noguru
Well-known member
Are you making a statement or asking a question? Or just being the tard that you have chosen to be after your initial re-entry in which you pretended to be reasonable?
toldailytopic: Are the 6 days of creation in the book of Genesis a literal 6 days?
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
Are you making a statement or asking a question? Or just being the tard that you have chosen to be after your initial re-entry in which you pretended to be reasonable?
noguru
Well-known member
You would actually have to have a functioning frontal lobe for your mocking comments to have any effect.
You would actually have to have a functioning frontal lobe for your mocking comments to have any effect.
stunning
just stunning
I'm devastated
now, if you're done with your tardly interruptions and need for attention, ala teoné and I were having a conversation
why don't you run along and see what the other children are up to?
noguru
Well-known member
stunning
just stunning
I'm devastated
now, if you're done with your tardly interruptions and need for attention, ala teoné and I were having a conversation
why don't you run along and see what the other children are up to?
Ah yes, right! Your selective conversations on a public forum. Can you possibly make yourself look more like a "tard"? But you probably don't notice anyway.
Carry on, doofus.
needy today, aren't we?
go away nog
the adults are talking
go away nog
the adults are talking
rainee
New member
Selaphiel, you made my mouth water when I read the first and middle part of your post!
I'm serious!
If I had seen you right after reading those parts I might've tried to hug you and kiss you and squeeze you and such.
You might have had me arrested. :shocked:
It was so exciting. No, I do not think the last part holds so left if off
and wonder if it really has any legs, but the other is a proper reminder to me that this world is NOT the same after the flood as it was before it.
So look how exciting that makes what you write about the early history as best you know it? Oooh, yum yum.
You see part of the problem I think for scientists is going to be this world, this solar system, possibly this universe has had an extraordinary change.
I think things may date old because of what happened but I can't prove that (at this time. )
But if we could prove in some way how it used to be before it was the end of the world as they knew it (in the time of Noah), maybe that would help...:think:
So you really gave some great descriptions there, thank you!
I think it is relevant in Christianity when many feel the pressure when the world wants to go one way and see the Bible is going another.
Unfortunately not one can really guess all the things God can do.
However, the Creation in 6 days is not just a description but part
of the 10. It is actually the longest of all the Commandments if you have ever seen 1st, 2nd and 3rd graders having to recite from memory The 10 for points in school. It is just fascinating. All the children can cruise along until they hit that one - and that one has so many sentences! Acck! God may have made an issue out of it so the evil one in looking to cause trouble for Jews would naturally go to it.
But of course we know now it is tied to prophecy - and in more than one way, too.
Soo that could be another reason for a deceiving spirit to attack it.
Science itself proves over and over things are not how we see them on the surface, yet evolution is based on scientists repeatedly mistaking that lesson and building a house of cards on how things appear superficially..It is really disturbing to me.
I'm serious!
If I had seen you right after reading those parts I might've tried to hug you and kiss you and squeeze you and such.
You might have had me arrested. :shocked:
It was so exciting. No, I do not think the last part holds so left if off
and wonder if it really has any legs, but the other is a proper reminder to me that this world is NOT the same after the flood as it was before it.
So look how exciting that makes what you write about the early history as best you know it? Oooh, yum yum.
You see part of the problem I think for scientists is going to be this world, this solar system, possibly this universe has had an extraordinary change.
I think things may date old because of what happened but I can't prove that (at this time.
)But if we could prove in some way how it used to be before it was the end of the world as they knew it (in the time of Noah), maybe that would help...:think:
So you really gave some great descriptions there, thank you!
I think it is relevant in Christianity when many feel the pressure when the world wants to go one way and see the Bible is going another.
Unfortunately not one can really guess all the things God can do.
However, the Creation in 6 days is not just a description but part
of the 10. It is actually the longest of all the Commandments if you have ever seen 1st, 2nd and 3rd graders having to recite from memory The 10 for points in school. It is just fascinating. All the children can cruise along until they hit that one - and that one has so many sentences! Acck! God may have made an issue out of it so the evil one in looking to cause trouble for Jews would naturally go to it.
But of course we know now it is tied to prophecy - and in more than one way, too.
Soo that could be another reason for a deceiving spirit to attack it.
Science itself proves over and over things are not how we see them on the surface, yet evolution is based on scientists repeatedly mistaking that lesson and building a house of cards on how things appear superficially..It is really disturbing to me.
noguru
Well-known member
Are pretending to be a psychotherapist today, or are you sticking with only the chemistry thing?
anyhoo ala - this is where we were before:
God used geologic processes to bring Christ into adulthood? :freak:
It better be. Google UV radiation, vacuum of space...
you're using a modern definition of "star"
What do you suppose the Hebrews understood a star to be?
God used geologic processes to bring Christ into adulthood? :freak:
It better be. Google UV radiation, vacuum of space...
you're using a modern definition of "star"
What do you suppose the Hebrews understood a star to be?
Alate_One
Well-known member
You know, being dense on purpose isn't all that entertaining. He sure used normal biological processes to go from conception to adulthood.
That's not a solid wall. Not even to UV radiation, otherwise why does anyone use sunscreen?
And you just made my point for me. They looked into the sky and saw small flashing lights. They assumed they were relatively small objects stuck into a hard structure. The raqia that has windows in it to let out rain and snow. Not unreasonable assumptions mind you, but not scientifically accurate. But that's fine since the Bible isn't intended to teach science.
The Bible is written with an ancient cosmological understanding. You can assert "the bible says it therefore I must believe it". Then you must believe in addition to six days, that stars can fall to earth and the sky has windows among other things. Yet YECs reject some ancient science while insisting to the rest of us that we must accept the part they're still willing to believe.
noguru
Well-known member
I think resurrected is looking at this through the bottom of a very big (almost empty) gin bottle right now.
Shasta
Well-known member
The NET Bible says that the term "heavens and the earth" is a merism representing the whole universe. It makes sense. Since the ancients had no concept of "universe" they used the two biggest objects that were visible.
So God made the universe in Gen 1:1. The primordial earth which was part of it was shrouded with darkness. Job said the earth was shrouded with darkness (Job 38:8-10). The absence of light is not a thing but the absence of a thing, light, and cannot "shroud" anything but a cloud can. So when Genesis says the sun and stars came later it refers to the gradual thinning of the clouds. It was very helpful for me to read that Genesis is is written from the phenomenological view of an individual standing on earth. From the standpoint of someone on the earth a ray of light would come through when there was a break in the clouds.
The physical creation is used metaphorically in John to stand for spiritual things. These two events, type and anti-type, have a one-to-one correspondence. Since each is true each one can comment on the other. In the NT the Light (which is Christ) existed before His shining through the dark veil of deception that covered the hearts of fallen men. In the same way the light of the sun and all the stars were already there before the clouds were parted to reveal them. Therefore I believe the sun was NOT created days after the earth.
I take the Days to be indeterminate periods of time during which God supernaturally (non-naturalistically) created things. The difference between one age and another is defined by the change in God's focus.
Each began with a miracle. a spoken word which introduced information into the DNA or that could not otherwise have been. This was followed by reproduction, diversification. After reaching a peak it slowed down came declined until it came a period of inactivity (rest). At the very end that scenario was eliminated (often violently).
This is a principle God employs throughout the Bible: seed time (miraculous word), development, gradual growth to a maximum (the harvest is ready) then comes the harvest, judgment and rest. The various covenants and ages that followed are examples.
So God made the universe in Gen 1:1. The primordial earth which was part of it was shrouded with darkness. Job said the earth was shrouded with darkness (Job 38:8-10). The absence of light is not a thing but the absence of a thing, light, and cannot "shroud" anything but a cloud can. So when Genesis says the sun and stars came later it refers to the gradual thinning of the clouds. It was very helpful for me to read that Genesis is is written from the phenomenological view of an individual standing on earth. From the standpoint of someone on the earth a ray of light would come through when there was a break in the clouds.
The physical creation is used metaphorically in John to stand for spiritual things. These two events, type and anti-type, have a one-to-one correspondence. Since each is true each one can comment on the other. In the NT the Light (which is Christ) existed before His shining through the dark veil of deception that covered the hearts of fallen men. In the same way the light of the sun and all the stars were already there before the clouds were parted to reveal them. Therefore I believe the sun was NOT created days after the earth.
I take the Days to be indeterminate periods of time during which God supernaturally (non-naturalistically) created things. The difference between one age and another is defined by the change in God's focus.
Each began with a miracle. a spoken word which introduced information into the DNA or that could not otherwise have been. This was followed by reproduction, diversification. After reaching a peak it slowed down came declined until it came a period of inactivity (rest). At the very end that scenario was eliminated (often violently).
This is a principle God employs throughout the Bible: seed time (miraculous word), development, gradual growth to a maximum (the harvest is ready) then comes the harvest, judgment and rest. The various covenants and ages that followed are examples.
Sorry. :idunno:
It amused me.
Well, no.
I have a window in the screen wall of my tent. :idunno:
It better be blocking most of it :chuckle:
Are you proposing that the ancients didn't know that the stars move across the sky? :freak:
The sky has windows :idunno:
That asteroid the other day in Russia just blew one open. It's closed now.
And I've already covered the stars falling to earth thing.
That's an interesting perspective S - I'm going to mull it over a bit before I respond.
noguru
Well-known member
Perhaps they thought it was a solid dome with windows and the solid dome moved across the sky?
At any rate, and as usual, you are missing the greater point, and trying to divert attention by focusing on minor details. Of course no one can explain for certain how the ancients thought about minor details. So you are wasting our time as well as your time with this line of questioning. But I am not surprised you do not understand.
And yet I comment.
I'm so glad you appreciate this.
I don't understand your question. 'Today's processes' are the processes we understand today as having been in existence millions of years ago.
I'm telling you that in 1000bc, people did not have a knowledge of biology nor did they have what we call the scientific method. So the narratives of Genesis cannot possibly be biological accounts in that same sense. However, you would have to be a bit of a numpty to think that they didn't have death in their day. They knew what death was and they would know what resurrection was if they saw it. I think that you are just misunderstanding what I said.
They aren't. I did. I'm not saying that the theory of evolution is correct. It might or might not be. But it deals with biological history. Genesis 1 doesn't deal with biological history because no one had thought of biological history when Genesis was written. Genesis 1 deals with how and why God made the world. That has nothing to do with biological history. What Genesis 1 says about how and why God made the world is also history. Biology isn't everything. Theology isn't everything.
From kmoney:
And the more you try to do so (either way) the less you will appreciate the real message of Genesis 1. It is a distraction. And YEC is a bane on Christianity for that reason and others.
However, there are a lot of evolutionists who believe that the randomness (call it accidence or something else) inherent within the theory of evolution proves that God is not required as an explanation for the world and so much of their teaching is slanted towards an atheistic perspective. I can't accept this. I can't believe that life is not designed and although the Bible doesn't say anything about biological history, it does clearly say that life on earth was the result of God's purpose in creation, that creation fitted together with beauty and goodness. I believe that nothing can arise out of nothing. Some evolutionists would have us believe that all life on earth effectively arose out of nothing. That's impossible - a new worldview is needed here. I am prepared to accept that species have changed over time. I am prepared to accept that species will change over time and that they are changing now. The explanation of that change is another story. I suspect that the position is much more complicated than the theory of evolution. Perhaps there are elements of randomness, along with elements of self-initiated change by the organisms themselves, along with the occasional direct interventions by God. Not to mention inputs from asteroids, etc.
None of which changes the truth of Genesis 1.
I hope this answers your question. But if not, feel free to ask away.
I'm not rejecting evolution. I'm agnostic towards it. All I am saying is that the Genesis account was never written with geological history in mind as we understand geological principles today. Neither was it written with biological principles in mind as we understand them today. Evolution is a theory of modern minds and it must be judged by modern minds, not by the Bible. You can't use the Bible to either prove or disprove evolution.
And the more you try to do so (either way) the less you will appreciate the real message of Genesis 1. It is a distraction. And YEC is a bane on Christianity for that reason and others.
However, there are a lot of evolutionists who believe that the randomness (call it accidence or something else) inherent within the theory of evolution proves that God is not required as an explanation for the world and so much of their teaching is slanted towards an atheistic perspective. I can't accept this. I can't believe that life is not designed and although the Bible doesn't say anything about biological history, it does clearly say that life on earth was the result of God's purpose in creation, that creation fitted together with beauty and goodness. I believe that nothing can arise out of nothing. Some evolutionists would have us believe that all life on earth effectively arose out of nothing. That's impossible - a new worldview is needed here. I am prepared to accept that species have changed over time. I am prepared to accept that species will change over time and that they are changing now. The explanation of that change is another story. I suspect that the position is much more complicated than the theory of evolution. Perhaps there are elements of randomness, along with elements of self-initiated change by the organisms themselves, along with the occasional direct interventions by God. Not to mention inputs from asteroids, etc.
None of which changes the truth of Genesis 1.
I hope this answers your question. But if not, feel free to ask away.
Last edited: