Taking questions on Embedded Age Creation (2)

Hammster · Nov 17, 2012

CabVet said:
Wouldn't it be nice if you answered his question before asking another?

Sure.

The bible says:

Night will no longer exist, and people will not need lamplight or sunlight, because the Lord God will give them light. And they will reign forever and ever. (Revelation 22:5 HCSB)

This shows biblically that there is no need for a star to produce light. And I will assume that it won't be freezing in heaven, so no need for a star to produce heat, either.

This should address his concerns about light/heat in Genesis 1.

Better?

CabVet · Nov 17, 2012

Hammster said:
Sure.

The bible says:

Night will no longer exist, and people will not need lamplight or sunlight, because the Lord God will give them light. And they will reign forever and ever. (Revelation 22:5 HCSB)

This shows biblically that there is no need for a star to produce light. And I will assume that it won't be freezing in heaven, so no need for a star to produce heat, either.

This should address his concerns about light/heat in Genesis 1.

Better?

Lots os assumptions, I see... Oh well, to each his own, I guess.

Hammster · Nov 17, 2012

CabVet said:
Lots os assumptions, I see... Oh well, to each his own, I guess.

Just one assumption. And it was logical.

RickG · Nov 17, 2012

Hammster said:
I assume by your icon that you really are a Christian.

Do you at least believe the bible whee it says this?:

Night will no longer exist, and people will not need lamplight or sunlight, because the Lord God will give them light. And they will reign forever and ever. (Revelation 22:5 HCSB)

I am not only a Christian but a practicing Christian attending church regularly, taking part in church ministries. Aside from that, I remind you that this portion of the CF is devoted to science and scientific discussion. If you wish to discuss apologetics, I suggest you go to that forum.

Are you among those, for what ever reason, who subscribe to a young earth concept? I think answering that question would be most beneficial to our discussion. Thank you.

CabVet · Nov 17, 2012

Hammster said:
Just one assumption. And it was logical.

And since when a heaven without a light source but plenty of light (and assumed heat) is "logical"?

Hammster · Nov 17, 2012

RickG said:
I am not only a Christian but a practicing Christian attending church regularly, taking part in church ministries. Aside from that, I remind you that this portion of the CF is devoted to science and scientific discussion. If you wish to discuss apologetics, I suggest you go to that forum.

I've read the forum description. I don't believe that I'm posting off topic. And I was responding to your post. You brought up day 3, not I.

Now, do you agree with the text in Revelation?

Are you among those, for what ever reason, who subscribe to a young earth concept? I think answering that question would be most beneficial to our discussion. Thank you.

It's irrelevant.

Hammster · Nov 17, 2012

CabVet said:
And since when a heaven without a light source but plenty of light (and assumed heat) is "logical"?

Who said there was no source?

CabVet · Nov 17, 2012

Hammster said:
Who said there was no source?

Ok, let me rephrase, and since when a heaven with a supernatural light source (and assumed heat) is "logical"?

Hammster · Nov 17, 2012

CabVet said:
Ok, let me rephrase, and since when a heaven with a supernatural light source (and assumed heat) is "logical"?

My answer was biblical. My assumption that the light would produce heat was logical.

Guy1 · Nov 17, 2012

Hammster said:
My answer was biblical. My assumption that the light would produce heat was logical.

[Forum Weapon] That just raisesï»¿ further questions! - YouTube

Hammster · Nov 17, 2012

Guy1 said:
[Forum Weapon] That just raises further questions! - YouTube

That could be true.

RickG · Nov 17, 2012

Hammster said:
I've read the forum description. I don't believe that I'm posting off topic. And I was responding to your post. You brought up day 3, not I.

Now, do you agree with the text in Revelation?

Revelation is about prophecy. For me to to disclose what I do or do believe about Revelation is revealing personal prophecy. Doing so is specifically prohibited in the forum rules.

"Personal Prophecy (prophetic utterance) will be considered off-topic to all site forums. These may be posted in your own personal Blog."

RULES

Let's get back on topic which is "embedded age".

My question was quite relevant. Do you subscribe to a young earth?

AV1611VET · Nov 17, 2012

RickG said:

Let's put this formula into perspective with one of my favorite cartoons:

RickG said:
Stefan-Boltzmann law (Black Body Temperature). It is one of the first concepts taught in Climatology and an important integral in Earth's Energy Budget. I think meteorologist get a taste of it as well. If not they should. I know Michael Oard hasn't a clue what it is, he must have cut class that day.

As I'm fond of pointing out, God did not use science to create the universe. Had He done so, then this formula might apply; but He obviously didn't.

The creation week was a week of miracles.

Hammster · Nov 17, 2012

RickG said:
Revelation is about prophecy. For me to to disclose what I do or do believe about Revelation is revealing personal prophecy. Doing so is specifically prohibited in the forum rules.

"Personal Prophecy (prophetic utterance) will be considered off-topic to all site forums. These may be posted in your own personal Blog."

You misunderstand that rule. It's about you prophesying, not you discussing Revelation. And since it goes to your argument about there needing to be a star for light, it's relevant.

Let's get back on topic which is "embedded age".

My question was quite relevant. Do you subscribe to a young earth?

What is the relevance?

RickG · Nov 17, 2012

Hammster said:
You misunderstand that rule. It's about you prophesying, not you discussing Revelation. And since it goes to your argument about there needing to be a star for light, it's relevant.

What is the relevance?

Well, it appears that you have absolutely no intention in discussing any science whatsoever. It's been an experience. Let me know if you care to discuss the topic.

Hammster · Nov 17, 2012

RickG said:
Well, it appears that you have absolutely no intention in discussing any science whatsoever. It's been an experience. Let me know if you care to discuss the topic.

You are the one who brought up day 3. And I responded. I'm sorry that you didn't care for the answer.

And science is knowledge.

verysincere · Nov 17, 2012

RickG said:
If this the the post you say I did not respond, you are correct. I missed it and I apologize.

So, on with the response.

Yes, according to Gen: 1:1 there was light on the first day. So, there resides another contradiction. Light without a source, not even star light. Genesis 1 and science do not agree, that is a fact..

No. We have no reason to think that it was light "without a source."

Genesis 1:1 says "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." Verse 2 talks about the earth already existing as a TOHU VAVOHU ("vast and void") mass, probably molten and cooling. So THE HEAVENS already existed, and "the heavens" refers to the stars and planets.

The rest of the chapter describes conditions on the earth. It is not at all clear that Genesis 1 is a chronological account as far as the six YOM---but even if they are interpreted in that way, the Hebrew text speaks of the sun and moon becoming visible for purposes of TIME KEEPING. Perhaps the atmosphere was translucent prior to that. In any case, for THE HEAVENS to exist in verse 1, we know that the stars and planets already existed--- and the light that is associated with YOM#1 is presumably from those THE HEAVENS in verse 1.

So no matter how you look at it, plants getting light is no problem. And it is only because of TRADITION (not the text itself) that many Christians assume "Let there be light!" was the first creative act. No, the text says that other things were created and existed according to verses 1 and 2.

Tradition is a powerful force. Most Christians fail to resist and impose it upon the Biblical text even though a simple reading and literal interpretation of the Biblical text would point to other conclusions.

AV1611VET · Nov 17, 2012

verysincere said:
Genesis 1:1 says "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."

No it doesn't.

(This is a sore spot with me.)

Hammster · Nov 17, 2012

AV1611VET said:
No it doesn't.

(This is a sore spot with me.)

So what does it say?

AV1611VET · Nov 17, 2012

Hammster said:
So what does it say?

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

Notice "heaven" is singular, not plural.

It isn't plural until after God finishes His creation.

Genesis 2:1 Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.

Meaning that between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 2:1, God created two more heavens.

The breakdown goes like this:

First Heaven = atmosphere = 0-62 miles up.
Second Heaven = outer space = 62 miles up - edge of universe.
Third Heaven = Heaven proper.

Note this passage ...

Galatians 3:16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.

... where Paul warns that adding an ess on to a single word can lead to a major misunderstanding.

Taking questions on Embedded Age Creation (2)

Carpe Chaos

Question everything

Carpe Chaos

Senior Veteran

Question everything

Carpe Chaos

Carpe Chaos

Question everything

Carpe Chaos

Senior Member

Carpe Chaos

Senior Veteran

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Carpe Chaos

Senior Veteran

Carpe Chaos

Exegete/Linguist

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Carpe Chaos

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency