Dwark

I did not say it was in verse one. That is rather an odd question. Maybe you mean, "Can I point to the Sun in day one?" I will answer the later assuming that is what you meant. It is right there; {3} And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. {4} And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. {5} And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day." Like I said, go ask any child what we call the light that gives us daytime. That is not day 4, verse 16 starts a recaps of all the lights that had been created up to day 4. It is a story technique that is repeated. And the lesser light is the moon. Oh? An effect of what?

No, the sun was created on day 1. 1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. 3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 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.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day. If you have a child handy, go ask them "What do we call the thing that gives us light during the day?" They will tell you "Sun" straight away. The Sun and Stars are clearly created on Day 4. Where did the Light come from?? IMHO..... GOD is Light! Where else in Scripture is there anything written concerning this subject? ....... (Revelation 22:5) "And there shall be no night there; and they need no candle, neither light of the sun; for the Lord God giveth them light: and they shall reign for ever and ever." Hope it helps, Iron sharpens Iron Brothers Nope, only the stars were created on the fourth day. The sun was created on day one. Go find a child and ask them the question I posed. It is simple, there is no need to make it complicated. You might not be aware of this, but the sun is a star. I know these things are confusing, but I am sure if you go ask a child they will be able to tell you that the sun is a star. lol, technically correct. Not to pick nits, but most children do not think the sun is a star, stars are far away, to them. The sun is the star/light that divides the night from the day.-day one the light that that we call day. and the stars that rule the night to tell the seasons of the years were created on day 4 , because the positions of the clusters of stars could be used to tell the seasons and passing, not just the day passing.

No, the sun was created on day 1. 1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. 3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 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.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day. If you have a child handy, go ask them "What do we call the thing that gives us light during the day?" They will tell you "Sun" straight away. The Sun and Stars are clearly created on Day 4. Where did the Light come from?? IMHO..... GOD is Light! Where else in Scripture is there anything written concerning this subject? ....... (Revelation 22:5) "And there shall be no night there; and they need no candle, neither light of the sun; for the Lord God giveth them light: and they shall reign for ever and ever." Hope it helps, Iron sharpens Iron Brothers Nope, only the stars were created on the fourth day. The sun was created on day one. Go find a child and ask them the question I posed. It is simple, there is no need to make it complicated.

Back then, people didn't care about understanding the the natural world for the sake of the natural world. Nor did they care about time the way we would. Consider this, Matthew writes a genealogy for Jesus that skips people (as compared to what we see in the OT) and claims there were "14 generations" between significant people. Can you explain how we can consider Matthew's "14 generations" as literal when we know in reality there were more than that? If we can take this literally, then why can we not take a more lenient understanding of a Genesis 1 "day" to be just as literal? Matthew's "14 generations" corresponds to story telling of his time and not our ethnocentric idea of historical precision. Just like God incarnates stating that mustard seed is the smallest of seeds corresponds to the subsistence farmers and herders of that area knowledge of seeds. I find this amusing. "Matthew's '14 generations' corresponds to story telling of his time and not our ethnocentric idea of historical precision." But yet Genesis 1 corresponds to our ethnocentric idea of historical precision? In ancient times, the concept of time was not heeded with our historical precision. Likewise, chronology was not heeded with our historical precision. Nor was the description of events heeded with our historical precision. Yet people claim the days of Genesis 1 were regarded with our historical precision, the chronology presented was regarded with our historical precision, and the description of events was heeded with our historical precision. Unbelievable. Google Matthew 1:17 and look for the wiki as a start. There are explanations all over the web for your tangent on Matthew's genealogy counting. If you have some insight as why you think that Genesis is not to be taken literal, that would be on topic. Why does not the same principle apply? They are different books, from different times, with different reasons for being written. You are applying your ideas about one book and applying it to a separate book that was written hundreds and hundreds of years later by a people who were vastly different. So you believe it makes more sense that the people way back then in earlier times would apply our modern ideas of what "literal" means rather than thinking more like the people a couple thousand years perceived them? Very odd. Your interpretation is very interesting. Thank you for your comment.

I heard one guy say that he did not believe women should preach because it brings a certain way and type of preaching that is not "manly". Which I think is obvious, women are not men, but then he tied it to a slippery slope argument that it then led to allowing homosexual pastures. I thought that was a large leap of logic. But then he asked, "Do any churches that allow homosexuality not allow women pastures?" Good question. Just a thought. And what has all of this "Equal rights for women" brought us, some good things and some things not good. Like the peasant class that the rich can fleece have now doubled its work force and dropped the need to raise wages to compete for labor retention. The peasant class now relies on the sectarian state to raise their children in an academic environment that is hostile to the ways of God. Kids go home to a single parent that is not there because there is not the need for Christians to stay married. It kinda cracks me up in a sad way the the atheist obeys God more than the Evangelicals on God's teaching on marriage. Ya, its a stat. Well this certainly is not a cherrie post. I go back and forth on this subject. I do not know, but the other side needs to be considered.

No, the sun was created on day 1. 1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. 3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 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.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day. If you have a child handy, go ask them "What do we call the thing that gives us light during the day?" They will tell you "Sun" straight away.

Back then, people didn't care about understanding the the natural world for the sake of the natural world. Nor did they care about time the way we would. Consider this, Matthew writes a genealogy for Jesus that skips people (as compared to what we see in the OT) and claims there were "14 generations" between significant people. Can you explain how we can consider Matthew's "14 generations" as literal when we know in reality there were more than that? If we can take this literally, then why can we not take a more lenient understanding of a Genesis 1 "day" to be just as literal? Matthew's "14 generations" corresponds to story telling of his time and not our ethnocentric idea of historical precision. Just like God incarnates stating that mustard seed is the smallest of seeds corresponds to the subsistence farmers and herders of that area knowledge of seeds. I find this amusing. "Matthew's '14 generations' corresponds to story telling of his time and not our ethnocentric idea of historical precision." But yet Genesis 1 corresponds to our ethnocentric idea of historical precision? In ancient times, the concept of time was not heeded with our historical precision. Likewise, chronology was not heeded with our historical precision. Nor was the description of events heeded with our historical precision. Yet people claim the days of Genesis 1 were regarded with our historical precision, the chronology presented was regarded with our historical precision, and the description of events was heeded with our historical precision. Unbelievable. Google Matthew 1:17 and look for the wiki as a start. There are explanations all over the web for your tangent on Matthew's genealogy counting. If you have some insight as why you think that Genesis is not to be taken literal, that would be on topic. Why does not the same principle apply? They are different books, from different times, with different reasons for being written. You are applying your ideas about one book and applying it to a separate book that was written hundreds and hundreds of years later by a people who were vastly different.

But aren't there two creation stories: Genesis 1 and 2? It's commonly held that both chapters are retelling the same event, but from different point of view; however, some consider the chapters to be consecutive with a considerable interval of time in between (from The International Bible Commentary). There are not two stories. This is a story technique that is repeated in the bible, i.e. animals in the ark. But this is off topic. There are all kinds of opinions about the different kinds of creation stories, but what is important is how the people that lived in those times understood how it was suppose to be interpreted, and this is a literal 6 day creation. But if "a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day" (2 Peter 3:8) to the Lord, how literal could a "6 day creation" be? When "Yohm" is used in the creation account in Genesis Yohm/time/day is qualified with "and there was evening and there was morning" to show that Yohm/day/time was to be understood as a literal solar day. This is not rationally disputed. Go check around.

I gave mine. If Matthew's 14 generations can be "literal" by the understanding of the people back then, than Genesis' "day" being something other than 24 hours can also be "literal" by the understanding of the people back then. This is a logical fallacy. Specifically it is can be classified as a Genetic Fallacy. An example would be that "Most US presidents are not assassinated, there for Lincoln was not assassinated. Even if it were true that Matthew's 14 genertations is "something" it does not correlate that therefore Genesis is also that "something".

Back then, people didn't care about understanding the the natural world for the sake of the natural world. Nor did they care about time the way we would. Consider this, Matthew writes a genealogy for Jesus that skips people (as compared to what we see in the OT) and claims there were "14 generations" between significant people. Can you explain how we can consider Matthew's "14 generations" as literal when we know in reality there were more than that? If we can take this literally, then why can we not take a more lenient understanding of a Genesis 1 "day" to be just as literal? Matthew's "14 generations" corresponds to story telling of his time and not our ethnocentric idea of historical precision. Just like God incarnates stating that mustard seed is the smallest of seeds corresponds to the subsistence farmers and herders of that area knowledge of seeds. I find this amusing. "Matthew's '14 generations' corresponds to story telling of his time and not our ethnocentric idea of historical precision." But yet Genesis 1 corresponds to our ethnocentric idea of historical precision? In ancient times, the concept of time was not heeded with our historical precision. Likewise, chronology was not heeded with our historical precision. Nor was the description of events heeded with our historical precision. Yet people claim the days of Genesis 1 were regarded with our historical precision, the chronology presented was regarded with our historical precision, and the description of events was heeded with our historical precision. Unbelievable. Google Matthew 1:17 and look for the wiki as a start. There are explanations all over the web for your tangent on Matthew's genealogy counting. If you have some insight as why you think that Genesis is not to be taken literal, that would be on topic.

He made the stars on day 4. argggghhhh! Why do people always say that. Just stating the facts, the word used for day 4 is a totally different word than used in verse 1 and has a totally different connotation. The people of those times and culture understood this. I have never heard that before. Please show me how you support this. Genesis Chapter 1 בְּרֵאשִׁית א בְּרֵאשִׁית, בָּרָא אֱלֹהִים, אֵת הַשָּׁמַיִם, וְאֵת הָאָרֶץ. 1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. ב וְהָאָרֶץ, הָיְתָה תֹהוּ וָבֹהוּ, וְחֹשֶׁךְ, עַל-פְּנֵי תְהוֹם; וְרוּחַ אֱלֹהִים, מְרַחֶפֶת עַל-פְּנֵי הַמָּיִם. 2 Now the earth was unformed and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the spirit of God hovered over the face of the waters. ג וַיֹּאמֶר אֱלֹהִים, יְהִי אוֹר; וַיְהִי-אוֹר. 3 And God said: 'Let there be light.' And there was light. ד וַיַּרְא אֱלֹהִים אֶת-הָאוֹר, כִּי-טוֹב; וַיַּבְדֵּל אֱלֹהִים, בֵּין הָאוֹר וּבֵין הַחֹשֶׁךְ. 4 And God saw the light, that it was good; and God divided the light from the darkness. ה וַיִּקְרָא אֱלֹהִים לָאוֹר יוֹם, וְלַחֹשֶׁךְ קָרָא לָיְלָה; וַיְהִי-עֶרֶב וַיְהִי-בֹקֶר, יוֹם אֶחָד. {פ} 5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day. {P} ו וַיֹּאמֶר אֱלֹהִים, יְהִי רָקִיעַ בְּתוֹךְ הַמָּיִם, וִיהִי מַבְדִּיל, בֵּין מַיִם לָמָיִם. 6 And God said: 'Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.' ז וַיַּעַשׂ אֱלֹהִים, אֶת-הָרָקִיעַ, וַיַּבְדֵּל בֵּין הַמַּיִם אֲשֶׁר מִתַּחַת לָרָקִיעַ, וּבֵין הַמַּיִם אֲשֶׁר מֵעַל לָרָקִיעַ; וַיְהִי-כֵן. 7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament; and it was so. ח וַיִּקְרָא אֱלֹהִים לָרָקִיעַ, שָׁמָיִם; וַיְהִי-עֶרֶב וַיְהִי-בֹקֶר, יוֹם שֵׁנִי. {פ} 8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, a second day. {P} ט וַיֹּאמֶר אֱלֹהִים, יִקָּווּ הַמַּיִם מִתַּחַת הַשָּׁמַיִם אֶל-מָקוֹם אֶחָד, וְתֵרָאֶה, הַיַּבָּשָׁה; וַיְהִי-כֵן. 9 And God said: 'Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear.' And it was so. י וַיִּקְרָא אֱלֹהִים לַיַּבָּשָׁה אֶרֶץ, וּלְמִקְוֵה הַמַּיִם קָרָא יַמִּים; וַיַּרְא אֱלֹהִים, כִּי-טוֹב. 10 And God called the dry land Earth, and the gathering together of the waters called He Seas; and God saw that it was good. יא וַיֹּאמֶר אֱלֹהִים, תַּדְשֵׁא הָאָרֶץ דֶּשֶׁא עֵשֶׂב מַזְרִיעַ זֶרַע, עֵץ פְּרִי עֹשֶׂה פְּרִי לְמִינוֹ, אֲשֶׁר זַרְעוֹ-בוֹ עַל-הָאָרֶץ; וַיְהִי-כֵן. 11 And God said: 'Let the earth put forth grass, herb yielding seed, and fruit-tree bearing fruit after its kind, wherein is the seed thereof, upon the earth.' And it was so. יב וַתּוֹצֵא הָאָרֶץ דֶּשֶׁא עֵשֶׂב מַזְרִיעַ זֶרַע, לְמִינֵהוּ, וְעֵץ עֹשֶׂה-פְּרִי אֲשֶׁר זַרְעוֹ-בוֹ, לְמִינֵהוּ; וַיַּרְא אֱלֹהִים, כִּי-טוֹב. 12 And the earth brought forth grass, herb yielding seed after its kind, and tree bearing fruit, wherein is the seed thereof, after its kind; and God saw that it was good. יג וַיְהִי-עֶרֶב וַיְהִי-בֹקֶר, יוֹם שְׁלִישִׁי. {פ} 13 And there was evening and there was morning, a third day. {P} יד וַיֹּאמֶר אֱלֹהִים, יְהִי מְאֹרֹת בִּרְקִיעַ הַשָּׁמַיִם, לְהַבְדִּיל, בֵּין הַיּוֹם וּבֵין הַלָּיְלָה; וְהָיוּ לְאֹתֹת וּלְמוֹעֲדִים, וּלְיָמִים וְשָׁנִים. 14 And God said: 'Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years; טו וְהָיוּ לִמְאוֹרֹת בִּרְקִיעַ הַשָּׁמַיִם, לְהָאִיר עַל-הָאָרֶץ; וַיְהִי-כֵן. 15 and let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth.' And it was so. טז וַיַּעַשׂ אֱלֹהִים, אֶת-שְׁנֵי הַמְּאֹרֹת הַגְּדֹלִים: אֶת-הַמָּאוֹר הַגָּדֹל, לְמֶמְשֶׁלֶת הַיּוֹם, וְאֶת-הַמָּאוֹר הַקָּטֹן לְמֶמְשֶׁלֶת הַלַּיְלָה, וְאֵת הַכּוֹכָבִים. 16 And God made the two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night; and the stars. יז וַיִּתֵּן אֹתָם אֱלֹהִים, בִּרְקִיעַ הַשָּׁמָיִם, לְהָאִיר, עַל-הָאָרֶץ. 17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, יח וְלִמְשֹׁל, בַּיּוֹם וּבַלַּיְלָה, וּלְהַבְדִּיל, בֵּין הָאוֹר וּבֵין הַחֹשֶׁךְ; וַיַּרְא אֱלֹהִים, כִּי-טוֹב. 18 and to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness; and God saw that it was good. יט וַיְהִי-עֶרֶב וַיְהִי-בֹקֶר, יוֹם רְבִיעִי. {פ} 19 And there was evening and there was morning, a fourth day. {P} mechon-mamre.org

I'm amazed at how many YEC do not want to even consider the possibility of this. This even allows for their literal six day interpretation. Sigh I am a YEC. I do not see why this is significant. Well, many YEC people say the universe is 6000 years old too. Why not consider the universe to have already been laid for a long time before God recreated the earth from darkness and void? In the beginning God CREATED the heavens (stars)and the earth. Dateless past. Now here comes the restoration/recreation-the six day story as you insist is literal. Maybe it is. The 6000 year thing is a product of Bishop Unger and Lightfoot. It is plagued with problems and assumptions. We do not know how old the universe is. The difference between YEC and Old earthers is that YEC's believe that God created "all that there is" in 6 literal days, and old earthers believe that God is not capable of doing it. That is rather unflattering, but that is the nuts and bolts of it. I do not apologize or compromise my beliefs to fit the modern dark ages of science. Ouch! Not capable? Where or when did we add that condition? All things are possible for our God. Oy ve Sigh Shaking my head.... Believe what you want, but please don't misrepresent the basis for what I believe (small God). Well, if it quacks like a duck? The bible clearly states that God created "all that there is" in 6 literal days, the bible also shows that the people of those times and culture understood it to be 6 literal days, the terms in the argument (God) is defined as capable of doing so, and the argument you are using against it is forensic science-appealing to natural law show that the universe is old because it appears to be old? Question, using your forensic science argument, appealing to natural law, how old would Adam be when he was created by God? Would forensic science state that the speaking, walking, breathing Adam was less than a day old? Dude, its a duck. I love ya man, nothing personal. intentionally misrepresenting another's view is not an act of love, it is an act of deceit. Love never acts in that manner. Actually that would be slander, and slanders do not inherit eternal life, according to Paul. I did not misrepresent him, I did not say that he said that God is not capable. Your misrepresentation of my statement was actually me talking about Old earthers in general, I have no idea if Spock is an old Earther, an evolutionist, a christian wiccan, or ????? But this is generally the way non-YEC's defend themselves when they are faced with the facts. Has any non-YEC been able to defend their non literal belief in creation with other than an appeal to "natural law". Follow the argument all the way.

I'm amazed at how many YEC do not want to even consider the possibility of this. This even allows for their literal six day interpretation. Sigh I am a YEC. I do not see why this is significant. Well, many YEC people say the universe is 6000 years old too. Why not consider the universe to have already been laid for a long time before God recreated the earth from darkness and void? In the beginning God CREATED the heavens (stars)and the earth. Dateless past. Now here comes the restoration/recreation-the six day story as you insist is literal. Maybe it is. The 6000 year thing is a product of Bishop Unger and Lightfoot. It is plagued with problems and assumptions. We do not know how old the universe is. The difference between YEC and Old earthers is that YEC's believe that God created "all that there is" in 6 literal days, and old earthers believe that God is not capable of doing it. That is rather unflattering, but that is the nuts and bolts of it. I do not apologize or compromise my beliefs to fit the modern dark ages of science. Ouch! Not capable? Where or when did we add that condition? All things are possible for our God. Oy ve Sigh Shaking my head.... Believe what you want, but please don't misrepresent the basis for what I believe (small God). Well, if it quacks like a duck? The bible clearly states that God created "all that there is" in 6 literal days, the bible also shows that the people of those times and culture understood it to be 6 literal days, the terms in the argument (God) is defined as capable of doing so, and the argument you are using against it is forensic science-appealing to natural law show that the universe is old because it appears to be old? Question, using your forensic science argument, appealing to natural law, how old would Adam be when he was created by God? Would forensic science state that the speaking, walking, breathing Adam was less than a day old? Dude, its a duck. I love ya man, nothing personal.

I'm amazed at how many YEC do not want to even consider the possibility of this. This even allows for their literal six day interpretation. Sigh I am a YEC. I do not see why this is significant. Well, many YEC people say the universe is 6000 years old too. Why not consider the universe to have already been laid for a long time before God recreated the earth from darkness and void? In the beginning God CREATED the heavens (stars)and the earth. Dateless past. Now here comes the restoration/recreation-the six day story as you insist is literal. Maybe it is. The 6000 year thing is a product of Bishop Unger and Lightfoot. It is plagued with problems and assumptions. We do not know how old the universe is. The difference between YEC and Old earthers is that YEC's believe that God created "all that there is" in 6 literal days, and old earthers believe that God is not capable of doing it. That is rather unflattering, but that is the nuts and bolts of it. I do not apologize or compromise my beliefs to fit the modern dark ages of science.

He made the stars on day 4. argggghhhh! Why do people always say that.

Back then, people didn't care about understanding the the natural world for the sake of the natural world. Nor did they care about time the way we would. Consider this, Matthew writes a genealogy for Jesus that skips people (as compared to what we see in the OT) and claims there were "14 generations" between significant people. Can you explain how we can consider Matthew's "14 generations" as literal when we know in reality there were more than that? If we can take this literally, then why can we not take a more lenient understanding of a Genesis 1 "day" to be just as literal? Matthew's "14 generations" corresponds to story telling of his time and not our ethnocentric idea of historical precision. Just like God incarnates stating that mustard seed is the smallest of seeds corresponds to the subsistence farmers and herders of that area knowledge of seeds. The reason we take the creation story literal is because that is how it is told, that is how it was understood, and there are no arguments to say otherwise that can withstand scrutiny.

I'm amazed at how many YEC do not want to even consider the possibility of this. This even allows for their literal six day interpretation. Sigh I am a YEC. I do not see why this is significant.

But aren't there two creation stories: Genesis 1 and 2? It's commonly held that both chapters are retelling the same event, but from different point of view; however, some consider the chapters to be consecutive with a considerable interval of time in between (from The International Bible Commentary). There are not two stories. This is a story technique that is repeated in the bible, i.e. animals in the ark. But this is off topic. There are all kinds of opinions about the different kinds of creation stories, but what is important is how the people that lived in those times understood how it was suppose to be interpreted, and this is a literal 6 day creation.

We are not told why, but many people offer explanations that are in line with their beliefs, many and varied beliefs. What do you think the tree of knowledge was about?

Here is how I answer this and all the other objections that are based on arguments of "Natural Law" i.e. light. God, by definition, is not constrained by "Natural Law", when he created Adam he did not created a one day old infant, but a walking, talking, blood oxygenated, synopitic link firing person. God can create anything at any point along it's perceived linear time scale. God did not have to start with "light" starting at its perceived distall local.