Genesis 1 Again

[AV1611VET]

I was going to make that same point: Why only a handful of moon theories, while there are so many 'god' concepts, through so many thousands of religions and sects?

Ask those 38,000 how we got our moon and watch them come together into just a handful of theories.

There may be 38,000, but just like a stretched accordion, you play one particular note and watch that accordion compress.

 

[AV1611VET]

Amazing anyone takes them seriously anymore. Like the old saying 'Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me' ..'fool me 6 times...forget about it'.

David said that's their trademark moniker (Psalm 14:1).

 

[AV1611VET]

Right, because there's only been... how many versions of the Bible? Over 100.

From God's perspective: one -- from mans': seven.

Psalm 12:6 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.

One Bible ... seven purifications ... five polishings (of the current One).

 

[British Bulldog]

Ask those 38,000 how we got our moon and watch them come together into just a handful of theories.

There may be 38,000, but just like a stretched accordion, you play one particular note and watch that accordion compress.

Is that why you find it so easy to claim brotherhood with the vast majority of christians who don't take the bible literally?

 

[USincognito]

Science says the snake lost his legs.

Does Creationism explain why they sometimes have atavistic legs?

 

[USincognito]

Reptiles live the longest. They continue to grow and do not stop growing. Down in Florida they have turtles that are over 300 years old. Perhaps that is why the Dino's got so big. They had a long life and just kept growing. Crocs get pretty big also. But they usually shoot them when they get to big to manage and control.

I can't believe this old chestnut is still floating around. Here's a thought, instead of just making something up, why don't Creationists explain to us why dinosaurs don't have the body configurations of a lizard, turtle or croc that simply kept growing and instead have body configurations for what we'd expect for beings that would have been those sizes and proportions if that was their natural adult size?

 

[USincognito]

We don't understand why quantum physics works, but we use it to make our cell phones function.

We do? Care to explain how?

Spoiler: cell phones and misunderstood stuff

Cell phones do use fractals as the design for internal antennas, but I've never heard of quantum physics making them function.

 

[dad]

I can't believe this old chestnut is still floating around. Here's a thought, instead of just making something up, why don't Creationists explain to us why dinosaurs don't have the body configurations of a lizard, turtle or croc that simply kept growing and instead have body configurations for what we'd expect for beings that would have been those sizes and proportions if that was their natural adult size?

Any creature that evolved from a created kind, would be natural. The nature of the day that allowed the rapid evolving would allow it in proportion. How would it not? You may not be a chestnut, but you are roasted.

 

[Jazer]

"originals" are copies of the autographs

My dad collected autographs. I never heard of a copy being called an original.

 

[Jazer]

Does Creationism explain why they sometimes have atavistic legs?

GAP's do not try to explain anything. You could check with a Theistic Evolutionists. They may try to explain it.

 

[USincognito]

GAP's do not try to explain anything. You could check with a Theistic Evolutionists. They may try to explain it.

TE's have a very good explanation supported by evidence.

So this is an admission that you don't have an explanation for the atavistic legs then?

 

[AV1611VET]

Is that why you find it so easy to claim brotherhood with the vast majority of christians who don't take the bible literally?

Yes -- one of the reasons anyway.

 

[AV1611VET]

Of course - there is evidence and models to support the various falsifiable scientific theories on the origin of the moon.

If these scientific theories are falsifiable, then what's keeping you guys from falsifying them?

 

[AV1611VET]

My dad collected autographs. I never heard of a copy being called an original.

Shouldn't we value the original autographs above any mere translation?

To put it bluntly: If God wanted us to value the originals above any other form of the Bible, why did He allow them to disappear into the dust of history? In regards to a translation: if you believe that the original languages are to be valued above an English translation, it is your duty, as an obedient child of God, to learn those languages so that you may read God's word.
Related articles: The Two Lies:


The following is from Sam Gipp's The Answer Book.

QUESTION 1: Shouldn't we be loyal to the "original autographs" and not a mere translation?

ANSWER: We should put as much value on the "originals" as God does.

EXPLANATION: It is impossible to be true to the originals because the originals have long been lost. This well established fact should be enough to make the sincere student of Scripture realize that an affirmative answer to the question is an impossibility.
But it does not explain the above answer. Just how much value does God put on the originals?
To get the answer we must explore seveal chapters in the book of Jeremiah beginning with the famous passage in chapter 36 concerning the roll that Jeremiah had written.
In verse 21 the roll is brought before King Jehoiakim and read by his servant Jehudi.
According to verse 23 Jehudi read three or four leaves and King Jehoiakim cut it up with a penknife and cast it into the fire on the hearth until it was destroyed.
Thus ends ORIGINAL #1!
Then the Lord moved Jeremiah to rewrite the roll adding some words to it. (Jeremiah 36:32)
Thus ORIGINAL #2 is born.
We are shown the text of this second original in Jeremiah 45- 51 where it reproduced for our benefit.
Jeremiah told Seraiah to read this roll when he came into Babylon (Jeremiah 51:59-61). Then Jeremiah instructed Seraiah, after he finished reading the roll, to bind a stone to it and cast it into the Euphrates river (Jeremiah 51:63)!
Thus ends ORIGINAL #2!
But wait! We have a copy of the text of the roll in chapters 45-51. Where did it come from? It came from a copy of original #2 which we can only call ORIGINAL #3!

So there are two very big problems for those who overemphasize the "originals."

(1) Every Bible ever printed with a copy of Jeremiah in it has a text in chapters 45-51 which is translated from a copy of the "second" original, or ORIGINAL #3.
(2) Secondly, NO ONE can overlook the fact that God didn't have the least bit of interest in preserving the "original" once it had been copied and its message delivered. So WHY should we put more of an emphasis on the originals than God does? An emphasis which is plainly unscriptural.
Thus, since we have the text of the "originals" preserved in the King James Bible we have no need of the originals, even if they were available.
​

SOURCE

 

[Nostromo]

That's an odd example to use. The original wording of the revelation is preserved, despite the original roll having been destroyed.

 

[AV1611VET]

That's an odd example to use. The original wording of the revelation is preserved, despite the original roll having been destroyed.

Well, actually, in the above example I cited, the ORIGINAL #1 is what is called an "autograph", which is something written in the author's own handwriting.

Your signature, for instance, is your autograph; but your autograph isn't necessarily a signature, as it can be anything written in your handwriting (recipe, directions, shopping list, etc.).

Also, the ORIGINAL #2 is an autograph as well, since it too was written in Jeremiah's handwriting.

 

[Nostromo]

Well, actually, in the above example I cited, the ORIGINAL #1 is what is called an "autograph", which is something written in the author's own handwriting.

Your signature, for instance, is your autograph; but your autograph isn't necessarily a signature, as it can be anything written in your handwriting (recipe, directions, shopping list, etc.).

Also, the ORIGINAL #2 is an autograph as well, since it too was written in Jeremiah's handwriting.

You might want to go back and read Jeremiah 36 again.

 

[AV1611VET]

You might want to go back and read Jeremiah 36 again.

Okay, Baruch wrote it, but the point is the same: autographs vs. originals.

 

[Doveaman]

No, we're here to try and help you out of your fantasy world.

We'll you are doing a very poor job of it. If we live in a fantasy world you don't expect us to give it up for your fantasy world.

 

[Doveaman]

There is no doubt God created the heavens including the stars.

As explained in Genesis 1:1.

The fact that they are included clearly in the creation week,

The “formless and empty” earth and the stars are included, but they are not included as being ‘made’ or ‘created’. They were simply mentioned as existing.

as well as the way creation is spoken of in the rest of the bible does not support cutting them out.

My Re-Creation theory does not cut them out, it simply explains them differently from your Different State Past theory.

What does that verse have to do with not knowing what a day is?

The verse was to show how God most likely revealed the creation events in Genesis 1 through visions since no human was present to observe the actual events.

The days of creation week were determined by the existence of day-light, and the earth in its “formless and empty” state existed before the first day-light and therefore before the first day and therefore before creation week.

Support for this claim?

I already supported it.

If the earth in its “formless and empty” state was not described in Genesis 1 as being “created”, and the stars were not describes in Genesis 1 as being “made”, this gives support to the idea that the six day creation events in Genesis 1 are not necessarily the original creation of the universe, but may simply be a re-creation of the earth’s biosphere since the earth and the stars appear to have been already existing.

ps 136: 7 To him that made great lights: for his mercy endureth for ever: 8 The sun to rule by day: for his mercy endureth for ever: 9 The moon and stars to rule by night: for his mercy endureth for ever.

The “great lights” mentioned here is referring to the “two great lights” (the sun and moon) as described in Genesis 1, not the stars. The stars are only being described as ‘ruling’ the night along with the moon. They are not described as being 'made' during the six day creation events.

So they were made to do stuff for us,

Of course they were -- in the same way a commercial bus can be ‘made’ into a private bus for your personal use.

it is logical we were not arriving millions of years later after the fact.

Since the empty earth and the stars were not described as being 'created' or 'made' during the six day creation events, then the earth and stars could have existed for millions of years before those events.


If my Re-Creation theory is correct this would explain why the earth appears to some of us as being young and to others as being old. It depends on our perspective. The earth’s biosphere is younger than the earth’s rocks.

If Genesis 1 is focused on the formation of the earth’s biosphere, then the earth from the perspective of Genesis 1 will have the appearance of being young. Hence, 'Young Earth Creation', an idea which I accept.

If Science is focused on the formation of the earth’s rocks, then the earth from the perspective of Science will have the appearance of being old. Hence, 'Old Earth Creation', an idea which I also accept.

YEC and OEC are compatible, IMO, if viewed from both perspectives as explained in my Re-Creation theory.