Origins TheologyForum for the discussion of Creation Science (Young/Old) vs Theistic Evolution. Discussion of Atheistic Evolution should be taken to the Discussion and Debate forums.
First, I don't believe Moses (or whoever) and Jewish people did not know that plants need sunlight to live.
Second, even a figurative interpretation could not make sense on the sequence.
So it is either wrong, or this sequence of creation MUST have other meanings.
I could not find much discussion/idea about this issue anywhere. Could anyone give me something so I would know what is the understanding on this problem so far?
If you're willing to accept that God magically poofed plants into existence, why aren't you willing to accept that He magically sustained them until He made the sun?
__________________ We can allow satellites, planets, suns, universe, nay whole systems of universes, to be governed by laws, but the smallest insect, we wish to be created at once by special act.
If you're willing to accept that God magically poofed plants into existence, why aren't you willing to accept that He magically sustained them until He made the sun?
I think your idea is, in fact, explicitly said in Gen 2:5. Good thinking.
According to Mallon's idea, those plants may not be fully grown plants. They may just be "potential" plants.
That's not what I said at all.
All I'm saying is, if as a neocreationist, you're going to use "goddidit" everytime you reach a problem you're unconfortable with, I don't see why you should be taken so aback by this particular scenario. Just assume that God waved His magic wand and -- voila! -- problem solved.
Isn't creation science fun?
__________________ We can allow satellites, planets, suns, universe, nay whole systems of universes, to be governed by laws, but the smallest insect, we wish to be created at once by special act.
That's not what I said at all.
All I'm saying is, if as a neocreationist, you're going to use "goddidit" everytime you reach a problem you're unconfortable with, I don't see why you should be taken so aback by this particular scenario. Just assume that God waved His magic wand and -- voila! -- problem solved.
Isn't creation science fun?
Well. You wrote better than you think. I take the (apparent) idea from your earlier post for the moment. I am not a person who will be satisfied by an excuse as "God does it". I want to know what is the meaning of God's action. Question of his thread is a hard one.
First, I don't believe Moses (or whoever) and Jewish people did not know that plants need sunlight to live.
Second, even a figurative interpretation could not make sense on the sequence.
So it is either wrong, or this sequence of creation MUST have other meanings.
I could not find much discussion/idea about this issue anywhere. Could anyone give me something so I would know what is the understanding on this problem so far?
PS: note that this comes from the ultra-conservative Orthodox Presbyterian Church which is anti-evolution. So no evolutionary pre-suppositions went into this.
__________________ The high, the low, all of creation God gives to humankind to use. If this privilege is misused, God's Justice permits creation to punish humanity~~ Hildegard of Bingen cited in, Earth Prayers from around the World
PS: note that this comes from the ultra-conservative Orthodox Presbyterian Church which is anti-evolution. So no evolutionary pre-suppositions went into this.
Thanks. This page suggested "two triads" and put vegetation into the triad of "kingdom" rather than the "kings". it suggests the vegetation serves as a component in the environment rather than be counted as a living object (animals and human), which changes the environment.
I think the separation of two triads is overstretched and it simply ignored the hard question. I have no problem with the creation in Day 1, Day 2 and Day 5, Day 6. The two triads would make more sense if Day 3 and Day 4 were switched.
It did "echo" Mallon's suggestion and address the meaning of Gen 2:5.
OK, you are saying there was enough light before our sun for the plants.
I'm saying that the first thing created was light. Later the light is separated into the sun and moon, but the light came first. That's the Genesis narrative. The Genesis narrative can be understood as the process of God creating order out of chaos. I believe the author of the creation account in Gen. 1 probably saw the creation of plants as a creation of order from the creation of earth rather than seeing it as the kind of creation of life that came with the animal kingdom and the creation of people.
I personally am not hung up on the sequence of creation in Genesis making a whole lot of scientific sense because there are 2 creation stories that have different sequences altogether. The commonality it has with evolution is that complexity emerges from simpler things.
According to Mallon's idea, those plants may not be fully grown plants. They may just be "potential" plants.
I don't see that in the text, because they are seed-bearing plants.
Then God said, "Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds." And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.
In Gen. 2, however, plants are created after Adam is.
__________________
Because CF no longer has an atmosphere conducive to free discussion, I have left for greener pastures (TR, SoF) where I maintain the same username.
Linear Mode
