Bible-Creation-Evolution

[AV1611VET]

Light was separated from darkness and light was called day and darkness night. This very event occurs again on the fourth day, does it not? Light was already separated on day one, correct? What I am getting at is that there is no reason for the repetition of these events. It was already done on day one so there would be no need to do it again.

I believe in the Framework model of the Framework hypothesis, where, in the first three days of Creation, God creates the framework; and in the last three days of Creation, God populates those frameworks.

But I only believe the model itself, I don't believe the whole hypothesis.

And as for the moon not giving light at one time -- were any of you there?

 

[Delphiki]

Again this is already done on day one. Light was separated from darkness and light was called day and darkness night. This very event occurs again on the fourth day, does it not? Light was already separated on day one, correct? What I am getting at is that there is no reason for the repetition of these events. It was already done on day one so there would be no need to do it again.

Installing Windows.... finished. Reboot.
Installing SP3... finished. Reboot.
Installing drivers... finished. Reboot.
Installing driver updates.... finished. Reboot.

 

[elopez]

I have already explained this.

You haven't explained much of anything. You didn't explain the source of this light on day one, and your explanation for the similarities doesn't follow since again there is already a contrast of light and darkness on day one. All you said was that God separated light and darkness on day one and it just happened on day four, but that still does not derive from the same event of separation from light and darkness on both days. Nor did you account for your claim about the sun and the consistency according to the Hebrew meaning of the word for day.

 

[Nabobalis]

My point is that the Sun isn't the starting point. You have a long chain of particles carrying the energy that one day impact your eye. Some are photons, some are not, but the chain long precedes the Sun.

No I understand what you are getting at but for the majority photons that moon receives they come from the Sun, so If we removed the Sun, we would probably just barely see the moon due to starlight.

But yeah, the Sun is the true starting point but I think it is enough.

 

[elopez]

I believe in the Framework model of the Framework hypothesis, where, in the first three days of Creation, God creates the framework; and in the last three days of Creation, God populates those frameworks.

But I only believe the model itself, I don't believe the whole hypothesis.

And as for the moon not giving light at one time -- were any of you there?

What about the Framework theology do you agree with? You are aware it is used to refute the model and show the inconsistency of it, right?

I could ask the same about creation. Were you there? Do you need to presently see God creating in order to know He did in the past?

 

[1611AV]

You haven't explained much of anything. You didn't explain the source of this light on day one, and your explanation for the similarities doesn't follow since again there is already a contrast of light and darkness on day one. All you said was that God separated light and darkness on day one and it just happened on day four, but that still does not derive from the same event of separation from light and darkness on both days. Nor did you account for your claim about the sun and the consistency according to the Hebrew meaning of the word for day.

I think what you are looking for is my interpretation of the Bible. I do not do that here. The Bible says God said let there be light and there was light. I do not have to know what kind of light it is to know it was not the greater light he spoke of in verse 16 because God had not yet made the greater light.

And I made no claim about the sun.

Now what does all this have to do with Bible Believing Christians that also believe in Evolution?

 

[AV1611VET]

What about the Framework theology do you agree with?

Did you read my post, Elopez? I agree with the framework, itself:

Notice in the first triad is the framework created; and in the second triad is the framework populated.

(Note: the Bible reference on the final day s/b Genesis 1:31, not Genesis 1:3.)

 

[AV1611VET]

The Bible says God said let there be light and there was light. I do not have to know what kind of light it is to know it was not the greater light he spoke of in verse 16 because God had not yet made the greater light.

I believe it was the electromagnetic spectrum.

 

[Targ]

I agree with you 100%. That is why I find it impossible to be a Bible believing Christian and also believe the Theory of Evolution.

Does this mean that if the evidence for evolution were ever proved beyond reasonable doubt to you, you would cease to be a Bible-believing Christian?

 

[AV1611VET]

Does this mean that if the evidence for evolution were ever proved beyond reasonable doubt to you, you would cease to be a Bible-believing Christian?

He won't be here then -- that's the Antichrist's job.

 

[1611AV]

Does this mean that if the evidence for evolution were ever proved beyond reasonable doubt to you, you would cease to be a Bible-believing Christian?

Romans 8:38-39 For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come,
Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Praise God!

 

[Nostromo]

So it's absolutely impossible that you've made a mistake?

 

[1611AV]

Did you read my post, Elopez? I agree with the framework, itself:

Notice in the first triad is the framework created; and in the second triad is the framework populated.

(Note: the Bible reference on the final day s/b Genesis 1:31, not Genesis 1:3.)

I like that!

 

[AV1611VET]

I like that!

I do too, bro!

I don't like the hypothesis itself, but I like the framework.

The framework interpretation (also known as the literary framework view, framework theory, or framework hypothesis) is an interpretation of the first chapter of the Book of Genesis which holds that the seven-day creation account found therein is not a literal or scientific description of the origins of the universe; rather, it is an ancient religious text which outlines a theology of creation. The seven day "framework" is therefore not meant to be chronological but is a literary or symbolic structure designed to reinforce the purposefulness of God in creation and the Sabbath commandment.

 

[Targ]

He won't be here then -- that's the Antichrist's job.

Okay, thanks AVET. Has anyone got a sensible answer?

 

[1611AV]

He won't be here then -- that's the Antichrist's job.

Okay, thanks AVET. Has anyone got a sensible answer?

Targ, You don't believe that?

 

[dad]

The Theory of Evolution is based key observations and inferences drawn from them. A process of random variables persuaded by the changing conditions of the Earth itself. Without any evidence of a Creator, or a Creator creating a man.

How then does one explain this belief that God created man by process of evolution, based off the literal word of God, (the Bible) and the literal Theory of Evolution (by Darwin or those who contribute fact that fit the Theory of Evolution)?

Both believers of Evolution without belief in God and Bible believers without the belief in evolution are welcome and encouraged to comment so that we can keep continuity in both sides of the discussion without blurring the Theory of Evolution or the Word of God.

I believe in evolution...from the created kinds. Godless evolution and the pond and etc are pure myth. Myth that is in direct opposition to the truth as revealed in the word of God.

 

[elopez]

I think what you are looking for is my interpretation of the Bible. I do not do that here. The Bible says God said let there be light and there was light. I do not have to know what kind of light it is to know it was not the greater light he spoke of in verse 16 because God had not yet made the greater light.

And I made no claim about the sun.

Now what does all this have to do with Bible Believing Christians that also believe in Evolution?

Even if God had not created the greater light, light was still created on day one. I mean even look at the triad diagram that has day one and four right next to each other and think about it. Day and night were already differentiated on day one, and again on day four.

I believe you did. Remember, in your attempt to quote scripture to support the claim, "Here is another example of light without the sun." All I was saying is that you also must mean the sun was not present until day four, right?

Above all this means that if the framework theology is correct, that if Genesis does not give a chronological account of creationism, then it does not give a scientific basis for creation. Genesis would not be telling us the exact order that God created things, just eloquently stating the truth in that God did create it. If Genesis does not give a scientific account for creation, then it can be up to the reader and believer of Genesis to believe what they happen to find to be true on the origins of the universe, earth, and all life so long as God is included as the cause and author of such process. Now one may find the evidence for evolution compelling, hence a Bible believing Christian also believing in evolution.

 

[elopez]

Did you read my post, Elopez? I agree with the framework, itself:

Notice in the first triad is the framework created; and in the second triad is the framework populated.

(Note: the Bible reference on the final day s/b Genesis 1:31, not Genesis 1:3.)

Yes, I read your post. I understand you accept the diagram itself. That's not what I was questioning though. Do you notice the correlation between day one and four? Both of them say "let there be light." A chronological sequence of events would not describe the same event twice like the separation of light and darkness on both days of creation. Personally I don't think the diagram should be looked at consecutively but topically.

 

[Targ]

Targ, You don't believe that?

That the antichrist will arise to convince the world that evolution is true? Err, no.