Theistic Evolution makes Judgment and Sin feel distant and less real

[nolidad]

And you are dodging the point again.

What is your point then?

That the acinets couldn't see the planets with the naked eye? That they did not know they were there but God didn't wither when He said He created the heavens and all the host of them? That it took millenia for mankind to discover what some of those hosts of heavens are?

What is your point?

What empirical and proven science shows this as invalid? You are throwing guesses out of your head, you are being completely dishonest in your arguments.

Mutations have never shown to change families orders phyla and or kingdoms!

That collected mutations in a species over time reduce the viability of the species and not cause them to change to a more complex creature.

Most mutations fall on the harmful side of the equation (granted most are nearly benign) but take away and not add information to a genome!

That most speciation is caused by simply reshuffling of information int eh genome or a trait that was one of many becoming dominant due to climate (like a dog that has the genetics for short, medium and long hair becoming long hair dogs in cold climates- the long hair suits them to survive, but they stay a dog)

Also speciation cand and does occur mostly due to recessive traits becoming dominant

As for Big Bang hypothetical cosmology gravity does not build! It would tear down- gravitational pull on matter to form stars or planets or moons would cause a crushing of matter or a breaking up of matter.

Also if the big bang occurred 13.8 billion years ago as evolutiuonary cosmology says is fact, and that the universe started either as a sub atomic hyper dense particle of matter (eternal matter) how did galaxies get 13.2 billion light years distant from us in only 600 million years! What big bang says (or the scientists who believe in it) is that the big bang occurred, matter was flung out in all directions, and in 600 million years, matter not only coalesced in to galaxies but did so while travelling at 22X the speed of light, so it can be at a point in the universe to shine light that took 13.2 billion years to reach us! That is an impossibility! That is why both are invalid in a nutshell!

Again, you are refuting your own arguments. The reason why you say "all of the hosts" includes planets is because they must have been due to them being scientifically discovered to exist! You are inserting scientific knowledge and expanding upon what scripture doesn't tell you. That is the point I am making.

So you believe God created the stars but not the planets???? God is god and that includes the God of good science! Just because He didn't write out all the intrinsic formula doesn't mean there isnot knowledge of science in the Bible.

I'm not rejecting the truth of God, i'm rejecting such bad theology. Your theology is not representing God, because if it did it would not be so refutable and much more that narrow minded. As I said before, this specific part of the quote is you self-refuting yourself. You are right that they did not have the technical language of science that is why we can't take the creation story literally. You yourself don't with some of them, such the moon.

So you are saying we shouldn't take it literally because it is written in a way you don't think is scientific enough? I won't apologize that the Hebrew of the day didn't have the words man made up to define what took centuries for them to discover what God had done!

Here is the moon in the bible:

16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,

Let me ask you , what heavenly body illuminates and rules the night? Teh greater light (we call the sun) or the lesser light (we call the moon). Are you just in a snit because God didn't give the ancients the language and words to specifically define things like we do today? Even the word moon is a man made word!

 

[Cis.jd]

What is your point then?

That the acinets couldn't see the planets with the naked eye? That they did not know they were there but God didn't wither when He said He created the heavens and all the host of them? That it took millenia for mankind to discover what some of those hosts of heavens are?

The point I am making is that you can't take the creation story literally. We have to look at the evidence not bad theological bias in where you just refuse to be educated on these topics because you don't want to believe them.

Additionally, as of late. You have contradicted your entire stance and still are unable to realize it. You yourself do not take certain terms literate, and you yourself also state the scientific ignorance of people during that time. So if that is the case, then why should we start taking 6 days with that same form of acknowledgement?

Mutations have never shown to change families orders phyla and or kingdoms! Most mutations fall on the harmful side of the equation (granted most are nearly benign) but take away and not add information to a genome! snip As for Big Bang hypothetical cosmology gravity does not build! It would tear down- gravitational pull on matter to form stars or planets or moons would cause a crushing of matter or a breaking up of matter snip

Show me an academical source.

So you believe God created the stars but not the planets???? God is god and that includes the God of good science! Just because He didn't write out all the intrinsic formula doesn't mean there isnot knowledge of science in the Bible.

I do believe he created them, but what if someone doesn't believe planets exist because of no mention of their creation at all or believes that the moon is an actual light object? From where are you going to tell him he is wrong?

So you are saying we shouldn't take it literally because it is written in a way you don't think is scientific enough? I won't apologize that the Hebrew of the day didn't have the words man made up to define what took centuries for them to discover what God had done!

Should we? Should I take the moon as literally an actual entity of light? Should I take "heaven and all it's host" to be literal - as in Heaven and angels?

.

 

[nolidad]

The point I am making is that you can't take the creation story literally. We have to look at the evidence not bad theological bias in where you just refuse to be educated on these topics because you don't want to believe them.

Additionally, as of late. You have contradicted your entire stance and still are unable to realize it. You yourself do not take certain terms literate, and you yourself also state the scientific ignorance of people during that time. So if that is the case, then why should we start taking 6 days with that same form of acknowledgement?

Well you don't have perfect theological language so why should I take you literately? That is a door that swings both ways!

Oh, please tell me which terms I don't take literally.

Just because the people were not aware of everything God created in six days- doesn't mean god didn't do it! That is foolish. And I started as a strict atheistic evolytionary big banger! It was the scientific evidence and Scripture that made me a 6 day young earth creationist!

Show me an academical source.

Google is your firend!

Show me an academic source that has empirically shown mutations have caused new previously unwritten genetic information appear in the genome! But here is a blurb:


Mutational effects can be beneficial, harmful, or neutral, depending on their context or location. Most non-neutral mutations are deleterious. In general, the more base pairs that are affected by a mutation, the larger the effect of the mutation, and the larger the mutation's probability of being deleterious.
http://www.nature.com/scitable/topi...,mutation's probability of being deleterious.
Genetic Mutation | Learn Science at Scitable - Nature

Even teh dean of Harvard Genetics in the early 2000"s admitted that mutations ultimately reduce the viability of a species (population) that is the wrong way of evolution.

Despite the many experiments involving thousands of generations of bacteria and fruit fly- no new information that was beneficial was ever produced and we have never seen say a mouse evolve into something that is not a mouse. We have seen, variations and speciation but never a non mouse produced.

I do believe he created them, but what if someone doesn't believe planets exist because of no mention of their creation at all or believes that the moon is an actual light object? From where are you going to tell him he is wrong?

Well if someone is determined to not believe because God didn't specifically mention Mercury, Venus, earth, Mars, Jupiter, Uranus, Saturn, Neptune and PLuto- that is their problem not mine! How do we know Jesus came from God? It doesn't say so specifically in Genesis 3! If you wish to not accept that when God said He created the heavens and the hosts in them covers the planets that is your business. As planets are in the heavens and they are part of teh hostsd of heaven, I am content!

Should we? Should I take the moon as literally an actual entity of light? Should I take "heaven and all it's host" to be literal - as in Heaven and angels?

Or you can take it as an orb that lights the night sky and is lesser (do a Hebrew Word study on that word). And the angels are part of teh hosts of heavens as well. They were created sometime before day 5.

 

[Cis.jd]

Oh, please tell me which terms I don't take literally.

Just because the people were not aware of everything God created in six days- doesn't mean god didn't do it! That is foolish. And I started as a strict atheistic evolytionary big banger! It was the scientific evidence and Scripture that made me a 6 day young earth creationist!

You don't take "heavens all their hosts" literally, because if you did you would take the heavens and all it's host to be the levels with in heaven and angels only. You also don't take the description of the moon as a literal body of light because of science.

Google is your firend!
Show me an academic source that has empirically shown mutations have caused new previously unwritten genetic information appear in the genome! But here is a blurb:
Mutational effects can be beneficial, harmful, or neutral, depending on their context or location. Most non-neutral mutations are deleterious. In general, the more base pairs that are affected by a mutation, the larger the effect of the mutation, and the larger the mutation's probability of being deleterious.
Genetic Mutation | Learn Science at Scitable - Nature

You just linked it yourself. That explains why it exists. Here is another, https://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/primer/mutationsanddisorders/genemutation

Despite the many experiments involving thousands of generations of bacteria and fruit fly- no new information that was beneficial was ever produced and we have never seen say a mouse evolve into something that is not a mouse. We have seen, variations and speciation but never a non mouse produced.

What about the 13 species of finches? Talk to me about that.

How do we know Jesus came from God? It doesn't say so specifically in Genesis 3!

Because there are other books in the Bible saying so.

Or you can take it as an orb that lights the night sky and is lesser (do a Hebrew Word study on that word). And the angels are part of teh hosts of heavens as well. They were created sometime before day 5.

But all the other verses tell me it actually gives off light, genesis also describes it's formation in the same context as God forming the light. So if I am telling you that God's word says the Moon is an actual body of light, what is telling you that I am wrong?

 

[nolidad]

You don't take "heavens all their hosts" literally, because if you did you would take the heavens and all it's host to be the levels with in heaven and angels only. You also don't take the description of the moon as a literal body of light because of science.

So now you pretend to know what I do and don't take literally??? Is there no bounds to your superpowers????????

As an internal self creating source of light? NO! but as a body of light (reflected) that rules the nighit sky? Yes!

Once again you are just having a snit because God didn't wriote in detailed extensive scientific language- but gave man the ability to discover many things!

But all the other verses tell me it actually gives off light, genesis also describes it's formation in the same context as God forming the light. So if I am telling you that God's word says the Moon is an actual body of light, what is telling you that I am wrong?

Well show me these verses that say the moon is a heavenly body that creates it own light and we will talk about it.

But the fact that teh moon shows light to rule th enight sky is beyond dispute. YOu are just mad because it is reflected light and not self generating light! So God must be stupid! I suppose you reject the physical resurrection of Jesus as well because God did not go into a scientific primer of how a body completely drained of blood can be reanimated without a transfusion and AED!

I suppose you reject jesus taking 5 loaves and two fishes and feeding close to 20,000 with 12 baskets leftover because unbelieivng people in scince fields cannot give a rational answer for that as well!

What about the 13 species of finches? Talk to me about that.

They start as finches and have remained finches. That is variation not Darwinian evolution that takes microbes and over X years have turned it to man!

 

[Cis.jd]

So now you pretend to know what I do and don't take literally??? Is there no bounds to your superpowers????????

I'm not pretending, this is all from you.

As an internal self creating source of light? NO! but as a body of light (reflected) that rules the nighit sky? Yes!

Right! However, it is still described as 1 or the 2 greater lights formed, in the same context as actual bodies of light (sun and stars). You inserted "reflector" in that. Genesis says the lights are 2 not 1. A mirror can reflect the light off the light bulb, but a mirror wouldn't still be considered a light source because the light isn't coming from it.

Once again you are just having a snit because God didn't wriote in detailed extensive scientific language- but gave man the ability to discover many things!

No, that is the point i have been making all along. God never intended to reveal the design of the cosmos, God's purpose of the Bible was to reveal the relationship between him and man, it's revealing things on a spiritual level. Therefore anything science related should not be fact checked by scripture.

So God must be stupid! I suppose you reject the physical resurrection of Jesus as well because God did not go into a scientific primer of how a body completely drained of blood can be reanimated without a transfusion and AED!

It's not God that is being stupid, it's just the writer of Genesis -moses and people of that time believed this. God did reveal this stuff to them.

I suppose you reject jesus taking 5 loaves and two fishes and feeding close to 20,000 with 12 baskets leftover because unbelieivng people in scince fields cannot give a rational answer for that as well!

No I don't reject it, although I would be unaffected if that was indeed metaphorical or naturally explained. At the end, the apostles believed in Jesus in such high levels that they really gave their lives for it. Then you have Paul and his historicity.

They start as finches and have remained finches. That is variation not Darwinian evolution that takes microbes and over X years have turned it to man!

But there are different species of these finches, each completely different biologically. Why?

 

[nolidad]

I'm not pretending, this is all from you.

Well I take it literal so you r assumptions are wrong!

Right! However, it is still described as 1 or the 2 greater lights formed, in the same context as actual bodies of light (sun and stars). You inserted "reflector" in that. Genesis says the lights are 2 not 1. A mirror can reflect the light off the light bulb, but a mirror wouldn't still be considered a light source because the light isn't coming from it.

Wrong again! The moon when God called it into existence is this:

16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

Great is gadow, which in this context means intensity- so teh sun and moon are the most intense lights in the sky! Which they are!

Greater is also gadow- but construct makes it a more intense light

and the moon or lesser is: qatan which is unimpotant, insignificant! God spoke to the people in a way they could understand, and then we got to discover exactly what he meant when he said the moon was an insignificant light!

No, that is the point i have been making all along. God never intended to reveal the design of the cosmos, God's purpose of the Bible was to reveal the relationship between him and man, it's revealing things on a spiritual level. Therefore anything science related should not be fact checked by scripture.

You could have saved a lot of bluster! I said the very thing long ago! God did not give a primer on how He created and how He formed things when He called them into existence- He just stated that He did!

And who but the Creator of Science gets to define what is science?

And which form of evolution do you hold to ?

Steady state or darwinian and neo darwinian?
Punctuated Equilibria
Goldscmidts theory?
An amalgam of all!

God said he destroyed the surface of teh eath with a global flood! That is something that science can investigate and has shown is not only possible, but teh best answer to account for the fossils, oil, gas, oceans, underground oceans, grand canyon, and how rock formations are the way they are in teh massive scale.

The Bible also declared how the mountains came to be and also how the continents came to be. Not in graphic minute detail, but just simply God declared they happened.

I never said the bible is a science text book, but when it speaks of matters we call "science" it is accurate 100% if in a simplistic non-modern language way!

It's not God that is being stupid, it's just the writer of Genesis -moses and people of that time believed this. God did reveal this stuff to them.

So then you reject that the Bible is God breathed. And you reject that teh Holy Spirit moved the writers as He wished. Because that is the claim made that Adam and MOses were inspired by God! So if they wrote this it is either God inspired or not! If not then people are free to reject teh whole thing! But if it is God inspired, then it is true and it is our understanding that is lacking and not the Word that is wrong!

No I don't reject it, although I would be unaffected if that was indeed metaphorical or naturally explained. At the end, the apostles believed in Jesus in such high levels that they really gave their lives for it. Then you have Paul and his historicity.

I suppose you would be unaffected as well if the physical resurrection of Jesus is just metaphorical as well?

But there are different species of these finches, each completely different biologically. Why?

Ever hear of Mendels Law? Variation occurs because of dominat and recessive genes being displayed in succesive generations! Why so many species? Because somewhere there were several finches (like maybe for the ark ), and they had written in their genome varying characteristics. As tim ewent on, these traits shuffled and variations of teh original occured! We see this happening to day all the time.

It is so proven that that little Hungarian Monks experiment with peas became a Law of science!

That is also why Caucasian parents who came form Caucasian parents down to 15-20 generation can give birth to a very dark skinned baby! Because it is info already in the genome! And just got expressed.

 

[Cis.jd]

Well I take it literal so you r assumptions are wrong!

You do, i know but you dont realize you've argued that some parts are not literal.

Wrong again! The moon when God called it into existence is this:

16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

However, the moon is not a light. That light is still coming from the sun, so it's only 1 light. Hence when taken literal, and just throwing away science, the moon is exactly a light. Especially when it is described in creation to be made along with the composition of other lights.

You could have saved a lot of bluster! I said the very thing long ago! God did not give a primer on how He created and how He formed things when He called them into existence- He just stated that He did!

Exactly, he did not give a primer on how he created, so why are you making all details literate in genesis. He called them into existence, but the universe hints that his way of call is by design.

And who but the Creator of Science gets to define what is science?

Science is our progress in understanding more about the creator in which we can't get from the Biblle.

And which form of evolution do you hold to ?

Steady state or darwinian and neo darwinian?
Punctuated Equilibria
Goldscmidts theory?
An amalgam of all!

I don't have a specific stance, I just think that Evolution is more of evidence of the brilliance of God as a designer. If he designed the universe to make sure all life on this planet is possible, and if he designed a changing world, how else can his creations biologically survive and exist if they don't adapt to it. Have you ever noticed that people in some parts of northern Europe, especially those living in high mountains are physically bigger than people of south east asia, and it's all because their bodies have genetically adapted to the atmosphere? All life was designed to assure it keeps going.

God said he destroyed the surface of teh eath with a global flood! That is something that science can investigate and has shown is not only possible, but teh best answer to account for the fossils, oil, gas, oceans, underground oceans, grand canyon, and how rock formations are the way they are in teh massive scale.

Ok, so now we have scientific confirmation.. but we know scientifically that first day can't actually happen in a 24 hour time difference in a global sphere. Monday on one side is likely Sunday night at the other. We also know the age of the earth, just by said examples you gave of the flood that we are way older than 6,000... hence we conclude that these things are likely metaphorical, or we can just come to acceptance that the writers of the Bible did not get any form of scientific revelation because that isn't the reason why God wanted them to write.

So then you reject that the Bible is God breathed. And you reject that teh Holy Spirit moved the writers as He wished. Because that is the claim made that Adam and MOses were inspired by God! So if they wrote this it is either God inspired or not! If not then people are free to reject teh whole thing! But if it is God inspired, then it is true and it is our understanding that is lacking and not the Word that is wrong!

I don't reject it is God breathed, i reject the bad theology most neo-protestant fundamentalists teach by giving the Bible a false image as revelation of natural facts when in reality it's truth is focused on the spiritual.

Ever hear of Mendels Law? Variation occurs because of dominat and recessive genes being displayed in succesive generations! Why so many species? Because somewhere there were several finches (like maybe for the ark ), and they had written in their genome varying characteristics. As tim ewent on, these traits shuffled and variations of teh original occured! We see this happening to day all the time.

It is so proven that that little Hungarian Monks experiment with peas became a Law of science!

That is also why Caucasian parents who came form Caucasian parents down to 15-20 generation can give birth to a very dark skinned baby! Because it is info already in the genome! And just got expressed.

Right, these are actual pieces of evidence for evolution.

 

[nolidad]

You do, i know but you dont realize you've argued that some parts are not literal.

Well understanding the limits of the language of the day and the lack of precision in their language, no I do not take any part as non-literal. The lesser light (moon) is insignificant in comparison to the greater light (the sun) Just because it took time to fully understand what that meant wehen inspireed by God (God doesn't make mistakes in Inspiration) , still makes it literal, just less precise as we know now and you like.

Right, these are actual pieces of evidence for evolution.

Evolution in the generic sense of any change being called evolution (which is a misnomer) but it has nothing to to to suppot Darwinian Evolution which says life began as Microbes and through mutations over hundreds of millions of years it changed into two kingdoms and multiple branches so we see the biodiversity we see today all through random, undesigned, unplanned mutations.

Mutations have never been empirically shown to add new prviosuly unwritten information into a genome, much less prove more and more beneficial in the sense that it took a fish and over X years turned it into an amphibian.

I don't reject it is God breathed, i reject the bad theology most neo-protestant fundamentalists teach by giving the Bible a false image as revelation of natural facts when in reality it's truth is focused on the spiritual.

YOu call it bad theology, yet it is wright there in the Bible. I accept it as written that God created everything in 6 days, as written. And that creatures he created after their kind! And that is what we can test, observe see and repeat over and over and over again! God is creator, you seem to think so in some sense, so why do you rely on godless men who created an unprovable hypothesis as the answer for how God brought everything into existence???

Once again teh main focus of teh Bible is the glory of God and His dealing with His highest natural creation! But it has historical content! It has scientific content as well!

It speaks of creation, global destruction and repopulation of the planet, and the spread of mankind of the multiplying of languages and races! The evidence we can look at, see and test all validate SCriptures account of beginnings than the big bang/evolutionary hypotheses.

However, the moon is not a light. That light is still coming from the sun, so it's only 1 light. Hence when taken literal, and just throwing away science, the moon is exactly a light. Especially when it is described in creation to be made along with the composition of other lights.

But it does emit visible light (howbeit reflected from the prime source) I am soory you just simply can't accept that in the simplistic language of teh day that man had, God inspired them to lay down the truth that the moon is an insignificant light but it does (through reflecting) rule the night as a source of light (reflected). YOu focus on the source while the Bible speaks of light period! I am even convinced that the ancients probably thought the moon gave its own light! But that doesn't matter a whit! By calling eh Sun the more significant light and the moon an insignificant light, in the language available, He was communicating there was a difference between the sun and moon! It just took man who thinks he is so smart millenia to find out what God meant by that simplistic descritption.

Ok, so now we have scientific confirmation.. but we know scientifically that first day can't actually happen in a 24 hour time difference in a global sphere. Monday on one side is likely Sunday night at the other. We also know the age of the earth, just by said examples you gave of the flood that we are way older than 6,000... hence we conclude that these things are likely metaphorical, or we can just come to acceptance that the writers of the Bible did not get any form of scientific revelation because that isn't the reason why God wanted them to write.

1. The movement of time is not based on anything other than we have space/matter.
2. The measurement of time is based on one using o fixed geographical point to measure time for that point!
3. Though I can't declare with certainty, I am sure when God inspired Adam to record these words, He was inspiring from Adams geographic point of view so Adam could understand it was one 24 hour day.
4. We can only know the approximate age of the earth as around 6-10K years. Why? We simly do not know how long Adam and Eve fellowshipped with God in Eden before they fell! It could be days or it could be centuries! We can accept teh flood as literal, first because there is no linguistic warrant to conclude it was written metaphorically, and second because we have geologic, and archeologic evidence of a massive globasl flood!
5. Noah was the one saved through the flood (and his family). So you are speculating that at one point in his life he decided to sit down and write a fable that has nothing to do with reality!
6. Modern Hydrology, modern meteorology, modern tectonic studies were unknown, but in their simplisitc language which we can expand to our modern more precise language, Noah simply said He spent 120 years building a big boat, took two of each kind of animal aborad and for a year floated on top of a massive global flood that was caused not only by rain for 40 days, but also because of great underground oceans of water broke through th esurface of the earth, for which we have enormous empirical, physical evidence for!

Exactly, he did not give a primer on how he created, so why are you making all details literate in genesis. He called them into existence, but the universe hints that his way of call is by design.

Because it happened the way it is written! God said let there be... and there was! All in 144 hours or six days! The Bible doesn't say how when God spoke these things came to be but just that He commanded and everything that is came to be!

 

[Cis.jd]

Well understanding the limits of the language of the day and the lack of precision in their language, no I do not take any part as non-literal. The lesser light (moon) is insignificant in comparison to the greater light (the sun) Just because it took time to fully understand what that meant wehen inspireed by God (God doesn't make mistakes in Inspiration) , still makes it literal, just less precise as we know now and you like.

Yes, the limits of languages is actually part of my argument as to why we can't hold the Bible's details involving certain things such as this subject as literal. However, the problem is the bible says 2 lights. Not 1. There is no way any form of limited language of that time would involve just numerical descriptions as simple as 2.

Secondly For you to use the limits of language contradicts your entire argument because it's not taking the text literally word for word. You are keeping mind that there are words here that are unevolved in their understanding therefore can not be accepted 100%. You use this language as reasoning in excusing the description of the moon, yet you don't do the same with days, even when the Bible has made it clear that time is completely different to God (2Peter3:8).

Evolution in the generic sense of any change being called evolution (which is a misnomer) but it has nothing to to to suppot Darwinian Evolution which says life began as Microbes and through mutations over hundreds of millions of years it changed into two kingdoms and multiple branches so we see the biodiversity we see today all through random, undesigned, unplanned mutations.

It's possible that the way the dust was formed had other elements in there. I mean, remember. Limited language. What if the dust was just a general-primitive way to describe microbes and the formation being the entire process of the development of the biology of the species? Most of Darwin's evolution talk just made it more impossible for others to believe that this was all accident.

Once again teh main focus of teh Bible is the glory of God and His dealing with His highest natural creation! But it has historical content! It has scientific content as well!

The scientific content (whether valid or not) should be held at any form of consideration for the Bible. Because the purpose of the Bible was on one specific truth. Every book is supposed to point to the main revelation which is Jesus and God intended that revelation to be around 1200 pages.He guided the Church on this and with in that amount of pages he made sure that his message was the focus. Therefore using the Bible as a fact checker of our physical world, when it was really made for us on a spiritual basis is giving his word a false and bad image that has caused many to have a resentment and negative image towards christianity.

But it does emit visible light (howbeit reflected from the prime source) I am soory you just simply can't accept that in the simplistic language of teh day that man had

You have ignored the main point as to why your argument doesn't work with the moon is because of the context. The context shows this isn't due to a lack of language. It's creation has been described the same way as the sun and stars and it is described independently as a light.. because the text says 2 lights not 1. The fact that it gave it a number shows that it isn't because of language, because if it where then why are they counting it as a light? There is nothing in the context of that verse indicating any lack of words, just a lack of knowledge of the writer because did not reveal these details to them.

 

[nolidad]

Yes, the limits of languages is actually part of my argument as to why we can't hold the Bible's details involving certain things such as this subject as literal. However, the problem is the bible says 2 lights. Not 1. There is no way any form of limited language of that time would involve just numerical descriptions as simple as 2.

Secondly For you to use the limits of language contradicts your entire argument because it's not taking the text literally word for word. You are keeping mind that there are words here that are unevolved in their understanding therefore can not be accepted 100%. You use this language as reasoning in excusing the description of the moon, yet you don't do the same with days, even when the Bible has made it clear that time is completely different to God (2Peter3:8).

As language is a big part of teh biblical argument! We can take it as literal when understanding the limits of the language and lack of modern detailed knowledge.

In the sky the sun is the greater light and the moon is the lesser light! It took millenia for man to find out why and what God knew when He created it. Just like as a parent does not expect a child to hold a job- god did not go into explanations beyind the language of the day He created!

As for you 2 Peter 3- you fail. A day is not 1,000 years with th eLord. This passage is a metaphor recognized by that little word "as", which tells the reader that God inspired a comparison! And the comparison is about the Lords patience with mankind and has nothing to do with a length of a day!

I don't have a specific stance, I just think that Evolution is more of evidence of the brilliance of God as a designer. If he designed the universe to make sure all life on this planet is possible, and if he designed a changing world, how else can his creations biologically survive and exist if they don't adapt to it. Have you ever noticed that people in some parts of northern Europe, especially those living in high mountains are physically bigger than people of south east asia, and it's all because their bodies have genetically adapted to the atmosphere? All life was designed to assure it keeps going.

Really? You think that death, destruction and thousands of harmful mutations that kill and destroy and maim creatures shows a brilliance????

Adaptation is not darwinian Evolution that takes a microbe and adding X years and trillions X trillions of supposed positive mutations, turn it into the modern biodiversity we see! That is scientifically impossible!

It's possible that the way the dust was formed had other elements in there. I mean, remember. Limited language. What if the dust was just a general-primitive way to describe microbes and the formation being the entire process of the development of the biology of the species? Most of Darwin's evolution talk just made it more impossible for others to believe that this was all accident.

Well simple dust contains many elements. And Evolution demands that the upward ascent of life is all a cosmic accident!

The scientific content (whether valid or not) should be held at any form of consideration for the Bible. Because the purpose of the Bible was on one specific truth. Every book is supposed to point to the main revelation which is Jesus and God intended that revelation to be around 1200 pages.He guided the Church on this and with in that amount of pages he made sure that his message was the focus. Therefore using the Bible as a fact checker of our physical world, when it was really made for us on a spiritual basis is giving his word a false and bad image that has caused many to have a resentment and negative image towards christianity.

Just as Darwinian Evolution andj the big Bang has given many a sour taste for science.

But I agree that science is not th efocus of the Bible. But the Bible contains facts of our physical word, as well as historical facts about mankind and they should be accepted. If God didn't mean 6 days, He could have easily said so! If God didn't mean calling into existence everything that exists as separate kinds, He could have easily said so in a way that Adam and Moses would have understood!

Heck, I could write a primer on evolution that first graders could understand!

You have ignored the main point as to why your argument doesn't work with the moon is because of the context. The context shows this isn't due to a lack of language. It's creation has been described the same way as the sun and stars and it is described independently as a light.. because the text says 2 lights not 1. The fact that it gave it a number shows that it isn't because of language, because if it where then why are they counting it as a light? There is nothing in the context of that verse indicating any lack of words, just a lack of knowledge of the writer because did not reveal these details to them.

Gen 1:14

And God said, Let there be lights H3974 in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
Gen 1:15

And let them be for lights H3974 in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
Gen 1:16

And God made two great lights; H3974 the greater light H3974 to rule the day, and the lesser light H3974 to rule the night: he made the stars also.

light is simply "ma'owr" Which is simply something that is luminescent or gives off light. YOu are because of your belief in Evolution and probably much time in a website like talkorigins just simply fail to see that god made two bodies that give off light! He didn't bother to detail how the light was given off, Just that each lit up the day and night! YOu are just too hung up on arguments against God knowing what He was doing, who was there and knew what He did and todl men to write it down simply. You prefer men who were not there, cannot prove there hypotheses, have no need for God and desire to have a universe devoid of a God who they would have to be responsible to!