Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Yes, we all know that you do not understand the links that you use.
One more time, the Earth is a planet. The Earth was formed after the Sun, the Bible says that it was formed before the Sun.
-
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!
Are there verses in the bible that have been proven to be scientifically true after the writing?
- Thread starter A Son of God
- Start date
One more time, the Earth is a planet. The Earth was formed after the Sun, the Bible says that it was formed before the Sun.
Audie
Veteran Member
The Anointed
Well-Known Member
And according to your scientists, the bible is correct, and you are wrong.
You seem to be misinterpreting the Bible. Where do you think it says that the Earth was created before the sun?
The Anointed
Well-Known Member
Although your post was directed to Subduction Zone, who refuses to accept the truth that the earth was created before the sun, I believe that you must have been referring to my post which scientifically proves that the earth was created before the sun.
Read Genesis 1: 9 to 19; the earth was created on the third day, the sun was created on the fourth day, I have not misinterpreted the scriptures my friend, but you appear to have little understanding of them, if you didn't know that the earth was created before the sun.
Last edited:
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
No, the scientists agree with me. You keep forgetting that Earth is a planet. Let me help you:
https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/planets/earth/overview/
And a rather long article on the Nebular Hypothesis. To put it in a nutshell the Sun was "running" before the planets, which of course includes the Earth, we're formed:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nebular_hypothesis
The Bible had it very wrong since it says that Earth was formed first. Even worse than that it has plants on the Earth before the Sun was formed. Do you need the verses? I can link those for you too in case you forgot.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Once again, the Earth was not formed before the Sun.
Where do you get that idea from?
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Nope. Here, read and learn:
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=genesis+1&version=NIV
On the first day he makes the Earth. On the third day he makes dry land and plants.
On the fourth day he makes the Sun.
Skwim
Veteran Member
Some thoughts on your linked Genesis passage: (Note that this all happened on the first day.}
Genesis 1:1-5
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty,
If any object is formless and empty how could it exist? This doesn't make sense unless it simply means the earth has yet to exist. Yet . . . .
darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.
I can only assume that for waters to have a location over which the Spirit of God could hover there would have to be as a container for the water, and particularly for there to be a "deep." My guess is that this container would be the earth.
3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light.
At this point the light could come from anything, anywhere.
4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.”
Now this is a little more informative. If one is to assume that the "day" and "night" mentioned refers to the earth's day and night, then when it's said "he separated the light from the darkness" it must refer to the creation of the earth. The earth was what separated the darkness from the light.
And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.
And here we have it. God sent the earth spinning so as to produce evening and morning.
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty,
If any object is formless and empty how could it exist? This doesn't make sense unless it simply means the earth has yet to exist. Yet . . . .
darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.
I can only assume that for waters to have a location over which the Spirit of God could hover there would have to be as a container for the water, and particularly for there to be a "deep." My guess is that this container would be the earth.
3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light.
At this point the light could come from anything, anywhere.
4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.”
Now this is a little more informative. If one is to assume that the "day" and "night" mentioned refers to the earth's day and night, then when it's said "he separated the light from the darkness" it must refer to the creation of the earth. The earth was what separated the darkness from the light.
And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.
And here we have it. God sent the earth spinning so as to produce evening and morning.
If one insists that the water container was earth then the earth was created first.
If one feels that he separated the light from the darkness after having created light by placing the earth in front of the light, then the light was created first.
.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
The people that wrote Genesis did not appear to understand that the Sun was the cause of light. They could have easily thought that the Sun was part of the day since it is rather small light in the sky, though rather intense. Genesis specifically says that the Sun was created on the 4th day:
"14 And God said, “Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the dayfrom the night. And let them be for isigns and for jseasons,6 and for days and years, 15 andlet them be lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light upon the earth.” And it was so.16 And God kmade the two great lights—the greater light to rule the day and the lesser lightto rule the night—and the stars. 17 And God set them in the expanse of the heavens to givelight on the earth, 18 to lrule over the day and over the night, and to separate the light fromthe darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening and there wasmorning, the fourth day."
At least that is how I interpret "the greater light".
Please provide scientific citation for your claim, like this one which proves you wrong
https://arxiv.org/abs/1501.03101
And this
https://arxiv.org/abs/0903.3008
And this
https://arxiv.org/abs/1707.07148
whirlingmerc
Well-Known Member
A caveman could not know if it varied in brightness at the source or because of distance
whirlingmerc
Well-Known Member
Scientists have hardly proven that the planets were formed from condensing matter
We have a great variety of rotations of planets, , some retrograde, some not, in one case perpendicular... that actually would be hard to explain with a simple condensed matter view
Additionally the strong magnetic fields of the gas giants and them sending out more heat than they receive is hard to explain with a really old model of the solar system
The origin of coments and how they are generated.... no real explanation
The origin of the moon and the explanation of how close ... no real explanation
The origin of water on earth.... once thought to be comets... but no deuterium scratch that one
sealchan
Well-Known Member
There may be some evidence that Jesus existed, but there is more evidence that the gospels were largely fiction and that Jesus was a type of prophet told of in many cultures.
The exodus was also probably a sacred fiction as was the conquering of the promised land.
The list goes on and on.
The exodus was also probably a sacred fiction as was the conquering of the promised land.
The list goes on and on.
whirlingmerc
Well-Known Member
Most historians would disagree and there is substantial evidence
- Jesus existed
- Jesus was crucified
- the tomb was empty
- the apostle came to believe Jesus rose (and held that belief till death)
additionally interesting that the Romans made grave robbery a capital
crime shortly after
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
The Bible does not say why the stars vary in brightness. It only mentions the obvious.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Those are pretty much explained the last time I checked. Which one is the best, in your opinion, that has "not been explained"?
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Jesus existed:
Probably.
Jesus was crucified:
Again very probably, it was a common execution for the sort of "crimes" that he was accused of.
the tomb was empty:
Oops, sorry, no reliable evidence for that at all. Even the existence of a tomb or that he was put in one so quickly makes no sense if he was crucified. Crucifixion was a long slow death and the bodies were often left up for days to make sure the lesson stuck. Not with the victim, but as a lesson for everyone else.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crucifixion#Ancient_Rome
No one really knows what the apostles believed since they left no personal records. The Gospels were not written by the men that they were named for and the general epistles are also thought to be pseudonymous. There are no works outside of the Bible that support his existence except for a couple of brief mentions written more than a generation after his death.
Shad
Veteran Member
The use of Hittites varies in the bible and is disputed regarding identification.