*Zion* Posted May 20, 2014 Group: Royal Member Followers: 16 Topic Count: 154 Topics Per Day: 0.04 Content Count: 3,245 Content Per Day: 0.78 Reputation: 2,397 Days Won: 9 Joined: 12/09/2012 Status: Offline Birthday: 05/11/1984 Share Posted May 20, 2014 I do not doubt God's Shekinah glory, or that He is indeed THE light; however the point is that He said LET THERE BE... And then He said the same to even more different kinds of lights. Why say LET THERE BE if it's there already? I'm not trying to negate what you're saying. You just seem extremely sure that there can be no other explanation when I have presented to you what I have found in scripture. That doesn't mean that I disagree with your idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tolken Posted May 20, 2014 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 3 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 405 Content Per Day: 0.11 Reputation: 98 Days Won: 0 Joined: 02/27/2014 Status: Offline Share Posted May 20, 2014 Shiloh357 - the point I made earlier is that (and I realize this thread is not about evolution) that man was made independent of any other life form on earth according to Scripture. That makes the theory incompatible with the Bible. There is no reconciliation possible except what you can dream up or imagine. The same applies to the big bang. The Bible says that the stars were created after the earth, and after the plants/vegetation. The Big Bang puts the stars in existence before the earth, and thus before anything that was created on our earth. Shiloh357 - True this is not the appropriate thread to discuss God ordained processes or evolution...it can be reconciled another time perhaps, without the need for imagination simply scripture. Incompatible only as one chooses their definitions. As for the "big bang" it matters not to me how exactly God initiated the creation process. I'm sure that you are aware of the various interpretations of Gen. 1 regarding sun, moon, and stars based on the earthly perspective therefore it is just as plausible that day 4 represents the visibility of the "heavenly" lights. I believe too that it represents a clearer "harmony" between day 1 and day 4. If on day 1 it is considered God's glory....why the need for night/darkness? It would seem scriptural as well as logical that in fact day and night were separated as they always have been without at that time being visible from an earthly perspective. I believe there is a reference in Job to this..... Blessings. I appreciate that we all Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted May 20, 2014 Share Posted May 20, 2014 As for the "big bang" it matters not to me how exactly God initiated the creation process. Irrelevant. I'm sure that you are aware of the various interpretations of Gen. 1 regarding sun, moon, and stars based on the earthly perspective therefore it is just as plausible that day 4 represents the visibility of the "heavenly" lights. I believe too that it represents a clearer "harmony" between day 1 and day 4. Yes, but the Bible clearly states that God created the stars on that day. You can trust in your "harmony" attempts. I'll trust God's word. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted May 20, 2014 Share Posted May 20, 2014 I do not doubt God's Shekinah glory, or that He is indeed THE light; however the point is that He said LET THERE BE... And then He said the same to even more different kinds of lights. Why say LET THERE BE if it's there already? I'm not trying to negate what you're saying. You just seem extremely sure that there can be no other explanation when I have presented to you what I have found in scripture. That doesn't that I disagree with your idea. It is God's light entering the physical realm. The Scriptures you presented do not provide an alternative explanation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
*Zion* Posted May 20, 2014 Group: Royal Member Followers: 16 Topic Count: 154 Topics Per Day: 0.04 Content Count: 3,245 Content Per Day: 0.78 Reputation: 2,397 Days Won: 9 Joined: 12/09/2012 Status: Offline Birthday: 05/11/1984 Share Posted May 20, 2014 About just as much as they do yours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fez Posted May 20, 2014 Group: Royal Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 683 Topics Per Day: 0.12 Content Count: 11,128 Content Per Day: 2.00 Reputation: 1,352 Days Won: 54 Joined: 02/03/2009 Status: Offline Birthday: 12/07/1952 Share Posted May 20, 2014 This is an interesting thread. Please don't make me close it because of personal stuff. You all have interesting points to make, please concentrate on the subject and not the person. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tolken Posted May 20, 2014 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 3 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 405 Content Per Day: 0.11 Reputation: 98 Days Won: 0 Joined: 02/27/2014 Status: Offline Share Posted May 20, 2014 Shiloh357 - You can trust in your "harmony" attempts. I'll trust God's word. I will trust God's word and suggest that your interpretation of Gen. 1:14 conflicts with verse 3, clearly, and thus one's need to "harmonize" by any perspective/interpretation. If as you suggest the light in vs. 3 was God...why separate day and night, why shut off His light at night? Is there scripture to support this? Also, if it was God's light would need to see that it was "good"?... I would believe that would be understood. My God is one of order and logic. I see no reason to believe that verse 14 requires the beginning of .... orbits, motion, gravity, etc. I believe Job 38 provides a reasoned foundation for my "attempts" to understand Genesis 1. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted May 20, 2014 Share Posted May 20, 2014 I will trust God's word and suggest that your interpretation of Gen. 1:14 conflicts with verse 3, clearly, and thus one's need to "harmonize" by any perspective/interpretation. No, because according to the Bible, the luminaries are not created until day four. In fact, it makes sense that they were not created until day four. "If let there be light" applied to the luminaries, then your argument about them becoming visible on day four makes no sense as they would have already been visible. There is no other source of light other than God on day 1. If as you suggest the light in vs. 3 was God...why separate day and night, why shut off His light at night? He isn't separating day and night. He is separating His light from darkness. It is the same thing as when God asks questions He already knows the answers to. Why did God have to looking for Adam in the Garden? He knew where Adam was. He was not stumped by Adam trying hide from Him. The creation account isn't a scientific account, it is a theological account of creation. God says and does things to make a theological, not a scientific point. God separates the light from the darkness. There is a lot of theology just in that statement alone. God isn't shutting His light on and off that is ridiculous and completely misses the point. Also, if it was God's light would need to see that it was "good"?... I would believe that would be understood. It is understood, but there is more to it. God is, again, making a theological point. He is making the same point that He makes every time He says something is "good" that He has made. It is for our benefit, not His. My God is one of order and logic. I see no reason to believe that verse 14 requires the beginning of .... orbits, motion, gravity, etc. I do. It's because God said so. He said it, and that settles it for the Bible believer. I believe Job 38 provides a reasoned foundation for my "attempts" to understand Genesis 1. Job 38 has nothing to do with this and it certainly provides no basis for trying to fit a theory predicated on the nonexistence of God into the Scriptures. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted May 20, 2014 Share Posted May 20, 2014 About just as much as they do yours. Huh? What does that mean? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
*Zion* Posted May 20, 2014 Group: Royal Member Followers: 16 Topic Count: 154 Topics Per Day: 0.04 Content Count: 3,245 Content Per Day: 0.78 Reputation: 2,397 Days Won: 9 Joined: 12/09/2012 Status: Offline Birthday: 05/11/1984 Share Posted May 20, 2014 This is an interesting thread. Please don't make me close it because of personal stuff. You all have interesting points to make, please concentrate on the subject and not the person. Amen to that! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts