Moon light - the word of God vs falsely so called science

sjastro said:

The issue is about separation or more precisely the division of day and night on days 1 and 4 of creation according to Genesis 1:4-5 and Genesis 1:14-16 respectively.

Click to expand...

I am addressing the issue.

Whether the light is day 1 God's own light shining out from Him.. or day 4 the solar light. The result of day and night is the same. With the distinction that the God-light on day 1 is different (not created) than the solar light on day 4 (created).

sjastro said:

In order to avoid the contradiction day and night could not be divided on day 4 because it was already divided on day 1, you claim the light created on day 1 is divine light which is clearly a metaphorical interpretation.

Click to expand...

I have not ever said that the light on day 1 was "created".

Since the solar light was created on day 4. And God spoke words of light on day 1. The divine light is not my metaphorical interpretation. I do not switch back and forth from literal to metaphorical when speaking of light/day. I am stating what the Bible says. The divine light on day 1 is not any less a literal light than the solar light on day 4.

You are misinterpreting what the Bible says, and what I say.

sjastro said:

It is not a literal interpretation as you cannot show this light actually exists nor how light is produced without a source such as the sun and stars which is the point of Genesis 1:14-16.

Click to expand...

To say as precisely as possible to what the Genesis text says is using literal speech. Therefore I'm using literal interpretation.

The God-light of day 1 for purposes of the text was replaced by the solar light on day 4. Speaking within the confines of the Genesis text.. No one can produce evidence that the light of day 1 is still existing.

The text of Genesis 1:14-16 states that the lights have been produced by God who is the Source.

sjastro said:

This means the creation week itself is metaphorical and not literal.

Click to expand...

That is your interpretation.

sjastro said:

There is a contradiction, let me repeat in Genesis 1 plants came before humans, in Genesis 2 they came after humans.

Click to expand...

Genesis 1 the plants came before humans.

Genesis 2:1-2 states that all that the creation process was finished concerning all that was created in Gen.1.

Gen.2:5 is stating of plants before humans. That "plants had not yet grown." Meaning that the seeds were in the ground. "For the Lord had not caused mist on the earth" vs6. God caused mist that watered the ground. vs.8 God planted (caused) a garden in Eden.

There's no word 'create' in any of Genesis 2.

That is how you state a contradiction? By not reading precisely what it says?

sjastro said:

Let me make my position perfectly clear, like the majority of Christians I see Genesis as a metaphorical work,

Click to expand...

That doesn't change the literal language that is in Genesis.

sjastro said:

I would imagine myself as a scribe in the 6th century BC when Genesis was written and having read the scroll without any prior knowledge or preconceptions, I would conclude there are contradictions in Genesis.

Click to expand...

Any contradictions can't be verified by interpreting with metaphorical language unless the text is truly metaphorical. Which you have not proved it to be. You've only used your interpretation.

sjastro said:

Note this is the opposite to the fundamentalists and YECs literal interpretations of Genesis who unwittingly resort to metaphorical interpretations or at worst spin doctoring to avoid the contradictions.

Click to expand...

I've not used metaphors on the literal text, you have. I have not spin doctored. I have shown that you claim a contradiction where there is none.

sjastro said:

This has already been explained and the light coming from God is not literal but metaphorical.

Click to expand...

Your explanation is yours, not the Bible's.

sjastro said:

You used the Epic of Gilgamesh as an example of an archaeological finding which attest to the historical validity of Genesis,

Click to expand...

You mentioned the Epic of Gilgamesh. I stated that it is similar to the recountings of many cultures of a global flood.

I did not use any of them as an example of historical archeology. I used creation science archeology for validity of Genesis.

sjastro said:

yet you have admitted there is no physical evidence which is contradictory as archaeological findings are physical evidence.

Click to expand...

I have not admitted any such thing. You apparently wish I had.

sjastro said:

The Biblical and Sumerian versions are stories of a flood not evidence of a flood.

Click to expand...

I have been continuous througout that the creation scientist archeology has found evidence for a global flood as the Bible states it.

dlamberth said:

There is no physical evidence of a global Noah flood. Such evidence simply does not exist.

Click to expand...

flood of ice a couple of times.

Estrid said:

Of course.
Science is terrif as long as it supports some
parts of the bible.

Click to expand...

That's right. When science is used without hostility against the Bible, I agree with it.

Estrid said:

As soon as it disproves your dearly held
beliefs, then it's falsely so called science,
and any reference to it is a limited view.

Click to expand...

I don't use the phrase "falsely called science". I don't have a love hate attitude toward it.

Science does not disprove the Bible. But science minded person's, atheists like yourself seek to disprove the Bible.

But with every archeology the science proves the Bible to not be fiction as atheists claim.

I have said that your views are limited in not acknowledging what science has proved to be accurate in the Bible. You let some use of science used by myself and other Christians get a pass concerning disagreeing with flat earth.. but when a Christian uses science archeology to prove the Bible you disapprove of us using your dearly held science for that.

Shemjaza said:

What archaeology of creation scientists?

Click to expand...

Just because you ignore or discredit them doesn't make them non existent. Do you deny that atheists have had official debates with creation scientists?

Shemjaza said:

There isn't physical evidence for a world wide flood in human history.

Click to expand...

I am not a creation scientist but I've heard and seen the archeology that proves there was.

Shemjaza said:

Archaeological remains, geological evidence, genetic diversity are all counter to the literal flood events believed by any kind of recent Creation believing Creationist.

Click to expand...

Such are the topics that creation scientists have addressed with evidence to counter the atheist.

BeyondET said:

flood of ice a couple of times.

Snowball Earth: The Discovery of Evidence That the Earth Was Once Frozen Over from Pole to Pole

Click to expand...

Snowball Earth is an interesting history of the Earth. But it not evidence of a global Noah Flood.

dlamberth said:

There is no physical evidence of a global Noah flood. Such evidence simply does not exist.

Click to expand...

Such evidence you simply ignore and deny it's existence.

dlamberth said:

Snowball Earth is an interesting history of the Earth. But it not evidence of a global Noah Flood.

Click to expand...

Nay that was probably regional

Shemjaza said:

What archaeology of creation scientists?

There isn't physical evidence for a world wide flood in human history.

Archaeological remains, geological evidence, genetic diversity are all counter to the literal flood events believed by any kind of recent Creation believing Creationist.

Click to expand...

A " creation scientist" is a self contradicting
term.
It is impossible for anyone with intellectual
integrity to claim there was a noah- flood.

T.i.m.o.t.h.y. said:

I am not a creation scientist but I've heard and seen the archeology that proves there was.

Click to expand...

If a global Noah flood had actually happened, it would be through geology, not archeology that any evidence would be found. With such a world wide flood happening only 4000 years ago, the evidence would be everywhere and clear as a bell to be seen by everyone. By comparison, the Ice Age flood that ran through the Pacific North West 12,000 years ago has left clear evidence across 4 states. As no geological evidence of Noah's flood can be found..it didn't happen.

dlamberth said:

Snowball Earth is an interesting history of the Earth. But it not evidence of a global Noah Flood.

Click to expand...

Sketchy evidence from hundreds of
millions of years ago is great stuff,
but no evidence from within timeframe
of human existence is of any account as
it shows what is not wanted.

Estrid said:

Floods are common.
The Noah flood is fiction.
So is a king who reigned for 28,800 years.
Or even a mere 1200.

Genesis contains factual material here and there,
mundane things like water or hills.

Note that con men sprinkle in some facts with
their narratives.

Click to expand...

But atheists are not capable of being intellectually dishonest.

Estrid said:

As an historical document, Genesis is worthless,
and none (zero) of the supernatural stuff

Click to expand...

That is your opinion.

Estrid said:

has any archaeological, or other scientific
basis whatsoever.

You do know that?

Click to expand...

I know that the Bible does not claim to be a science book and is not a means of teaching archeology.

Estrid said:

Except it does disprove the historicity of " genesis".

Click to expand...

More archeology is continuing to be done to disprove that statement.

dlamberth said:

If a global Noah flood had actually happened, it would be through geology, not archeology that any evidence would be found. With such a world wide flood happening only 4000 years ago, the evidence would be everywhere and clear as a bell to be seen by everyone. By comparison, the Ice Age flood that ran through the Pacific North West 12,000 years ago has left clear evidence across 4 states. As no geological evidence of Noah's flood can be found..it didn't happen.

Click to expand...

But there is polar ice to prove it didn't happen.

dlamberth said:

If a global Noah flood had actually happened, it would be through geology, not archeology that any evidence would be found. With such a world wide flood happening only 4000 years ago, the evidence would be everywhere and clear as a bell to be seen by everyone.

Click to expand...

The problem is not a lack of evidence. The problem is whether or not people acknowledge it as evidence.

dlamberth said:

By comparison, the Ice Age flood that ran through the Pacific North West 12,000 years ago has left clear evidence across 4 states. As no geological evidence of Noah's flood can be found..it didn't happen.

Click to expand...

That is what I mean. The flood of Noah is only acknowledged in terms that atheists are comfortable to address it. They steal the true cause and reassign it to an evolutionary occurrence.

Estrid said:

A " creation scientist" is a self contradicting term.

Click to expand...

Hey! That sounds familiar!

If you run a search on me saying it, you'll get two and a half pages of reply.

Here is the first time I said it:

AV1611VET said:

I guarantee you, Gamspotter, you're preaching to the choir here. I have always contended that Creation Science is a contradiction in terms; and my Apple Challenge proves it.

Click to expand...

Great mi...

... skip that.

Estrid said:

It is impossible for anyone with intellectual integrity to claim there was a noah- flood.

Click to expand...

Well I'll put my integrity on the line in Hong Kong and say there was a Noah flood.

dlamberth said:

As no geological evidence of Noah's flood can be found..

Click to expand...

I wonder why?

T.i.m.o.t.h.y. said:

The problem is not a lack of evidence. The problem is whether or not people acknowledge it as evidence.

Click to expand...

Your wrong. There is no evidence. It just simply does not exist. We're talking about a world wide flood. That's something that would be impossible to hide. There's a whole field of science around floods and the geology of floods. If a global flood actually happened, it would be known.

T.i.m.o.t.h.y. said:

That is what I mean. The flood of Noah is only acknowledged in terms that atheists are comfortable to address it. They steal the true cause and reassign it to an evolutionary occurrence.

Click to expand...

I'm not an atheist. But I do not adhere to stories of an ancient middle-eastern tribe.

dlamberth said:

Your wrong. There is no evidence. It just simply does not exist. We're talking about a world wide flood. That's something that would be impossible to hide. There's a whole field of science around floods and the geology of floods. If a global flood actually happened, it would be known.

I'm not an atheist. But I do not adhere to stories of an ancient middle-eastern tribe.

Click to expand...

Or make things up. Like the whole last
paragraph of post you refer to.

he way some creationists just say
things with no trace of integrity
or conscience is a disgrace to any
religion, and each of them personally.

T.i.m.o.t.h.y. said:

You mentioned the Epic of Gilgamesh. I stated that it is similar to the recountings of many cultures of a global flood.

I did not use any of them as an example of historical archeology. I used creation science archeology for validity of Genesis.

I have been continuous througout that the creation scientist archeology has found evidence for a global flood as the Bible states it.

Click to expand...

What is "creation science archeology"? I've never heard of it. Usually the "creation scientists" are busy faking biology.

Estrid said:

The way some creationists just say things with no trace of integrity or conscience is a disgrace to any religion, and each of them personally.

Click to expand...

Speaking of making things up without integrity, didn't you say you would convert if Pi was researched out to the hundred trillionth place?

Well it's been calculated to the 105 trillionth digit.

Time to convert.

Hans Blaster said:

Usually the "creation scientists" are busy faking biology.

Click to expand...

What's a creation scientist?