In Genesis the plants were created before the sun moon and stars

[Pete in Panama]

Muslims follow the Quran. The god described in the Old Testament of the Bible and the New Testament of the Bible are quite different from the god of the Quran. These are all clearly very different gods, as described....

When I was a Presbyterian my brother the minister said that Muslims did not worship God but that they worshiped "Allah" instead. It wasn't until later that I learned that in the U.S. most Arabs are Christian, and their Bible is written in Arabic and it says that Jesus was the Son of "Allah" --the Arabic word for "God". Eventually I learned that the Spaniards say Jesus was the Son of "Dios", the French say Son of "Dieu" --it goes on and on.

The Jewish Bible is the Old Testament of the Christians. The Christian Bible is valued by the Muslims as preceding the Quran. Most people value the Bible.

 

[Pogo]

When I was a Presbyterian my brother the minister said that Muslims did not worship God but that they worshiped "Allah" instead. It wasn't until later that I learned that in the U.S. most Arabs are Christian, and their Bible is written in Arabic and it says that Jesus was the Son of "Allah" --the Arabic word for "God". Eventually I learned that the Spaniards say Jesus was the Son of "Dios", the French say Son of "Dieu" --it goes on and on.

The Jewish Bible is the Old Testament of the Christians. The Christian Bible is valued by the Muslims as preceding the Quran. Most people value the Bible.

Most people value the part that they wrote and give lip service to the rest.

 

[Brian2]

No conformation involving science. Your arguing from ignorance' to justify an ancient scripture. Yes, scientist disagree on some things and there are unknowns concerning the origins of the universe, but there are no hazy unknowns concerning the history of our solar system, and the physics of the formation of the planets including the earth,

I was just giving a couple of citations, as @Subduction Zone requested in answer to what I said in post

• #199
• As far as I know science tells us of clouds and that agrees with Job 38:9 which tells us also of clouds.

And lo and behold, science does tell us of the possible need for clouds and the type of cover in the early earth that let light and heat in and kept heat in so that the temperature would be warm enough for life and for an ocean that was not frozen. This also seems to have possibly been the sort of thing that allowed the light in but through which the sun, moon and stars etc could not be seen clearly.
You don't seem to know of this science, but it is there and agrees with the Bible.

You need to look at the Creation synario of Genesis honestly and realize it describes a very small geocentric universe created in a short time frame. and not the vast universe and solar system billions of years old, and the evolution of life over a period of 3.7+ billions.

The simple vastness of the universe is conceptually beyond any interpretation of Genesis.

It is much more practical and honest to consider the scientific perspective of the vastness of the universe in time and space is a witness to the scientific view of the glory of Creation without error on a scale far beyond any interpretation of the Bible.

Science witnesses to the glory of God, but I don't see why you think I am being dishonest.

 

[Brian2]

So why the conclusion must be that the literal reading is not true, and not that the whole story is not true?

In the story the days are supposed to be literal, because each one has an evening and a morning.
Also for those who think that the Bible is inerrant, Exodus 20:11 states "For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy."

Why do you think that things that YEC say about the creation story have to be correct? If you think that the sun was not created till day 4 then there cannot have been literal days on the previous days.
We have literal 24 hour days now and when God gave us the 7th day Sabbath but that does not mean that the days of creation were literal 24 hour days.
BTW day 7th day it seems has not ended yet because it does not have "evening and morning".
Interestingly day 4 does not have that God created the sun, moon and stars etc, it says that God "made" them, which in the original language broadly means that He caused them to be, brought them about. This could have been through changing the atmosphere so that the heavens, which were created on day one, could be seen clearly from the earth.

 

[excreationist]

Why do you think that things that YEC say about the creation story have to be correct? If you think that the sun was not created till day 4 then there cannot have been literal days on the previous days.

I think before day 4 God provided the light - similar to Revelation but initially turning on and off or moving away from the earth during the day and night. If light without the sun is impossible then are you saying that Relevation isn't true either?

 

[Ajax]

Why do you think that things that YEC say about the creation story have to be correct? If you think that the sun was not created till day 4 then there cannot have been literal days on the previous days.

I don't "think" that the sun was created on day 4. Genesis 1 claims that. It also claims that there were ordinary days, because each one had an evening and a morning. If you know of any long periods, that each one had an evening and a morning, please let us know.

We have literal 24 hour days now and when God gave us the 7th day Sabbath but that does not mean that the days of creation were literal 24 hour days.

Even the Bible disagrees with you. Please read Exodus 20:11 again.

Interestingly day 4 does not have that God created the sun, moon and stars etc, it says that God "made" them, which in the original language broadly means that He caused them to be, brought them about. This could have been through changing the atmosphere so that the heavens, which were created on day one, could be seen clearly from the earth.

If that is the case (which is not) then God did not create man, he brought him about.

The sooner you realize that Genesis 1 is a myth, borrowed from Sumerian/Babylonian myths, which was passed orally for generations between primitive, uneducated people, the better for you.

Here's an example: primitive people see a flash of light, then hear a loud sound, and then water falls from the sky. Do they immediately conclude that atmospheric conditions involving the clash of cold fronts and hot fronts and excessively moist clouds must be involved? No. How could they? So the cloud is a being greater than them, and he can summon bright light and make loud sounds, and he can open the skies and pour out water. Where did the water come from? Evaporation and then condensation? No, it must have been collected up by the cloud-god and stored in a box that he empties from time to time. Maybe, the primitives think, if we're really really good the cloud-god will reward us with that water that seems to make our food grow.

Over time, this became:

"The LORD will open to you his good treasury, the heavens, to give the rain to your land in its season and to bless all the work of your hands." (Deuteronomy 28:12)

 

[Brian2]

I think before day 4 God provided the light - similar to Revelation but initially turning on and off or moving away from the earth during the day and night. If light without the sun is impossible then are you saying that Relevation isn't true either?

I don't know which part of Revelation you are talking about unless you mean the last couple of chapters where God and the lamb supply the light.
But really you have said that you don't believe the Genesis story so you brain must be just making stuff up, how there could be literal days with evening and morning without the sun. They don't sound like literal days to me.

 

[Brian2]

I don't "think" that the sun was created on day 4. Genesis 1 claims that. It also claims that there were ordinary days, because each one had an evening and a morning. If you know of any long periods, that each one had an evening and a morning, please let us know.

I don't think that any other literal day in the Bible is described as "evening and morning". So the days of creation are different in that regard. Sure the Jews began to start their days in the evening and have them go to the evening of the next day, but that shows nothing but what the Jews did and it isn't even "evening and morning".
If you want to make them literal days, why don't you just believe the other descriptions, that the heavens were created on day 1 and the heavenly bodies were just "brought about in the broadest way" (the meaning of the word translated "made") on day 4.

Even the Bible disagrees with you. Please read Exodus 20:11 again.

Ex 20:11 For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.
No that does not say that the days of creation were literally 24 hours.
Why is it that many people who attack the creation story like you do, have to insist that it be understood as the YEC understand it?

If that is the case (which is not) then God did not create man, he brought him about.

Yes God brought man about in Genesis 2 possibly starting when there were no plants and no rain, probably day 3 of Genesis 1. I understand this to mean that God could have formed the body of man through evolution. BUT it was only on day 6 of Genesis 1 that God "created" man in His image and likeness. This I see as when God had formed the man and breathed the breathe of life into Him (His spirit).(Gen 2:7)

The sooner you realize that Genesis 1 is a myth, borrowed from Sumerian/Babylonian myths, which was passed orally for generations between primitive, uneducated people, the better for you.

I don't think those myths read as Genesis 1 does.
But I suppose you think that we are so much better than those people were and that we know how things came to be and how life began.

Here's an example: primitive people see a flash of light, then hear a loud sound, and then water falls from the sky. Do they immediately conclude that atmospheric conditions involving the clash of cold fronts and hot fronts and excessively moist clouds must be involved? No. How could they? So the cloud is a being greater than them, and he can summon bright light and make loud sounds, and he can open the skies and pour out water. Where did the water come from? Evaporation and then condensation? No, it must have been collected up by the cloud-god and stored in a box that he empties from time to time. Maybe, the primitives think, if we're really really good the cloud-god will reward us with that water that seems to make our food grow.

Over time, this became:

"The LORD will open to you his good treasury, the heavens, to give the rain to your land in its season and to bless all the work of your hands." (Deuteronomy 28:12)

Yes you read it as if it is not true that God gives us all good things, including life and food etc.
I guess that it is pretty amazing that they could make up a story that can match (in a shorthand sort of way) what science has discovered.
Can't have that, better ridicule it some more and make it go away.
But really it is hard to see how Genesis should be interpreted to agree with science, esp when you have been interpreting it another way for years.

 

[shunyadragon]

I was just giving a couple of citations, as @Subduction Zone requested in answer to what I said in post

• #199
• As far as I know science tells us of clouds and that agrees with Job 38:9 which tells us also of clouds.

And lo and behold, science does tell us of the possible need for clouds and the type of cover in the early earth that let light and heat in and kept heat in so that the temperature would be warm enough for life and for an ocean that was not frozen. This also seems to have possibly been the sort of thing that allowed the light in but through which the sun, moon and stars etc could not be seen clearly.
You don't seem to know of this science, but it is there and agrees with the Bible.



Science witnesses to the glory of God, but I don't see why you think I am being dishonest.

The dishonesty is trying to justify the Creation account of Genesis by a vague association of the concept of clouds in the billions of years of the geologic history of the earth. Various forms of clouds simply existed in the history of the atmosphere of the earth once atmosphere formed.

This is only one of the many problems of trying to justify the Genesis account in terms of scientific evidence.

My belief in ccience witnessing the glory of God is a belief that the natural nature of a natural evolving existence and life in our universe over billions of years, and not in the ancient worldview of the Genesis account,

 

[Ajax]

But really it is hard to see how Genesis should be interpreted to agree with science, esp when you have been interpreting it another way for years.

I don't have to answer to anything else you wrote about the fairy tale of Genesis. You wrote all yourself on your last sentence..
Your goal, like all apologists, is to find excuses and imaginary interpretations to harmonize a fictitious story not only with science, but with morality as well. Not good at all.

As I wrote here, from the 20th century onwards, when slavery on the planet was eliminated, you obviously need the interpretive keys of the Spirit to "interpret" things like "Slaves obey your masters in the flesh with fear and terror ...". On the contrary, 1000 years ago, you would not need any interpretation at all. Slave owners quoted the Bible to justify their actions. Divine interpretation is therefore nothing more than a propaganda tool whose purpose is to make a convenient interpretation that will lead to acceptance, and replace the inconvenient true interpretation that would lead to rejection.

 

[excreationist]

I don't know which part of Revelation you are talking about unless you mean the last couple of chapters where God and the lamb supply the light.

I talked about this in my first post:

Revelation 21:23
The city does not need the sun or the moon to shine on it, for the glory of God gives it light, and the Lamb is its lamp.
Revelation 22:5
There will be no more night. They will not need the light of a lamp or the light of the sun, for the Lord God will give them light.

But really you have said that you don't believe the Genesis story so you brain must be just making stuff up, how there could be literal days with evening and morning without the sun. They don't sound like literal days to me.

What if someone lived underground and a light automatically and gradually turned on and off during the day and night? That can involve literal days - with a morning and evening.

 

[Brian2]

The dishonesty is trying to justify the Creation account of Genesis by a vague association of the concept of clouds in the billions of years of the geologic history of the earth. Various forms of clouds simply existed in the history of the atmosphere of the earth once atmosphere formed.

This is only one of the many problems of trying to justify the Genesis account in terms of scientific evidence.

My belief in ccience witnessing the glory of God is a belief that the natural nature of a natural evolving existence and life in our universe over billions of years, and not in the ancient worldview of the Genesis account,

So looking at science and seeing that many scientists agree with the first part of Genesis 1 is being dishonest?

 

[Brian2]

I don't have to answer to anything else you wrote about the fairy tale of Genesis. You wrote all yourself on your last sentence..
Your goal, like all apologists, is to find excuses and imaginary interpretations to harmonize a fictitious story not only with science, but with morality as well. Not good at all.

As I wrote here, from the 20th century onwards, when slavery on the planet was eliminated, you obviously need the interpretive keys of the Spirit to "interpret" things like "Slaves obey your masters in the flesh with fear and terror ...". On the contrary, 1000 years ago, you would not need any interpretation at all. Slave owners quoted the Bible to justify their actions. Divine interpretation is therefore nothing more than a propaganda tool whose purpose is to make a convenient interpretation that will lead to acceptance, and replace the inconvenient true interpretation that would lead to rejection.

View attachment 90816

OK so you avoid answering by changing the topic to slavery.
I'm just saying that the conclusions that science can reach about the facts actually do support the Genesis story, but I suppose there is nothing like that old atheist joke to deflect away from that.

 

[Brian2]

I talked about this in my first post:

Revelation 21:23
The city does not need the sun or the moon to shine on it, for the glory of God gives it light, and the Lamb is its lamp.
Revelation 22:5
There will be no more night. They will not need the light of a lamp or the light of the sun, for the Lord God will give them light.

I suppose that is being symbolic about light and moral guidance, but if not then it is saying that sun and moon were needed but then they will not be needed because God and the Lamb will be bright enough.

What if someone lived underground and a light automatically and gradually turned on and off during the day and night? That can involve literal days - with a morning and evening.

That would mimic real 24 hour days whether the days were 24 hours or longer or shorter.

 

[excreationist]

I suppose that is being symbolic about light and moral guidance, but if not then it is saying that sun and moon were needed but then they will not be needed because God and the Lamb will be bright enough.

Yes it seems to be clearly saying that the sun and moon would no longer be needed.

That would mimic real 24 hour days whether the days were 24 hours or longer or shorter.

Surely God is capable of having the initial light and the sun have identical day-night cycles....

 

[Brian2]

Surely God is capable of having the initial light and the sun have identical day-night cycles....

God is capable, and YECers who do not agree with an old age for the universe and the earth etc say that is what happened.
Just as the flood can be interpreted as a large local flood so the creation can be interpreted as long slabs of time in which God did various things in the creation work.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I was just giving a couple of citations, as @Subduction Zone requested in answer to what I said in post

• #199
• As far as I know science tells us of clouds and that agrees with Job 38:9 which tells us also of clouds.

And lo and behold, science does tell us of the possible need for clouds and the type of cover in the early earth that let light and heat in and kept heat in so that the temperature would be warm enough for life and for an ocean that was not frozen. This also seems to have possibly been the sort of thing that allowed the light in but through which the sun, moon and stars etc could not be seen clearly.
You don't seem to know of this science, but it is there and agrees with the Bible.



Science witnesses to the glory of God, but I don't see why you think I am being dishonest.

No, you are reinterpreting after the fact. That is not supplying citations.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So looking at science and seeing that many scientists agree with the first part of Genesis 1 is being dishonest?

Scientist do not agree nor is that the dishonesty that he was talking about. Once again, you are reinterpreting after the fact.

 

[Subduction Zone]

God is capable and YEC who do not agree with and old age for the universe and the earth etc say that is what happened.
Just as the flood can be interpreted as a large local flood so the creation can be interpreted as long slabs of time in which God did various things in the creation work.

How many people survived the large local flood?

 

[Ajax]

OK so you avoid answering by changing the topic to slavery.
I'm just saying that the conclusions that science can reach about the facts actually do support the Genesis story, but I suppose there is nothing like that old atheist joke to deflect away from that.

I'm not avoiding to answer, but there is simply no end to the nonsense that creationists try to invent, in order to harmonize Genesis with whatever science discovers. And as @shunyadragon said and I agree, it is dishonesty. A few centuries ago Christians had no problem whatsoever with literal days.

Everyone can give any interpretation one wants out of thousands available. I can interpret it, for example, that by including a talking snake, a tree of knowledge, a tree of immortality and that the ONLY source of light on earth was created after the plants, the author clearly wanted to show that Genesis is nothing more than a fairy tale.

A biblical text is to be understood according to the ‘plain meaning’ expressed by its linguistic construction and historical context only.

Still you have reached a point where you claimed that....

I don't think that any other literal day in the Bible is described as "evening and morning"...

and that Exodus 20:11 does not say that the days of creation were literally 24 hours.

As you can understand therefore, there is no point in discussing with people who seriously present any kind of irrational and imaginary interpretations in an effort to match a silly story with scientific discoveries.
Have a good day.