• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Alaska Gay marriage ban overturned

Ingledsva

HEATHEN ALASKAN
No. It still works. He gave the new numbers. But that is not the point. It starts from the higher-consciousness. What they speak of is the higher-consciousness... so it is not going to reflect as it does above because there is always error. It is written that way for the 'babes' who want it simple. There have been many attempts on the six days and they all show it to be true in the main.

The problem is the idea of six days. It is not six days. We look from our persepctive of what a day is. A day is light... a period of light. Repeat. It is not speaking of here. It is speaking of above. Thus it is right when understood. But in simple terms, it will not be understood. It is a good way of keeping the chaff out... haha


NO! It does not now work. It is not correct.


He is trying to mesh the ancient poetic language of creation, into modern science.


*
 

Riverwolf

Amateur Rambler / Proud Ergi
Premium Member
So firstly you are agreeing that light came about. So Genesis is right and you agree even though you are not agreeing.. haha.

Nope. Besides, anything that Genesis may have gotten "right" would just be coincidence, just like how the story of Ymir is technically "right" when interpreted a certain way.

That is what it says 'let there be', it says nothing about being immediate.
And the word is actually more to to with illuminary than light per se and can mean many things.

Perhaps it is you who takes it to literal with your own preconceived ideas
Hardly. I've not expressed how I regard Genesis in this thread; only literalistic interpretations of it. I regard the story of Adam and Eve as one of the greatest stories in literary history.

I simply deny that the First Light is the same light spoken of there. Heck, come to think of it, I'm actually starting to wonder if my understanding of Cosmic Background Radiation (which is the proper name for that static) was entirely accurate to the scientific consensus, and that I'm confusing Cosmic Background Radiation for the earliest instance of visible light.

Besides, the first chapter of Genesis got the order wrong. Stars were first, long before our Sun, which was before Earth, which was yet still before the Moon. Genesis states that the Sky and Earth were there before the First Light. This is all kinds of untrue.
 
Last edited:
Top