BeyondET

7 minutes ago, RV_Wizard said:

Midday and midnight are neither mentioned nor disclaimed.  The measurement is the evening and the morning, which happened exactly as it does today; one rotation of the planet with a relatively fixed point of light.

But you want to act like they are included by assuming a day included those periods just like today and you can't go by the finished product earth which wasn't even formed and rotating nor a fixed sun in the beginning 

Possibly a weakening of the polar vortex.

9 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

I have no idea what "it's reserved for".  Nor do you or anyone else.  My focus is on Genesis only.

What are you referring to?  God created light in Genesis, so how's that NOT relevant to Genesis?

Time doesn't apply just to Genesis.

Those lights are in the galaxy and others in the universe which everything physical resides in of coarse the universe is relevant you said it isnt I disagree.

9 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

I was commenting on what you said, as if animals reproducing was evolution.

How can the theory of Darwin's evolution occur with a very young earth?

That's not what I meant.

Darwin evolution is something I don’t subscribe to. I don't believe humans evolved from apes.

2 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

You do know that I am only speaking about Genesis 1 and earth.  Right?

Nothing else in the universe is relevant to Genesis 1.  

And?

Correct.

When you say God created time that's not just reserved for earth or genesis. You open that door.

So the heavens or let there be light or lights in the expanse are not relevant in Genesis, hmm...

2 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

And that isn't evolution any more than a couple having a child.

Of course evolution demands an old earth.  Have you ever heard an evolutionist say the earth is young?

What isn't evolution any more than a couple having a child??? What are you referring too?

Rather evolutionists mentions a young earth or not still doesn't demand an old earth.

3 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

That is true.  Many things we have discovered are not mentioned.  Most of what we KNOW about science conforms to the teaching of the Bible.  For example, in Job we read He hangs the earth upon nothing.  Radio waves, ocean currents and electricity are hinted at but until they were discovered the verses seemed to not make sense.

Ask yourself this question.  Could an omnipotent God make a clone of this earth, only without the impact of man?  If He could do it now, He could have done it 6,000 or so years ago.  There are neither babies nor eggs in Genesis 1.  The only seed mentioned are in the fruit.  Everything was created intact, mature and perfect.  Adam and Ever were without ancestors.  This is the truth God revealed to us.

Evolution is a false religion, based on lies.  God created all living things as part of a six day creation.  God Himself carved those words on stone tablets as recorded in one of many, many verses you have to reject to believe in evolution.

The problem with the idea of everything was created mature and intact is that it's not mentioned in the bible as such. Saying the truth of God revealed, doesn't improve the hypothesis and evolution isn't a religion.

3 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

When used as a numbered day or in conjunction with evening and morning, It means a single day 100% of the time.  Genesis uses both to make it perfectly clear it references one singular day.  When used in plural, as in the days of Noah, it can mean an undescribed amount of time.  However, such is not the case in Genesis.

The days may not have been 24 hours long.  The earth is slowing.  They could have been 23.9 hours.

A 24 hour day includes midday and midnight. On top of that earth wasn't even formed yet in the beginning.

6 hours ago, Who me said:

1st death applied to all that had the breath of life, which does not include plants and certainly does not apply to part of plants.

 

So the " death of leaves " is an irrational distraction.

 

2nd you are ignorant  of the power and wisdom of God.

 

As it says in genesis all living plants were given to all creatures for food, so again the " death of plants or plant parts " as it was permitted by God is an irrelevance to the discussion of creation.

 

A fallen world cursed by sin changed by a global flood and God permitted man to eat meat, it is reasonable to assume that carnivorous  creatures had begun to eat other creatures earlier than the flood as quite likely  did rebellious  men.

That there was the adaptability in creatures to develop protective shapes, colouration, and the ability to thrive in a multitude  of environments  is a tribute to God's wisdom in creation.

Your ignorant of what I said, it had nothing to do with death of leaves. It was about God creating an animal that looks like a dead leaf.

Then you go off on a tangent about man eating meat after the fall, not alot of wisdom in your discernment.

Adaptability in creatures to evolve into protective shapes and colouration hmm, sounds like evolution?

On 11/3/2023 at 4:50 PM, Who me said:

I prefer to ask how can a process vital for evolut8on be called an enemy, death, the last enemy?

Also how could death be call " good " ?

Was the death of leaves good to create an animal that looks like one?

14 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

It still says that in six days God created the Heavens, the earth, the sea and all that is in them.

Yom doesn't just mean a 24 hour period.

Genesis 2

4 This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made them.

On 12/25/2023 at 8:26 AM, The Barbarian said:

In the sense that plate tectonics, protons, and radio waves are unbiblical.   Lots of observed things like evolution and radio are true, even if they aren't in the Bible.

 

Hmm I think that was another posters statement.

I agree lots of things aren't mentioned but nonetheless are part of God's design of creation

On 12/23/2023 at 9:43 AM, Renskedejonge said:

Yes but why is there even darkness? 

Revelation 22:5

5 There shall be no night there: They need no lamp nor light of the sun, for the Lord God gives them light. And they shall reign forever and ever.

I'm not saying that it proves that satan fell already, but that was the reason I thought: oh yes that's possible.

Part of the physical world, can't just have light in the physical.

Like a battery got have a positive and negative to store and generate electricity though some much more technical than that.

On 12/23/2023 at 8:00 AM, FreeGrace said:

The argument that a sun is required for there to be a "24 hour day" just doesn't hold up.  God created time, not Timex.  Or Rolex.  So He didn't need to create a sun before He started timing His restoration of the earth.

The Bible tells us the time for each day of restoration.  So it doesn't matter what day the sun was created.

24 hour day is on earth, each planet has its own timex. Every thing in the universe is in its own time bubble. There is no just one time across the heavens.

One of the most accurate Rolex's is a pulsar and some atoms.

No you don't need the sun to know a 24 hour day. The star clock, North star and the big dipper is quite accurate except its read counterclockwise. No sun needed though daytime viewing is quite hard. 

On 12/22/2023 at 9:13 AM, Renskedejonge said:

Because He is Light. I would expect everything to always be light.

He created darkness, and yes God is pure Light.

On 12/22/2023 at 8:21 AM, FreeGrace said:

Evolution explains a very slow process of the development of animals that leads finally to man.  That is unbiblical.  From Genesis 1 we know that God created immediately, by speaking things into existence.

While evolution DEMANDS an old earth for its theory, an old earth doesn't need evolution at all.

No evolution doesn't just involve slow processes but incorporates many processes some are quite fast.

From Genesis 1 we know God said let the earth bring forth.

Evolution doesn't demand an old earth. And the bible doesn't teach a young earth. That's some people's interpretation.

3 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

If mornings and evenings require the sun, and there isn't a sun, then how can the Bible describe "morning and evening"?     

Dusk and Dawn the period in the evening and morning when there's light but the sun isn't visible above the horizon to gauge time, there's 18 minutes each period. 36 mins each day that is totally impossible to know without a mechanical clock.

11 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

Evolution explains a very slow process of the development of animals that leads finally to man.  That is unbiblical.  From Genesis 1 we know that God created immediately, by speaking things into existence.

While evolution DEMANDS an old earth for its theory, an old earth doesn't need evolution at all.

That's focusing back to the thread topic, 👍 

10 hours ago, Renskedejonge said:

Because He is Light. I would expect everything to always be light.

He formed the light and created the darkness.

God is spiritual light.

On 12/18/2023 at 9:32 AM, FreeGrace said:

And Moses didn't write Genesis in English.  

No, no prophet quoted Moses on v.1.  And those SAME prophets used the SAME 2 words in v.2 to describe destruction of the land.  Go figure.

You really want to know what Jesus said regarding the time of creation of Adam and the woman?  Good.  Let's see.

English Standard Version
But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.’

Now, I'll bet you think you 'got' me, huh.  Well, let's see what my lexicon says about the word "creation".

The Greek word is 'ktisis' which is derived from 'ktizoo'.  

 

The Greek word for “creation” in both verses is κτίσεως.  My lexicon refers this word to ‘ktisis’.  This Greek word is found under ‘κτίζω’.  Under this word we read:  “to reduce from a state of wildness and disorder”, from Bagster & Sons lexicon.

Thayer's Greek Lexicon

STRONGS NT 2936: κτίζω

κτίζω: 1 aorist ἔκτισα; perfect passive ἐκτισμαι; 1 aorist passive ἐκτίσθην; the Sept. chiefly for בָּרָא; properly, to make habitable, to people, a place, region, island (Homer, Herodotus, Thucydides, Diodorus, others); hence to found, a city, colony, state, etc.

So from 2 independent Greek lexicon sources, this Greek word for ‘creation’ refers to a creation or from a state of disorder and wildness.  Or, to make something habitable that wasn’t habitable before.

Kittel’s Theological Dictionary of the New Testament notes that in a long dissertation of κτίζω, that “in the religion of many peoples chaos stands at the beginning of being and becoming”.

The major mythologies (Greek, Roman and Norse) are all parallel accounts, with the names changed among the 3, which is best explained by understanding that Genesis 6 involved fallen angels contaminating the human race, which led God to destroy it, save 8 people; Noah and his family.

In a similar way, the account of creation from Adam and Eve was passed down among the generations.  So the common thread of “chaos” in so many different religions would have come from what Genesis 1:2 actually says in the original, not in how every English translation renders it.

The Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament, by Balz and Schneider Eds. makes notes that “the OT creation narratives are most intelligible within the framework of ancient Near Eastern views, each motif has parallels.

So don't accuse me of having a viewpoint that no one else has.  You obviously haven't done your own homework, but rather are resting on your laurels of a flawed English translation.

Theology isn't by democracy; how many vote for a certain view.  Theology is from the Bible, and the original languages used to communicate God's Word.  Which you haven't done.

Well, now I've proved otherwise in this very post, so if you throw out that claim again, you will only demonstrate stupidity.  I quoted scholarly sources that recognize that "creation" in the NT has the connotation of "reduced from a state of disorder and wildness".  

However, there is more.  v.2 is a conjunction.

“The Hebrew particle wª - "and," which is used to combine the successive links in the chain of this narrative, does not indicate any necessary connection between the sentences it unites.  Besides, so far is it from implying that the parts of a narrative where it occurs are connected by immediate sequence in point of time, a statement which it introduces may be separated by a considerable and even protracted interval from the course of events narrated in the preceding sentence, without any notice being taken of there being such a chasm.  (Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown Commentary, 1997, 2003 by Biblesoft, Inc. All rights reserved.)

This popular commentary notes that "a considerable and even protracted interval from the course of events narrated in the preceding sentence" shows that there is no necessary connection between v.1 and v.2.  But, there's more.  This is what the commentary says about the words "tohu wabohu".

“The analogous use, therefore, of this rare and peculiar phraseology in the verse before us may imply, according to the first sense of the term, that the world at its creation had neither received its proper shape nor was fit to be tenanted; and accordingly it is rendered in the Septuagint version 'invisible and unfurnished.' Or it may signify, according to the second acceptation in which the words are used, that the world, which had formerly been a scene of material beauty and order, was by some great convulsion plunged into a state of chaos or widespread disorder and desolation. Hence, some eminent critics, who take this view, render the clause thus: 'But (or afterward) the earth became waste and desolate.' This translation is declared by Kurtz to be inadmissible, as being contrary to the rules of grammatical construction; but Dr. McCaul has shown that the verb haayªtaah 'was,' is, in some twenty places, in this chapter, used as equivalent to 'became,' and that elsewhere it has the same signification without a following Lª - (preposition) (Isa 64:5,9). That the earth was not originally desolate seems also to be implied in Isa 45:18 “

(Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown Commentary, 1997, 2003 by Biblesoft, Inc.)

If that's not enough evidence that my view is hardly singular, consider these people who are "old earth creationists".

Old earth creationism (OEC) is an umbrella term used to describe biblical creationists who deny that the universe was created within the last 6,000 to 10,000 years over the course of six consecutive 24-hour days. Rather, ***old earth creationists believe that God created the universe and its inhabitants (including a literal Adam and Eve) over a much longer period of time than is allowed for by young earth creationists. The list of notable Christian leaders who are at least open to an old earth interpretation is a long one, and that list continues to grow. The list includes men such as Walter Kaiser, Norman Geisler, William Dembski, J.I. Packer, J.P. Moreland, Philip E. Johnson, and Chuck Colson, as well the late Francis Schaefer and Old Testament scholar Gleason Archer.

*** should read "some old earth creationists".  Maybe "many", but I vigorously reject that the earth was created "over a much longer period of time that allowed by yec".

I believe the whole universe was created in a moment of time when God spoke everything into existence, per Psa 33:6,9.

Then, something occurred that destroyed the earth to the point that humanity would not survive on it.  So God restored the earth in 6 days.

That does NO harm to any doctrine in the Bible.

I've just given you a number of men and scholarly sources that support the earth becoming a wasteland.

Just did.

You gotta quit reading just English translations.  Get into the original Hebrew, like I did.

No you didn't.

Well, now you have, so you can quit making such a naive claim.

Jesus already did, as I just pointed out in the Greek word for "creation" as Jesus noted in Mark 10:6.

So, basically, the scholars, Jesus and the OT prophets all disagree with your creation view.  As I have shown in this very post.

So you have no excuse.

And the problem with evolution and animals?

On 12/11/2023 at 2:31 PM, Renskedejonge said:

I mean it would be weird if He was creating the earth in the dark. .

Hmm curious why would that be weird?.

On 12/4/2023 at 11:59 AM, Eman_3 said:

God is so knowledgeable that he created isotopes but messed up with human anatomy? Why do men have nipples? What purpose is there for the appendix?

And sometimes more then two. superficial nipples can happen to both human males and females.

On 12/8/2023 at 9:15 AM, Starise said:

Plus, how do we explain the large sleletons and structures. Also was Goliath a wood cutter? I seriously doubt it.

Where are the large skeletons located in a museum or something? It's interesting the average human height has grown substantially over the last couple hundred years.

On 12/6/2023 at 11:24 AM, Who me said:

Where in the bible are we taught that spirits of the dead roam the earth?

The bible teaches that the spirits of the dead are in an afterlife awaiting the day of judgement.

So stop reading the book of Enoch and concentrate  on the bible.

Hmm so what about spirit possession. Clearly there were quite afew accounts in the bible about it. Did those spirits come from the afterlife to dwell among humans or sometimes in them?

What does A.D. mean?