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

[Eli G]

If people use phrases like "the sun rises" or "the sun sets" does that mean they are geocentrists?

 

[YoursTrue]

I marvel at how people who don't study the Bible think they can teach what it says.

The Bible does not teach that the sun or the moon were created after plants... This ridiculous idea is repeated by many ignorant people, even when the details are explained to them.

The sun and the moon are space bodies created relatively contemporary with the primordial planet (Gen. 1:1). The Creator of all bodies that exist in space organized the relationship of those three bodies while adapting the planet for life on it. Again: all space bodies were created at the beginning of the Universe.

During the fourth creative day (related exclusively to the adaptation of planet Earth) the sun and the moon somehow entered into a relationship favorable to life here. That is why Gen. 1:16 does not use the same word for "to create" but a different one that literally means "to make" and is also used to express new relationships between already existing things, not new creations.

Gen. 1:14 Then God said: “Let there be luminaries in the expanse of the heavens to make a division between the day and the night, and they will serve as signs for seasons and for days and years. 15 They will serve as luminaries in the expanse of the heavens to shine upon the earth.” And it was so. 16 And God went on to make the two great luminaries, the greater luminary for dominating the day and the lesser luminary for dominating the night, and also the stars. 17 Thus God put them in the expanse of the heavens to shine upon the earth 18 and to dominate by day and by night and to make a division between the light and the darkness. Then God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening and there was morning, a fourth day.

In harmony with that, when I saw the program about the desert and plants and birds and insects (work of David Attenborough, by the way) I was so moved by the fabulous detail of it all, the bourgeoning of the plants,the part the birds, even their droppings played on the growth of the plants, words are inadequate to describe my awe and thrill. Slow motion video captured some of it. Unbelievable. Much, much better than a sci-fi movie. Much much much better.

 

[excreationist]

If people use phrases like "the sun rises" or "the sun sets" does that mean they are geocentrists?

BTW before the sun was created what was the earth doing? Was it orbiting the spot where the sun would be created? Or was it still then started moving after the sun was created?

 

[Pete in Panama]

It might be a mistake to say the flat earthers are "out of their minds". Flat earth is a useful tool that we all have to apply at times. Sometimes we use Newtonian physics and other times we go w/ Einsteinian physics. We do what we have to in order to navigate though a complex world.

Frankly, it doesn't make sense that some might insist the earth is flat. ...

We're not communicating here, let's get together.

Virtually all owned land property in the world is measured and recorded at a governmental agency. The measurements on file all assume the earth is flat --for example a rectangular plot has all for angles adding up to 360 degrees. That sum is only possible on a flat surface. If the angles reflected a spherical surface then the sum of the angles would be more than 360 degrees. We do that in this manner because it's a lot simpler.

It's just like most of our calculations of mass and motion assume Newtonian physics. It's simpler and accurate enough for our needs. It is not good enough for satellite/distance measurements and thus Einsteins relatavistic corrections are made. However in most cases we say Newtonian physics is good enough and for the bulk of human experience the earth is flat. Even if it's not, it's still flat enough for what we do.

 

[Eli G]

BTW before the sun was created what was the earth doing? Was it orbiting the spot where the sun would be created? Or was it still then started moving after the sun was created?

????? Are you for real?

Did you understood something of what my comment explains about what the Bible says?

 

[YoursTrue]

Refuting flat earth

Refuting flat earth teachings with horizon, time zones, southern hemisphere, constellations, circumnavigation, South Pole.

creation.com

That "refutes" the “200+ flat earth Bible verses”. They don't give examples of Bible verses that support a spherical earth - instead they only talk about science. So science is against a flat earth - but what about the Bible?

I can see sphere if I recall but even before I heard of flat-earthers and read the Bible I did not think any writer thought it meant a flat earth. The idea is preposterous therefore for me to think any description of the shape of the earth in the Bible is something I still can't imagine today. I mean from what I read, flat earthers believe north and south poles go on infinitely or indefinitely and frankly that is not within the realm of my thinking. Or the way I see the Bible describe the truth about the shape of the earth.

 

[excreationist]

I marvel at how people who don't study the Bible think they can teach what it says.

The Bible does not teach that the sun or the moon were created after plants... This ridiculous idea is repeated by many ignorant people, even when the details are explained to them.

The sun and the moon are space bodies created relatively contemporary with the primordial planet (Gen. 1:1). The Creator of all bodies that exist in space organized the relationship of those three bodies while adapting the planet for life on it. Again: all space bodies were created at the beginning of the Universe.

During the fourth creative day (related exclusively to the adaptation of planet Earth) the sun and the moon somehow entered into a relationship favorable to life here. That is why Gen. 1:16 does not use the same word for "to create" but a different one that literally means "to make" and is also used to express new relationships between already existing things, not new creations.

Gen. 1:14 Then God said: “Let there be luminaries in the expanse of the heavens to make a division between the day and the night, and they will serve as signs for seasons and for days and years. 15 They will serve as luminaries in the expanse of the heavens to shine upon the earth.” And it was so. 16 And God went on to make the two great luminaries, the greater luminary for dominating the day and the lesser luminary for dominating the night, and also the stars. 17 Thus God put them in the expanse of the heavens to shine upon the earth 18 and to dominate by day and by night and to make a division between the light and the darkness. Then God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening and there was morning, a fourth day.

If what you say is true why is it that no Bible translations seem to say this clearly - also in your quote it says "God went on to make" rather than "God had made".

 

[excreationist]

BTW before the sun was created what was the earth doing? Was it orbiting the spot where the sun would be created? Or was it still then started moving after the sun was created?

????? Are you for real?

Did you understood something of what my comment explains about what the Bible says?

If it is so obvious that Genesis 1 said that the sun, moon, and stars already created in the beginning rather than on day 4 then why aren't I aware of any young earth creationist organisations that say this?

 

[YoursTrue]

We're not communicating here, let's get together.

Virtually all owned land property in the world is measured and recorded at a governmental agency. The measurements on file all assume the earth is flat --for example a rectangular plot has all for angles adding up to 360 degrees. That sum is only possible on a flat surface. If the angles reflected a spherical surface then the sum of the angles would be more than 360 degrees. We do that in this manner because it's a lot simpler.

It's just like most of our calculations of mass and motion assume Newtonian physics. It's simpler and accurate enough for our needs. It is not good enough for satellite/distance measurements and thus Einsteins relatavistic corrections are made. However in most cases we say Newtonian physics is good enough and for the bulk of human experience the earth is flat. Even if it's not, it's still flat enough for what we do.

I realize that about land measurements. So the horizon is not good enough to realize it's just not that flat? Please excuse. I'm excusing myself from further discussion now about whether the earth is a flat something.

 

[Eli G]

In Hebrew those two verbs have different senses:

to create: בָּרָא like in:

Gen. 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

to make: עָשָׂה like in:

Gen. 1:16 And God went on to make the two great luminaries, the greater luminary for dominating the day and the lesser luminary for dominating the night, and also the stars.

 

[YoursTrue]

If people use phrases like "the sun rises" or "the sun sets" does that mean they are geocentrists?

Never thought about it. But I do know this...there are time differences. Like some parts of the earth saw the eclipse after other parts did. I don't know what a geocentrist is anyway.

 

[YoursTrue]

Ok bye for now

 

[Eli G]

Never thought about it. But I do know this...there are time differences. Like some parts of the earth saw the eclipse after other parts did. I don't know what a geocentrist is anyway.

Geocentrism is the ancient idea that the sun revolves around the earth and not the other way around.

Saying that the sun rises or sets are expressions that would make sense from that ancient point of view, and are supported by the perspective of an observer located on the surface of the earth.

Obviously, although it seems that it is the sun that moves, in reality it is the earth that rotates around it.

Likewise, the simple fact that the Bible talks about the ends of the earth and uses other phrases that make sense from the perspective of a human specifically located on the surface does not indicate any astronomical teaching about the shape of the planet, etc.

 

[excreationist]

In Hebrew those two verbs have different senses:

to create: בָּרָא like in:

Gen. 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

to make: עָשָׂה like in:

Gen. 1:16 And God went on to make the two great luminaries, the greater luminary for dominating the day and the lesser luminary for dominating the night, and also the stars.

Your Bible quotes seem to be from the Jehovah Witnesses' Bible:

https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/b/r1/lp-e/nwt/1/1#study=discover

Like I said if it is so obvious that you are correct why is it that YEC organisations always say the sun, moon, and stars were created on day 4?

 

[Eli G]

I was teaching you some Hebrew lessons.
You're very welcome.

 

[excreationist]

I was teaching you some Hebrew lessons.
You're very welcome.

So are you saying you're better at Hebrew than those YEC organisations?

 

[Eli G]

So are you saying you're better at Hebrew than those YEC organisations?

Am I?

 

[Audie]

Please help me out in understanding what you're saying here. What is your opinion of works of fiction-- do you agree that many profound truths can only be expressed in fictional stories? Or were you discussing something else maybe?

Isaac Asimov (no true believer he) once pointed out that no book has been published as much and in so many languages as the Bible, and no other book has had as many other books been written about it. What I'm saying is that whether you and I see value in the Bible does not change the fact that so very many other people DO find so much value there.

Most people in the world consider that the Bible conveys considerable and profound import. OK, so that doesn't prove that the Bible is right because truth is not up for a vote. The fact does remain that we need to consider the possibility that a few of those billions of people may be familiar with our objections and that because of what they've seen they still accept the Bible as being useful.

I'm interested in what they've found.

" profound truths".
Interesting concept.
Care to share an example or two?

Not knowing what they are I don't know
why a fictitious presentation might be
necessary. I doubt it is.

We all know there's a lot of bibles

Fewer know the history of how the religion was spread by
coercion, physical and mental.

Few have read much in those so- popular books.

Fewer still agree on what it says.

As for the popularity of what people find in said book,
that's not so mysterious

You want to know what "they found"?
I can tell you.
People find whatever the want to find.
And they have god on their side to prove
they are right.

Study the Bible and there it is!


For those who find that too much work they can always
go pascale wager. Let's see: Bliss, or, torture.
Guess I will buy a bible,

As to why the book has so little actual content
and literary merit, you didn't address why a god
wrote such a sorry book.

 

[excreationist]

As to why the book has so little actual content
and literary merit, you didn't address why a god
wrote such a sorry book.

I think it is a test of your character - most Christians would say that even though God said to kill everything that breathes (including babies) in Deuteronomy 20:16-18 God is still perfectly loving.... or they could become flat earthers if they trust the Bible over science....

 

[Audie]

I think it is a test of your character - most Christians would say that even though God said to kill everything that breathes (including babies) in Deuteronomy 20:16-18 God is still perfectly loving.... or they could become flat earthers if they trust the Bible over science....

Intellectual integrity is an aspect of character,
for sure.
A state of perpetual denial and cog dis
can't be good, or what a real god would
sponsor.