Creation more than 6 DAYS

Hammster · Mar 31, 2021

tdidymas said:
It's not a solution. It's a faulty hypothesis. And it's not about scoring sides. It's about how people understand reality.

Well, I use scripture as my basis for reality. It’s kind of a reformed thing. So if God says six days, I’m believing Him even without Dr. Lisle’s expert opinion.

tdidymas · Mar 31, 2021

Hammster said:
Well, I use scripture as my basis for reality. It’s kind of a reformed thing. So if God says six days, I’m believing Him even without Dr. Lisle’s expert opinion.

Ok, you thought that your mention of Dr. Lisle's "solution" would satisfy me? Yet, my point still stands. No one has a plausible solution to the light travel time issue, including Dr. Lisle. So, you conclude by saying you stand with the traditional interpretation. Exactly my point about falling back to tradition by default. But the problem is still a problem, and I'm still skeptical. As they say in Texas, big hat, no cattle.

Hammster · Mar 31, 2021

tdidymas said:
Ok, you thought that your mention of Dr. Lisle's "solution" would satisfy me? Yet, my point still stands. No one has a plausible solution to the light travel time issue, including Dr. Lisle. So, you conclude by saying you stand with the traditional interpretation. Exactly my point about falling back to tradition by default. But the problem is still a problem, and I'm still skeptical. As they say in Texas, big hat, no cattle.

I knew that those committed to evolution wouldn’t be convinced. That wasn’t why I mentioned it. It was just to show that there are answers from the other side. And I’m not falling back to tradition. I’m taking God at His word.

tdidymas · Apr 1, 2021

Hammster said:
I knew that those committed to evolution wouldn’t be convinced. That wasn’t why I mentioned it. It was just to show that there are answers from the other side. And I’m not falling back to tradition. I’m taking God at His word.

You mean you're taking the traditional idea of "day" as 24 hours at its word, because you seem to be equating your interpretation as God's word. The Bible says what it says, and means what it means. Do you see a difference?

And it appears to me that you think "long age for universe" = evolution, which is a fallacy, since I'm not an evolutionist. Do you see a difference?

Hammster · Apr 1, 2021

tdidymas said:
You mean you're taking the traditional idea of "day" as 24 hours at its word, because you seem to be equating your interpretation as God's word. The Bible says what it says, and means what it means. Do you see a difference?

And it appears to me that you think "long age for universe" = evolution, which is a fallacy, since I'm not an evolutionist. Do you see a difference?

It’s not a “traditional” understanding. It’s what the text says.

God called the light day, and the darkness He called night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day.
— Genesis 1:5

God called the expanse heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, a second day.
— Genesis 1:8

There was evening and there was morning, a third day.
— Genesis 1:13

etc

tdidymas · Apr 1, 2021

Hammster said:
It’s not a “traditional” understanding. It’s what the text says.

God called the light day, and the darkness He called night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day.
— Genesis 1:5

God called the expanse heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, a second day.
— Genesis 1:8

There was evening and there was morning, a third day.
— Genesis 1:13

etc

If the sun, moon, and stars were created on the 4th day, then evening and morning for the first 3 days was not due to the turning of the earth. Doesn't this defeat your 24 hour per day hypothesis? It's either literal or figurative, either natural or miraculous. To try to fit it into a modern paradigm lacks proper exegesis. And this is a side issue anyway, because my point was that no creationist has yet to come up with a plausible explanation for the observance of SN1987A, or any supernova for that matter.

Hammster · Apr 1, 2021

tdidymas said:
If the sun, moon, and stars were created on the 4th day, then evening and morning for the first 3 days was not due to the turning of the earth. Doesn't this defeat your 24 hour per day hypothesis? It's either literal or figurative, either natural or miraculous. To try to fit it into a modern paradigm lacks proper exegesis. And this is a side issue anyway, because my point was that no creationist has yet to come up with a plausible explanation for the observance of SN1987A, or any supernova for that matter.

What makes you think that God needs the Sun and Moon to produce light?

tdidymas · Apr 1, 2021

Hammster said:
What makes you think that God needs the Sun and Moon to produce light?

So you invent a 24 hour day in which God miraculously makes it daylight for 12 hours and then makes it dark for 12 hours, for the first 3 creation days at least. Is this your proposition? And then, was it only on one side of the earth or both sides? Did those days simulate night/day as if the sun was already in place and the earth was rotating? Can you detail it out for me?

Anyone can invent any miracle to fit their interpretation of the text. But science isn't imagination, but rather is observable evidence. Scientists are trying to figure out how the creation actually happened. I just wonder if you think science fits Rom. 1. Yes or no?

Hammster · Apr 1, 2021

tdidymas said:
So you invent a 24 hour day in which God miraculously makes it daylight for 12 hours and then makes it dark for 12 hours, for the first 3 creation days at least. Is this your proposition? And then, was it only on one side of the earth or both sides? Did those days simulate night/day as if the sun was already in place and the earth was rotating? Can you detail it out for me?

Anyone can invent any miracle to fit their interpretation of the text. But science isn't imagination, but rather is observable evidence. Scientists are trying to figure out how the creation actually happened. I just wonder if you think science fits Rom. 1. Yes or no?

I didn’t make up anything. It’s right in the text.

And I don’t understand your question about Romans 1.

tdidymas · Apr 2, 2021

Hammster said:
I didn’t make up anything. It’s right in the text.

And I don’t understand your question about Romans 1.

Rom. 1:20 "For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse."

"Being understood through what has been made..." - do you think that science fits in this paradigm? Can people understand the greatness of God in their observations of how He made things? Can a person observe the human anatomy and conclude they are fearfully and wonderfully made? Can a person observe how the cosmos works and conclude that it is fearfully and wonderfully made? Can a person come to a conclusion about reality by their observation and scientific research, with experimentation for evidence that their conclusions are correct? Does this fit in the Rom. 1:20 idea of the apostle?

And if a traditional interpretation of some verse of scripture contradicts what is observed in nature, then is it possible that the traditional interpretation of scripture is wrong?

And still no young-universe creationist has yet come up with a plausible explanation of the observance of supernovas.

Hammster · Apr 2, 2021

tdidymas said:
"Being understood through what has been made..." - do you think that science fits in this paradigm? Can people understand the greatness of God in their observations of how He made things? Can a person observe the human anatomy and conclude they are fearfully and wonderfully made? Can a person observe how the cosmos works and conclude that it is fearfully and wonderfully made? Can a person come to a conclusion about reality by their observation and scientific research, with experimentation for evidence that their conclusions are correct? Does this fit in the Rom. 1:20 idea of the apostle?

Yes, I suppose.

tdidymas said:
And if a traditional interpretation of some verse of scripture contradicts what is observed in nature, then is it possible that the traditional interpretation of scripture is wrong?

If this occurred, it would be worth investigation.

tdidymas said:
And still no young-universe creationist has yet come up with a plausible explanation of the observance of supernovas.

No, that’s not true. Some have. Just because you disagree doesn’t mean that they don’t exist.

On the subject of science, if scientist said that it’s impossible for a man to die a violent death and be raised again after three days with a perfect body which could never die, would you believe them?

tdidymas · Apr 2, 2021

Hammster said:
Yes, I suppose.

If this occurred, it would be worth investigation.

It has occurred, as I pointed out.

No, that’s not true. Some have. Just because you disagree doesn’t mean that they don’t exist.

The link you posted showed that the man successfully refuted every previous hypotheses, and I showed clearly why he is wrong on his hypothesis. It's not a matter of mere disagreement. It's a matter of scientific facts and understanding of how things actually work.

On the subject of science, if scientist said that it’s impossible for a man to die a violent death and be raised again after three days with a perfect body which could never die, would you believe them?

This is a straw man argument. Anyone can imagine that God can do anything miraculously. But that faith is not a viable explanation for why observation of nature is contrary to how people interpret scripture. To make both correct, a plausible explanation must be presented. If your link is the best you can present, then it's time to stop trying to make me wrong about my skepticism. And if this conversation doesn't get any better, then it's time for me to abandon it.

wandering misfit · Apr 2, 2021

chad kincham said:
6,000 years isn’t enough deep time for the fairy tale of evolutionary theory to occur, sorry.

I'm a creationist, never once spoke of evolutionary theory. Is a 24 hr timetable used in Scripture?

BNR32FAN · Apr 2, 2021

wandering misfit said:
There's biblical support, a day of the Lord is like a 1000 yrs.

But exodus 20 says that we honor the sabbath on the seventh day because God worked 6 days and rested on the 7th. So why wouldn’t we honor the sabbath every 7000 years? Not to mention look at man’s technological accomplishments in the last 4000 years. Man existing for 300,000 years doesn’t really reflect his technological achievements. That means man didn’t achieve anything for the first 296,000 years then all the sudden exploded into where we are today. Doesn’t add up to me.

BNR32FAN · Apr 2, 2021

wandering misfit said:
I'm a creationist, never once spoke of evolutionary theory. Is a 24 hr timetable used in Scripture?

Yes in Exodus 20

““Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a sabbath of the LORD your God; in it you shall not do any work, you or your son or your daughter, your male or your female servant or your cattle or your sojourner who stays with you. For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day and made it holy.”
‭‭Exodus‬ ‭20:8-11‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

wandering misfit · Apr 2, 2021

I also know Scripture is for the revealing of salvation, not a science text. If it were, we'd know that our King has dna from His Father. Doesn't John Piper speak of creation in periods of time vs literal back in the 90's?

wandering misfit · Apr 2, 2021

BNR32FAN said:
But exodus 20 says that we honor the sabbath on the seventh day because God worked 6 days and rested on the 7th. So why wouldn’t we honor the sabbath every 7000 years? Not to mention look at man’s technological accomplishments in the last 4000 years. Man existing for 300,000 years doesn’t really reflect his technological achievements. That means man didn’t achieve anything for the first 296,000 years then all the sudden exploded into where we are today. Doesn’t add up to me.

Physical Israel living in a 24 hr day doesn't mean God's creative actions were constrained into 7 24 hr periods, 2 distinct things.

Hammster · Apr 2, 2021

tdidymas said:
It has occurred, as I pointed out.

Not yet.

tdidymas said:
The link you posted showed that the man successfully refuted every previous hypotheses, and I showed clearly why he is wrong on his hypothesis. It's not a matter of mere disagreement. It's a matter of scientific facts and understanding of how things actually work.

I didn’t provide a link.

tdidymas said:
This is a straw man argument. Anyone can imagine that God can do anything miraculously. But that faith is not a viable explanation for why observation of nature is contrary to how people interpret scripture. To make both correct, a plausible explanation must be presented. If your link is the best you can present, then it's time to stop trying to make me wrong about my skepticism. And if this conversation doesn't get any better, then it's time for me to abandon it.

It’s not a straw man. You are arguing that that if science says something different than scripture, then science wins. And science would say that the resurrection is impossible.

BNR32FAN · Apr 2, 2021

wandering misfit said:
Physical Israel living in a 24 hr day doesn't mean God's creative actions were constrained into 7 24 hr periods, 2 distinct things.

The comparison throughout the scriptures is six days God worked so six days we work. I don’t understand why anyone would think that creation didn’t happen in 6 days. Would you say that God’s commandment for the sabbath was 6 periods of time? The Jews obviously understood it to mean 6 days which is why they honored the sabbath once a week ever since the commandment was given to Moses. I don’t see why you are questioning this brother.

BNR32FAN · Apr 2, 2021

tdidymas said:
It has occurred, as I pointed out.

The link you posted showed that the man successfully refuted every previous hypotheses, and I showed clearly why he is wrong on his hypothesis. It's not a matter of mere disagreement. It's a matter of scientific facts and understanding of how things actually work.

This is a straw man argument. Anyone can imagine that God can do anything miraculously. But that faith is not a viable explanation for why observation of nature is contrary to how people interpret scripture. To make both correct, a plausible explanation must be presented. If your link is the best you can present, then it's time to stop trying to make me wrong about my skepticism. And if this conversation doesn't get any better, then it's time for me to abandon it.

Perhaps the earth appears to be so much older than it actually is for the same reason Jesus spoke in parables. “He who has ears to hear, let him hear.”

Creation more than 6 DAYS

Psalm 144:1

Newbie

Psalm 144:1

Newbie

Psalm 144:1

Newbie

Psalm 144:1

Newbie

Psalm 144:1

Newbie

Psalm 144:1

Newbie

Nowhere man

He’s a Way of life

He’s a Way of life

Nowhere man

Nowhere man

Psalm 144:1

He’s a Way of life

He’s a Way of life

Similar threads