Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
There were no rainbows before the flood. Other than no rain can you explain how there were no rainbows?YEC, trying to extend the Garden conditions to the post-fall world generally.
Rain is not flooding. And of course, floods had always happened, and continue to happen.
The Bible doesn't say that. That's an addition men put into scripture to make it more acceptable to them.There were no rainbows before the flood.
Job 37:18I have no idea what a solid dome is? I've never read that in the Bible.
Here are 2 things that you do NOT know.
1. Did people live to be 1000 years old before the Flood?
2. There was no rain before the flood?
If either (or both) of these are true...then you really have no idea about possible differences about the atmosphere before the flood
Here is what the Bible says.The Bible doesn't say that. That's an addition men put into scripture to make it more acceptable to them.
It's a natural phenomenon. YECs claim that God is unable to use a natural phenomenon as a sign. But they are wrong.
That's not what the Bible says:There were no rainbows before the flood.
No. All scientific data shows the earth to be a lot older than that. Yeah, I know, you don't like science. But you don't like Scripture much either, when it says that a "day" in God's God's reckoning is incomparably longer than an earthly solar day. "1000 years is as a watch in the night", and "1000 years is as a day, and a day is as 1000 years". You just waive that Scripture of because it doesn't suit your doctrine. You also don't accept the Genesis account as to when The Sun, or any "sun", for that matter, is created. You just make up your own fictional "pre sun" to make your rubbish doctrine "work".thats your argument for not taking the 6 days of Creation literally?
One of your "days" or one of God's days? They'ew obviously not the same thing.Yes and Adam would have taken longer than a day to be a fully grown adult.
Gravity is just a theory, innit? THerefore it doesn't count. Right? <Laugh>I'm sorry - and how does "gravity" affect Scripture.
Nah, that's gravity, and gravity is merely a theory. That's your understanding of "science" isn't it?When let go of an object in my hand - it will drop....that is a fact.
Therefore gravity may be safely ignored, right?The theory is we don't know for a fact why that happens.
Nope, I'm talkuing about the fictional "sun" you made up to provide "evenings and mornings" before the real aun was created.Are you referring to the "light" that I made up that God saw in Genesis 1:4?
That's good. Now, what constitutes an "evening" or a "morning"? The existence of light somewhere, or the earths position in relation to the sun? (BTW, I expect yet another bit of creative cosmology at this point, <Laugh>)4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
No, it's [pointing out your hypocrisy in demanding that Genesis must be taken literally despite both scientific and scriptural evidence that is is not, yet dismissing our Lord's own Words in the instution of the Holy Communion as merely metaphorical. It's rather like discarding the cornflakes and eating the box.thats your argument for not taking the 6 days of Creation literally?
A solar day, yes, obviously. But oncde again, how long do Moses and St. Peter tell is one of God's "Days" Lokks like, once again you're hoist on your own petardYes and Adam would have taken longer than a day to be a fully grown adult.
It doesn't. It's Just A Scripture, right? And therefore of no significance. <Laugh>I'm sorry - and how does "gravity" affect Scripture.
So there's theories you like, and theories yiu don't like. How very scientific! <ROFL>When let go of an object in my hand - it will drop....that is a fact. The theory is we don't know for a fact why that happens.
No, I'm refering to the "light source" you invented about 20 posts back. The one you ned to make evenings and mornings when there's no sun.Are you referring to the "light" that I made up that God saw in Genesis 1:4?
Tweren't no sun yet, though, was there? Just some more rubbish you have to invent to plug hols in your hand wrought doctrine.4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
We do agree that there was light before the sun and there was also an evening and a morning.No, it's [pointing out your hypocrisy in demanding that Genesis must be taken literally despite both scientific and scriptural evidence that is is not, yet dismissing our Lord's own Words in the instution of the Holy Communion as merely metaphorical. It's rather like discarding the cornflakes and eating the box.
A solar day, yes, obviously. But oncde again, how long do Moses and St. Peter tell is one of God's "Days" Lokks like, once again you're hoist on your own petard
It doesn't. It's Just A Scripture, right? And therefore of no significance. <Laugh>
So there's theories you like, and theories yiu don't like. How very scientific! <ROFL>
No, I'm refering to the "light source" you invented about 20 posts back. The one you ned to make evenings and mornings when there's no sun.
Tweren't no sun yet, though, was there? Just some more rubbish you have to invent to plug hols in your hand wrought doctrine.
If that was true, moonrise would be morning. If one has to redefine words to make an argument work, that's pretty good evidence that the argument is false.We do agree that there was light before the sun and there was also an evening and a morning.
A light source and a rotating earth is what you need to produce an evening and a morning
I’m not sure of your education level, so don’t be offended by what I’m gonna say next. But you do realize that while we do get light from the moon, the actual light source of the moon is the sun.If that was true, moonrise would be morning. If one has to redefine words to make an argument work, that's pretty good evidence that the argument is false.
No, we do not, Yes, light before the sun. No, no evenings and mornings before the sun. You don't know what evening and morning mean, right?We do agree that there was light before the sun and there was also an evening and a morning.
Oh, a light source. Sure, which one would that be? No sun yet... hmmm... Oh, it must be the one that you invented a few posts back, the one never mentioned in the Scripture you're so very Sola about.A light source and a rotating earth is what you need to produce an evening and a morning
That may not be a game you really want to play.I’m not sure of your education level
Then replace the moon with a lightning bug, or a jar of lightning bugs. I mean, as long as we're entertaining different undefined "light sources" that you feel free to create ad hoc, why not?so don’t be offended by what I’m gonna say next. But you do realize that while we do get light from the moon, the actual light source of the moon is the sun.
The Bible says that the moon is a source of light. So now, you want to deny scripture and play science? Technically, in engineering, the moon is also a light source.I’m not sure of your education level, so don’t be offended by what I’m gonna say next. But you do realize that while we do get light from the moon, the actual light source of the moon is the sun.
That may not be a game you really want to play.
3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.No, we do not, Yes, light before the sun. No, no evenings and mornings before the sun. You don't know what evening and morning mean, right?
Oh, a light source. Sure, which one would that be? No sun yet... hmmm... Oh, it must be the one that you invented a few posts back, the one never mentioned in the Scripture you're so very Sola about.
This is why we know the creation story is figurative. By definition, there can be no mornings or evenings without a sun to have them. Scripture itself denies YEC.And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
AI OverviewThe Bible says that the moon is a source of light. So now, you want to deny scripture and play science? Technically, in engineering, the moon is also a light source.
AI Overview
Here are 20 sources of light, a mix of natural and artificial examples: Sun, stars, firefly (bioluminescence), lightning, fire, candle, lamp, light bulb (incandescent), LED (light-emitting diode), fluorescent light, laser, torch, glow stick (chemiluminescence), match, flashlight, neon sign, TV screen, phone screen, and the moon (reflection)
There's really no way to make your beliefs fit scripture.
Broken record award, mate. What was the light source pre-sun? Yeah, light already existed, but evenings and mornings aren’t caused by the existence of light, are they? It’s intellectually pathetic stuff like this that’s pushing literate people away from dumb head evangelicalism.3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
Actually the one God invented in verse 3
Actually yes - the existence of light (single light source) and a rotating Earth.but evenings and mornings aren’t caused by the existence of light, are they?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?