How long was a day when the universe began

[URAVIP2ME]

Man however didn't claim god is electricity.

Mass held is God. A body is a God fixed held said scientists. Only mass allows men to practice science as the destroyer of God.

Electricity is its beginning and end. So mass you require first is to be destroyed so you can get just what you want. Not body not mass just an equation.

An equation isn't a machine present. An equation says I just want electricity machine not included.

Men taught numbers came out of the wilderness...from within mass.

God supplied balances as nature.
God supplied all one highest substances of bio life supporting.

The destroyer sciences aren't doing God they perform satanisms.

Is why men of science claim Jesus from an alien status his machine theism..is actually mid thought it's without any machine. As all calculus applied is always no machine first.

Adam Jesus he says created first two human parents. As if life came from a sacrifice.

No he says ....as I thesis I keep changing use of themes stories variances to say Jesus was like Adam. It's the same story says a science theist first position..man thinking about science.

The history how a human is natural conscious life is highest first. Was taught the sciences and it was by Satan's cloud image burn fall only.

Brain change was not genesis change.

As DNA genesis human is a human. There is no topic without human owning genesis DNA human first.

Reason human sex only created by sex the human only act. Man adult baby theist of the sciences.

Ovary not a baby human. A woman can live with no man a whole life with no baby. Advised....sex owned you.

So first scientists learnt from Satan cloud burn fall above clouds due to star fall burn hit...unnatural light..increase of a sacrificed dust mass above...extra light.

In biology extra light doesn't support biology existing. Balances owned light. Even not Eve..

It's why we know our human parents aren't Adam and Eve...it's mans owned first scientific theisms. As his human experience consciousness changed.

You have to be living to get Sacrificed. Proving man tried to reduce his bio cell presence so it leeched out of his body as stigmata.

Perfume as cell loss of chemicals released blood out of cells. Is a bio attack.

Today science wants humans to believe being life sacrificed is to be with Jesus. And it's righteous by their say so. To own scientific known practice machines change bio heavens.

So when men say non stop resource....themed.... I must open a channel..I want it fixed held and not ended....as shut off. Energy being a reaction only. It doesn't meet the required theme Jesus...as it ended termed the Jesus attack.

Science says it wants God...non stop for a machine. For humanity it means no bio cell.

Men say that statement proves a human owned life cell by God. It doesn't.

Human man is first full human body mass cells. God is mass everywhere mass. All energy types various one masses never a man. God is mass.

Then man practices God science as man isn't a God he's just human.

What a human con is by science terms.

Electricity exact came out of two types of energy body masses. There isn't a third type said science. As natural light isn't extra light. Natural light isn't electricity.

No, Not saying God is electricity, but that when God sends forth His spirit thing happen - Psalms 104:30
In other words, God supplied the abundantly needed Power and Strength to create both the invisible and the material visible realm of existence - Isaiah 40:26

 

[URAVIP2ME]

....................................
There is no reason to believe that a day in Genesis didn't mean 24 hours__________________________
I don't get that. To my knowledge, there's no indication that Satan regretted getting out of heaven. According to the myth, he (and the other fallen angels) rejected heaven after seeing it. Why? What did they see? Why are they not trying to get back in?_________________________________________________
What Bible harmony? I'm assuming that you see Christian scripture as a rich, internally consistent, and flawless tapestry. I don't, nor do most other unbelievers. Those scriptures are replete with internal contradictions, and errors in science and history, hence all of the apologetics attempting to mitigate that. But they are ineffective on outsiders. One has to have a pro-Bible confirmation bias to call the Bible harmonious.

Yes, Genesis 2:4 gives plenty of reason why a day in Genesis could be more than a 24-hour day.
ALL of the 6 creative days are summed up by the single word ' day '.
God's 7th day is still on going.
Even in English we speak of grandfathers' day and know we are speaking about more than a 24-hour day.
Even Jesus spoke of Noah's Day and Not meaning a 24-hour day.

The fallen angels can't get back in because they are imprisoned in tartarus - Jude 1:6; 2 Peter 2:4
They were evicted out of Heaven - Revelation chapter 12; Revelation 20:1-2
Jesus used Bible harmony when he often prefaced his statements with the words, " it is written...." meaning already written down in the old Hebrew Scriptures.
The Bible is chock full of corresponding cross-reference verses and passages showing internal harmony.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Yes, Genesis 2:4 gives plenty of reason why a day in Genesis could be more than a 24-hour day.

That doesn't address my comment, which was that there is no reason that a literal 24-hour day was not intended.

ALL of the 6 creative days are summed up by the single word ' day '.

Yes, and they all contain an evening and a morning:

Even in English we speak of grandfathers' day and know we are speaking about more than a 24-hour day. Even Jesus spoke of Noah's Day and Not meaning a 24-hour day.

That usage of day is unrelated to the one that includes an evening and a morning. The days of creation had what literal days have - evenings and mornings. And unlike with the days of creation in scripture, it is clear in both of your examples that a literal 24-hour day was not intended.

Moreover, we know that the ancients believed that the days of creation were 24-hour periods. It's clear that the timeline was added to justify the commandment to honor the Sabbath every seventh day for 24 hours - from one sunset to the next one. And it's pretty easy to figure out why this one creation myth out of thousands has a calendar in it, suggesting that it was added later. This day of rest added to the creation story says to me that there was a transformation in human culture from a time when able-bodied people worked every day, as in the Hebrew's nomadic days, when social groups were smaller and religion was administered by one of them where they were, to a time when man had settled, populations became larger, and a centralized temple and an established priesthood needing to be supported by the community arose. A new work ethic was necessary to accommodate the need for people to travel to and from a central temple to bring tithes to the now full-time, professional priesthood and stay for services. Whereas once it was unacceptable to take a day off for anything less than illness, it now was necessary to make the opposite true: It became a sin to not do that. Put down that plowshare and shepherd's crook one day a week and take the family to synagogue, since it can't come to you.

Odin and Tiamat didn't need to rest. Just this creator god. So why else embarrass this deity by implying it took six days to act and then had to rest? Why is that in this story?

And why a week? What an unnatural unit of time. The three natural cycles are the 24-hour day, the 29.5-day month, and the 365.25-day year. Daily trips to the temple are too frequent and thus don't make sense, while monthly and yearly visits were too far apart, so a new unit of time was coined for this purpose of tithing every seven days. Thus was born the week and the weekend.

The Bible is chock full of corresponding cross-reference verses and passages showing internal harmony.

That disregards what was written: "Those scriptures are replete with internal contradictions, and errors in science and history." That's not harmony. That's not concinnity. The presence of scriptures that reinforce one another does not negate the presence of those that do.

 

[rational experiences]

No, Not saying God is electricity, but that when God sends forth His spirit thing happen - Psalms 104:30
In other words, God supplied the abundantly needed Power and Strength to create both the invisible and the material visible realm of existence - Isaiah 40:26

My brother was natural man first.

Star mass came hit burnt extra above non burning gases. As it's mass star is pre owned cooled in space. Your idea of I need power....fake.

You taught I belonged living with body immaculate. That was unnaturally increased mass sacrificed. As immaculate a light above is in void and natural light already.

Mr scientists lying moment.

So pressures changed.

Gas burning as extra light is what science identified and uses in science as a power. Gas. A gas being consumed is direct advice in science energy by mind status what I use as a man....science.

Science terms not laws.

As the sun mass attack on earth was voided out...it leaves. As by space laws the pressures metal owns is space laws.

So pressure gases burning natural holy water osmosis is life entry bio body was stopped. The term I'm mainly water in life body pertinent advice.

Your idea of God by all themes.

The heavens a natural law and mass did whatever a heavens does in laws.

Is not science.

Men gave a summarised conclusion why their biology was sacrificed after they built a machine by laws that had by mass and type left earth.

Held it on the ground then destroyed mass as your thinking only I need gods powers. For the machine.

As we already owned our chemical bio genesis and a heart stopping is the proof. Thumping on a heart activated it also.

Was by heavens causes anti human terms.

Why anti Christ is inferred about the man as it's the man who caused it.

You are supposed to quote how can I be laws as I'm not mass...but you don't. God is mass presence body causes all conditions.

As you're the reader of the summation after all causes of why life was sacrificed.

Power says the mind comes from any type of mass body after its altered.

Gods power pressure isn't seen nor witnessed...osmosis.

Science pretends bio chemistry is like electricity when it's not.

A pulse used to restart a heart is because the chemical reaction had stopped isn't electricity.

 

[We Never Know]

Not according to the definition implied in the OP. But you never properly defined "day". Your OP appeared to recognize the fact that the Earth rotated more rapidly in the past so that days were shorter. A day based upon the daily rotation of the Earth could not exist before the Earth existed. That sort of day is a variable and not a constant. If the Earth does not exist then the standard for that definition of day has to be undefined, or in practical terms, it would not exist.

If you base your definition of "day" upon the length of today's day then that would be a constant that could be said to have always existed. But when one bases it upon the physical rotation of a body, if that body does not exist that value is undefined.

The OP...... Pay attention to the only question.

Many arguments here about the bible and creation are about "a day". We all only know the concept of "a day" as we live our lives here on earth.

How long was a day when the universe became the universe?

 

[rational experiences]

The day or pre termed the dies.

Is a human on earth with a sacrificed immaculate voiding light above.

Gods O earth day. As witnessed by all humans.

Burning gases moving objects are everywhere. Distances anywhere men say as light travel is not any day.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The OP...... Pay attention to the only question.

Many arguments here about the bible and creation are about "a day". We all only know the concept of "a day" as we live our lives here on earth.

How long was a day when the universe became the universe?

LOL! You did not pay attention. I explained to you what your OP implied. Now maybe that was just bad writing on your part. You did not properly define day. People could only go by the meaning that yuou implied in the OP.

 

[We Never Know]

LOL! You did not pay attention. I explained to you what your OP implied. Now maybe that was just bad writing on your part. You did not properly define day. People could only go by the meaning that yuou implied in the OP.

Many arguments here about the bible and creation are about "a day". We all only know the concept of "a day" as we live our lives here on earth.

How long was a day when the universe became the universe? IOW if a day existed, how long was a day in the beginning, before earth, before our solar system, etc.

Btw, the oldest known planet is around 13 billion years old

 

[Audie]

That doesn't address my comment, which was that there is no reason that a literal 24-hour day was not intended.



Yes, and they all contain an evening and a morning:

View attachment 72403



That usage of day is unrelated to the one that includes an evening and a morning. The days of creation had what literal days have - evenings and mornings. And unlike with the days of creation in scripture, it is clear in both of your examples that a literal 24-hour day was not intended.

Moreover, we know that the ancients believed that the days of creation were 24-hour periods. It's clear that the timeline was added to justify the commandment to honor the Sabbath every seventh day for 24 hours - from one sunset to the next one. And it's pretty easy to figure out why this one creation myth out of thousands has a calendar in it, suggesting that it was added later. This day of rest added to the creation story says to me that there was a transformation in human culture from a time when able-bodied people worked every day, as in the Hebrew's nomadic days, when social groups were smaller and religion was administered by one of them where they were, to a time when man had settled, populations became larger, and a centralized temple and an established priesthood needing to be supported by the community arose. A new work ethic was necessary to accommodate the need for people to travel to and from a central temple to bring tithes to the now full-time, professional priesthood and stay for services. Whereas once it was unacceptable to take a day off for anything less than illness, it now was necessary to make the opposite true: It became a sin to not do that. Put down that plowshare and shepherd's crook one day a week and take the family to synagogue, since it can't come to you.

Odin and Tiamat didn't need to rest. Just this creator god. So why else embarrass this deity by implying it took six days to act and then had to rest? Why is that in this story?

And why a week? What an unnatural unit of time. The three natural cycles are the 24-hour day, the 29.5-day month, and the 365.25-day year. Daily trips to the temple are too frequent and thus don't make sense, while monthly and yearly visits were too far apart, so a new unit of time was coined for this purpose of tithing every seven days. Thus was born the week and the weekend.



That disregards what was written: "Those scriptures are replete with internal contradictions, and errors in science and history." That's not harmony. That's not concinnity. The presence of scriptures that reinforce one another does not negate the presence of those that do.

All that and the unintended admission that the Bible could be saying practically anything.

if so simple a word as “day” can stretch between hours and billions of years, it’s hopeless.

 

[Audie]

Yes, Genesis 2:4 gives plenty of reason why a day in Genesis could be more than a 24-hour day.
ALL of the 6 creative days are summed up by the single word ' day '.
God's 7th day is still on going.
Even in English we speak of grandfathers' day and know we are speaking about more than a 24-hour day.
Even Jesus spoke of Noah's Day and Not meaning a 24-hour day.

The fallen angels can't get back in because they are imprisoned in tartarus - Jude 1:6; 2 Peter 2:4
They were evicted out of Heaven - Revelation chapter 12; Revelation 20:1-2
Jesus used Bible harmony when he often prefaced his statements with the words, " it is written...." meaning already written down in the old Hebrew Scriptures.
The Bible is chock full of corresponding cross-reference verses and passages showing internal harmony.

The equivocation is strong with you.

 

[rational experiences]

If just a human and just a man in nature on earth says....I wonder how long earth has experienced it's day.

Is a question he poses to try to not allow the day to exist on earth by his calculus when there was no light...clear immaculate.

Yet immaculate evolved. So his brother as a science only topic as science said evolution is science terms only on earth.

Wasn't about biology as biology isn't about any man's thoughts.

 

[nPeace]

It doesn't it was primarily in regards to "enjoying life" under God's terms. A lot of people do not live enjoyable lives.

nPeace said...
God made us to live forever, and enjoy life forever, on his terms.
No. It was primarily about living forever on God's terms.

However, knowing that you normally derail to something else to see what argument you might win... I'll oblige.
A lot of people do not live enjoyable lives.

Because they are not under God's terms.
God's patience and love opens that opportunity to anyone to enjoy life in the future... as well as now, under his terms.

For example, God's terms include not committing fornication, adultery, bestiality, homosexuality, and other sexual perversions. His terms include learning his laws, and obeying them.
Are you eager to live under those terms? I rest my case.

Because most people choose their own terms to live by, that is why a lot of people do not live enjoyable lives.

 

[nPeace]

I don't understand the point of this comment. I doesn't address what appears in the quote above it, which was this:

"Have you seen the Old Testament? Dawkins, every Abrahamic theist's least favorite neoatheist and best-selling author, says, "The god of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully." This is based on the stories in it. I've seen them too. The "happy God" has children dashed upon the rocks, slain if they're firstborn, and torn apart by bears for calling somebody bald. How is that the happy God?"

Thank you for highlighting at least one lie that the critics tell on God.
God never dashed children against rocks, nor caused anyone to do so. You did not read that.
The she bears turned on the children. Where did you read that God sent the bears to rip the children apart?

Yes, God demonstrated that this was his prophet, so that the defiant who mocked at God, would have clear proof that he was using Elisha - the guy that the wayward people considered of no account.
What are you complaining about? Don't you guys say you want proof? What do you think God is going to give you, a free ride to Mars, on a Cherub?
Happiness does not mean tolerance of disrespectful and defiant grasshoppers... with brain.
Can you walk into Biden's office and spit on him... with impunity? Try it.

God is greater than Biden. Honor the king... lest he becomes incense... are the words of king David.
In case you don't know, the kingdom of Israel was under God's laws. You abide by the laws of the state, or face the penalties.
If you don't like the penalties... abide by the laws.

God don't build jails to keep people shut up. His instructions should cause reform. He repeats them. He gives chances. If you fail to listen, don't complain when God grants the penalty for crimes in his state.

...and they were free to leave. God did not stop them.
They could go join the Babylonians, or the Assyrians.

I said I know what love is and what it isn't. I know that. You think you do as well, although we disagree about what that is.

You think you know.
You said it. I don't have to believe it.

Agreed. They don't force unwanted births.

Nobody does. You are free to do what you want.... unless of course the law tells you different.
China tells you, one child per family. So, you are "forced to" not have wanted births.... according to your use of the terms.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

God never dashed children against rocks, nor caused anyone to do so.

Your moral set varies from mine. I deem a tri-omni deity responsible for everything that happens in its creation. It's also omni-responsible.

The she bears turned on the children. Where did you read that God sent the bears to rip the children apart?

I read that God created the world with foreknowledge of what would occur. He made the bear and the children. He made them how they were, and he knew what would occur.

Don't you guys say you want proof? What do you think God is going to give you, a free ride to Mars, on a Cherub?

What critical thinkers say is that they need sufficient evidentiary support before believing anything including that gods exist. I haven't asked you for evidence, nor will I. If you had it, I'd have it as well. If there were sufficient evidence to support theism, all competent critical thinkers would be theists already.

Happiness does not mean tolerance of disrespectful and defiant grasshoppers... with brain.

No argument here.

God don't build jails to keep people shut up.

Same answer, although this deity doesn't seem to do much else, either.

Nobody does. You are free to do what you want.... unless of course the law tells you different.

Many countries force unwanted births, and they have laws and law enforcement to do it.

China tells you, one child per family. So, you are "forced to" not have wanted births.... according to your use of the terms.

OK. Many have a problem with that as well.

 

[nPeace]

Your moral set varies from mine. I deem a tri-omni deity responsible for everything that happens in its creation. It's also omni-responsible.

Your views. No problem.

I read that God created the world with foreknowledge of what would occur. He made the bear and the children. He made them how they were, and he knew what would occur.

You may have read that, but not in the Bible.
You think you can give me a chapter and verse where you read that?

What critical thinkers say is that they need sufficient evidentiary support before believing anything including that gods exist. I haven't asked you for evidence, nor will I. If you had it, I'd have it as well. If there were sufficient evidence to support theism, all competent critical thinkers would be theists already.

I guess the reason all scientists are not agreeing is because there isn't sufficient evidence. Thanks for that.
Maybe what they say about medicine isn't very well supported with evidence either. Hence, there are a lot of people refusing it.

No argument here.

Same answer, although this deity doesn't seem to do much else, either.

Many countries force unwanted births, and they have laws and law enforcement to do it.

OK. Many have a problem with that as well.

Laws are important, aren't they.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

You think you can give me a chapter and verse where you read that?

Why? You're familiar with Christian dogma, and being a former Christian, so am I . If you care to refute the comment and feel you can, feel free. What part don't you like - that God is said to have created the world with foreknowledge of what would occur, that he made the bear and the children or that he knew what would occur?

I guess the reason all scientists are not agreeing is because there isn't sufficient evidence.

That is incorrect. You misunderstood what you read, and didn't address what was actually written. That was a description of why critical thinkers are atheists if they are critical thinkers about gods.

Were you referring to evolution? If so, there is no debate in the scientific community about the naturalistic evolution of the tree of life from primordial life over geologic time by the application of natural selection to genetic variation. It's considered settled science. The scientists denying the theory of evolution are creationists like the ID movement scientists, and they are pariahs like Behe in the scientific community. They're no more interested in evidence for evolution than any other creationist. They're interested in promoting their faith by undermining the science if they can. Most theistic evolutionary scientists accept the theory, and probably every atheist scientist. Opinions from lay people aren't heard or considered. Do you think they should be?

 

[Mark La Buda]

Many arguments here about the bible and creation are about "a day". We all only know the concept of "a day" as we live our lives here on earth.

How long was a day when the universe became the universe?

The Bible does not specify the length of each of the creative periods-in a measurable way for humans to understand. Yet, only six of them have ended. (Genesis 1:31) However, with respect to the seventh day, God proceeded to rest. This indicates that this “day” has continued. (Genesis 2:1-3) Thousands of years later, Paul indicated that the seventh day has not concluded. At Hebrews 3:10, 11; 18, 19; 4:1-11 he referred to the earlier words of David (Psalms 95:11) and urged: “Let us therefore do our utmost to enter into that rest.” Therefore, one “creative day” was-at a minimum-several thousand years in length.

 

[metis]

The Bible does not specify the length of each of the creative periods-in a measurable way for humans to understand.

Technically, "yom" in Hebrew means an actual day, but yet "day" [and "yom"] can be used symbolically, such as "A thousand years is but a day in the eyes of God".

 

[SDavis]

Replying to post....... Scientifically

When a day lasted only 4 hours — en

If you are curious biblically _ then the question should be are they using the correct translation of the Hebrew word Yom, which also means day in English.
The word also has a few different usages in the Hebrew language

Word Study Yom

A study of the uses of the Hebrew word Yom in the Old Testament

www.oldearth.org

Arguments on both sides whether it actually means a literal 24-hour period or a long period of time - quite frankly it is up to the believer to believe what they choose.
Is it is highly possible that first, second, third, and throughout the centuries of translation they have gotten it wrong - but will it be admitted - I seriously doubt it.

 

[Boris Norris]

Usually time's speed is one second per second. That appears to be quite reliable. So, I suppose a day took about one day.

Ciao

- viole

It's quote possible it was a shorter time. No one was here to record it but we do have ways of measuring things. Like the moon leaves at 30mm per year.

Like a lot of scientific conclusions, what we have now could be used to calculate it. Who knows.