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.
No, both of them don't say, 'Let there be light'.Do you notice the correlation between day one and four? Both of them say "let there be light."
elopez, I really want to get what you are trying to say here, but I just don't. If you really want to invest the time to get to the bottom of this issue with light, then I am willing to continue to discuss it with you. I think what you are saying is God created "light" twice, is that it?Even if God had not created the greater light, light was still created on day one. I mean even look at the triad diagram that has day one and four right next to each other and think about it. Day and night were already differentiated on day one, and again on day four.
The sun was not yet made.I believe you did. Remember, in your attempt to quote scripture to support the claim, "Here is another example of light without the sun." All I was saying is that you also must mean the sun was not present until day four, right?
Above all this means that if the framework theology is correct, that if Genesis does not give a chronological account of creationism, then it does not give a scientific basis for creation. Genesis would not be telling us the exact order that God created things, just eloquently stating the truth in that God did create it. If Genesis does not give a scientific account for creation, then it can be up to the reader and believer of Genesis to believe what they happen to find to be true on the origins of the universe, earth, and all life so long as God is included as the cause and author of such process. Now one may find the evidence for evolution compelling, hence a Bible believing Christian also believing in evolution.
If Genesis does not give a scientific account for creation, then it can be up to the reader and believer of Genesis to believe what they happen to find to be true on the origins of the universe, earth, and all life so long as God is included as the cause and author of such process.
I believe in evolution...from the created kinds. Godless evolution and the pond and etc are pure myth. Myth that is in direct opposition to the truth as revealed in the word of God.
To be fair, those images are glimpses into the (usually distant) past. The nearest galaxies outside the Milky Way are tens of thousands of light years away. If a galaxy is forming at this very moment, its image won't reach the location of Earth until many, many years later.Right I am agreeing with all these posts. You can be a "Bible-believing" Christian and still believe that the earth is ancient and Creation took a good long while (and is still going on, as we see when powerful telescopes transmit images of new galaxies being born!).
That - and having just watched The Elegant Universe - made me imagine a multidimensional God sitting around, watching universes evolve through time as we'd watch two-dimensional characters move on a TV screen. An interesting imageWhat is time to God, anyway?
It's really not that hard to understand. On day one there is the separation of light and darkness. On day four there is the separation of light and darkness. Two descriptions of one event. I understand you think the events are different, and the sun was not present on day one and that instead an unknown source of light was created, but it still does not account for why there is two events of the contrast between light and dark.elopez, I really want to get what you are trying to say here, but I just don't. If you really want to invest the time to get to the bottom of this issue with light, then I am willing to continue to discuss it with you. I think what you are saying is God created "light" twice, is that it?
Aside from this being the most unscientific abhorrent one could claim, I'm pretty sure it is the same theologically. The original Hebrew word for day, yom, was observed by the ancients from the sunrise to the sunset, or the sunset to the next one. Like I was asking you, would it be correct of us to say that the ancients understood days without the sun? To me this is the most obvious reason why yec is false, both scientifically and scripturally.The sun was not yet made.
I never said that it was all found in Genesis, so I honestly don't see what mistake I'm making. However Genesis is crucial, and without it, the end cover could not be reached. Interpreting Genesis though is also important in reaching the end cover.And this is where the biggest mistake is made when reading the Bible. The Bible must be read in full from cover to cover in faith and prayer to begin to get understanding. It is not all found in Genesis.
Mark 10:6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.
Again you are coming up with these odd questions that are not suggested from what I have said. I never claimed we could believe whatever we want, just that if one views Genesis metaphorically then his options are open to explore other, more credible evidence on the subject of origins.So because God who exists in eternity (No Time) did not time stamp everything, that gives us the right to believe what ever we want?
Because we do not know on what day he made Eve are we to believe she evolved?
Lets look at the account of the creation of Eve.
Gen. Chp. 2
21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;
22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.
23 And Adam said, This [is] now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.
Now the Bible tells us how long Adam lived in
Genesis 5:5 And all the days that ADAM lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died.
So we know that was not enough time for Eve to evolve. So again, if one is a "Bible believer" how does one get evolution out of that. It does not even have to be read "literally". Adam was created a man, Eve was created a Woman.
The biggest argument Im hearing is " Well if its not in the Bible then you dismiss it as a possibility?" I say, lets look at what is already written on the matter.
Gen 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
Since God said let us make man in our image. (The image of God, after his likeness) are we to believe that God was a single celled organism in this passage? If we believe in evolution we would have to make that assumption, if we believe the Bible, we know better.
It's really not that hard to understand. On day one there is the separation of light and darkness. On day four there is the separation of light and darkness. Two descriptions of one event. I understand you think the events are different, and the sun was not present on day one and that instead an unknown source of light was created, but it still does not account for why there is two events of the contrast between light and dark.
Because the 4th day he also created the stars. Thats a pretty big and different "event", no?
Aside from this being the most unscientific abhorrent one could claim, I'm pretty sure it is the same theologically. The original Hebrew word for day, yom, was observed by the ancients from the sunrise to the sunset, or the sunset to the next one. Like I was asking you, would it be correct of us to say that the ancients understood days without the sun? To me this is the most obvious reason why yec is false, both scientifically and scripturally.
Yet not as ancient as the creation. There was no Hebrew at that time.
I never said that it was all found in Genesis, so I honestly don't see what mistake I'm making. However Genesis is crucial, and without it, the end cover could not be reached. Interpreting Genesis though is also important in reaching the end cover.
We are to receive the word not interpret it. This is a spiritual matter, not understood by the carnal man.
Again you are coming up with these odd questions that are not suggested from what I have said. I never claimed we could believe whatever we want, just that if one views Genesis metaphorically then his options are open to explore other, more credible evidence on the subject of origins.
If one has a view different than Gods view, then I guess he can believe anything he can imagine
No, because Genesis does not give a chronological account of events, it's not literal. It's just a poem saying God created the earth and all life on it. There is no need to look at the creation of Eve, nor Adam's death. And of course that is not enough to time to evolve, which is why it would have taken place prior to all of this. Saying Adam was created a man and Eve created a woman does not discredit evolution, since again this is just a general statement. I do not see the relevance in the sex you are trying to show.
Everything you said goes against what the Bible says in Genesis.
Why would we believe that when the image of God does not refer to physicality? Only if this passage is interpreted this way would we be under that assumption, nothing to do with the theory of evolution. Now, if you know better than to interpret this passage as referring to physicality, there is no problem.
The rules are:
Ah, a suckers bet. No thanks.
This is a discussion for those who claim to be a Holy Bible believing Christian and at the same time claim to believe in the Theory of Evolution.
Slightly OT question:
Is a "Holy Bible believing Christian" a special branch of Christianity? Because as far as I remember my christian days and also my christian friends, Christianity is all about believing in the one God, his creation and Jesus.
Why do you put the man made bible over the god made creation?
I see, and how did you and your friends come to know about one God, his creation and Jesus?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^We heard a story written by men -- how did you hear about all that?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
That exactly ...
And the first words in this written story are:
"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."
and not
"In the beginning God wrote the bible."
So it seems to me that his creation was something very important for him, which is why I can't understand why you think that the bible is more important than his creation?!
Also in the definition of faith on this very board it's stated that "We believe in the one God ..." nowhere it says "We believe in the bible" ...
God cannot be controlled via "interpretations" -- the Bible, OTOH...
Slightly OT question:
Is a "Holy Bible believing Christian" a special branch of Christianity? Because as far as I remember my christian days and also my christian friends, Christianity is all about believing in the one God, his creation and Jesus.
Why do you put the man made bible over the god made creation?
I see, and how did you and your friends come to know about one God, his creation and Jesus?
We heard a story written by men -- how did you hear about all that?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
That exactly ...
And the first words in this written story are:
"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."
and not
"In the beginning God wrote the bible."
So it seems to me that his creation was something very important for him, which is why I can't understand why you think that the bible is more important than his creation?!
Also in the definition of faith on this very board it's stated that "We believe in the one God ..." nowhere it says "We believe in the bible" ...
Sometimes I really think that since becoming an atheist I understand god better than before ... I just don't believe in the concept any more ...
Anyhow, if I'd still believe in it, I'd think that a god setting all these fantastical natural processes in motion while from the beginning on planning to create me some 13 billions of years later ... WOW ... this really would be a being I'd call God ... not some white bearded old man sitting somewhere above me, constantly fixing his own errors by mass murdering innocent people and animals, like it's described in the bible ...
Cool.... this really would be a being I'd call God ... not some white bearded old man sitting somewhere above me, constantly fixing his own errors by mass murdering innocent people and animals, like it's described in the bible ...
Cool.
Today when people 'mass-murder innocent people', we give them food and lodging and medical attention for the rest of their lives; they even get married and have children.
Isaiah 5:20 Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!
No surprise there, bro -- no surprise there.Amazingly some are even called "Doctors"
That exactly huh? You heard a story written by men. there are literally millions of stories written by men. Try actually reading the Bible.
We heard a story... thats good.
Actually you don't become a Atheist, if you don't believe in God, then you always were a Atheist and you still have the same understanding of God.
None!
If you understood that God is Eternal then you would understand that to God 13 billion years and a few days are all the same to him.
You don't need to mock God.
The Living God, Jesus, God of the bible..etcThat would be the same God who flying around in a sapphire throne, right?
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?