A 24hr day? or 24 billion years = a day?

[Cis.jd]

.
Observation of what exactly, the world as it is today? The world has changed radically. What you see now is not what you saw then, you may as well be on a different planet.
No one can go back and observe anything about how God created or how the world acted then, that's the whole point, its completely non observable.

I already shared the main Radioactive dating assumptions on here numerous times.
Its not me that called them assumptions first, they did. Secular sites.

So which is it, are these assumptions or not? In fact I found more.

• That the atmosphere has had the same (all instead of Carbon 14) concentration in the past as now.
  
• That the production of parent isotopes has been constant.
  
• That the original ratio and amounts of the isotope in the fossil or rock is known. This is based on current processes and assumes the rate of absorption was the same in the past.
  
• That the decay rate is constant. Many things are known to affect decay rates.
  
• That no contamination has occurred.
  
• That no daughter (stable) element was originally in the fossil.
  
• That the decay rate was determined accurately. Decay rates are constantly being modified and criticized.
  
• That the only loss of the isotope is due to the decay process.

Either these are or are not assumptions.

Again the Cambridge dictionary defines the word assumption as:
something that you accept as true without question or proof.


Oh yes they do. The earth has a 24 hour day no matter where you are on it.
And lets say their day really is 5 minutes in fluctuation that would again be another symptom of the corruption. There was no Alaska so talking about it and creations makes no sense. The global flood is what caused separate continents the world at creation was one land mass.



No, that's scripture. God says he created over 6 days and that there was no death before sin.
I am still waiting to see any scripture that supports the claim of 'God used evolution.'



No, because there was no death before sin. You can't have evolution for 6 million years and no death occurring along with it.

All you fall back on is science like science is the holy grail and again I will point out the assumptions that science is built upon of a time that no one can observe. If it can't be observed then its faith.

Do you even understand the creation model?

Firstly when God created there was no one here to survive. God could have created matter outside of time, he could have bent time he could have done all kinds of things to it. Matter could have gone through a range of changes. This alone could throw off any and all testing methods as maybe none of it even has an age that can be measured. If we could even see the universe before life was created and sample it, maybe it would come back as young, ancient, without time and even all three.

Then God created life. This life was perfect, all life was beneficial, all life consumed plants, all life was immortal.
God then created mankind and placed him into that world, man also only ate plants and the water under the ground came up to water the surface.
Eden was a taste of the second world planned at the end. The Old Testament is a shadow on the new and of things to come in the future. The lion will lie with the lamb because they once did and they will do so again after God remakes the world with fire.

2 Peter 3
5 But they deliberately forget that long ago by God’s word the heavens came into being and the earth was formed out of water and by water. 6 By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed. 7 By the same word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly.

Man sinned and died spiritually, God pronounced a curse and all the world fell. Death became a part of life as nothing was immortal any longer. This is why God said "Because of what you did- from dust you were made and to dust you will return"
The curse wasn't just spiritual death it was physical death.
The ground became hard to work, it produced thorns, all life changed, what once was beneficial now became harmful. What once ate plants now began to kill and eat meat.

Some hundreds of years later God wiped off the face of the world all life with a global flood. He brought down the vapor blanket that had surrounded the earth which had been like a greenhouse. He opened the crust which poured forth water and also volcanoes rose up and erupted putting ash into the atmosphere. He reshaped the earth causing low valleys and mountains to rise. Continents were created. After the flood the ash in the now open atmosphere without the firmament caused an ice age.
Into this world God told mankind he could now eat meat and that fear of man would come upon the animals. This is why man's age dropped and the animals age dropped. No longer did they have long life spans were they could grow to huge sizes in a glasshouse environment. Many animals became extinct in this new harsh climate. Food was scarce and man was now hunting them. It's no mystery why dinosaurs became extinct. Dinosaur eggs and young would have been at the top of the list of creatures to kill and eat.

Once the ice age had finished mankind and animals still had a very different world from the old one. The firmament was gone leaving the world open to the sun, to space radiation.

God would never look at creation and call it very good if death were a part of it. Scripture says that death came in with mans sin, that death is Gods enemy and that death will be done away with at the end. After that once more the world will be perfect, immortal and without death as it once was.
Evolution, survival of the fittest, death, decay, none of this fits into this world view in any way shape or form.

What I find funny about you is that you go off about every science that doesn't match your beliefs in Genesis to be assumptions yet this whole wall of text is all assumptions of yours to your views.

"God could have created matter outside of time, he could have bent time he could have done all kinds of things to it."

These are assumptions. It's you trying to fill the gaps of things not in scripture so you can make sense of it.

Who told you there was no Alaska during that time, where is the proof of anything you just claimed happened/developed after the flood? You are assuming these things.

You go off about how you have yet to see scriptural evidence of evolution, yet you are going "God could have done this.." in your arguments. The hypocrisy.

Oh yes they do. The earth has a 24 hour day no matter where you are on it.
And lets say their day really is 5 minutes in fluctuation that would again be another symptom of the corruption. There was no Alaska so talking about it and creations makes no sense. The global flood is what caused separate continents the world at creation was one land mass.

But the Bible doesn't say a day is 24 hours, it just defines a day by morning and evening. You know it to be 24 hours because of science. So by this description, from the Bible, there would be a problem for a specific day for countries such as Alaska in where sunlight and darkness are each 24 hours long during a season.

Why is it that you and people like you who claim "God used evolution" The only area you ever bring up is Genesis like its the be all and end all of scripture talking about creation and no sin before death. This subject matter is woven throughout all of scripture.

Because Genesis is the main source for people like you who believe the 6 day literal day creation belief and think that "if it's not in there or similar to it then it's not true (i.e. evolution).
You even brought the assumption of a different world being made from the current one. If this assumption of yours is true, then obviously evolution wouldn't be in it because this isn't the same earth and there would be no need for species to evolve to adapt and survive nature.

We do not need scripture to confirm evolution or anything discovered in science because scripture isn't about revealing the natural world. You believe in planets like Jupiter to exist, yet the Bible doesn't say so. You believe a day is 24 hours long, yet that isn't in scripture, you know the moon isn't a star or a ball composed of light, but the Bible describes it to be one.

The Bible doesn't mention evolution, but we know it's true. I can go on about the evidence, but you'll just blindly reject them because you do not want to accept anything in opposition to your religious ideals. I gave you a question about certain physical features in humans and animals, so you can think as to how its even logically/rationally imaginable yet you ignored that.

 

[coffee4u]

In Genesis 1:20-23, God creates sea creatures and flying creatures and tells them to multiply through procreation. If the oceans were filled on the fifth day, then the fifth day was not 24 hours.

Genesis 1
20 Then God said, “Let the waters abound with an abundance of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the face of the firmament of the heavens.” 21 So God created great sea creatures and every living thing that moves, with which the waters abounded, according to their kind, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 And God blessed them, saying, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth.” 23 So the evening and the morning were the fifth day.

God created the swimming and flying creatures on day five. All we can know is that the creatures were in abundance. The order to procreate was given at the end of day five, this order is still ongoing. The order to procreate had no connection to being created on day five. To the start or end of day five, no connection at all.

Likewise he commands animals (which the Land/Earth produces, God just "lets" it happen) and humans to fill the Earth through reproduction. It didn't happen in 24 hours.

No where does it say all procreation was to take place on the day they were created. This is an ongoing order to every part of creation to carry on creating for as long as the earth exists.

You are trying to draw some conclusion about procreation and the day of creation when none exists.

Also, in Genesis 1:5 God calls the "light" day and the darkeness night. In this passage, He refers to a day as about 12 hours. [/QUOTE]

A day is 24 hours long from whatever point on the clock it starts.
For us that is 12:01 midnight to the next Midnight. For the ancient Israelite's that was 6pm on one night to 6pm the next night. Whether it is appears to be daytime or nighttime to the human eye is not part of it. It doesn't have to be daylight to be daytime nor does it have to be dark to be nighttime.

On top of all that, according to verse 1 and 2, the universe, and the Earth already existed before these "Days" begin. Genesis 1:3-31 are events of God terraforming the Earth for life, and letting the Earth produce life. He intervenes at the creation of man and makes them Himself in his image.

The earth and the universe did not pre-exist. While Genesis could by itself be taken as connected or apart, Exodus answers that question so there is no ambiguity.
Exodus 20

20 And God spoke all these words:
11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.
The creation of the heavens and earth are all included within the 6 days.

 

[coffee4u]

What I find funny about you is that you go off about every science that doesn't match your beliefs in Genesis to be assumptions yet this whole wall of text is all assumptions of yours to your views.

"God could have created matter outside of time, he could have bent time he could have done all kinds of things to it."

These are assumptions. It's you trying to fill the gaps of things not in scripture so you can make sense of it.

You missed the point, the reason I said that is because all any human being has about how God created and how the earth was before God created life are assumptions.

Because I am a human being I can't possibly know what God did to matter or how he created it. Every scientist is also just a human being, who also don't know because they also weren't there. That's the entire point.
Their assumptions may be different to mine but they are still just man made assumptions.

Who told you there was no Alaska during that time, where is the proof of anything you just claimed happened/developed after the flood? You are assuming these things.

The world was created as one land mass. Even secular sources agree that there was one and they named it Pangea. Of course they say this was about 300 million years ago and we say it was at creation some thousands of years ago.

Genesis 1:9–10
9 And God said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.” And it was so.
There was one big land mass and one big ocean.

Ground was watered from under ground
Genesis 2:6
but streams came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground.

God divided the waters into a gathering above and below the crust. Genesis 1:6-8
At the flood the water in the firmament came down while the water under the earth came up.
Genesis 7
11 In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, on the seventeenth day of the second month—on that day all the springs of the great deep burst forth, and the floodgates of the heavens were opened. 12 And rain fell on the earth forty days and forty nights.

Psalm 104:6–9 The mountains rose, the valleys sank down to the place which You established for them.

Man was given meat as food
Genesis 9
3 Everything that lives and moves about will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything.

You go off about how you have yet to see scriptural evidence of evolution, yet you are going "God could have done this.." in your arguments. The hypocrisy.

I was giving an example of how I as a human being was not there to see so all I have are assumptions and all they have are assumptions. All anybody can know as a fact is what God said.

Exodus 20

20 And God spoke all these words:
11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.
That is not an assumption. Creation took 6 days.

You are here on the Christian board saying the Bible should be interpreted some other way, so show some of the verses indicating that.
Why am I the only one supplying Bible verses? We know why, its because your argument has nothing to do with scripture.

But the Bible doesn't say a day is 24 hours, it just defines a day by morning and evening. You know it to be 24 hours because of science. So by this description, from the Bible, there would be a problem for a specific day for countries such as Alaska in where sunlight and darkness are each 24 hours long during a season.

Again with Alaska, Alaska wasn't there.
There are many reasons to believe each day was a regular day from how the text is constructed.

Yom's appearance with the defining phrase, "morning and evening"

Yom's Sabbath Day usage in Exodus 20:9-11

Yom with the numbers (the first Day, the second Day etc)

"It was so" and "And God saw" indicates immediacy, not a delay of 1000s, millions, or billions of years

There is no "like" or "as" used as a simile to indicate it meant anything else.

No other scripture indicates it is meant to be read as an allegory or in any other way then exactly as written.

Adam created on day 6 dies 930 years later which if day 6 really meant a million or a thousand years would be impossible. At the very most you could make a case for each day being 930 years which would not help out with evolution in anyway. Evolution requires millions not thousands.

Death was not a part of life, it came into existence due to man's sin. Death is God's enemy, it will be destroyed. God would not use his enemy in creation nor call something that had died "very good". God says death will go into the lake of fire, that's as strong as judgment as there is.

Isaiah 25:8
He will swallow up death for all time,

1 Corinthians 15:26
The last enemy that will be abolished is death.

Revelation 20:14
Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire.

Revelation 21:4
and He will wipe away every tear from their eyes; and there will no longer be any death;

You can believe whatever science you want, believe in millions of years of life and death, but it has nothing to do with scripture and scripture does not indicate it should ever be read that way.

[Because Genesis is the main source for people like you who believe the 6 day literal day creation belief and think that "if it's not in there or similar to it then it's not true (i.e. evolution).
You even brought the assumption of a different world being made from the current one. If this assumption of yours is true, then obviously evolution wouldn't be in it because this isn't the same earth and there would be no need for species to evolve to adapt and survive nature.

Genesis outlines the days and is certainly an important part of it but we believe it is literal because of far more than just Genesis. It was treated as literal by Jesus, Paul and Peter.
There are no other verses indicating it is meant to be read in any other way.

It's the same earth but it's completely changed and corrupted. Nothing we see now tells us much of anything about how it was at creation. Looking at a pack of wolves today tells us nothing about how a wolf would lie with a lamb and chew hay like a cow.

If a secular scientist can make claims about the rate of decay 4 billions years ago (not proven not testable) this is no different to a creation scientist making a claim for something like an ice age occurring after the flood. They have used scripture hints such as the fountains of the deep erupting and evidence that they can find. Enough ash in the atmosphere could create an ice age. Also its not like secular science doesn't believe in an ice age, they believe in many, we believe in just one. obviously there is some evidence of an ice age for both sides to believe there was one/many.

I am not a creation scientist, I am a scriptural creationist because as much as I believe creation science has some good points, they, like secular scientists only have the world as it is now to work with.

We do not need scripture to confirm evolution or anything discovered in science because scripture isn't about revealing the natural world. You believe in planets like Jupiter to exist, yet the Bible doesn't say so. You believe a day is 24 hours long, yet that isn't in scripture, you know the moon isn't a star or a ball composed of light, but the Bible describes it to be one.

The Bible doesn't mention evolution, but we know it's true. I can go on about the evidence, but you'll just blindly reject them because you do not want to accept anything in opposition to your religious ideals. I gave you a question about certain physical features in humans and animals, so you can think as to how its even logically/rationally imaginable yet you ignored that.

>>>I gave you a question about certain physical features in humans and animals
Didn't notice, what question was that?

Scripture is either true or it is not. It claims to be Gods breathed word, again it either is or it isn't no in between. If God says he created in 6 days that is good enough for me. It also fits in with everything the Bible has to say about creation, sin and death and how the world will end and be remade.

I believe in planets because scripture doesn't say they don't exist and we have pictures, so I assume they exist. Believing that Jupiter is there does not destroy a vital doctrine of no sin before death. It's not a strong belief though if it turns out not to be is also no worry of mine.
I feel the same way about the flat earth, I do believe the earth is round because I have seen no scripture teaching that it is flat. Some scripture indicates the people who lived at that time thought it was possibly flat but nowhere does God teach "The world is flat".
If he did I would also be a flat earth believer but nothing they use is clear literal scripture.

I disagree with anything that teaches contrary to scripture, anything that tries to destroy no death before sin. How sin came to be, what sin caused, the answer to sin and the ultimate judgment of sin is part of the Gospel. Evolution is a different gospel.

You tell me how evolution fits in with no death before sin. Something you keep avoiding answering or acknowledging.

No you can't know its true you were not there to see dinosaurs turn into birds or apes into man. You take it on faith because secular science says it occurred, who in turn base it on unproven assumptions.

 

[Justaman0000]

Genesis 1
20 Then God said, “Let the waters abound with an abundance of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the face of the firmament of the heavens.” 21 So God created great sea creatures and every living thing that moves, with which the waters abounded, according to their kind, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 And God blessed them, saying, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth.” 23 So the evening and the morning were the fifth day.

God created the swimming and flying creatures on day five. All we can know is that the creatures were in abundance. The order to procreate was given at the end of day five, this order is still ongoing. The order to procreate had no connection to being created on day five. To the start or end of day five, no connection at all.




No where does it say all procreation was to take place on the day they were created. This is an ongoing order to every part of creation to carry on creating for as long as the earth exists.

You are trying to draw some conclusion about procreation and the day of creation when none exists.

Also, in Genesis 1:5 God calls the "light" day and the darkeness night. In this passage, He refers to a day as about 12 hours.

A day is 24 hours long from whatever point on the clock it starts.
For us that is 12:01 midnight to the next Midnight. For the ancient Israelite's that was 6pm on one night to 6pm the next night. Whether it is appears to be daytime or nighttime to the human eye is not part of it. It doesn't have to be daylight to be daytime nor does it have to be dark to be nighttime.



The earth and the universe did not pre-exist. While Genesis could by itself be taken as connected or apart, Exodus answers that question so there is no ambiguity.
Exodus 20

20 And God spoke all these words:
11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.
The creation of the heavens and earth are all included within the 6 days.[/QUOTE]

The passages insinuates such things. It's pretty clear about it.

"20And God said, “Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the vault of the sky.”

Teem: be full of or swarming with.
The Hebrew word used is saras meaning

1. (Qal) to teem, swarm, abundant multitude.

According ti the passage, before the day was over, God let the oceans be abundantly filled with sea creature. They did so through procreation.
An eternal and timeless being wouldn't need to rush to create everything in 6 days. He "let" the land produce vegetation, he "let" the waters teem with life, and he "let" the land produce animals. It looks like God let fhe Earth create life, which sounds like planted, and guided evolution to me, which didn't take 24 hours. Which we also have evidence of. Even if the text is refering to a yom as 24 hours, with a 7 day creation, it's because its was a hyperbole that was to be synonymous with the already existing 7 day week.
Tell me how the spirit of God was hovering over the face of the deep of Earth of it didn't even exist yet? We have scientific evidence of the progression of the universe, and a species, and people still think God created everything in 6 days, when it doesn't really say that. There is no way around verse 1 & 2. The unicerse and the Earth already existed before the days/periods even begin. Yom is used in many different ways and doesn't always mean 24 hours. Genesis 1:5 is clear that the period of daylight (about 12 hours) was called a day (yom). There is no way spin it. The "and there was evening and there was morning" is the ending of one period and the beginning of the next.

 

[Cis.jd]

Genesis outlines the days and is certainly an important part of it but we believe it is literal because of far more than just Genesis. It was treated as literal by Jesus, Paul and Peter.
There are no other verses indicating it is meant to be read in any other way.

It's the same earth but it's completely changed and corrupted. Nothing we see now tells us much of anything about how it was at creation. Looking at a pack of wolves today tells us nothing about how a wolf would lie with a lamb and chew hay like a cow.

But at the same time, Genesis doesn't say a day is 24 hours long, it describes the moon to be the same as the sun and stars (created the same time and the same way), it doesn't tell you about the other planets who all have different durations for their day. Just by logical sense and knowledge you know about the universe you can't take it literally.

If a secular scientist can make claims about the rate of decay 4 billions years ago (not proven not testable) this is no different to a creation scientist making a claim for something like an ice age occurring after the flood. They have used scripture hints such as the fountains of the deep erupting and evidence that they can find. Enough ash in the atmosphere could create an ice age. Also its not like secular science doesn't believe in an ice age, they believe in many, we believe in just one. obviously there is some evidence of an ice age for both sides to believe there was one/many.

I am not a creation scientist, I am a scriptural creationist because as much as I believe creation science has some good points, they, like secular scientists only have the world as it is now to work with.

>>>I gave you a question about certain physical features in humans and animals
Didn't notice, what question was that?

Scripture is either true or it is not. It claims to be Gods breathed word, again it either is or it isn't no in between. If God says he created in 6 days that is good enough for me. It also fits in with everything the Bible has to say about creation, sin and death and how the world will end and be remade.

So in other words, if it aligns to your views of the Bible then "its evidence", and you have all prerogative to start making your own assumptions and denounce everything else regardless of actual evidence to support their side? You just made a whole text describing your religious bias and your unacceptance of anything differed from it. You don't care what is presented, you'll just blindly be condescending to it.

Scripture is God breathed but its existence is for a specific purpose. God did not inspire man to write scripture to teach the natural word so you should stop putting it on the spot to be an authority source for it. This is a lie and trick the devil has made so that Christians can present christianity as a big bag of falsely uneducated statements so that others around would have every reason not to believe it.

If someone came to you and started saying the moon is a big ball of energy and it omits its own light because "my religion says so". You'd know that is wrong, you'd know just by that teaching that this persons religion is completely false. This is the same thing a non christian is going to think from you who denies scientific evidence against his views.

I believe in planets because scripture doesn't say they don't exist and we have pictures, so I assume they exist. Believing that Jupiter is there does not destroy a vital doctrine of no sin before death. It's not a strong belief though if it turns out not to be is also no worry of mine.
I feel the same way about the flat earth, I do believe the earth is round because I have seen no scripture teaching that it is flat. Some scripture indicates the people who lived at that time thought it was possibly flat but nowhere does God teach "The world is flat".
If he did I would also be a flat earth believer but nothing they use is clear literal scripture.

See, more intellectual hypocrisy.
Scripture doesn't teach evolution, just like it doesn't teach about the other planets or the earth being round, at the same time, it doesn't effect the validity of scripture at all, it infact makes God look more real. Yet you reject that.

You tell me how evolution fits in with no death before sin. Something you keep avoiding answering or acknowledging.

Because evolution happened after the fall, and just like with the planets there was no need to reference it, or Moses just didn't know the facts about the natural universe.
Now, let me return this question to you/against you.

I asked you before our canines are used to tear flesh.. do you think we'd have that back then?

How about Lions, their natural build is all conveniently designed for fighting. What about animals with poisonous skin, spikes, camouflage, and other features and physical traits that help them eat or prevent being eaten? You think any of that would initially be designed in animals if there was no death?

 

[miamited]

There is a reasonably logical answer to the age of the earth conundrum. If we reread Genesis 1:2 as "became" instead of "was" it makes more sense. The text allows it. The word translated "was" is the same as the word used of Lot's wife. She did not start out a pillar of salt.

If we look at the formless and void earth as the state it was in because of God's judgement, we can see that the rest of the Genesis account is restoration of the earth, not the initial creation. So this allows for a planet much older than the estimated 6,000 years so.

Why would God judge the original creation? It could well be because Satan was originally ruler of the earth, appointed by God, prior to his proud rebellion. The pre-Adam creation perished in a world wide flood that preceded Noah's flood. This may explain the Cambrian period fossils.

It's a theory and it comes in and out of favour from time to time. Some early Christians believed it. Watchman Nee in the early 20th century also taught this. It makes sense to me and proposes answers to a lot of questions that YEC cannot.

Hi @Aussie Pete

All very good sounding and if we close the Scriptures at the end of the Genesis passage, then we're all good. But...

There's the little sticky issue of the law. In the law, according to the Scriptures written on the tablets of stone by the very finger of God, we read: For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day.

According to the simple reading of the law, the six days included the making of the earth, the heavens and all that is in them.

God bless,
Ted

 

[Aussie Pete]

Hi @Aussie Pete

All very good sounding and if we close the Scriptures at the end of the Genesis passage, then we're all good. But...

There's the little sticky issue of the law. In the law, according to the Scriptures written on the tablets of stone by the very finger of God, we read: For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day.

According to the simple reading of the law, the six days included the making of the earth, the heavens and all that is in them.

God bless,
Ted

I will not argue the point. It's not an issue worth fighting over.

 

[coffee4u]

A day is 24 hours long from whatever point on the clock it starts.
For us that is 12:01 midnight to the next Midnight. For the ancient Israelite's that was 6pm on one night to 6pm the next night. Whether it is appears to be daytime or nighttime to the human eye is not part of it. It doesn't have to be daylight to be daytime nor does it have to be dark to be nighttime.



The earth and the universe did not pre-exist. While Genesis could by itself be taken as connected or apart, Exodus answers that question so there is no ambiguity.
Exodus 20

20 And God spoke all these words:
11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.
The creation of the heavens and earth are all included within the 6 days.

The passages insinuates such things. It's pretty clear about it.

"20And God said, “Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the vault of the sky.”

Teem: be full of or swarming with.
The Hebrew word used is saras meaning

1. (Qal) to teem, swarm, abundant multitude.

According ti the passage, before the day was over, God let the oceans be abundantly filled with sea creature. They did so through procreation.
An eternal and timeless being wouldn't need to rush to create everything in 6 days. He "let" the land produce vegetation, he "let" the waters teem with life, and he "let" the land produce animals. It looks like God let fhe Earth create life, which sounds like planted, and guided evolution to me, which didn't take 24 hours. Which we also have evidence of. Even if the text is refering to a yom as 24 hours, with a 7 day creation, it's because its was a hyperbole that was to be synonymous with the already existing 7 day week.
Tell me how the spirit of God was hovering over the face of the deep of Earth of it didn't even exist yet? We have scientific evidence of the progression of the universe, and a species, and people still think God created everything in 6 days, when it doesn't really say that. There is no way around verse 1 & 2. The unicerse and the Earth already existed before the days/periods even begin. Yom is used in many different ways and doesn't always mean 24 hours. Genesis 1:5 is clear that the period of daylight (about 12 hours) was called a day (yom). There is no way spin it. The "and there was evening and there was morning" is the ending of one period and the beginning of the next.

Your post has messed up quotes.

The ocean did not become full by procreation. The ocean teamed with life because God commanded it and it was so. To this teaming ocean he then ordered them to procreate and to fill it even more than he already had. This order still stands thousands of years later. There is nothing to indicate each day was anything more then an ordinary day.

God took 6 days for us, not for himself. This is why he told the ancient Israelite's, 6 days to work and one to rest, he was giving mankind an example of the week.


God tells us very clearly that that the universe and earth are included in that 6 days. Those are Gods words.
20 And God spoke all these words:
11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.
To deny Exodus is to deny God's word to us.

Yom can mean other things but it never means anything else when written this way.
The meaning of yôm in Genesis - creation.com

 

[coffee4u]

But at the same time, Genesis doesn't say a day is 24 hours long, it describes the moon to be the same as the sun and stars (created the same time and the same way), it doesn't tell you about the other planets who all have different durations for their day. Just by logical sense and knowledge you know about the universe you can't take it literally.

I can and I do.
You are free to go off and believe secular science all you want, yet you choose to argue with me, perhaps you are not as convinced as you think.

So in other words, if it aligns to your views of the Bible then "its evidence", and you have all prerogative to start making your own assumptions and denounce everything else regardless of actual evidence to support their side? You just made a whole text describing your religious bias and your unacceptance of anything differed from it. You don't care what is presented, you'll just blindly be condescending to it.

20 And God spoke all these words:
11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.
Those are God's words to us.
Explain exactly how reading that and saying God created over 6 days is 'my view'?
What did I change?
Did I twist that scripture in anyway? Please point out where I did.

You are the one making claims that scripture says something else, not me.

I don't care what evidence that you think you have, its built upon assumptions as I have said a dozen times. So no I think not only is it built on sand made and shaped by man but the words of Satan.
Nor have you seen and witnessed a dinosaur turn into a bird, an ape into a man, nor any animal turn into anything else for that matter.

Scripture is God breathed but its existence is for a specific purpose. God did not inspire man to write scripture to teach the natural word so you should stop putting it on the spot to be an authority source for it. This is a lie and trick the devil has made so that Christians can present christianity as a big bag of falsely uneducated statements so that others around would have every reason not to believe it.

You say that then you ignore what it says. Evolution contradicts scripture at every turn.
Yet you claim that actually reading scripture and believing what is says is a trick of the devil, wow.

If someone came to you and started saying the moon is a big ball of energy and it omits its own light because "my religion says so". You'd know that is wrong, you'd know just by that teaching that this persons religion is completely false. This is the same thing a non christian is going to think from you who denies scientific evidence against his views.

The moon gives light because God wanted it to do that. It does that by reflecting, so what? Nothing in saying that contradicts scripture.

See, more intellectual hypocrisy.
Scripture doesn't teach evolution, just like it doesn't teach about the other planets or the earth being round, at the same time, it doesn't effect the validity of scripture at all, it infact makes God look more real. Yet you reject that.

I don't hold any strong views on the shape of the earth and I took seriously the list of scripture a couple of flat earthers on here showed me. Unlike you I did not laugh and toss it aside. As a litralist I take such things seriously.
I went over them to see what evidence they had. But you can't build a doctrine just on poetry or on ambiguous verses such as using a measuring rod. I am 99% sure the earth is actually round, but I still leave that 1% chance of it being flat.

And because scripture doesn't teach about planets you won't see me teaching from scripture about them. I don't care about them or give them much thought unless someone like you brings them up.

I don't even know where you are going or what you are trying to achieve. You think a creationist can't view bicarb and vinegar bubbling and say "It reacts" without being a hypocrite?
There is nothing wrong in repeatable science, real science of things that can be tested, repeated and observed. Not things assumed about the start of the world that you can't see, can't repeat and can't test.

Because evolution happened after the fall, and just like with the planets there was no need to reference it, or Moses just didn't know the facts about the natural universe.
Now, let me return this question to you/against you.

There was no evolution. One type of animals did not gradually turn into another along branching lines like those diagrams show. Again a drawing, an assumption done by someone who wasn't there and doesn't know.

God said he created kinds. Kinds did not cross over and change into other kinds. They adapted, they died, some flourished, some became isolated with the continents splitting.
This isn't evolution its adaptation. The only thing that happened was loss of DNA information as creatures died out and mutations of various birth defects.

I asked you before our canines are used to tear flesh.. do you think we'd have that back then?

Scripture doesn't say.
We probably still had them. Our teeth do not stop people from being vegetarian or vegan if they so choose. Fruit bats still have sharp teeth and the only thing they tear into is fruit. Sharp teeth do not prove that a creature is a carnivore. They can also be used to tear into other things like bark, thick plant skin etc.

Or maybe our teeth changed, but I doubt that since God didn't allow man to eat meat until he told Noah it was now allowed some hundreds of years later. if our teeth had changed with the fall to eat meat then why did God not allow it until Noah came off the ark? I think it was due to radical climate change and a need for more energy.

How about Lions, their natural build is all conveniently designed for fighting. What about animals with poisonous skin, spikes, camouflage, and other features and physical traits that help them eat or prevent being eaten? You think any of that would initially be designed in animals if there was no death?

They are now. I don't believe these things were that way at creation. Everything at that stage was "very good" There is nothing very good about blood shed, death or poison. Either creatures had the same structures but somehow they worked differently or some structures changed.

Even things that are deadly now are not deadly or harmful to everything.
For example the Funnel Web spider is a deadly spider here, it can kill a human being in 15 minutes, yet cats and dogs can eat it unharmed.
A female polar bear is extremely caring and protective of its young but attacks on humans are nearly always fatal. If an animals behavior can change like that between its young and humans or being deadly to harmless then this could be a glimpse into how they were in the beginning and how things changed.

Also no death before sin only relates to creatures that God counts as life. Biblical life is not the same as what we define life. Scripture says that only creatures with life blood and a soul are alive. This could very well not have include insects and certain seas creatures/anything without blood. Plants were not counted as alive or capable of death.
Do I say this about insects with 100% surety? No. All I know is what scripture says which makes me wonder about insects since they don't have blood. Or maybe what they do have still counts as blood, I don't know. Certainly plants are not alive by Biblical standards, that one I am sure of. Plants only grow, whither and fade. Which is why cells or bacteria 'dying' and plants being eaten was not a part of no death before sin, it simply was not viewed as death.

I love how you ask about things you don't believe in and have zero interest in. I will assume its so you can call me a hypocrite again, have at it. I know I am not and that's good enough for me.

 

[Justaman0000]

Your post has messed up quotes.

The ocean did not become full by procreation. The ocean teamed with life because God commanded it and it was so. To this teaming ocean he then ordered them to procreate and to fill it even more than he already had. This order still stands thousands of years later. There is nothing to indicate each day was anything more then an ordinary day.

God took 6 days for us, not for himself. This is why he told the ancient Israelite's, 6 days to work and one to rest, he was giving mankind an example of the week.


God tells us very clearly that that the universe and earth are included in that 6 days. Those are Gods words.
20 And God spoke all these words:
11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.
To deny Exodus is to deny God's word to us.

Yom can mean other things but it never means anything else when written this way.
The meaning of yôm in Genesis - creation.com

Also, I forgot to add, before you come back with Exodus 20:1 as an argument for proof that God is speaking in Exodus 20:11, I just wanted to point out that God never speaks in the third person, which would be the case if it were His words in verse 11. As proof, He clearly speaks in the first person in Exodus 20:2. Exodus 20:11 is commentary to the previous verse, either by Moses, or another writer who added it in later.

 

[Cis.jd]

20 And God spoke all these words:

11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.
Those are God's words to us.

Explain exactly how reading that and saying God created over 6 days is 'my view'?
What did I change?
Did I twist that scripture in anyway? Please point out where I did.

The main reason why you are twisting scripture, is that you are under the premise that these days are 24 hours each. The Bible doesn't tell you the duration of the days, no where does it teach a day = 24 hours.

Next, as mentioned so many times, there are other details, which i will re-reference later in this post, in that chapter that are naturally untrue.

You are just going off about which is just assumptions, and then argue with a wall of text making your own assumptions to make sense out of your religious beliefs and why certain facts you accept are excused for not being mentioned in scripture.

The moon gives light because God wanted it to do that. It does that by reflecting, so what? Nothing in saying that contradicts scripture.

But the Bible doesn't say the moon reflects light, it counts it as a second light by itself. Its described in the same context as the sun and stars, when we know the moon is not an actual light.

If you saw some christian try to public preach and yelled out to the crowd that the moon is an independent light source because Gen 1:16 says so. You know that person is wrong because you know the moon is reflecting the suns light, even when the Bible doesn't tell you that. You would use science (not scripture) to reject this persons teaching and you would be against what he is saying because he is making christianity look false.

And because scripture doesn't teach about planets you won't see me teaching from scripture about them. I don't care about them or give them much thought unless someone like you brings them up.

It doesn't matter if you dont care about them, Its your own logic that is being held against you, so do things have to be in scripture in order to be true or not?

There was no evolution. One type of animals did not gradually turn into another along branching lines like those diagrams show. Again a drawing, an assumption done by someone who wasn't there and doesn't know. God said he created kinds. Kinds did not cross over and change into other kinds. They adapted, they died, some flourished, some became isolated with the continents splitting.
This isn't evolution its adaptation. The only thing that happened was loss of DNA information as creatures died out and mutations of various birth defects.

Evolution doesn’t claim that one species just “turns into” another species, the offspring of an individual organism can differ from the parents and that with enough variation a new species will emerge. Adapting is part of evolution, that is why evolution is more evidence for God because there is unfathomable that animals can just modify or redesign in order to survive and continue life at random.

Evolution isn't assumptions made out of thin air, these are all seen in fossils records of animals that have changed over time, additionally there is also genetic information. We’ve witnessed speciation events, we’ve seen chromosome duplications in plants produce new species, plant hybridization to produce new species, etc.. then we are seeing it now with Killer whales.

But you are just going to deny all of these and write them off as "assumptions" with out any care though because of religious bias.

Scripture doesn't say. We probably still had them. Our teeth do not stop people from being vegetarian or vegan if they so choose. Fruit bats still have sharp teeth and the only thing they tear into is fruit. Sharp teeth do not prove that a creature is a carnivore. They can also be used to tear into other things like bark, thick plant skin etc.

But why would we or any of these animals need any of that, why would we need teeth, and why would we need to eat when there was no death?

Or maybe our teeth changed, but I doubt that since God didn't allow man to eat meat until he told Noah it was now allowed some hundreds of years later. if our teeth had changed with the fall to eat meat then why did God not allow it until Noah came off the ark? I think it was due to radical climate change and a need for more energy.

It doesn't matter when after the fall, if these changes happened after the flood or after exile from eden, the fact is we can logically assume that we eventually grew/developed this canines, that is part of evolution. But again, the bible doesn't tell you this.. it doesn't tell you if you grew canines, we assume it naturally developed in us because why would we need that back in Eden?

Also no death before sin only relates to creatures that God counts as life. Biblical life is not the same as what we define life. Scripture says that only creatures with life blood and a soul are alive. This could very well not have include insects and certain seas creatures/anything without blood. Plants were not counted as alive or capable of death.
Do I say this about insects with 100% surety? No. All I know is what scripture says which makes me wonder about insects since they don't have blood. Or maybe what they do have still counts as blood, I don't know. Certainly plants are not alive by Biblical standards, that one I am sure of. Plants only grow, whither and fade. Which is why cells or bacteria 'dying' and plants being eaten was not a part of no death before sin, it simply was not viewed as death.

"Scripture says that only creatures with life blood and a soul are alive." - Where does it say this?
We also know that this isn't true though, because sponges are life forms.

but anyway, look at all the assumptions you've just made to make sense of things.

 

[coffee4u]

God didn't command the oceans to be full. He said "let them teem". He didn't say "I command you to be filled with creatures." And it doesn't say "God commanded the oceans to be filled."

God took 6 days for us, not for himself. This is why he told the ancient Israelite's, 6 days to work and one to rest, he was giving mankind an example of the week.


The 7 day week was used well before this time period. The Assyrians and Babylonians used a 7 day week since at least 2100BC.

God tells us very clearly that that the universe and earth are included in that 6 days. Those are Gods words.
20 And God spoke all these words:
11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

This is moses speaking, not God. The words used for "Heavens" is "samayin" and means the sky, visible sky, atmosphere, visible universe. It could just as easily be translated as the sky and the Earth. The word used for "day" is "yom" and doesn't always mean a 24 hour period, as I've already explained before, and any biblical scholar will agree.

To deny Exodus is to deny God's word to us.

All of Exodus is not God's word, and neither is all of scripture. There are parts in scripture where God is quoted to be speaking, and these are God's words. 2 Timothy 3:16 says that all scripture is theopneustos (inspired God)~". The words that God speaks are God's words, and Jesus is the Word of God made flesh. People that cherrypick verses in the bible and claim all of it to be the word of God are fooling their self and others. If all verses were the word of God then there would be severe contradictions throughout the bible, making God a liar, which is impossible. Claiming that the Bible is God's word takes away from Jesus, and it causes confusion.

Please learn how to format posts, its too hard to follow.

You are incorrect, that is God speaking. Exodus 20 verse one.
20 And God spoke all these words

ALL scripture is God breathed, meaning he allowed all of it to be written down to teach us something. Not every word written down is God speaking, but Exodus 20 is.
God spoke to Mosses and Mosses wrote it down. When the text says 11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, that is not Mosses random thoughts, but what God told him to write.
God created everything including the earth and the universe over 6 days.

Jesus is God - thankyou.

 

[coffee4u]

Also, I forgot to add, before you come back with Exodus 20:1 as an argument for proof that God is speaking in Exodus 20:11, I just wanted to point out that God never speaks in the third person, which would be the case if it were His words in verse 11. As proof, He clearly speaks in the first person in Exodus 20:2. Exodus 20:11 is commentary to the previous verse, either by Moses, or another writer who added it in later.

God often speaks in the third person or as part of a plural.

"God spoke to Moses and said to him, ‘I am the LORD. I APPEARED to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, as God Almighty, but by my name the LORD I did not make myself known to them.’" Exodus 6:2-3

Hosea 1:7 (“But I will have mercy on the house of Judah, and I will save them by Yahweh their God.”

When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, "Who do people say the Son of Man is?"

I could come up with a long list.

 

[Justaman0000]

Please learn how to format posts, its too hard to follow.

You are incorrect, that is God speaking. Exodus 20 verse one.
20 And God spoke all these words

ALL scripture is God breathed, meaning he allowed all of it to be written down to teach us something. Not every word written down is God speaking, but Exodus 20 is.
God spoke to Mosses and Mosses wrote it down. When the text says 11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, that is not Mosses random thoughts, but what God told him to write.
God created everything including the earth and the universe over 6 days.

Jesus is God - thankyou.

I already wrote everything rebutting what you just said in my posts. Go back and read them. This makes no sense.

 

[Justaman0000]

God often speaks in the third person or as part of a plural.

"God spoke to Moses and said to him, ‘I am the LORD. I APPEARED to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, as God Almighty, but by my name the LORD I did not make myself known to them.’" Exodus 6:2-3

Hosea 1:7 (“But I will have mercy on the house of Judah, and I will save them by Yahweh their God.”

When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, "Who do people say the Son of Man is?"

I could come up with a long list.

And your list will still be God talking in the first person just like the ones you posted. You just proved your self wrong. When God uses "I", that's Him talking in the first person. None of those were in the first person. Hosea 1:7 is:
7Yet I will show love to Judah; and I will save them—not by bow, sword or battle, or by horses and horsemen, but I, the LORD their God, will save them.”
"LORD" is translated from "Yehova" and "God" from "elohim" the word used for god/gods, diety/deities, hevenly beings, etc.

I don't know why you even put the verse about Jesus. He isn't the father who is Yehova.
Also, you shouldn't claim people are incorrect and come back with such poor claims.

 

[coffee4u]

And your list will still be God talking in the first person just like the ones you posted. You just proved your self wrong. When God uses "I", that's Him talking in the first person. None of those were in the first person. Hosea 1:7 is:
7Yet I will show love to Judah; and I will save them—not by bow, sword or battle, or by horses and horsemen, but I, the LORD their God, will save them.”
"LORD" is translated from "Yehova" and "God" from "elohim" the word used for god/gods, diety/deities, hevenly beings, etc.

I don't know why you even put the verse about Jesus. He isn't the father who is Yehova.
Also, you shouldn't claim people are incorrect and come back with such poor claims.

Are you a trinity denier as well?

Elohim has a plural meaning. God is one Deuteronomy 6:4 but often refers to himself in the plural. I put the name of Jesus because he is part of the God head.
God the Father, Son, and Spirit all were involved in creation Genesis 1:2

Which as a reminder was done over 6 days including the heavens and the earth.
20 And God spoke all these words:
11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

 

[Gottservant]

The book of Genesis refers to the creation week as having intervals that describes what a day is in relation to time. The intervals are broken up into evening, morning, number and day. So the paradigm in Genesis 1 limits the length of a day to being a 24 hr period for each day of the creation week, which is self-explanatory.
God is as a thousand years and a thousand years is as a day is a reference from scripture that God is outside of time, and not that day could mean a thousand years on earth, unless it's in respect to a person. For example: "In the day of my forefathers" is a reference to a period of time relative to a persons life span and not in reference to the creation week, which is specifically describing the days of the first week as being officially 24 hr periods, which is self-evident.

Genesis 1:8
8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.

You are forgetting that a "Day" requires a 'revolution' of the Earth.

If the revolution is slower, the day is longer.

 

[Ragdoll]

2 Peter 3:3-9, MEV

(brackets mine)

3 Know this first, that there shall come scoffers in the last days who walk after their own lusts, 4 and say, “Where is the promise of His coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things have continued as they were since the beginning of the creation.” 5 For they willingly ignore that, by the word of God the heavens existed long ago, and the earth was formed standing out of the water and in the water [Gen.1:1-10], 6 by which the world that then existed was flooded with water and perished [Gen.6--8, the Flood]. 7 But by the same word, the heavens and the earth that now exist are being reserved for fire, kept for the Day of Judgment and destruction of the ungodly.
8 But, beloved, do not be ignorant of this one thing, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. 9 The Lord is not slow concerning His promise, as some count slowness. But He is patient with us, because He does not want any to perish, but all to come to repentance.
__________________________________________________________________________________

When people quote 2Pet.3:8 in attempts to justify long geological ages, they should also quote v.9 which rebukes slowness, for God is not slow.

If indeed some want to interpret the 7 days of creation week as, say, a thousand years each day, then there is a serious problem. The 4th Commandment is a memorial of what God did during creation week and recalls this in the Commandment. Since God ceased from His work on the 7th Day, God then gave the Hebrews the Command to rest from their labors on every 7th Day. This day as many of you already know is the Sabbath Day. However, if creation week was 7,000 years, then the Hebrews would have to work 6,000 years before they could take a Sabbath for a 1,000 years. And the higher the number you assign to creation week the more absurd the Sabbath Command becomes. A million years each day? The Hebrews would have to work 6-million years before they can rest and do nothing for 1-million years. The words used in the 4th Commandment are the same words used in the creation account - used in the same context.

 

[J_B_]

These conversations just make me tired. What I've realized is that even if I had the perfect answer .. could explain the time of creation flawlessly, not everyone would learn of it. As such, the bad ideas that get recycled over and over again will continue on until Christ returns.

"Good news will stay and bad news will refuse to leave."
- Tevye