• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.

Earth created in 6 days?

Discussion in 'Creation & Evolution' started by Art Vandalay, Sep 5, 2002.

  1. Sky

    Sky Active Member

    603
    +0
    Book of Enoch? There is no book of Enoch in the Bible!
     
  2. LewisWildermuth

    LewisWildermuth Senior Veteran

    +116
    Christian
    Single
     

    It would be a category unto itself.

    6. There are those that hold that the Bible is ment as a spiritual guid and not a history or science guide book. They do not feel the need to ignore what the Bible or science have to say but let each lead to a higher total truth than either alone could lead to. They coose not to try to shoehorn science to fit the bible or the bible to fit science.
     
  3. Sinai

    Sinai Well-Known Member

    +15
    Protestant
    Pursuant to LewisWildermuth's suggestion, I have revised my earlier post to accomodate his objections:

    ”In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. And the earth was formless, void and empty, and darkness was over the face of the deep, and the Spirit or Wind of God hovered over the face of the waters.” Genesis 1:1-2 gives an overview of the beginning of God’s creation of the universe. Verses 3-31 complete the story of creation, which the Bible sets out as occurring on six days. Did God create the universe in a total of 144 hours of our time, or are other interpretations more likely? Judging from the discussions of this and related questions on various threads on both the CF and other Christian message boards I have seen thus far, there seems to be a split of opinion among the following major lines:
    1. Those who tend to ignore what the Bible says with regard to creation, or who disbelieve it or discount it, and who support mainstream scientific theory and evidence regarding the forming of the universe, including our planet and the life found on planet Earth;
    2. Those who believe what the Bible says with regard to creation and who disbelieve or discount mainstream scientific findings and discoveries relating to creation; and
    3. Those who believe what the Bible says with regard to creation and who also believe mainstream scientific findings and discoveries relating to creation.


    1. There are those who ignore what the Bible says with regard to at least the non-spiritual aspects of creation, or who disbelieve it or discount it, and who support mainstream scientific theory and evidence regarding the forming of the universe, including our planet and the life found on planet Earth.

    1A. Some of this group hold that the Bible is intended to be a spiritual guide and is not a history or science guide book. They do not feel the need to ignore what the Bible says about spiritual matters or what science says about scientific principles, but rather let each lead to a higher total truth than either could do alone. They choose not to try to shoehorn science to fit the Bible or the Bible to fit science. Christians and Jews in this group would probably add that the Bible is God's word to us regarding spiritual matters.

    1B. Others in this group tend to dismiss the Bible's account of creation as a fable or a story Moses merely inserted to answer questions from an unenlightened people wandering in the wilderness. They point out that scientific measurements place the age of the universe as being between 10-20 billion years of age, with the most likely time being about 14-17 billion years of our time. They say that there is no way to reconcile the biblical account of creation to the factual evidence, and therefore they choose to ignore at least this portion of the Bible. Since they tend not to be Christians or Jews and generally do not recognize the Bible as being the word of God, any biblical evidence to the contrary is generally brushed aside and discounted, or is used to support their claim that the Bible cannot really be trusted as being true.



    2. At the other extreme are those who believe the English translation of the Bible's creation account should be applied literally, and any scientific evidence to the contrary should be ignored or discounted since it is at odds with the word of God.

    2A. Some within this group believe the Bible means six consecutive 24-hour periods of time (i.e., 144 hours total), and they choose to ignore, disbelieve or discount the scientific evidence to the contrary, often stating that the appearance of a universe billions of light years across is merely an illusion (much as the fossils and rock strata that appear to be millions or billions of years old were merely “aged” by God to give them the appearance of being ancient), and that God is deceiving us in order to test our faith. Under this theory, the important thing is to not let one’s faith waiver in the face of contrary scientific evidence but rather to stand true to God’s word and one’s faith.

    2B. One offshoot of this theory is interpreting the scriptures [Psalms 90:4 and 2Peter 3:8] that tell us that “With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day” as meaning that each day of Genesis should be treated as a thousand years. Under this variation, creation took 6,000 years instead of six days.

    2C. Another variation off this theory is the Gap theory (also known as the Interval and Restitution theory, the Divine Judgment theory, and the Recreation theory) which was more popular about 50-80 years ago than it is now. The Gap theory is usually largely based upon the fact that Hebrew tends to be more general and less specific than English or Greek. Thus, Hebrew words can often have a wider range of meanings. In the first part of Genesis 1:2 ["and the earth it was formless, void and empty"], the verb hayethah (which is generally translated "it was") can also be translated as "it became." Proponents of the Gap Theory therefore generally claim that Genesis 1:2 should be translated to read "and the earth became formless, void and empty" rather than using the more common translation of the phrase. This theory uses passages (primarily in Isaiah and Ezekiel) regarding the fall of Satan or Lucifer to bolster the theory that the world was created in Gen. 1:1 but became formless and void because of Satan's fall, and then creation continued in verse two. There are, however, some proponents of the Gap theory who go about it slightly differently. Instead of translating hayethah as "it became" they use verse one of Genesis to emphasize that God had created the Earth "in the beginning" of creation, but by verse two, the Earth was formless, void and empty. These persons tend to ignore the fact that Hebrew had no single word for universe and that the Hebrew phrase "the heavens and the earth" is the Hebrew equivalent of the English word universe. Note: Some advocates of the Gap theory combine it with one of the theories more consistent with mainstream science (the theories listed under category 3, below) instead of with the young earth creationists.



    3. Then there are those who attempt to reconcile scientific evidence with biblical evidence. Persons who adhere to one of these theories tend to believe that since God is responsible for both the biblical revelation and the natural world, the words of the Bible are true and at the same time are consistent with the facts of nature. In other words, they tend to think that God’s character and attributes are expressed through both channels, and neither negates nor contradicts the other. Theories 3A, 3B and 3c are the primary explanations I have found thus far that attempt to reconcile science and the Bible:

    3A. Since the Bible does not specifically say that the six days are consecutive, there are those who assert that each “day” is the time God spoke the next period of creation into existence—but there is an undetermined period of time (possibly lasting billions of years) between each day. In other words, adherents of this theory say there were six days of creation (each of which could be 24 hours—or 1,000 years—or some other period of time) separated by other periods of time. Some who follow this theory also point to the staccato pattern revealed in the fossil record, which indicates that there were periods of time when new forms of life suddenly burst onto the scene.

    3B. There are those who point out that the Hebrew word for “day” is yom, which can mean either a 24-hour period of time or an indefinite period of time. Thus, those who follow this theory say that each “day” was of an indefinite period of time (even millions or billions of years) and Christians shouldn’t get caught up in insisting that the Bible means something here that it probably does not mean.

    3C. The final theory is a more recent one that has been advanced by physicist and Hebrew Bible scholar Dr. Gerald L. Schroeder. He has proposed that the six “days” are in fact six consecutive 24-hour periods of time measured at the speed of outward thrust using Einstein's theory (or law) of relativity and a universal time-clock based on cosmic background radiation and the wavelength of light beginning about the time God initiated creation (what science now calls the Big Bang). Because of time dilation, 144 hours measured at a speed calculated by using such a universal time-clock would be equal to about 15.75 billion Earth-years looking back toward the time of creation.


    Is that any better, Lewis?
     
  4. Othniel

    Othniel Cup Overflowing

    151
    +0
    It says seven days. I think that means that it happened in seven days.

    Those who would like to pretend that the seven days were really much longer periods of time have checked both their faith and minds at the door. I say this not to judge, but to encourage all to reread Gen 1 and pay careful attention to the order of creation. See, heres the thing: if one suscribes to the gap or day age theory (that is, that the days are not days at all, but infitely variable amounts of time, ranging up to and about several billion years), then they must come up with an explanation for how all that vegetation (that is, the plants: seed bearing trees which boar fruit) created the third day survived an reproduced for a billion years waiting for the sun to come up somewhere in the middle of day four, not to mention how they reproduced at all without insects and birds to pollenate them, seeing as they didn't appear till day five.

    God creates day and night on the first day. He did not need the sun or moon to do this. Verse 18 in fact makes clear that they do not distinguish day and night at all, but rather "govern" them.

    For those of you who think that the "carbon dating is false" is a diluted Christian myth, I was taught the same thing by my anthropolgy professor at Sonoma St. University in northern CA. It is a well established fact that at the very least, the method is in question, and cannot be relied on over and above other evidence (oh, like the fossil record which tells quite a different story once carbon dating is removed from the scenario.)

    As to the statement that 2 Peter 3 in essence refutes Genesis 1, um...wow...context might be important on this one. Peter makes no such claims and even predicts modern science's refusal to accept the flood (which, consequently, could easliy have fossilized the dinosaurs in a much swifter period than 6 billion years.)

    Even so, I am hardly the one to make this argument or to debate the issue, but there is plenty of literature out there for the Christian who wants to take God at His Word.

    However, a word to those who have ears out there, this very issue is what the devil is using to undermine everything which Christ means to western culture. The moment you buy the lie of macroevolution, you open up your soul to an unending stream of empty realtivism and racist Darwinism (check out the man's writings yourself), not to mention facsit and nazi ideaology which grew out of Niche, Marx and Darwins denial of any creator.

    Why side with what the world says when you have God on your side? If God is for us, who can be against us?

    Peter DOES tell us that men will be willingly ignorant of God's power in His Word. None of us can go back and prove what we think. We either must choose to believe God, or to believe the world.

    As for me and my household, we will serve the Lord.
    Peace to all who seek it
     
  5. seebs

    seebs God Made Me A Skeptic

    +1,462
    Seeker
    Married
    US-Republican
    Paying careful attention to the order is one of the reasons I reject literal 6-day interpretations. Was Adam created before the animals, or after them?
     
  6. LightBearer

    LightBearer Veteran

    +19
    Jehovahs Witness
    What Does Genesis actually Say? 

    AS WITH other things that are misrepresented or misunderstood, the first chapter of the Bible deserves at least a fair hearing. The need is to investigate and determine whether it harmonizes with known facts, not to mold it to fit some theoretical framework. Also to be remembered, the Genesis account was not written to show the “how” of creation. Rather, it covers major events in a progressive way, describing what things were formed, the order in which they were formed and the time interval, or “day,” in which each first appeared.

    When examining the Genesis account, it is helpful to keep in mind that it approaches matters from the standpoint of people on earth. So it describes events as they would have been seen by human observers had they been present. This can be noted from its treatment of events on the fourth Genesis “day.” There the sun and moon are described as great luminaries in comparison to the stars. Yet many stars are far greater than our sun, and the moon is insignificant in comparison to them. But not to an earthly observer. So, as seen from the earth, the sun appears to be a ‘greater light that rules the day’ and the moon a ‘lesser light that dominates the night.’—Genesis 1:14-18.

    The first part of Genesis indicates that the earth could have existed for billions of years before the first Genesis “day,” though it does not say for how long. However, it does describe what earth’s condition was just before that first “day” began: “Now the earth proved to be formless and waste and there was darkness upon the surface of the watery deep; and God’s active force was moving to and fro over the surface of the waters.”—Genesis 1:2.

    How Long Is a Genesis “Day”?
    Many consider the word “day” used in Genesis chapter 1 to mean 24 hours. However, in Genesis 1:5 God himself is said to divide day into a smaller period of time, calling just the light portion “day.” In Genesis 2:4 all the creative periods are called one “day”: “This is a history of the heavens and the earth in the time of their being created, in the day [all six creative periods] that Jehovah God made earth and heaven.”

    The Hebrew word yohm, translated “day,” can mean different lengths of time. Among the meanings possible, William Wilson’s Old Testament Word Studies includes the following: “A day; it is frequently put for time in general, or for a long time; a whole period under consideration . . . Day is also put for a particular season or time when any extraordinary event happens.” 1 This last sentence appears to fit the creative “days,” for certainly they were periods when extraordinary events were described as happening. It also allows for periods much longer than 24 hours.

    Genesis chapter 1 uses the expressions “evening” and “morning” relative to the creative periods. Does this not indicate that they were 24 hours long? Not necessarily. In some places people often refer to a man’s lifetime as his “day.” They speak of “my father’s day” or “in Shakespeare’s day.” They may divide up that lifetime “day,” saying “in the morning [or dawn] of his life” or “in the evening [or twilight] of his life.” So ‘evening and morning’ in Genesis chapter 1 does not limit the meaning to a literal 24 hours.

    “Day” as used in the Bible can include summer and winter, the passing of seasons. (Zechariah 14:8) “The day of harvest” involves many days. (Compare Proverbs 25:13 and Genesis 30:14.) A thousand years are likened to a day. (Psalm 90:4; 2 Peter 3:8, 10) “Judgment Day” covers many years. (Matthew 10:15; 11:22-24) It would seem reasonable that the “days” of Genesis could likewise have embraced long periods of time—millenniums. What, then, took place during those creative eras? Is the Bible’s account of them scientific? Following is a review of these “days” as expressed in Genesis.

    First “Day”
    “‘Let light come to be.’ Then there came to be light. And God began calling the light Day, but the darkness he called Night. And there came to be evening and there came to be morning, a first day.”—Genesis 1:3, 5.

    Of course the sun and moon were in outer space long before this first “day,” but their light did not reach the surface of the earth for an earthly observer to see. Now, light evidently came to be visible on earth on this first “day,” and the rotating earth began to have alternating days and nights.

    Apparently, the light came in a gradual process, extending over a long period of time, not instantaneously as when you turn on an electric light bulb. The Genesis rendering by translator J. W. Watts reflects this when it says: “And gradually light came into existence.” (A Distinctive Translation of Genesis) This light was from the sun, but the sun itself could not be seen through the overcast. Hence, the light that reached earth was “light diffused,” as indicated by a comment about ÞGe 1 Üverse 3 in Rotherham’s Emphasised Bible.—See footnote b for ÞGe 1 Üverse 14.

    Second “Day”
    “‘Let an expanse come to be in between the waters and let a dividing occur between the waters and the waters.’ Then God proceeded to make the expanse and to make a division between the waters that should be beneath the expanse and the waters that should be above the expanse. And it came to be so. And God began to call the expanse Heaven.”—Genesis 1:6-8.

    Some translations use the word “firmament” instead of “expanse.” From this the argument is made that the Genesis account borrowed from creation myths that represent this “firmament” as a metal dome. But even the King James Version Bible, which uses “firmament,” says in the margin, “expansion.” This is because the Hebrew word ra·qi'a`, translated “expanse,” means to stretch out or spread out or expand.

    The Genesis account says that God did it, but it does not say how. In whatever way the described separation occurred, it would look as though the ‘waters above’ had been pushed up from the earth. And birds could later be said to fly in “the expanse of the heavens,” as stated at Genesis 1:20.

    Third “Day”
    “‘Let the waters under the heavens be brought together into one place and let the dry land appear.’ And it came to be so. And God began calling the dry land Earth, but the bringing together of the waters he called Seas.” (Genesis 1:9, 10) As usual, the account does not describe how this was done. No doubt, tremendous earth movements would have been involved in the formation of land areas. Geologists would explain such major upheavals as catastrophism. But Genesis indicates direction and control by a Creator.

    In the Biblical account where God is described as questioning Job about his knowledge of the earth, a variety of developments concerning earth’s history are described: its measurements, its cloud masses, its seas and how their waves were limited by dry land—many things in general about the creation, spanning long periods of time. Among these things, comparing earth to a building, the Bible says that God asked Job: “Into what have its socket pedestals been sunk down, or who laid its cornerstone?”—Job 38:6.

    Interestingly, like “socket pedestals,” earth’s crust is much thicker under continents and even more so under mountain ranges, pushing deep into the underlying mantle, like tree roots into soil. “The idea that mountains and continents had roots has been tested over and over again, and shown to be valid,” says Putnam’s Geology. 2 Oceanic crust is only about 5 miles thick, but continental roots go down about 20 miles and mountain roots penetrate about twice that far. And all earth’s layers press inward upon earth’s core from all directions, making it like a great “cornerstone” of support.

    Whatever means were used to accomplish the raising up of dry land, the important point is: Both the Bible and science recognize it as one of the stages in the forming of the earth.
     
  7. LightBearer

    LightBearer Veteran

    +19
    Jehovahs Witness
    CONTINUED:

    Land Plants on Third “Day”
    The Bible account adds: “‘Let the earth cause grass to shoot forth, vegetation bearing seed, fruit trees yielding fruit according to their kinds, the seed of which is in it, upon the earth.’ And it came to be so.”—Genesis 1:11.

    Thus by the close of this third creative period, three broad categories of land plants had been created. The diffused light would have become quite strong by then, ample for the process of photosynthesis so vital to green plants. Incidentally, the account here does not mention every “kind” of plant that came on the scene. Microscopic organisms, water plants and others are not specifically named, but likely were created on this “day.”

    Fourth “Day”
    “‘Let luminaries come to be in the expanse of the heavens to make a division between the day and the night; and they must serve as signs and for seasons and for days and years. And they must serve as luminaries in the expanse of the heavens to shine upon the earth.’ And it came to be so. And God proceeded to make the two great luminaries, the greater luminary for dominating the day and the lesser luminary for dominating the night, and also the stars.”—Genesis 1:14-16.

    Previously, on the first “day,” the expression “Let light come to be” was used. The Hebrew word there used for “light” is ’ohr, meaning light in a general sense. But on the fourth “day,” the Hebrew word changes to ma·’ohr', which means the source of the light. Rotherham, in a footnote on “Luminaries” in the Emphasised Bible, says: “In ver. ÞGe 1:Ü3, ’ôr [’ohr], light diffused.” Then he goes on to show that the Hebrew word ma·’ohr' in ÞGe 1 Üverse 14 means something “affording light.” On the first “day” diffused light evidently penetrated the swaddling bands, but the sources of that light could not have been seen by an earthly observer because of the cloud layers still enveloping the earth. Now, on this fourth “day,” things apparently changed.

    An atmosphere initially rich in carbon dioxide may have caused an earth-wide hot climate. But the lush growth of vegetation during the third and fourth creative periods would absorb some of this heat-retaining blanket of carbon dioxide. The vegetation, in turn, would release oxygen—a requirement for animal life.—Psalm 136:7-9.

    Now, had there been an earthly observer, he would be able to discern the sun, moon and stars, which would “serve as signs and for seasons and for days and years.” (Genesis 1:14) The moon would indicate the passing of lunar months, and the sun the passing of solar years. The seasons that now “came to be” on this fourth “day” would no doubt have been much milder than they became later on.—Genesis 1:15; 8:20-22.

    Fifth “Day”
    “‘Let the waters swarm forth a swarm of living souls and let flying creatures fly over the earth upon the face of the expanse of the heavens.’ And God proceeded to create the great sea monsters and every living soul that moves about, which the waters swarmed forth according to their kinds, and every winged flying creature according to its kind.”—Genesis 1:20, 21.

    It is of interest to note that the nonhuman creatures with which the waters were to swarm are called “living souls.” This term would also apply to the “flying creatures [that] fly over the earth upon the face of the expanse.” And it would also embrace the forms of sea and air life, such as the sea monsters, whose fossil remains scientists have found in recent times.

    Sixth “Day”
    “‘Let the earth put forth living souls according to their kinds, domestic animal and moving animal and wild beast of the earth according to its kind.’ And it came to be so.”—Genesis 1:24.

    Thus on the sixth “day,” land animals characterized as wild and domestic appeared. But this final “day” was not over. One last remarkable “kind” was to come:

    “And God went on to say: ‘Let us make man in our image, according to our likeness, and let them have in subjection the fish of the sea and the flying creatures of the heavens and the domestic animals and all the earth and every moving animal that is moving upon the earth.’ And God proceeded to create the man in his image, in God’s image he created him; male and female he created them.”—Genesis 1:26, 27.

    Chapter 2 of Genesis apparently adds some details. However, it is not, as some have concluded, another account of creation in conflict with that of ÞGe Üchapter 1. It just takes up at a point in the third “day,” after dry land appeared but before land plants were created, adding details that were pertinent to the arrival of humans—Adam the living soul, his garden home, Eden, and the woman Eve, his wife.—Genesis 2:5-9, 15-18, 21, 22.

    The foregoing is presented to help us understand what Genesis says. And this quite realistic account indicates that the creative process continued throughout a period of, not just 144 hours (6 × 24), but over many millenniums of time.

    How Did Genesis Know?

    Many find it hard to accept this creation account. They contend that it is drawn from the creation myths of ancient peoples, primarily those from ancient Babylon. However, as one recent Bible dictionary noted: “No myth has yet been found which explicitly refers to the creation of the universe” and the myths “are marked by polytheism and the struggles of deities for supremacy in marked contrast to the Heb[rew] monotheism of [Genesis] 1-2.” 3 Regarding Babylonian creation legends, the trustees of the British Museum stated: “The fundamental conceptions of the Babylonian and Hebrew accounts are essentially different.”

    From what we have considered, the Genesis creation account emerges as a scientifically sound document. It reveals the larger categories of plants and animals, with their many varieties, reproducing only “according to their kinds.” The fossil record provides confirmation of this. In fact, it indicates that each “kind” appeared suddenly, with no true transitional forms linking it with any previous “kind,” as required by the evolution theory.

    All the knowledge of the wise men of Egypt could not have furnished Moses, the writer of Genesis, any clue to the process of creation. The creation myths of ancient peoples bore no resemblance to what Moses wrote in Genesis. Where, then, did Moses learn all these things? Apparently from someone who was there.

    The science of mathematical probability offers striking proof that the Genesis creation account must have come from a source with knowledge of the events. The account lists 10 major stages in this order: (1) a beginning; (2) a primitive earth in darkness and enshrouded in heavy gases and water; (3) light; (4) an expanse or atmosphere; (5) large areas of dry land; (6) land plants; (7) sun, moon and stars discernible in the expanse, and seasons beginning; (8) sea monsters and flying creatures; (9) wild and tame beasts, mammals; (10) man. Science agrees that these stages occurred in this general order. What are the chances that the writer of Genesis just guessed this order? The same as if you picked at random the numbers 1 to 10 from a box, and drew them in consecutive order. The chances of doing this on your first try are 1 in 3,628,800! So, to say the writer just happened to list the foregoing events in the right order without getting the facts from somewhere is not realistic.
     
  8. Sky

    Sky Active Member

    603
    +0
    OK
     
  9. Sinai

    Sinai Well-Known Member

    +15
    Protestant
    The first two verses of Genesis are generally considered to be an overview of God's creative process, with the remainder of the first chapter giving a synopsis of the order of God's creation. Although LightBearer has presented a very interesting theory of limiting the six creative days to God's work on our planet, the words used in the Hebrew also support the idea that the first chapter describes the creation of the entire universe.

    For example, the separation of light from darkness on the first day is a good synopsis of what scientists currently would list as one of the most notable events following the Big Bang: light literally broke free as electrons bonded to atomic nuclei and galaxies began their formation.
     
  10. Sinai

    Sinai Well-Known Member

    +15
    Protestant
    I just found a website (that someone on another thread posted) that deals with this topic and is quite interesting. I have not had a chance to read all of it yet, but the portion I have read is excellent. Click here.
     
  11. Sky

    Sky Active Member

    603
    +0
    Sinai, just curious, are you a young-earth Creationist?
     
  12. Sinai

    Sinai Well-Known Member

    +15
    Protestant
    Sky:

    Young earth?
    No. I have no reason to disbelieve mainstream science's placement of the age of the universe as being about 14-17 billion earth years.

    Creationist?
    Yes. I believe the biblical scriptures that tell us that in the beginning, God created the universe. And life. And our souls.

    In other words, I accept both the evidence of mainstream science and the biblical account of the creation.

    Why do you ask?
     
  13. Chris H

    Chris H Member

    240
    +0
    Agnostic
    Married
    US-Democrat
    Sinai, that sounds good to me.

    Wish more people understood that.

    Chris
     
  14. Patty

    Patty Nice ta see yas!

    +1
    For the sake of this discussion, a Day is not what is normally thought to be in these times. A 'Day', to an ancient, was a way of stating something important. In the case of Genesis' passages, the word 'Day' meant, not an event, but a classification of things that exist upon the earth.

    God, in His Great Majesty, created the Universe, and with it, the earth, in a single act. All men who exist were created and placed on the earth then - in that single act. Men had lived in harmony with all other creatures on the earth, in the beginning of creation. That's how God desires it to be.

    The dinosaurs were there from the beginning, too. Dinosaurs still roam the earth, in their own spots on the earth. But, man no longer refers to them as dinosaurs.

    So, God, in His Great Perfection, gave all animals (that is, all creatures who can move of their own volition) the sense of God, Himself, on the first day (meaning, in those first hours as men reckon time today), and these creatures all have purposes on the earth.

    Man is remiss - seriously remiss - to destroy lives as happens today.

    Pity the poor walking fish, who has done no wrong, but is now the target of man's destructive bent. Pity the buffalo. Pity the walrus, who must live where he chooses not to live, but must live there to escape the hands of man.

    Pity the poor nightengale, whose song is now hardly ever heard.

    Pity the poor sparrow, whose plight is so bad that man considers him disposable.

    Pity the poor groundhog, whose life is nearly extinct on earth.

    Pity poor man, whose day of reckoning for these atrocities is at hand.


    Patty
     
  15. Sinai

    Sinai Well-Known Member

    +15
    Protestant

    Thanks, Chris
     
  16. pyro214

    pyro214 Regular Member

    413
    +16
    Christian
    Single
    The word "day" in hebrew means 24 hours, did it not mean the same thing back then?

    To say a day is not a day because the sun was not created till the fourth day is nonsense. We "use" the sun as a reference to the time of day, it doesnt declare it. Also with "morning" and "evening", these also do not need to be defined by the sun...there just terms to announce the beggining and end of a day.

    The Bible is written through the breath of God, why would he use the term "day" if he was refering to a longer period then 24 hours.
     
  17. rmwilliamsll

    rmwilliamsll avid reader

    +317
    Calvinist
    Married
    US-Green
    The word "day" in hebrew means 24 hours, did it not mean the same thing back then?

    no it is not.
    look at:
    Gen 1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

    God calls the daylight YOM. not the daylight + darkness, but just the daylight hours.
     
  18. Shemjaza

    Shemjaza Regular Member Supporter

    +1,661
    Australia
    Atheist
    Single
    AU-Greens
    http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=68&chapter=3&verse=8&version=9&context=verse

    It might not be that exact...

    (And how did you find this thread? Look at the dates!)
     
  19. MrGoodBytes

    MrGoodBytes Seeker for life, probably

    +269
    Seeker
    Single
    This thread is FIVE YEARS OLD.
     
  20. Blackmarch

    Blackmarch Legend

    +287
    Mormon
    Single
    I find the term day to have more than one meaning and not just restricted to a 24 hr rotation.
     
Loading...