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.
The alternative would be that your claims about creation cannot be tested and thus may be dismissed.wow OK so list the things science is all about and studies OTHER than the natural!?
That is nonsensical. What else can be tested by science that is NOT natural?
As soon as you offer support for the claim that science is not limited to the natural, we can look at that. Until we see evidence for that claim it remains your belief and obviously you are trying to push it.
When did god make the sun in your list?I don't personally know how you would define 'account,' but Genesis 2 is not a chronological recounting like Genesis 1 but a thematic and relational expansion of Day 6 in Genesis 1. The Hebrew verb tense in Genesis 2 allows retrospective or thematic descriptions rather than sequential events. For instance, Genesis 2:19 ("Now the LORD God had formed...") suggests that the animals were already created before Adam. The key is Genesis 2:19: "Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the wild animals and all the birds in the sky. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them..." The phrase "had formed" in many translations reflects the Hebrew verb yatsar, which can be rendered in the pluperfect tense ("had formed") rather than the simple past.
As mentioned, Genesis 1 is presented to the reader as a chronological account of the creation of the universe (with a heavy focus on man and man's perspective.) Genesis 2 is presented to the reader as an account of the creation of Adam and Eve and the original Garden Paradise. Genesis 3 is presented to the reader as a per se "compilation" of everything good that God made:
We can attempt an initial chronology based on these two accounts:
- The main focus of Genesis 2 is the creation of Adam and Eve. This took place during "Day 6" of the Genesis 1 account.
- The purpose of Genesis 2 is to prepare the reader to understand Genesis 3, not to provide stale historical records for future generations to fill their heads with. Everything mentioned in Genesis 2 is strategic, with an eye toward Genesis 3 and beyond.
- The audience of Genesis 1-3 lived after the Fall and did not experience life during the Creation Week, or life in the Garden paradise.
So, the two chronologies mesh perfectly. Dr. Richard Averbeck makes this point too: “We have this whole universe in Genesis 1:1 through 2:3. And then Genesis 2:4 goes on and really zeros down into (God’s) work of humanity.” From what I can tell, I think you are imposing modern expectations of linear storytelling onto ancient textual style.
- God made light, heaven, and dry land
- God made seed-bearing and fruit-bearing vegetation for food
- God made fish, birds, and land animals
- God made Adam
- God made the Garden of Eden and placed Adam there
- God had Adam name the animals, and then He made Eve
The sun was created on Day 4 according to Genesis 1:14-19. Note that on Day 1, God created light, and this light source sustained the vegetation until Day 4. The "vault of the sky" is created on Day 2, but it remains empty of celestial bodies until Day 4, when God places the sun, moon, and stars into it:When did god make the sun in your list?
I noted this with Professor Dave Explains (who was very rude, and I pray for him to seek peace with himself and with those around him, and to calm his tongueIf you'd understood what I've been saying, you'd see that I am not closed-minded. I'll accept ANYTHING as true, provided it has testable evidence to support it.
But once again you respond with the same PRATT (point refuted a thousand times) as before.
There is no discussion with you.
I'll repeat my same question I made all that ago when I first saw this thread, and since there seems to be new people who take embedded age as akin to the Gospel, even though it is one of the most extra-Biblical ideas I've ever seen:
Just a plain and simple... why?
?? a tennis match ??
?)
Because it was necessary.
Maybe for here and now. Not eternally. Not in the assembly of ekklesia serving Jesus.
It is dismissed and has been a long time by the naturalonlydunnit crowd. It will never be tested by natural only science. Nor indeed can be. Therefore to use only the natural is not able to be tested either, as to whether the supernatural also was involved or not. So all claims based only on the natural in regards to creation or even how the universe is held together and works can be dismissed.The alternative would be that your claims about creation cannot be tested and thus may be dismissed.
But why was it necessary?
We've been over this before, haven't we?
Age is necessary for functionality.
Old rocks serve one purpose; young rocks another.
Even radiation embedded in them help regulate the earth's temperature.
God can do anything, even create a world where old age isn't a necessity for functionality.
Mystery makes people uncomfortable, everyone's looking for some concrete answer. The explanation is necessary to their understanding, because their understanding requires counterfactual beliefs.But why was it necessary?
That's about the weakest argument in existence.
"God can do anything."
Sure.
God could have made us men carry children inside of us for nine months, but He didn't.
Or He could have made grass orange, instead of green, but He didn't.
Or He could have made water dry, instead of wet, but He didn't.
Mystery makes people uncomfortable, everyone's looking for some concrete answer. The explanation is necessary to their understanding, because their understanding requires counterfactual beliefs.
Maybe addressing the whole of my question will make you understand things better, so I'll repeat what I said:
No, you've made the claim that age is necessity for functionality, which is a major bit of post hoc logic to try and sync the old age of the Earth with Young Earth Creationism.
God can do anything, even create a world where old age isn't a necessity for functionality. But to say that He did so is to very clearly create a deceptive deity.
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?