Answers in Genesis and Young Earth Creationism :)

[B_T]

I'm not necessarily a YEC, but your intro here is rather vague.  

I accept criticism, but my intention was to see whether there are folks on Tentmaker who are ready to discuss such a difficult topic. After that we started a very good discussion.

[WhiteWings]

The scientific method actually came from the Bible.  Renaissance researchers noticed patterns when the Bible was describing physical events.  Genesis 1 follows the scientific method.

I believe that to be true.   The issue that seems to arise is that if an old earth / universe and evolution (common descent) can be proven false that proves God exists.  Do you believe that?

I believe science and the Bible do not contradict eachother on those points.
(see the posted files)

[martincisneros]

There's quite a few Young Earth Creationists around here.  It's just going to be a while, apparently, before they jump in on this thread, if they do.  I haven't seem 'em today yet.  Some folks are only here on weekends, while others are never here on weekends.  Time is such a complicated subject and there's so much oddity in the quantum world and in all things higher up, that there's honestly not a simple answer to so much when you're dealing with "Time."  Time Travel may even exist in nature, but there's sooo much that we just don't know enough about [yet] to be dogmatic [one way or the other] about certain types of particles, the precise nature of the extra demensions revealed to us by superstring theory that our studies are still in the infant stage regarding, black holes, etc.  I genuinely wonder about insects [in particular] having either spirits or souls sometimes and yet certain insects do things that border on the precognitive.  Their reaction times while hunting or defending themselves and other things that they do sometimes seem to [minimally] indicate a more superior cerebral metabolism to our own.

[Paul Hazelwood]

The scientific method actually came from the Bible.  Renaissance researchers noticed patterns when the Bible was describing physical events.  Genesis 1 follows the scientific method.

I believe that to be true.   The issue that seems to arise is that if an old earth / universe and evolution (common descent) can be proven false that proves God exists.  Do you believe that?

I believe science and the Bible do not contradict eachother on those points.
(see the posted files)

I need to clarify that I do not believe that the position YEC's take proves God any more than it proves ET created us.

Science can only theorize upon the method in which we got here and allow for possibility.


For instance, if a YEC believes that abiogenesis is impossible, that still does not offer how or what caused non life to life.

They can speculate which is a valid part of science as long as speculation does not become more than what it is.

[Paul Hazelwood]

I genuinely wonder about insects [in particular] having either spirits or souls sometimes and yet certain insects do things that border on the precognitive.  Their reaction times while hunting or defending themselves and other things that they do sometimes seem to [minimally] indicate a more superior cerebral metabolism to our own.

I believe I was stalked by a wasp one time.   I used to run around the farm with a fly swatter hunting insects and swatted a nest of red wasps once,  I was fortunate that day and got several and I saw that I had torn a couple of legs off one before I got too scared to stay around.   A few days later  a red wasp started circling around me and I saw that it was missing two legs, unfortunatly I hadn't hurt its wings any and it could fly faster than I could run and it got me.

[WhiteWings]

I'm not necessarily a YEC, but your intro here is rather vague.  How about giving a outline summary of what you do feel is correct.

Science is right about the age of the and that does not contradict Genesis.

For instance,  saying evolution is true or false does not address the real issue that causes this debate in the first place.   Parties wanting to discuss this should come to an understanding between the terms evolution and descent with modification (common descent).

Evolution yes. But not Darwin style.
Darwin is about common decent by many mutation.
A more modern theory is the Cambrian explosion. All live evolved in a few million years.
That is what I believe most. Darwins theory is 'proven' by lie after lie. Piltdown man for example.

In reality, what molecular biologists have to observe in real time today is not affected by what might have happened long ago.  So if you cannot demonstrate common descent through empirical observation you are not limited to what you can observe and study on the molecular level of what you have to work with now, which is real live organsisms.

True. But not all scientist have the same views. Just like every religion is not UR.

Biblical literalists need the age of the earth to match their interpretation of scripture, but in reality, we could have an old universe and much younger life than what evolutionary theory demands.  But the reverse cannot be true, in a shorter time frame you cannot demonstrate the larger molecular changes that  took the  life long ago that has less molecular information and features and changes them to  organsisms with more information and features that we see today.

So, that is why YEC's spend more time arguing the age of the earth.

Read my scans and B_Ts quotes from the author of those scanned pages and you see that 6 YEC days can match 14 billion years.
There are over 1500 year old Jewish sources that tell us that the calendar is in two-parts
The days of old. => 6 creation days
The years of the many generations.  => From Adam forward.

Scientists cannot demonstrate the reality of a God with the scientific method so they  cannot claim that the universe was made and now appears old in any conclusion they draw, even though that could be the case if an entity indeed created it.   It is also true that God could have set things in motion exactly how peer reviewed secular science is theorizing it happened and the biblical story does not need to be physically literal in order for it to be true.  And none of that detracts from the truth of the bible to be Gods word for us.

I believe that too. Science is true. But then look at the problems science has. To name one: How the Big Bang could possibly have 'started' -> God pushed a button.

I think the struggle between science and teh Bible is twofold.
Many scientists hate religion and want to ridicule it.
"The church" screwed up.
Earth is flat while the Bible states a sphere. No harm in mistakes if you admit them when found. Don't burn scientist as witches. Earth is the center of the universe. All plantetary orbits are perfect circles because God won't create inperfect ellipses. Sun turn around the earth. Etc. Where you find that in the Bible? The Bible was/is correct on every bit. But for science the word of the curch is teh word of the Bible. And many live by teh word of the church and not that of the Bible.

The biblical literalists have shown that eventually even their scientists have to accept the data through the scientific method.   They have been forced by the scientific method to drop many of the old arguments such as "moon dust" and very significantly  new species.

Generally science corrects itself. They drop their own disproved theories. But the case of Darwin seems an exception.
He's debunked by his how 'faulty science' but also by other fields of modern science.

Sure "now" they maintain that the new species is still a "like kind"  but the point is that at one time their scientists drew the line between micro and macro evolution to macro being a new species of any kind whatsoever,  so they have had to change their stance on that.

Yep. I've yet to see a Darwinian prove of macro evolution that isn't fake.

And an even greater problem,  scientists or people that use science to say that we can prove or deny a God miss what the scientific method is used for.

Science can never disprove God. Only wrong Bible interpretations

However, when trying to find a cure for cancer, the molecular biologist does not gain anything in the study of what we have to observe by stating that there is a hypothesis that God may have created all of this.

Even if the cure for cancer is in the Bible we won't see it before the cure is invented by science.
If the Bible states "....earth hangeth on nothing...." the ancients just scratch their heads and move on. Noone said: Eureka! On nothing mean gravitational fields!

So Paul that's about what I believe.
Good night all  :HeartThrob:

[WhiteWings]

I believe science and the Bible do not contradict eachother on those points.
(see the posted files)

I need to clarify that I do not believe that the position YEC's take proves God any more than it proves ET created us.

ET only destroys Paul. And it's not good at it because it's an endless job  :laughing7:
About YEC; reading your long post I have a reasonbly good idea on what your views are.

[martincisneros]

Do you belive in the 6 day yec age or the scientific age?
If the scientific age how do you align 6 days with billions of years?

I'm undecided still.  Still studying the Bible with everything that I've got, and still researching various areas of science that are personal curiosities/hobbies.  I'm looking at areas of science that are making both the thousands of years and the billions of years interpretations seem like gross oversimplifications.  At the very least, prematurely dogmatized about on all sides of the issue.  If the universe were so simple that we could easily understand it, we'd be so simple that we couldn't. 

The anthropic principle is mind boggling!! 

The tiniest subatomic, subatomic particle at the very furthest edge of the universe is important to life on this planet and our being here!  It takes a bare minimum of 10 demensions so that this planet and all of it's life can be here.  In the first split second of Creation there may have been a minimum of 26 demensions that were a part of the proverbial big bang.  In the 5th demension, you can eat an orange from the inside without ever breaking the outer layer.  There may be other parallel universes in other demensions that are a part of the infrastructure that enables life to be here.  Research along those lines has been done at Oxford and at other universities that most people would find totally mind numbing when you consider that it's just one more piece of the puzzle that allows life of any kind to exist on this planet. 

If what appears to be an actual "multiverse" were the oversimplified equivalent of the universe being quintillions of times larger, would that have any baring on how old everything is, or is it just a bunch of time lines running side by side with the same moment of beginning as they branched out from a primary time line in yet another higher demension that I suppose some would call heaven?  Add to all of this that our every word, thought, and action effects every single particle in the whole universe and it's just the grace of God that sin didn't totally annihilate this whole universe!  In laboratory experiments [that have been done again and again] children have been able to change the radioactive decay rate of radioactive isotopes simply with their mental and emotional dispositions.  One author likened it to the way a butterfly flaps it's wings on one side of the world effecting the price of bread on the other side of the world!

[Paul Hazelwood]

I believe science and the Bible do not contradict eachother on those points.
(see the posted files)

I need to clarify that I do not believe that the position YEC's take proves God any more than it proves ET created us.

ET only destroys Paul. And it's not good at it because it's an endless job  :laughing7:
About YEC; reading your long post I have a reasonbly good idea on what your views are.

lol,  I should have not abbreviated that, I meant  ExtraTerrestrials.   ;)

[martincisneros]

So, B_T, what are the currently accepted/standardized proofs/tests of the age of the universe?  Is it still speed of light, red shift, and other current telescope data thought to reveal the current speed of the expansion of the universe?  I've seen some areas of science where the proofs are a little better and then other fields of science that genuinely border on someone said that someone said for their proof.  Many people think it's limited to an oversimplified philosophy that only has the speed of light and the current rate of the decay of radioactive isotopes for it's ground to stand on.  What else is currently going on with clarifying the age of the universe?  All of my info is at least 5 years old, or older because I've been soooo caught up on my fields of theological research, study, and presentation.

[Molly]

There's a guy that's written a book called 'forbidden archaeology'--his name is Michael Cremo--you can go listen to him on youtube.  He claims he has found evidence of homo sapiens--intelligent humans such as ourselves--that is as old as 50 million years (as opposed to the current thinking of 150,000 years).  He says this evidence has been suppressed by the evolutionists because it blows evolution out of the water if man has been around that long.  Of course, then he has other wild theories that go along with this--such as that there have been many civilizations that have come and gone over millions of years,but it's very interesting--and confirms what our Bible says--that God created the different species discretely, and most especially, man.

It would also fit in nicely with the idea that the story in Genesis is not a creation story but a recreation after some disaster that destroyed the world--leaving it dark, empty, and void, maybe at the hand of wicked men up to their usual nonsense.


12It teaches us to say "No" to ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-controlled, upright and godly lives in this present age, 13while we wait for the blessed hope—the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ, 14who gave himself for us to redeem us from all wickedness and to purify for himself a people that are his very own, eager to do what is good.

--Titus 2

[WhiteWings]

Hi Molly,

1] What is the relation of the verse with what you wrote.
2] You mean the gap theory?
3] About mankind being 50 miljon years old....
Biblically speaking man was just an animal before he got a spirit. But still tehy can look human.
Scientificly speaking.... well I'm sure they want to fit it in some special none human class.
The whole evolution theory is flawed. I'm not claiming there wasn't any evolution but all proof for Darwin style of evolotion either:
- None existant (just a theory)
- Proved to be outright fraud. Lucy, Pildown man. Peppered moth. Finches, Heckels drawings, 4 winged fruit flies, etc
- Is disproved by (more modern) science.

Now I kick the ball to B_T :laughing7:
Read is as a general comment. An idea. Do stumble on the inscientific wording. Ok?
The fake Miller-Urey experiment that falsely claimed to have created life learned me a few other things that I would like B_T to comment on.
All life needs oxygen. But the very basic building blocks (amino acid???) simply corode away by the same oygen they need.
'Full grown' cell have certain defense mechanism for that. But full grown cells need to be build from that what can't stand oxygen. Circular problem. Chicken and egg.

[Molly]

Hi ww,

Cremo and his colleague started out by reading ancient Vedic texts in Sanskrit which talked about historical civilizations millions of years old.  Then he went searching in the archeology literature for evidence of this and found nothing--according to the accepted textbooks, man has been around no more than 100,000 to 150,000 years.  Then he went to the original archeological sources and read about the discoveries by individual archaeologists over the last century or so in the original language of the author--whether English, French, German, Italian, etc.

He found out that anything that disagreed with the timeline of the evolutionists for man was discarded or suppressed.  For example, gold miners in California found human remains and artifacts embedded in rock 1000 feet under a mountain that was 50 million years old.  The rock could be dated, thus the remains and artifacts embedded in them could be dated.  He says these were removed by the miners and are now kept virtually hidden by a museum in California.  And, so on. He mentions many such discoveries, that can be dated by the age of the strata they are found in, a few as old as 2 billion years!  All of this has been suppressed by the scientific community--not the first instance I've seen of mainstream science out and out lying about the truth.  It's very disturbing.  For the past 100 years or so, we have been systematically lied to by our scientists--the small core group out of a desire for power and control over the masses, the rest out of fear for their jobs or their lives or just plain ignorance.  That's what I am discovering more and more as I research and challenge all current scientific theories and claims.  Take it all with a grain of salt.  They know far more than they are revealing and much of what they are revealing is lies.  Evolution is a total and deliberate lie.

I put in that scripture for two reasons.  One, because the other thread was closed and this scripture, without any doubt, names Jesus Christ as God and Savior.  Two, because we are now at one of those cusps of man's history where we really could destroy ourselves if mankind doesn't very quickly turn to God in huge numbers and do what is good and what is right.  It's never been more important in my lifetime then it is right now.

I trust the age of Adam because two scientists I respect (Johannes Kepler and Bishop James Ussher) spent a lot of time and effort with the Bible geneologies and events dating him to about 4004 BC, coming independently to the same time period.  The Adam of Genesis 2 is a different story than told in Genesis 1--things are created in a different order, and Adam is given a different commission than those in Genesis 1.

I have long felt that something happened between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2, and in Genesis 1:28, God tells man to go and 'replenish' the earth, again as if the earth has been depleted of its human population.

Again, in Genesis 2:4, we are in a time when there are no plants and herbs, no rain, no farmer.  Adam is created first by God in this chapter, and then the garden is planted and the animals created and brought to him to name.  I feel this is describing a desert area, which we know that area of the world was (Mesopotamia) before modern irrigation.  Regardless, God creates in a different order around Adam then he does in Genesis 1.  Adam, walking and talking with God as he does, having language, living set apart in the garden, is the first man who has an intimacy and closeness with God, not necessarily the first man ever.  God appoints him to a specific job--to tend and keep God's garden.

Aren't we to do the same?  Tending to God's garden of truth means weeding out the lies, watering the tender plants, encouraging the growth of truth and light in a dark world--and always doing what is right and good.

[WhiteWings]

Do you belive in the 6 day yec age or the scientific age?
If the scientific age how do you align 6 days with billions of years?

I'm undecided still.  Still studying the Bible with everything that I've got,

That's the only correct way to handle things IMO.
No matter if you are right or wrong. I currently hold the believe I wrote about in this thread. But I'm openminded and you might see me claiming something different in a few months time...

[WhiteWings]

Hi ww,

Hi back Molly,  :bgdance:

He found out that anything that disagreed with the timeline of the evolutionists for man was discarded or suppressed.

Yep, the bulk of the fossils found are classified as "out of place samples".
If I had a theory and 80% of the evidence doesn't fit that theory I surely would start to wonder if my theory is correct...

For example, gold miners in California found human remains and artifacts embedded in rock 1000 feet under a mountain that was 50 million years old.  The rock could be dated, thus the remains and artifacts embedded in them could be dated.  He says these were removed by the miners and are now kept virtually hidden by a museum in California.  And, so on. He mentions many such discoveries,

Yep, I've read about such things too. Like a bronze bell in a chunck of coal.
YECs like Kent Hovind see that as prove for the flood.

 

Evolution is a total and deliberate lie.

I think we can reach agreement on that point!

I put in that scripture for two reasons.  One, because the other thread was closed and this scripture, without any doubt, names Jesus Christ as God and Savior.  Two, because we are now at one of those cusps of man's history where we really could destroy ourselves if mankind doesn't very quickly turn to God in huge numbers and do what is good and what is right.  It's never been more important in my lifetime then it is right now.

Isn't the only correct way to write "will destroy ourselfs" Isn't that what Gods Himself predicts?

I trust the age of Adam because two scientists I respect (Johannes Kepler and Bishop James Ussher) spent a lot of time and effort with the Bible geneologies and events dating him to about 4004 BC, coming independently to the same time period.  The Adam of Genesis 2 is a different story than told in Genesis 1--things are created in a different order, and Adam is given a different commission than those in Genesis 1.

To be honest I'm still in doubt about Genesis 1 and 2
Genesis 2 can just be a reexplanation of Genesis 1.
Or (the most important part) Eve is Adams second wife (after the mysterios Lilith/screech owl)
Not to forget that some claim that the second word in the Bible is translated wrong. I a beginning.
I can very well believe that some with good understanding of Hebrew come to that conclusion. But I'm totally lost by the story that the same people connevt with that word. Satan ruled the pre-adamic world; got mad and completely wrecked it to become 'void'

I have long felt that something happened between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2, and in Genesis 1:28, God tells man to go and 'replenish' the earth, again as if the earth has been depleted of its human population.

I can't answer that. Someone with good knowledge of Hebrew possibly can.
Replenish in old English didn't mean 'refill' but just 'fill' (not my own research BTW)

[Molly]

Isn't the only correct way to write "will destroy ourselfs" Isn't that what Gods Himself predicts?

I don't know that he predicts that.  I would rather think he predicts this:


44And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever.

45Forasmuch as thou sawest that the stone was cut out of the mountain without hands, and that it brake in pieces the iron, the brass, the clay, the silver, and the gold; the great God hath made known to the king what shall come to pass hereafter: and the dream is certain, and the interpretation thereof sure.

--Daniel 2


That stone cut without hands is our Lord Jesus Christ and his body, and the Spirit of truth which will become a mountain that fills the whole earth.


I can hardly wait.  I'm so sick of the lies.

[WhiteWings]

Isn't the only correct way to write "will destroy ourselfs" Isn't that what Gods Himself predicts?

I don't know that he predicts that.  I would rather think he predicts this:

Isn't the whole Armageddon thing about human fighting human (and God)?
Forget about religion and just look at history. One big string of wars.
Until now we just have been lucky that we didn't have (the need for) nuclear weapons (besides small scale use in Japan)
I can alsmost guarantee at a certain point of time a full scale NBC/ABC war will start. Oil could very well be the trigger.
Read about euphrat in revelation. Look whats near by euphrat. Oil countries.
I don't have good hopes for humanity... :sigh:

[Molly]

If you look at Revelation 20, Armageddon doesn't happen until after the 1000 year reign of Christ and his saints.  During that thousand years, Satan is locked in the bottomless pit, and it's only after he is released that Armageddon occurs.

As far as I can tell, that hasn't happened yet.  As you said, there have been wars and rumors of war since the time of Christ--  no thousand year reign with Satan nowhere to be seen..

That 1000 year reign, then, will only happen after the stone uncut by human hands smashes the feet of clay of that empire that never truly went away, only changed form,  the Roman empire.

As far as war is concerned, even a cursory inspection of the last hundred years of war will reveal that wars are started by a small cabal of influential people who want war to serve their own ends, and they often fund both sides.  Then, people get caught up in the lies they are told, or want to defend against a perceived aggressor, and get sucked in.  Did you ever study the history of WWI?  What started that war?  Why was that brutal war fought?  I was taught that somebody shot somebody's cousin--and boom!--WWI.  That, of course, makes no sense--but that was my high school history book written by the most prestigious historian in England.  Go and find out the truth about that war--find out why it was really fought and by whom.  History, too, is a pack of lies, written by the victors.  But the truth is out there, and can be found by those who would search for it.

Oil?  What a joke, as if we even needed oil if the real technologies of the last 100 years were implemented.  But even if we needed it, it's plentiful, and is everywhere, if only we would stop creating artificial shortages by not drilling so that oil companies and their owners can pocket a 35 billion dollar a year profit--peak oil is another lie.

What if people no longer fell for the lies?  What if they started searching for truth for themselves instead of believing every piece of drivel they are told by people who do not have their best interests at heart.   Jesus called them wolves. What if they actually started listening to their God and refused to fight?  How would that change everything?


Matthew 5:9
Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.

[WhiteWings]

As far as war is concerned, even a cursory inspection of the last hundred years of war will reveal that wars are started by a small cabal of influential people who want war to serve their own ends, and they often fund both sides.  Then, people get caught up in the lies they are told, or want to defend against a perceived aggressor, and get sucked in.

You got that right. Wars are started maninly by a handful of people that don't fight themselfs.
Just brainwashing and forced up beliefs. Just look at the Iran-Iraq war. My gues is that those soldiers, mostly farmers, rather have been left alone and stayed on their farm doing their things. Perhaps they even wanted to discuss allah in a friendly way with their neighbours. But their leaders decided otherwise. Or their leaders are led to decide otherwise by the real puppetmasters of this planet...

History, too, is a pack of lies, written by the victors.  But the truth is out there, and can be found by those who would search for it.

The conqueror writes the history...

Oil?  What a joke, as if we even needed oil if the real technologies of the last 100 years were implemented.  But even if we needed it, it's plentiful, and is everywhere, if only we would stop creating artificial shortages by not drilling so that oil companies and their owners can pocket a 35 billion dollar a year profit--peak oil is another lie.

The point is not if there is or isn't enough oil. Or there is or isn't replacement technology. The point is that many believe there is a shortage. The point is that we pay a lot for oil. The point is that many Americans are fighting for oil in Iraq.
So wars can be start for no apperant reason. Or even against teh wish of the civilians. But the fact remains that a endless string of wars has been started. And if the next war isn't about oil it's about the color of shoes Putin wears.
"They" will always find some reason to start a war.

What if people no longer fell for the lies?  What if they started searching for truth for themselves instead of believing every piece of drivel they are told by people who do not have their best interests at heart.   Jesus called them wolves. What if they actually started listening to their God and refused to fight?  How would that change everything?

Then they would be shot as traitors....
Unless people refuse by the millions to fight. I don't see that happening. Besides of that only ground combat takes a lot of troops. Bombing takes much less personel.  What I'm trying to say there will always be enough that want to fight. And once the war started more and more people get sucked in. Maybe you can resist. But be honest... do you really think the majority can resist?

[B_T]

Please,be patient.I'm in the capital city and won't be back until tomorrow.

As for these "forbidden archaeology" we must be very sceptical when we listen to conspiracy nuts.

[WhiteWings]

I believe science and the Bible do not contradict eachother on those points.
(see the posted files)

I need to clarify that I do not believe that the position YEC's take proves God any more than it proves ET created us.

ET only destroys Paul. And it's not good at it because it's an endless job  :laughing7:
About YEC; reading your long post I have a reasonbly good idea on what your views are.

lol,  I should have not abbreviated that, I meant  ExtraTerrestrials.   ;)

It was some sort of joke Paul  :laughing7:

Dail your number
666
ET phone hell

:bgdance:

[rhellis]

I haven't read all the responses here, but would like to say that I am an old earth evolutionist or whatever. There are two creations in Genesis, one in Job, and I think one in the Psalms. The point being-- they were not intending the accounts to be taken literally.

And that being said--  It's all such a non-debate, and it changes nothing. I've even thought about writing a book about the subject, calling it "The Great Non-Debate." I believe in God and Christ and the salvation of all-- yes even the animal realm.

[WhiteWings]

If this is a non-debate then most things discussed are none-debates.
No debate will change the plan of God.

[rhellis]

A few subjects I would call non-debates:

1. It is more effective to treat an infection with antibiotics than with rituals to cast out "the spirit of fever."

2. The earth is round (The Genesis 1 account is pure flat earth imagery with everything either above or below the earth) and revolves around the sun, causing day and night (The Genesis 1 account begins with a universal day and night with the sun and moon being created later merely to rule over those periods).

3. Epileptic seizures are more effectively treated with right/left globe seperation than by driving out "evil spirits that cause fits."

I could go on and on and freaking on. The Bible writers were just plain ignorant about some stuff and that shows up in the Bible. Also, they were quite poetic in some places and didn't expect us to take those writings literally-- ever see a tree of the field clap its hands? (Last time I checked, trees don't actually have hands, but since the Bible says they clap their hands does that mean I have to believe that trees have hands?)

Point being: It's not a science book, not even a good history book.

And all that being said, I consider myself a Bible believing Christian, living in hope of the resurrection of all.

[ChuckK3]

The Bible doesn't say that God destroys both body and soul in Gehenna.  Jesus said to fear him that can destroy both body and soul in Gehenna and in the context Jesus was addressing false teachers.  His next statement contrasted what He'd just said with the kindness of the Father. ......

I agree Martin.  In fact, I personally believe that the context is trying to say to be afraid of NOBODY.  Not to be confused with the Fear of God.  There's anxiety fear (the kind that has torment, and from such we should be delivered), and then there's reverential fear (the kind
which, when it's especially of God, is the beginning of wisdom).

Chuck