I've already stated clearly what scripture says about it in regard to its purpose. It's not a science textbook and was not meant to be. This is the reason why I said that trying to make it so is a fool's errand.
You have given me no scripture at all. You simply stated what you believe with zero scripture.
I never said it was. I don't care about science. I've said this a few times but will say it again. Science is mankind striving to understand what he sees through tests and observations. But they only have the groaning world to test and observe,
not the world God created. It can't give answers to something that is gone.
It's a fool's errand on both sides if they think it shows how things came to be. The Bible is truth, it is the truth of what happened. I have scripture so why would I need to listen to the fumblings of men who weren't there and don't know everything. God was there, God does know everything. He says he created the world in 6 days, so he did.
Now you claim that I focus on an issue because it's what 'science' says. Well, whenever you see the sunrise, do you understand that what you are seeing is due to the rotation of the Earth? If so, then you interpret the phrase "the rising of the sun" in scripture according to your scientific understanding of it. So do you know how the ancients understood the sunrise? Do you have evidence of how they understood it?
You 100% believe those stars to be 4 billion years old because scientists say it is. It doesn't even cross your mind as a possibility that they are wrong. So yes you are focused on science. You certainly didn't get the idea from scripture.
I know the sunrise is most likely to be from the rotation of the earth. I say most likely because I am also not opposed to a flat earth but I really don't think it is. I honestly don't care what shape the earth is.
The difference with the shape of the earth vs some '4 billion-year-old supernova' is men did go into outer space and walk on the moon and take pictures. It was observed and recorded. It wasn't decided upon by someone in a lab using mathematics and experiments. No one was there to see and record those other events. That is the difference.
Now there are people who claim those are fakes. The main reason I don't believe the earth is flat has nothing to do with science and everything to do with the human condition. For the pictures from space to be faked would take a massive hoax. For it to be a massive hoax someone/s would need to be making an extraordinarily large amount of money or some other huge gain. No one is going to spend billions of dollars for funsies. Again no one had an answer to this, not even the flat earth believers who have everything to gain by it being a hoax. If the Bible taught that the earth was flat I would believe it -it doesn't. That is a complete myth. I looked at every verse they gave me, nope not one says "The earth is flat".
The Bible says God sits above the circle of the earth and that is all. Both a flat circle or a round ball can look circular from a distance.
And it follows, do you claim that Gen. 1 should be understood miraculously and not scientifically? And if you claim it should be understood that way, then why bother to claim that "day" means the 24 hour period we know today, calling it "literal interpretation," since the 24 hour period is known scientifically by observation?
The whole point of the use of day is because God created both the day and the week for us. This is when he established it and he did so that when he told the Israelites to work for 6 and rest on one as a Holy day they understood. And we know Genesis means regular day because of the word usage it contains. Morning and evening and a number always indicate regular days in Hebrew. The author intended it to be taken literally.
What more could the author (who I believe was Moses) have done to show the readers that it was literal? What more could have written to convince you? I have asked that question before and said if Mosses had said "God created the word in 6 regular length days" would you then believe him? -the answer was no. No, they would still take science over God's word. Tell me that isn't faith, faith in science.
Jesus said to believe the words of Mosses.
John 5:46
If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me.
God could have created the earth in 6 seconds if he had wished. But then that would not have impressed upon us how special mankind is. That the earth and we are special, that we are made in the image of God. Frankly, 6 days is God taking his time.
The fact that he let Adam be alone for a short time was so he would feel the longing for companionship.
Adam was created on day 6, if each day including day 6 were really thousands upon thousands of years Adam would have been dead long before day 7. He was created on day 6 and lived 930 years after he was created. Only possible if the days were actual days.
Can't you see that there is a problem with that since the sun was created on day 4? Then how could day 1-3 be the same 24 hour period we know today if "day" literally means sunrise to sunset, and "night" means sunset to sunrise, as we know it today? If you claim that day 1-3 were miraculous day/night periods, then why make it 24 hours, since you are already making it non-literal?
I will tell you why I think God waited until day 4, it was to downplay the importance of the sun, moon and stars because people were inclined to worship them.
The scripture says God created light. If light shines on a turning ball you get a cycle of light and dark. But even if it wasn't done that way. Let's say the earth is actually flat (again I really don't think so) If God wanted it to have a day and night cycle he could because he's God. God isn't a man constrained to natural laws, he is the creator of those laws and he can change them at will.
But you refuse to consider that ancient Hebrews regarded the light of the day to be produced by something other than the sun, and that the sun was in the "firmament," that is, the dome above the air, where also the stars resided. This information is not coming from scientists, but rather theologians and historians. And you refuse to consider that the Gen. 1 account fits exactly in this paradigm. My point is that the YUC (Young-Universe-Creationist) position is just as much opinion as the opinion of scientists who don't believe that Gen. 1 is a scientific account.
Kind of hard to consider when this is the first time you have mentioned it. Either that or I didn't see it.
"ancient Hebrews regarded the light of the day to be produced by something other than the sun"
This is not something I know about. I would have to look it up.
The phrase "rising of the sun" is stated from the viewpoint of someone standing on the Earth, and is not a scientific idea, but an observational one. Yet, you know from science that the phrase is referring to a particular time in the rotation of the Earth. So why don't you interpret that phrase literally, meaning that the sun actually rises and sets? Why claim that you believe it's due to the rotation of the Earth? Why claim that the Earth revolves around the sun, since there is no scripture to back it up? But the words sunrise and sunset imply that the sun revolves around the Earth, and this is indeed what was believed for thousands of years.
I already answered that. We all know it's figurative language because it's from poetry. There are different types of passages in scripture.
The Rising of the Sun is from a Psalm, the book of Psalms are songs and poems which is a comply different type of literature to Genesis 1 which is history.
Psalm 113:3
3 From the rising of the sun to the place where it sets,
the name of the Lord is to be praised.
The Psalms also say "The leaves clap their hands" Again because it's poetry. Poetry is allowed to take
poetic licence. I assume you do know what that is.
Poetry can be used to support a literal text but you can't build a doctrine on just poetry.
The Bible does not teach that the earth is flat and if people took it to mean that then that is on them isn't it. But there are no literal texts saying 'the earth is flat'
The point in all this is that you conform your interpretation of certain scripture according to your knowledge of science. You regard the terms sunrise and sunset to be figures of speech that have meaning based on scientific knowledge. And then you claim that you are interpreting it literally. Of course I am assuming that you do all this, because I assume that you have common sense.
Already answered this, you keep repeating yourself. As I said before eyewitness photographs of something occurring right now is vastly different to mathematical assumptions about things 4 billion years ago and if you can't see the difference then I give up.
And you would not have any reason to believe that the Earth revolved around the sun, unless someone told you so, or you observed it yourself through a telescope. Therefore, your understanding of the terms "sunrise" and "day" are based on your knowledge of science.
Again, I don't really care if it does or not even though I assume it does. I am not saying that science isn't clever or given us many things but I know:
1. This world is not the world God created.
2. Man does not know everything but God does.
3. When God says 6 days, he means 6 days. The rest of the scriptures supports this. It supports a literal Adam, a literal fall, a literal flood, a literal Jesus with a literal death and resurrection and a literal remaking of the current world into a new world.
With that said, don't you think it is reasonable to say that your interpretation of Gen. 1 might be wrong, since everyone's interpretation of "sunrise" was wrong for thousands of years? Don't you think it reasonable to revisit our interpretation of scripture based on what we observe as real when we gain knowledge of it? That's essentially what you do anyway, as you live your life and gain experience in your Christian life, isn't it? Don't you revisit how you read scripture whenever you gain more knowledge and understanding?
If it was only Genesis 1 and if there were scripture backing up the view of it being an allegory I would look at it.
I think I asked you 3 times for scripture to back up your view that it should be read as an allegory. You have none just like everyone else I have ever asked.
You make a theological statement with zero scripture back up, and expect it to be taken as a serious Biblical position? That's a joke.
Apart from that many verses hang on it being literal. I only shared a few, but there are so many more. You didn't even acknowledge the few I quoted let alone attempt to answer them. No, you pointedly ignored them, yet you expect me to answer you.
I didn't start out as a creationist, I became one at about 26-27 or thereabouts after some very good teaching on how the entirety of scripture hangs together. When God remakes the world he isn't making it back to some primordial soup, he is making it back to what it first was, a paradise. It is a full circle beginning with perfection and ending with perfection. It completely fits together like a thousand-piece jig-saw and it is a far more marvellous and beautiful a picture than any so-called ape-like ancestors turning into men.
