@Halbhh:
@Anguspure:
@Pavel Mosko:
About day-age theories:
In Genesis 1, the Earth existed before light itself but in the Big Bang light was basically there right from the start and the Earth formed billions of years later. It says the Sun, Moon and stars were created after plants on day 3. It says there was light before there were sources of light (the Sun, Moon and stars). It also says there were flying creatures (day 5) before all of the land creatures (day 6). The day-age theory involves the sequence in Genesis 1 being the same, just stretched out over time.
Another somewhat popular theory is the Gap Theory which I think is very problematic.
"in the Big Bang light was basically there right from the start" == I'm expecting you know (or should learn very fast just below) that the scripture certainly says instead something
else.
Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
Genesis 1:2 Now the earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the surface of the waters.
"darkness"
and
then:
Genesis 1:3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light.
I'm pointing this out to be helpful. People naturally, inevitably let their ideas overwrite what the text actually says. Everyone can do this. It's normal.
We should instead just listen to the scripture itself, instead of the theory C5, or D17, people have told us somewhere.
Here's a vastly more serious problem than not reading the text carefully: trying to justify or support or see a doctrine, when you read scripture.
That's so dangerous (and so common I fear).
It's so crucial to keep in mind a doctrine
isn't actually scripture (most doctrines are instead about things scripture doesn't definitely pin down). A doctrine is only an
idea someone came up with. It can be right or wrong. (Of course, obviously many have to be wrong, since many contradict other doctrines, etc.)
They are ok -- having an idea is ok...
if a person can remember it's only an idea, just a mere viewpoint, and not actually the living Word.
Right? Don't you agree? So, therefore, since the scripture doesn't say "in the Big Bang light was basically there right from the start" (and in fact actually instead says the Earth was in darkness at a time....), then is it ok with you if I
don't just take that idea as scripture?
Scripture says to me
2Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.
3And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. ...
!
Ergo, the first moment of the Universe, according to a popular theory from astronomy -- the Big Bang --
cannot be the "light" of the first special day of creation, to me, a believer.
(As it so happens, astrophysicists
don't think the very early Universe was generally lit up with light either(!). Just informational -- they have a entirely different view than imagining the Early Universe as being lit with light:
"The dark ages of the universe — an era of darkness that existed before the first stars and galaxies — mostly remain a mystery because there is so little of it to see..."
The Universe's Dark Ages: How Our Cosmos Survived | Space
If you are going to reference the Big Bang, a theory from astrophysicists, it's good to learn they believe Earth first began to form about 4.54 bn years ago, but the Universe suddenly came into existence according to the current estimate about 13.8 bn years ago.
I can sorta understand how this confusion about the Big Bang and "let there be light" first arose.
People didn't read carefully or much.
But we should not continue to propagate their mistake.
