gettin it twisted

lewiswildermuth:
In Genesis 1 through Genesis 2:3, creation is six days long with a seventh day of rest for a total of seven days.



Genesis 2:4 through 2:25 there is a second creation story that takes place in just one day.



There are many references to a single day creation and a multiple day creation scattered through the rest of the Bible.



So it appears that even during the writing of the Bible there were several competing ideas about how God created and how long it Him

..Not true.

The second usage of the word day mentioned above is set up with the word "the".
That is THE DAY. Keep in mind that the word day is not bracketed with evening and morning as in the first usage.

The second usage is meant to be a unit of time. To help you out, think of it like this.
If I said in THE DAY of George Washington the USA was forming.....you would not conclude that America was established in a single day, yet you have established that the creation took one day.

lewis.... I’m not sure this is true, God may have made a universe that he was not sure of the individual outcome for every thing in it.

I can understand how you could arrive at this conclusion. That is from your post you seem to indicate great doubt in what the bible says.

Do you not believe the portions of the bible that shows us how God is omniscience?

Actually, omniscience and omnipotence MAY not contradict this. I am not saying this for sure, not at all, but it is a difficult question.

If I want to, I can throw a dice and not know what result it will come up with. However, this does not negate my power to place the dice down in a certain way or to weight it to ensure in lands a certain way, effectively my 'knowing the future'. It is a very interesting philosophical question as to whether an omnipotent, omniscient God can CHOOSE not to know something. Does His having to know something mean he is not actually omnipotent, as there is something He cannot do - i.e. He cannot not know something. Or if He can choose to set something up for which He deliberately does not know the outcome does that then mean is not omniscient?

Don't try to put this into a Christian theology. Take it on its own.

Now, what are the first two Babylonian gods? Tiamet and Apsu. What are they? They are sweetwater and saltwater. In other words, they are the waters. Now, what is the second of God's creative acts in Genesis 1? God separates the waters. That is, God makes sweetwater and saltwater! That means Tiamet and Apsu can't be gods. You can't be a god if you are created by another being. Gods either just exist or they are the offspring of gods. Not created by some other deity. And, in the Babylonian worldview, sweetwater and saltwater are gods. It is not that they are "gods of", but that sweetwater and saltwater is an essential part of being a god.

Now do you get it? Genesis 1 is paralleling the Enuma Elish and each "god" is being created. Look at the creation of plants and then the sun. Marduk is the god of agricultural plants (herbs). The sun goddess is Marduk's younger sister. So Genesis 1 has God create plants first because Marduk is older. Then create the sun.

Genesis 1 isn't so much about "creation" as we think of it historically and scientifically, but about destroying the Babylonian gods. That to the people of the time was "creation".

__________________
"If sound science appears to contradict the Bible, we may be sure that it is our interpretation of the Bible that is at fault." Christian Observer, 1832, pg. 437

"Christians should look on evolution simply as the method by which God works." Rev. James McCosh, theologian and President of Princeton, 1890

Ark Guy, show us the portions of the Bible where it says God is omniscient. What I have seen are parts showing God is very knowing. But "very knowing" and omniscient are two different things. I submit that "omniscient" is a human theory about God and not something the Bible says explicitly.

__________________
"If sound science appears to contradict the Bible, we may be sure that it is our interpretation of the Bible that is at fault." Christian Observer, 1832, pg. 437

"Christians should look on evolution simply as the method by which God works." Rev. James McCosh, theologian and President of Princeton, 1890

Ark Guy, go back to the Hebrew. The word is 'beyom". The prefix 'be" modifies "yom" (day) so that it means a period of time within 24 hours. As you have noted in another thread, in Genesis 2:17 the same "beyom" doesn't mean a long period of time. Adam died spiritually when he ate the fruit.

The second usage is meant to be a unit of time. To help you out, think of it like this.
If I said in THE DAY of George Washington the USA was forming.....you would not conclude that America was established in a single day, yet you have established that the creation took one day.

But you are not using the Hebrew here. Sorry, when you want to use one of these, you have to go back to the original language.

__________________
"If sound science appears to contradict the Bible, we may be sure that it is our interpretation of the Bible that is at fault." Christian Observer, 1832, pg. 437

"Christians should look on evolution simply as the method by which God works." Rev. James McCosh, theologian and President of Princeton, 1890

This site is very helpful. I read all 12 chapters over a couple of days:
ht tp://w ww.ge ocities.c om/truedino/

I think the views expressed about the bible are very sound. Most of what he believes doesn't seem to controdict the bible at all. Now, on the subject of evolution. It really isn't important to know wether or not animals evolve, but rather to build a solid relationship with god is the most important thing. However, I always like to be sure what I know is actualy truth. Does evolution really contredict what the bible says? How is it really unbiblical? Hmmm. Just got a thought. In genesis, it says that the sea creatures were created, followed by land creatures, then flying animals right? Is that the right order? Scientists say it takes what... millions of years for evolution, and they say that animals started evolving in that same order? If you read what that website says about the conditions before the flood, and how the conditions made life far superior, i think you could make a plausible connection. Now, it is really important you read the first few chapters of the website above to see where im coming from. What if the animals that existed before the flood had a highly sped up evolution timetable? That would explain how they could go from sea, to land, to air so quickly. The preflood conditions might have allowed that to happen. Creation the same way genesis explains it. But, animals wouldnt evolve like that today because of the harsh conditions that plague our planet after the flood. Does all that sound right?

Here we go again. Trying to counter YEC propaganda and bad science.

First, let's see where this guy is coming from. Is he really just evaluating scientific evidence? Does he view evolution as a way God created?

No.

"The information on Creation Science vs. Evolution will be a real eye opener. The media, public education, and Hollywood are the leading propagandists of our time putting forth a "atheistic evolutionary secular humanist world view" diametrically opposed to the "Judeo-Christian world view". The former world view has enslaved and destroyed many a nation while the latter world view when properly responded to and with proper checks and balances in the nation has brought blessing from God."

This guy is fighting the atheism vs theism fight with evolution being atheism. Therefore it is all wrong for this forum, where everyone is a theist.

Look, if he wants to fight atheism, that's fine. But EVOLUTION IS NOT ATHEISM!! Never has been. As to destroying nations, it's too bad this guy's memory is so short. Charlemagne destroyed the Saxons from a Christian worldview. Look at the Reformation Wars and list the number of nations that were destroyed and enslaved during them.

Nope. Genesis 1:20-23 has sea creatures and flying creatures created at the same time. Only the next day are land creatures created.

No. For animals, it is sea animals, land animals, and then flying animals. Also, whales are created before land animals, yet we know whales evolved from land mammals so that the land mammals had to come first.

The history of life goes back 3.8 billion years. That is when we have the first fossils of microorganisms.

Wow! That's evolution on steroids! How long ago does he say the Flood happened? 4,000 years, with just 2,000 years before that.

Ask is using Baugh's metallic hydrogen canopy. However, he states that the temperature is -130 to -180 fahrenheit. But then he states that you need "cryogenic" conditions for this metallic hydrogen. The problem is that cryogenic conditions are near absolute zero. This is about -459 degrees Fahrenheit! It's not nearly cold enough for metallic hydrogen! http://www.pa.msu.edu/~sciencet/ask_st/012992.html

The rest of the website has similar errors. Baugh's work is so notoriously bad that even other creationist organizations won't touch it. Answers in Genesis www.answersingenesis.org says it is wrong.

"How does a creation scientist and an evolutionary scientist look at the same physical data and yet come to entirely different conclusions? The answer lies in the bias and the model being used to interpret the present world and how it originated. "

He ignores that creationism was the accepted scientific theory from 1700-1831. If bias were all there was to it, then why did scientists (who were biased toward creationism and looked at the evidence that way) change their minds? Remember, all these scientists at the time were Christians. Most of them were ministers. Reading the literature of those scientists -- Werner, Jameson. Buckland, Smith, etc -- you can see that they simply assumed Noah's Flood happened. They didn't question it. They looked at all evidence through that bias. Yet they changed their minds. Buckland was all for Noah's Flood in 1820 when he wrote his Reliquae Diluviae. By 1832 he was admitting the Flood never happened and that it did not cause the very geological features his book had said it did cause. Rev. Buckland remained a staunch Christian.

What happened, of course, was the evidence. Ask simply has it wrong about how science is done and how scientists evaluate the evidence. It's a nice conspiracy theory, but that is all it is. It is not reality.

Now, are we going to have to walk you thru page by page the refutation Ask's website or can we just point you to some credible sources to read?

__________________
"If sound science appears to contradict the Bible, we may be sure that it is our interpretation of the Bible that is at fault." Christian Observer, 1832, pg. 437

"Christians should look on evolution simply as the method by which God works." Rev. James McCosh, theologian and President of Princeton, 1890

Here is a site for metallic hydrogen. It forms at 5 degrees Kelvin or about -450 degrees Fahrenheit. BUT, it also requires a lot of pressure to form. Baugh's model doesn't have any way to exert the pressure since one side of the shell is open to space! http://www-phys.llnl.gov/H_Div/GG/metalhydrofact.html

__________________
"If sound science appears to contradict the Bible, we may be sure that it is our interpretation of the Bible that is at fault." Christian Observer, 1832, pg. 437

"Christians should look on evolution simply as the method by which God works." Rev. James McCosh, theologian and President of Princeton, 1890