Bible-Creation-Evolution

[pgp_protector]

That doesn't address what I said. Here are the two choices when it comes to literalism:

1) The Bible is 100% literally true and Jesus is a vine.
2) The Bible is contains metaphors, allegory, and idioms making it only PARTIALLY true and Jesus wasn't a vine.

Now, if we take option 1, then Genesis has to be taken as is and it doesn't mesh with evolution.

If we take option 2, then Genesis doesn't have to be taken as is and it could merely be poetic language (like Jesus being a Vine.)

I'll take Option 2.

 

[elopez]

Ok, I see what you are saying and by the way you made a good point about providing scripture to back Biblical argument.

Here we have Gen 1:3-5

3And 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.

In verse 3 God create light. (Just light nothing created producing the light)
In verse 4 God divided the light from darkness
In verse 5 He called the light Day and the darkness he called Night.
Just as we do today. We don't say light time or dark time. We say Day Time and Night Time, Morning and Evening

Now if we look at Gen 1:14-19 We see:
In verse 16 God creating two great lights, The greater to rule the Day and the lesser to rule the Night
In verse 18 He gave them rule over the day and night and gave them power to divide the light from the darkness where in verse 4 God himself was dividing light from darkness.


Genesis 1:14-19

14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:

15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.

16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,

18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.

19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

So read word for word (Literally), They are two completely different events.

Now I don't see what that has to do with proof of God creating by evolution but I just wanted to illustrate that this could be explained without private interpretation. The Bible is Crystal Clear in the account of Creation without Evolution.

Thank you. I'm just asking for more leeway in this discussion so it may be productive. Now just to be clear you didn't actually answer my original question but just illustrated my point.

Verse four is God dividing the light from darkness, and calling the former day and the latter night in verse five. Now in verse 18 why would there need to be a distinction between light and darkness when already this was done by God in verse four on the first day? Light was already separated from darkness on day one, so why again on day four? When I read the text word for word I still find that there are two descriptions of one event. Do you not notice that there are two accounts of differentiating between light and darkness, each on day one and four? What I am asking is why.

I am not saying that this is "proof" of God using evolution. I am saying that because of the similarities in the text that I just mentioned, Genesis is not depicted in a chronological manner and thus does not propose a "scientific" description of creation.

 

[Jro]

Isn't every reading of the Bible an interpretation? Also, which set of books should we use, which translation, etc., etc.?

 

[1611AV]

Thank you. I'm just asking for more leeway in this discussion so it may be productive. Now just to be clear you didn't actually answer my original question but just illustrated my point.

Verse four is God dividing the light from darkness, and calling the former day and the latter night in verse five. Now in verse 18 why would there need to be a distinction between light and darkness when already this was done by God in verse four on the first day? Light was already separated from darkness on day one, so why again on day four? When I read the text word for word I still find that there are two descriptions of one event. Do you not notice that there are two accounts of differentiating between light and darkness, each on day one and four? What I am asking is why.

I am not saying that this is "proof" of God using evolution. I am saying that because of the similarities in the text that I just mentioned, Genesis is not depicted in a chronological manner and thus does not propose a "scientific" description of creation.

Yeah, I get what you are saying. The first mention of light is just light. God divided the light from darkness.

Then later God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night:

He goes on to say in verse 17 & 18 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good. He gave them the job to separate the light from darkness.

They are two separate sources of light.

Now your question as to why. Well according to the Bible in verse 14 For signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years.

Here is another example of light without the sun.
Revelation 22:5 And there shall be no night there; and they need no candle, neither light of the sun; for the Lord God giveth them light: and they shall reign for ever and ever.

 

[pgp_protector]

Ummm the moon isn't a source of Light.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Ummm the moon isn't a source of Light.

Isn't it?

 

[1611AV]

Ummm the moon isn't a source of Light.

Ummm, God did not call it a source.

 

[pgp_protector]

Isn't it?

Last time I checked it only Reflects Light. (Normally Reflecting Sun Light)

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Last time I checked it only Reflects Light. (Normally Reflecting Sun Light)

Technically, the surface of the Moon isn't doing anything the surface of the Sun is doing: its atoms are emitting photons.

 

[Delphiki]

Technically, the surface of the Moon isn't doing anything the surface of the Sun is doing: its atoms are emitting photons.

Oh not this semantics thing again. The moon only emits light in the same way baseball emits light.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Oh not this semantics thing again. The moon only emits light in the same way baseball emits light.

To be fair, if you're going to try and refute a literal interpretation of Genesis using semantics, you can't really complain when semantics are used in the retort

 

[elopez]

Yeah, I get what you are saying. The first mention of light is just light. God divided the light from darkness.

Then later God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night:

He goes on to say in verse 17 & 18 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good. He gave them the job to separate the light from darkness.

They are two separate sources of light.

Now your question as to why. Well according to the Bible in verse 14 For signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years.

Here is another example of light without the sun.
Revelation 22:5 And there shall be no night there; and they need no candle, neither light of the sun; for the Lord God giveth them light: and they shall reign for ever and ever.

Okay so what is the source of the first light on day one? Either way you want to put it the fact of the matter is that there are two descriptions of the same event of differentiating light from darkness. If light was contrasted from darkness and there was day and night on the first day, it too marked days and years and seasons. Again this is already done on day one. Light was separated from darkness and light was called day and darkness night. This very event occurs again on the fourth day, does it not? Light was already separated on day one, correct? What I am getting at is that there is no reason for the repetition of these events. It was already done on day one so there would be no need to do it again.

You mean there can be days without the sun? Because that is implicitly what a literal interpretation of Genesis consists of, and I think that is what your are suggesting at. How do you think the author, and even other ancients understood the Hebrew word for "day," yom? They measured days by observing the sunrise to the sunset, or the sunset to the next one. Would it be correct of us to say that the author of Genesis understood the word yom without relation to the sun? I cannot imagine how. To me this is clearly to undermine the original implications of the Hebrew word for "day."

Any text that is meant to support that notion is taken out of context, such as with the verse you quoted in Revelations. The verse is simply stating that the sunlight or candle light is not needed, and that only God's light is needed. Even though this may say that there can be light without the sun, it does not say that there can be days without the sun, or that there was a light present before the sun.

 

[laconicstudent]

AV1611VET is a beloved Brother in the Lord but he nor I nor any man is the Authority. to a Bible Believing Christian, Gods Word is the only Authority.

I'm glad that you also admit in the bolded that you don't have the authority to state the italicized.

 

[Nabobalis]

Technically, the surface of the Moon isn't doing anything the surface of the Sun is doing: its atoms are emitting photons.

The photons are being generated in the Sun unlike the moon.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

The photons are being generated in the Sun unlike the moon.

Each photon is a brand new one. The photons emitted by the Moon are created, there and then, by de-excited electrons in the Moon's surface. The excitation energy comes from the Sun, sure, but where does the Sun get its energy? If the Moon isn't a 'source' of light, then neither is the Sun.

 

[1611AV]

Okay so what is the source of the first light on day one? Either way you want to put it the fact of the matter is that there are two descriptions of the same event of differentiating light from darkness. If light was contrasted from darkness and there was day and night on the first day, it too marked days and years and seasons. Again this is already done on day one. Light was separated from darkness and light was called day and darkness night. This very event occurs again on the fourth day, does it not? Light was already separated on day one, correct? What I am getting at is that there is no reason for the repetition of these events. It was already done on day one so there would be no need to do it again.

You mean there can be days without the sun? Because that is implicitly what a literal interpretation of Genesis consists of, and I think that is what your are suggesting at. How do you think the author, and even other ancients understood the Hebrew word for "day," yom? They measured days by observing the sunrise to the sunset, or the sunset to the next one. Would it be correct of us to say that the author of Genesis understood the word yom without relation to the sun? I cannot imagine how. To me this is clearly to undermine the original implications of the Hebrew word for "day."

Any text that is meant to support that notion is taken out of context, such as with the verse you quoted in Revelations. The verse is simply stating that the sunlight or candle light is not needed, and that only God's light is needed. Even though this may say that there can be light without the sun, it does not say that there can be days without the sun, or that there was a light present before the sun.

I have already explained this.

 

[Nabobalis]

Each photon is a brand new one. The photons emitted by the Moon are created, there and then, by de-excited electrons in the Moon's surface. The excitation energy comes from the Sun, sure, but where does the Sun get its energy? If the Moon isn't a 'source' of light, then neither is the Sun.

The excitation energy comes from fusion and the Sun is net producer of photons while the moon isn't.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

The excitation energy comes from fusion

And where does that energy come from?

and the Sun is net producer of photons while the moon isn't.

The Sun outputs more photons than the Moon, sure, but the Moon's photons are its own. The photons emitted by the Sun are destroyed upon absorption by the Moon's electrons.

 

[Nabobalis]

And where does that energy come from?

The biding energy of atoms. Don't ask any futher, I know nothing of QCD to even attempt to clarify past that point

The Sun outputs more photons than the Moon, sure, but the Moon's photons are its own. The photons emitted by the Sun are destroyed upon absorption by the Moon's electrons.

Imagine the Moon is a vertex point on a Feynman diagram then one photon goes in and one photon goes out while the Sun is the starting point of the photon.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

The biding energy of atoms. Don't ask any futher, I know nothing of QCD to even attempt to clarify past that point



Imagine the Moon is a vertex point on a Feynman diagram then one photon goes in and one photon goes out while the Sun is the starting point of the photon.

My point is that the Sun isn't the starting point. You have a long chain of particles carrying the energy that one day impact your eye. Some are photons, some are not, but the chain long precedes the Sun.