suggested that maybe that was how God created the earth. I just couldn’t argue with that one because I had no bias. Has anyone had a similar conclusion or debate with an atheist/Christian friend?
    If so let me hear about them. I really need some more info on this popular argument.

    • tomschaber says:

      Simple response:
      That’s not the way the Bible says it happened. So now your friend is admitting that one cannot read the Bible literally and that opens every verse of the Bible to question. Ask him about Adam and Eve, if that happened. If he says “No”, then he just gave up the whole reason for Jesus – dying for our (read Eve’s) sin.

      Ask him how he determines which verses to read literally and which to read as “maybe… blah, blah, blah”.

    • ben says:

      The Bible is a book on WHY God did things, rather than HOW he did them. It isn’t a science book full of study of the world through observation and experiment. God created the universe for his glory and man to live on earth for his glory as well. Whether or not God literally created the universe in 6 days, or he created it in 6000 years, (2 Peter 3:8 “With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day.”) it doesn’t actually matter, as the Christian faith is based around Jesus and the resurrection.

      • tomschaber says:

        Who says the bible is a book on WHY rather than HOW?

        Re: Resurrection; See https://thechurchoftruth.org/the-bible-is-wrong-about-the-resurrection/ for a complete debunking of the resurrection nonsense.

      • ben says:

        I’m in the process of writing a debunking of the debunking nonsense of the resurrection.
        expect a reply on that website in about two weeks (maybe 3)

      • ben says:

        also as an answer to your question:
        because the Bible isn’t a science book

      • charles coryn says:

        Which is a guess…… Jesus also said repeatedly that he was ‘coming right back’, and apparently didn’t, so the conclusion is that it’s all fiction. Start at the beginning of the Bible and you realize it reads like an instruction manual for genocide. Old people, children, the handicaped….. all get wiped out ….. except the virgin girls of course, God gives them to his soldiers. Truth is men create gods…. not gods create men. Do your homework, there are thousands of gods and goddesses created by men over the millennia. Way before the God of Christianity was ever conceived in the minds of men.

      • Gerry says:

        The Bible may be about “why” but in telling “why” it has a considerable amount of “how.”
        No point to your point.

  4. Dennis Hoppe says:

    For a completely different perspective read the works of Henry T. Laurency, “The Knowledge of Reality” and “The Philosophers Stone”. A good primer before reading these books is the 129 page work called “The Explanation”, by Lars Adelskogh. These publications completely refute most of the writings in the Bible but from a different perspective. They are available for free at: The Official Website of the Henry T. Laurency Publishing Foundation”.

  5. midieaje says:

    this “big bang” things already in quran (Al-Anbiyaa’ 21:30) Do not the Unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were joined together (as one unit of creation), before we clove them asunder? We made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe?

    • Satan says:

      No we won’t as creation didn’t take six days and everything within the universe is ‘created’ compose of material in the universe

    • Satan says:

      The light thing out of water is redefing to the primordial waters, that God took water from a formless shape and formed creation. Clearly from the Assyrian and biblical myths. It would be a contradiction if God admitted we were made out of water cause in the Quran we came from a drop of blood!

      • Midieaje says:

        Not only water, there is another about man made,
        And certainly did We create man from an extract of clay.Then We placed him as a sperm-drop in a firm lodging.Then We made the sperm-drop into a clinging clot, and We made the clot into a lump [of flesh], and We made [from] the lump, bones, and We covered the bones with flesh; then We developed him into another creation. So blessed is Allah , the best of creators.
        AL-MU’MINUN 12-14

    • Satan says:

      Living* sorry. Typos

    • Paul says:

      Your proof is???

    • Sam Massey says:

      The Hubble telescope has changed the beliefs of the people that look at the cosmos. Those people told us that there was only one universe, but now they say that there are millions. The Bible itself condemns itself because,
      Genesis 1:14-19. These scriptures tell us that the supposed Creator, created
      the sun moon, and stars on the fourth day. How could there be a first, second,
      or third day without the sun already being created on the first day, as the earth
      was? This lets you know that the writer of this book didn’t know what he was talking about. Everything, and I mean everything, that is alive, in this world dies, so an eternal being is a lie. It is not believable, only myth. The supposed son in
      the N.T. also is probably myth also, but if this person did live, this being also died, and he did not return as he said, and everybody keeps on saying, he is coming soon, but time keeps going by, and each person that declares this dies, and their children that is taught the lie keeps the lie going.

      • Gerry says:

        So you have demonstrated by your logic (?) that the common theory of evolution is false because until the earth was formed and orbiting the sun there were no years. No 4.5 or 13 billion of ’em.

  6. Yofiel Malachi Yacov says:

    “People like Nicolaus Copernicus,Sir Isaac Newton, Albert Einstein, Georges Lemaître, Stephen Hawking, and thousands of others, have come to the universal conclusion that the universe was formed by a Big Bang some 13+ Billion years ago”

    I googled your account on Sir isaac newton and this sentence sounds like an error. I read he thought it was a few more thousand years old, not billions. I could be wrong, do you have a link to his estimate?

    • Gerry says:

      Depends on your interpretation. Newton speculated based on the knowledge available to him. We can as well speculate that IF Newton had the knowledge we have that he would have thought that the cosmos is 13 trillion years old, not a measly 13 billion.

  7. Atheos says:

    Another interpretation I studied was that Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 accounts are both Polemic against two different Egyptian creation myths. Genesis 2 where man is made from the dust, borrows heavily on the Egyptian Potter God K’Num who makes clay statues of people and then breathes into their nostrils to make them come alive. The Greek word “πνεῦμα” (PNEUMA) – can translate as “Breath” or “wind” as well as “Spirit”. The first chapters of Gensis are poetic in style, as the refrain (chorus line) seems to be “there was evening and there was morning …” another day, … “and a partridge in a pear tree”! So is not intended to be literal. Also Genesis 3 has talking animals, namely the serpent, who actually tells the truth (God lied about man shall surely die the day they eat of the fruit) – talking animals should immediately alert the reader that the literary genre is a FABLE! A story to teach us a moral or deeper meaning. So cannot be taken literally.

    Note the plurality of deities? Especially “In the beginning GODS created the heaven and earth”. What about “Let US make man in OUR own image”? This is not a ‘royal us; as claimed by Christians, otherwise if this is one god who is it talking to? IT cannot be the trinity either because if Christians claim that it is the human ‘spirit’ that is made in the image of God then, which member of the trinity is the image the likeness of? “Our image” implies they are all the same, so cannot be different persons of an alleged trinity. This is a rehashing of far more ancient Sumarian and Akkadian myths by primitive people who lacked a basic understanding of the natural world.

    Also similarly when Adam ate the fruit we have a plurality of gods implied “The man will have the knowledge of both good and evil just like “US”. Christians always hijack this and superimpose their Trinitarian formula, but the text does not say “let the THREE of us make man in our image”. Would not each person of the alleged trinity have a different image? Also note that God had a physical form, walked and talked and yes our “image” refers to our physical human form and not a spiritual from as Christians hijack and superimpose their concepts as part of a retrospective reinterpretation – reading what they like into the text that suits their theology..

    • Well done Atheos. Love it. I have been wanting to point out that “Let us…” stuff but you do it so well that I’ll just point the readers to your comment.

    • rapturesite says:

      You are right, however what others should know is early Church fathers such as Origen saw Genesis as allegorical. The plurality in Gen-Isis which is an Egyptian name for “beginning of Isis/ Isis beginnings,” is of “Elohim” & that’s a council of gods. El was never denounced in the Bible, many others were. El is the chief god of canaanites & they became IsraELites. El is associated with bulls, moon & Saturn. El shaddai is the name said to Moses which was “God Almighty.” Now Christian apologists will say El was a nick name for any god, that’s partially true. El became a nick name for any god but was it’s own deity 1st. Same with “Baal” being “master/husband.” Interestingly Yahweh was called Baal & also Yahweh is said to of been a storm God which wasn’t said of El. So Yahweh is a Asceticism & he was less than EL. The consort of Baal was Asherah but also Yahweh because they are one in the same.◄Hosea 2:16 ►
      “In that day,” declares the LORD, “you will call me ‘my husband’; you will no longer call me ‘my master.’… It makes no senseless to say Yahweh was just being called Baal as Master alone because the last word Master was Baal & I chose an English translation that hides it. Why would Yahweh be upset if it wasn’t a big deal, it’s because they were trying to break away from the other names. This evolutionary process of names was preinfluences by other cultures. It sounds silky to say “No longer will you call me your husband but you will call me your husband.” Because that’s what Baal meant but what it was implying was “no longer will you call me Baal (the deity)” This is just one example. The Trinitarian comes from Hinduism & Egyptian. They even say Jesus was the tree of life but obviously that’s symbolical. The tree of life is really us, the Gnostic Kabbalistic nature of scripture is how to approach it all. Another interesting study is to see the etymologies for these words. For example etymologically the name “Samson”, means “Man of the sun” & clearly he’s a sungod. Delialah represents darkness & as she comes close, the hair (sun rays) are clipped & the sun loses strength at night. It’s no different than the crown of kings symbolizing the Unconquered sun. Jesus is also a personification of the Sun because Yahweh was probably a Moon god. Think about it, he was always jealous of sun gods that Israelites worshipped & like Sun god Shamash being of moon god Sin, it’s similar to the Jesus mythos. By the way look at “Sinai” that mountain is of the Moon. Another factor is Jesus doing water signs in the age of Pisces (2 fish & early Christian symbol) & he even tells you in Luke that the sign of a new age is “follow the man carrying a water jug into his house.” Helloooo, Aquarius…Jesus is the Sun of God & the Disciples are the 12 constellations. Jesus is the slaughtered Lamb in March is crucified (Aries) & he is of Lion of Judah (Leo) & says he will return in “Summer when figs blossom.” He also says he’s “The light of the world,” which in ancient times was the Sun. I could go on & on how it’s all Astrological. Just look into the Hebrew word “Mazzaroth” in the Bibles it’s the Zodiac & speaks of Orion’s belt which by the way is the 3 kings, Magi to follow the star in the east. The word “Bethlehem” means “house of bread” (virgo) born of a virgin. Please spread the truth because the Israelites weren’t Monotheistic but were Henotheistic. The difference is Henothesim acknowledges, worships other gods but selects one Chief while Monotheism denies all others. The Bible proves they were Henotheistic not Monotheistic. Also look at this: Is- Isis, Ra-Amun-Ra Egyptian sungod, El- Elohim of Canaanites…It’s a syncretism. “Amen” is of Egypt too. Want to know more, go to My page, please like & share:


    • Gerry says:

      Never heard of any.Christians claiming that the “WE” is the “royal” “we.” Did you just make this up as a strawman?

      • Atheos says:

        I am generalising, but most of the Evangelical churches I attended, applied this ‘royal We’ interpretation to the ‘us’ – plural found in Genesis to fit in with a Trinitarian view point. Another interpretations is that this was a sngle person talking to heavenly host (angels?). I have heard both of these from the pulpits of Evangelical, Pentecostal, Restoration Movement and Anglican churches both here in the UK and in Australia, So you are mistaken to claim I am using a strawman. Many Christians do accept evolution and cosmology, but also accept that the text of Genesis is poetic, lengendary material, not to be taken literally. Personally I am sceptical of Wellhausen’s documentary hypothesis about the formation of the Old Testament, as it does seem a circular argument and is too speculative, as his motive was to make Christianity appealing to the rationalist on the one hand and the evolutionist on the other. I hope that clarifies things.

  8. Jero Jones says:

    FAO James Armstrong
    James you started so well with the evolutionist, and you went and spoilt it with “god made the big bang, and the Adam and Eve” thingamejig! If god made the big bang, where the hell had he been in the intervening billions of years before making the Earth some 4.6 billion years ago, and then making himself known to Abraham 4,000 years ago (?), that he was the creator! A plethora of gods had been accepted by man before and after Abram. And your Adam and Eve is nonsensical, and the Bible’s interpretation is also a no-go. First who had pen and paper to document the Adam and Eve saga, and if we believe the Bible, which is according the most Christian’s is infallible, we have Adam, Eve, Cain and Abel. So where did Cain’s wife come from? We also have all the Noddy people in the land of Nod, whom Cain build a City for!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    The earth as I aforesaid is 4.6 billion or 4,600,000,000 years old, and Christianity has only been around for the last 2,000 years, a fraction (1/2,300,000) of earth time. You could look at it in another way–the 24 hour clock representing the 4.6 billion years of the earth’s existence, starting from midnight. The minute figure would not have moved sufficiently for the human eye to notice the ⅓ of a second movement it would require for 2,000 years! So where was god before 2,000 BCE?
    The answer is that man had not conceive the notion of a monotheistic god as yet, and man like the Greeks, and Roman preferred to hedge their bets with a plethora of gods. This is also true of most of Christianity today, who believe in the Trinity, which was never in the Bible!
    Regards Jero Jones

    • Atheos says:

      Sorry but I have to correct you there, actually, The Trinity WAS in the bible, well two versions anyway … Textus Receptus Stephanus 1550 (Greek) and the infamous King James Version 1611 (English), 1 John 5:7-8 it is known as the Johanine Coma, concerning the ‘Three witnesses’. It reads as follows …

      “[7] For there are three that bear witness: [[in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit: and these three are one.”
      “[8] And there are three that bear witness on earth:]] the Spirit and the water and the blood; and these three are as one.”

      The inserted text is:

      ” in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness on earth: ”

      This was deliberately inserted into 1 John by a scribe to promote the doctrine of the trinity. Evangelical theologians typically play down this, preferring to give the benefit of the doubt to an errant scribe and try to pass it off as an “honest” mistake. Another hypothesis claims that this was a comment in the margin of the manuscript being copied and that the scribe assumed was to be inserted, so they inserted it by mistakenly thinking that the comment was to be included in the text of 1 John 5:7-8.

      This spurious ‘Trinitarian’ text does not appear in any early Greek manuscripts and is found in a later Latin manuscript, It was also found in the Stephanus 1550 Greek Bible, but this was based on a Latin manuscript that contained the Johannine Coma.

      The original text reads:

      “For there are three that bear witness: the Spirit and the water and the blood; and these three are as one.”

      Fortunately, most modern bible translations do not include the Coma except as a reference in the footnotes.

      Consider this though … the KJV is very popular even today, for it’s ye olde Shakespearian English, despite its shortcomings … so for 4 centuries has contained this false text to promote the doctrine of The Trinity for the Church of England.

      • Wow! You guys are good! Very interesting. Thanks for pitching in.

      • Atheos says:

        For Jero
        Sorry forgot to add that, yes once you remove the ‘Johannine Coma’ from the text, then there is absolutely no mention of any ‘trinity’ consisting of God as a Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

        At best most early Christians were Binitarians. As evidenced by the rather damning evidence from the greeting at the beginning of Paul’s letters to various churches. Both the 7 genuine letters written by Paul, as well as the 6 forgeries pretending to be written by him, all send introductory greetings in the name of God the Father and his son Jesus, but never include the Holy Spirit in the greeting. When you get chance, have a read for yourself and you’ll see what I mean.

        Also Jesus say “The Father and I are one! … whoever has seen me has also seen the Father” It does not say “The Father, The Holy Spirit and I are one! … Whoever has seen me has also seen The Father and The Holy Spirit” Yet this would be THE perfect place for any mention of a Trinity.

        Sure people can interpret the text how they like to crow bar a fit between the text and whatever dogma or doctrine they want to believe, or should that be “what they want US to believe”? I have heard a comedian claim that British Rail (former UK nationalised train network operator) renowned for being slow and late, was mentioned in Genesis “And God made those things that creep and crawl across the face of the Earth”.

      • rapturesite says:

        Good job, good point. Exactly what I would say.

      • Dennis Hoppe says:

        The original meaning of the Holy Trinity was coined by Pythagoras. Motion, Consciousness and Matter. They are all absolute and cannot be explained by each other. The Father was motion (power, energy), the Son was consciousness and the Holy Spirit (Ghost) was matter. They also cannot be explained by each other. The three in one of the original meaning means that reality cannot be correct if you leave out any one of the three. Everything is matter in motion that has consciousness (Consciousness can be either potential, latent or active) Everything in the Universe evolves. The only thing that stays the same is change. Galaxy s and Solar Systems are constantly being built out and destroyed (Supernovas). The statement that matter from atomic explosions is converted to energy is false. It is converted to a higher form of matter which is undetectable to any instruments that science has developed. The three aspects, motion, consciousness and matter condition each other. They are all different aspects of the same thing. Science does not recognize this knowledge as being true at this time. But sometime in the future whether in hundreds or thousands of years it will be proven to be true. More information can be found in the works of Henry T. Laurency, on The Official website of the Henry T. Laurency Publishing Foundation.

  9. John says:

    Kent Hovind puts forward a good argument for creation and makes many phd students look dumb.
    To believe that some scientist exist today who has all the answers is no different in believing in God, only your God now works in a lab with his faulty carbon and argon dating machines, The rest is empty theory and theory is not provable fact.

    • John, you are so ignorant. Did you make it past high school? What is your rebuttal to the facts I put forward above? You cite Kent Hovind, a god-fearing CREATIONIST who makes outrageous claims with no science behind them. He has even been criticized by Young Earth Creationist organizations like Answers in Genesis for his continued use of discredited arguments that have been abandoned by others in the movement.So you fell for nonsense that not even genuine creationists accept. He has NO scientific knowledge, not even a college degree. He is a joke. Currently he is in jail for failure to pay taxes. Read about this Joke-of-a-man here.

      He got his Doctorate from Patriot Bible University for $2189 “complete”. You too can get a Doctorate of Divinity from Patriot if you have your GED. What a joke.

      Please get some education. You don’t even know what a theory is. In the world of science, a theory is a proven conclusion based on many facts and is accepted without question among the less ignorant.

      There are not “some” but thousands of scientists who can prove the universe is over 13 billion years old and that life as we know it, evolved. They don’t use carbon or argon “dating” machines.

      Did you check out some of the links on this page? I didn’t think so because you have Kent Hovind’s word on this don’t you.

      • jaycerushton says:

        I find it very interesting how your entire responce is solely focused on showing how ‘unreliable’ the man who gave this quote was. Although the man himself may have given many improper facts, that does not mean that ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING he says is COMPLETELY wrong. In fact, this quote is very true and given your weak ad hominem response you obviouly cannot counter it.

      • ben says:

        these poor three blokes, wasting their lives desperately trying to prove an undeniable truth as a lie
        soon you will see you are wrong, and it will be too late

      • ben says:

        Psalm 2

        1 Why do the nations conspire
        and the peoples plot in vain?
        2 The kings of the earth rise up
        and the rulers band together
        against the Lord and against his anointed, saying,
        3 “Let us break their chains
        and throw off their shackles.”
        4 The One enthroned in heaven laughs;
        the Lord scoffs at them.
        5 He rebukes them in his anger
        and terrifies them in his wrath, saying,
        6 “I have installed my king
        on Zion, my holy mountain.”
        7 I will proclaim the Lord’s decree:

        He said to me, “You are my son;
        today I have become your father.
        8 Ask me,
        and I will make the nations your inheritance,
        the ends of the earth your possession.
        9 You will break them with a rod of iron;
        you will dash them to pieces like pottery.”
        10 Therefore, you kings, be wise;
        be warned, you rulers of the earth.
        11 Serve the Lord with fear
        and celebrate his rule with trembling.
        12 Kiss his son, or he will be angry
        and your way will lead to your destruction,
        for his wrath can flare up in a moment.
        Blessed are all who take refuge in him.

      • Gerry says:

        HovindHovind’s doctoral dissertation (an essay) was not available for reading or examination until embarrassed into it.
        Any doctoral dissertation from any legit university is available for reading unless it has something to do with national security.

    • Atheos says:

      So Kent Hovind can make many PhD students look dumb or should that be ‘Dumbfounded”? Yes I would expect a PhD ‘student’ may not be as knowledgeable because they are still learning and exploring, hence they are PhD Students, and as such, have yet to submit their research doctorates for appraisal. But how would Kent Hovind fare against, not a PhD student, but a PhD holder? Or say a Nobel Prize winner?

      If the Earth is in fact only say 10,000 years old as Young Earth Creationists suggest, and not 4.3 Billion (4,300,000,000) years according to the latest scientific dating, then we have a huge discrepancy in order of magnitude, some 430,000 fold, between calculations based on observable reality and calculations based on the text of a bronze age myth.

      DNA analysis alone indicates that Homosapiens have been around for between 100,000 and 250,000 years, so that is 25 times longer than a Young Earth Creationist estimate of 10,000 years. Even if we assume that homosapiens have been living on the Earth for just 170,000 years that is the half way average between the two ranges, then we still an order of magnitude difference of 17 fold.

      When you look up into the night sky you are looking back into the past. What ever you see is not how it is now but how it was when the light that now reaches your eyes first left that planet, star, nebula or galaxy that you are now looking at. For example when you look at the Large Magellenic Cloud that is a small companion galaxy to our Milky Way Galaxy, to view say the Taurantula Nebula that is about 170,000 light years away. You are seeing the Taurantula Nebula as it was 170,000 years ago. When the light that hits your eye now, first left the Taurantula Nebula Homosapiens were just emerging on the planet (using my mid date of 170,000 years).

      Now the problem. I won’t refer to many of our other dating methods, since this example of Homosapien emergence and duration of existence will suffice. If Kent Hovind is right and the Earth is in fact only 10.000 years old, then we have a major problem, because our various methods of dating humanity and measurement of the distance of the Taurantula Nebula all indicate 170,000 years for humans to have emerged and light to travel from the Taurantula Nebula to Earth.

      That would make your deity a deceiver, a liar trying to trick us. Correct me if I am wrong but isn’t the Christian God supposed to be “the way, THE TRUTH, and the life”? He commands against bearing false witness in the laws given in Exodus, yet blatantly bears false witness to the true age of the universe by deliberately (must be deliberate if creation is an act of his will) faking it to make things look older than they really are, and by such a large order of magnitude. Ah but then if you read Genesis chapter 3 you will see that god is a liar.

      Genesis 3 (NIV translation)
      [2] The woman said to the serpent, “We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden,
      [3] but God did say, ‘You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.’”
      [4] “You will not certainly die,” the serpent said to the woman.

      So tell me John,
      Did Adam and Eve die when they ate the fruit? No!
      Who told the truth? The Serpent told the truth!
      Who told lies? God lied about Adam and Eve dying when they so much as touched the fruit!

      So if the main character in your book, the bible turns out to be a liar, how can you trust anything in the book?

      • ben says:

        Adam and eve did die because they ate the fruit, that’s why they are not alive today.
        Genesis 3:22
        “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.”

        also where in the Bible does God say or anyone say how old the earth is?

      • tomschaber says:

        to Ben, 5/1/2017….

        What’s the point of posting Psalm 2? I don’t get it. Is this supposed to prove something?

        Why didn’t you post Psalm 137:9 “Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.” That’s the God I know and love.

      • ben says:

        did you read the psalm?
        do you reckon it has to do with this website?
        I mean, the psalm is pretty self explanatory:
        replace “nations”, “kings”, “rulers”, and “people”, with “people trying to disprove Christianity”
        replace “me” with “a Christian”

      • ben says:

        an explanation for psalm 137:9

      • Gerry says:

        Kent Hovind is a fairly skilled debater as he has been concentrated on the one topic for years.
        University professors are not necessarily skilled debaters. They are teachers. Hovind runs rings around them. He has a retort for every point any of them are likely to throw out.

    • rapturesite says:

      Gravity is a theory & anyone who challenges it is silly like those flat earthers who say it’s only density. We have 14.7 psi on us from all angles at all times, most don’t know that. We live in a harmful environment not one necessarily hospitable. What about poisonous plants etc, why would God create that? Why die from non religious reasons like accidents if it’s all about good vs evil? Why does space make more black holes than anything? We live in a hostile Universe & Heaven & Hell concepts predate anything we know of, including The Bible because the Old testament doesn’t mention real heaven as in another realm until New Testament. Sheol was it, the dark hole you go in underground & Judaism only cared for life on earth, the promise land, a physical place on earth. When Heavens are mentioned it’s the skies & Angels were stars & deities were planets. They anthropomorphized these concepts to bring them to our human world of understanding. “As above so below.” The Bible is unoriginal & is a plagiarism of paganism. Without paganism there would be no Christainty today. Oh & the bloody history too. Lol

      • ben says:

        Genesis 3:16-19

        16 To the woman he (God) said,
        “I will make your pains in childbearing very severe;
        with painful labor you will give birth to children.
        Your desire will be for your husband,
        and he will rule over you.”

        17 To Adam he said, “Because you listened to your wife and ate fruit from the tree about which I commanded you, ‘You must not eat from it,’
        “Cursed is the ground because of you;
        through painful toil you will eat food from it
        all the days of your life.
        18 It will produce thorns and thistles for you,
        and you will eat the plants of the field.
        19 By the sweat of your brow
        you will eat your food
        until you return to the ground,
        since from it you were taken;
        for dust you are
        and to dust you will return.”

        and thus, God cursed the world because of sin

  10. Josh Taylor says:

    “the Big Bang is the origin of our universe,”

    Sorry, The Big Bang was rejected by 33 scientists in 2004. That theory is still rejected today.

    • Well, there you have it! 33 Scientists. What they say certainly disproves the Big Bang doesn’t it. You think that’s proof? What about the 1000s of real scientists that can prove the universe is over 13 billion years old? They do not reject the theory. I know of those “scientists” that you speak of. None of them know squat about astrophysics. They were all creationists with an agenda. Most didn’t even know what the scientific method is. Do you?

      I’m certain you don’t accept evolution as the process that formed us and I’m sure you could find a few crack-pot “scientists” that would support your view. To mock the idea that issuing a list of names that disagree with a particular position proves anything, the National Center for Scientific Education has compiled a list of scientists whose first name is “Steve” who know evolution is how we came to be. Wanna know how many scientists with the first name of “Steve” support evolution? Thirteen hundred and seventy four!

      Therefore, that proves evolution – right? According to your warped concept of evidence, it does.

      • Wolfgang says:

        99.9% of scientists believe in evolution. Do some research, you just end up looking like an idiot when it is obvious you know nothing about biology, physics or astronomy. I bet you’re one of those stupid people that think astronomy and astrology are the same thing.

      • rapturesite says:

        Speaking of this, no one is talking on “string theory” which is just as credible. Why can’t it be that we grew from universes attached & there’s no need to think further back because it’s a continuum that no one would ever know. However, we do know The Bible is wrong & it’s a remix of previous creation myths.

      • ben says:

        the big bang doesn’t disprove Christianity, if there was a bang there obviously needs to be a creator of that bang.
        God could have used the big bang to create the universe, wether he did or not, it doesn’t actually matter, otherwise the bible would have a detailed description, like in a science book. The point of the creation in the Bible is WHY God created the universe.

        The guy who came up with the big bang theory, Georges Lemaître, was a catholic priest, not an atheist

        As for evolution
        Genesis 1:24,25
        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.

        According to the Bible, all living organisms were created, rather than a blob that mutated into an animal

        Genesis 1:27
        27 So God created mankind in his own image,
        in the image of God he created them;
        male and female he created them.

        According to the Bible, humans didn’t mutate from a blob either

        According to evolution, a life form magically came from nowhere, mutated, and all of a sudden there are more species of animals than scientists can find today. And I have no idea how people (including the 1000’s of real scientists) believe this.

      • YoYo says:

        @Ben, Except creatures came from water, not land. Abiogenesis suggest Life came from water.

      • ben says:

        if you can find a bible verse saying that, I will believe you

      • YoYo says:

        @Ben You Quoted the bible where it says let the land produce the animals. We didn’t come from clay or anything like that. We came from water, not from land. You don’t need a bible verse for that. You need science for that and science suggests where there is water, there is life.

      • ben says:

        Genesis 2:7
        7 Then the Lord God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

        Genesis 3:19
        19 By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food until you return to the ground, since from it you were taken; for dust you are and to dust you will return.”

        The problem for science in finding where humans came from is that science requires both observation and experiment which can be repeated under a controlled environment. During the creation of the earth, there wasn’t much human observation going on, and science can’t repeatedly make a human from water, or dust, or anything, no matter how many thousands of scientists try.

        Now, as for life being where water is, there isn’t much water in the universe (apart for on earth), precisely why there isn’t much life in the universe, (apart from earth)

        Also God created science, so its not like science disproves Christianity

      • Gerry says:

        Science (the search for truth in the physical world) is not a democracy. Fifty percent plus one scientist agreeing does not prove a premise.
        If the jury principle is applied, one juror voting for acquittal prevents a “guilty” verdict.
        Many scientists who have doubts or disbelieve cosmic evolution will not come out openly for fear of losing their job or stalling their career.
        Real science does not stifle dissent. This is religion persecuting dissent, just as the Catholic and Protestant Churches, to say nothing of Islam and some other religions, persecutes dissent.

    • Atheos says:

      I take your point that not all scientists subscribe to the Big Bang. Even the late English Astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle was in favour of a “steady State” universe and rejected Edwin Hubble’s theory. It is actually Hoyle’s off-the-cuff comment about Hubble and his ‘Big Bang’ that the popular theory got it’s name ‘The Big Bang’. The significant majority of Astronomers around the world adopt the Big Bang theory, and will continue to do so unless some new peer reviewed research comes to light that changes our understanding of the cosmos and its origins..

      The COBE (COsmic Background Explorer) satellite detected the diffuse microwave and infrared radiation from the early universe that is consistent with a Big Bang. True, you could argue that although the probe detected the residual radiation, how do we know that this is from a big bang and not some other event that is currently unknown to us? However you would be in a minority.

  11. rapturesite says:

    To defend Charlie though, when God asked it was more rhetorical. God asked like a parent would asking their kid why they doing something they shouldn’t even though it’s known. Just wanting to test & hear the proposed response. I know what you mean but It’s to show a form of communication & I see it as just all Metaphorical. For example when Moses goes to Pharoah asking God who do I say sent me? I saw it as Moses finding his inner divine power but many dispute that. Anyway Moses tells Pharoah “Iam the Iam” sent me. You can see this as God’s sarcastic humor to any higher power than him being there is none, is one view of this. Most don’t know back then to know ones name gave a sense of power over one. A possible way to undermine one. So of course if Moses stated a name like the other gods Egyptians worshiped that would not look as interesting,stunning as to say I AM. The one who is, was & will be. I think it’s silly to think The serpent literally spoke. Also think it’s Peters vision of Jesus in middle of Moses & Elijah in Heaven. We’ll that’s a minds eye vision. Not literal but many take that as a literal experience. The disciple never saw either Moses or Elijah. Anyway I have many more I can discuss but just showing u what I mean. Supreme TruthSayer may come off harsh so I’m trying to show another approach that The stories are more of teachings. They were I’m 3rd person not that one can’t write their own story but how did Moses write his own Death account unless Joshua did? Also Jesus being the tree of life as a metaphorical reference to Garden of Eden, was not known till at least a possible notion from old testament later prophets in which things are assumed & integrated later like Lucifer being satan which satan just means adversary/enemy. Isaiah mentions king of Babylon Rising Like THE Morning Star Lucifer. Plus The Devil wasn’t mentioned for awhile after the serpent. Like any story things got added as meanings etc as the story went along.

    • You don’t need to defend Charlie. My response is my interpretation of the written word. You have another. That’s again the point. What good is the bible if it can so easily be misinterpreted? I think most of what you say is correct. But, you are in essence, agreeing with my statement that the bible is so wrong about so much that whatever it says can be ignored.

  12. rapturesite says:

    Although I do believe in an intellectual design from whatever caused it as to even matter creating a big bang I do know something causes matter but how we define matter is the question. I’d like to point out that I was raised Christian & I have took a spiritual journey on my own & fell in a deep conviction which I started by realizing I can only be my own demon. I was confused because I learned external influences always reinforce a internal belief& every kid will believe in Santa till its proven wrong. Now God can’t yet be proven wrong but I agree the Bible can’t be the infallible word. Evil is by default simply because it’s the lack of good by comprehensive terms. In a world of opposition it’s the only way to understand it & If God created it it’s definitely not bias & No one’s chosen. If i was God I’d play in the world I created starting by the lowest of forms. I won’t dismiss evolution because it’s been proven to extents beyond belief of it to begin with to even comprehend it from a know it all basis because we are still learning. No one notices kids are getting smarter faster? God could be considered an evolutionist. Depends how u label God but definitely God is not imperfect like The Bible indicates by human characteristics by reinstating made in the image. We tend to center the universe around us like the earth beholds it all lol. Adam & Eve story is metaphorical, the serpent represents pagans wisdom theory like Mayan’s believed. It’s a figure of speech not to be taken literal & throughout but even if some is real history it’s just observational accounts with no accuracy & the contradictions are very large. Death will always be part of the truth to their writings but today we forget they lived in devastating times of constant war & to see the world differently is expected by today’s understanding. The Bible is based on moral structure & human experience through mystic imagination. Natural disasters could have been orally reported but lost the accuracy by confusion to begin with then to pass what is eyewitness belief even if u weren’t the initial observer & the thought provoking circumstances will reinforce belief if there’s just learning experience of even delusional perception.

    • Wow – that’s a mouthful.

      First of all, many people do not view the Adam and Eve as metaphorical, but literal. I think some 64% of US citizens do not believe that evolution is the way we came to be. Anyway what is the metaphorical message we are supposed to get from that cockamamie story? Don’t answer that; I don’t care. Whatever it is, I am at least of average intelligence and I didn’t get it on my own so it is not a very good metaphor.

      Why should we have to work so hard to interpret “The Word of God”. Surly he knew that his messed up word would lead to all the misunderstanding and mayhem that it has led to.

      To paraphrase the tag line of this website, “The bible is so wrong about so much, why does anyone take it seriously”?

    • No Charlie
      God doesn’t know. He didn’t even know where Adam was even though he was just hiding behind a bush. God had to ask “Where are you”. So how could he possibly know anything about the creation of the universe?

      • James Armstrong says:

        As a Catholic Evolutionist, I believe that God made the Big Bang and Evolution.
        There was NEVER “one Adam” or “one Eve”, because “Eve” came from “Adam”, who came from another “Eve”, who came from another “Adam”, and so on.

      • YoYo says:

        @James, Then why do you need an Adam and Eve to begin with? Adam and Eve is mentioned in Jesus’ geneology. These people thought they were real.

Leave a Reply to midieaje Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s