Creation

[The Barbarian]

14 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

There didn't need to be a sun. 

There did need to be a sun.   "Morning" and "evening" in Hebrew is defined by the sun.   So the text itself tells us that the "yom" of Genesis 1 were not actual 24 hour days.

No way to dodge that one.

14 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

Long ages are specifically precluded.

Sorry, that's wrong.  Nothing in scripture precludes long ages.

14 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

The Bible hints at atoms and electrons, but it is not a science book.

No, it does not.   Nothing of the kind.   And yes, it's not a science book, so it's not a failure to mention atoms or evolution or plate tectonics.    If you try to rework it to include those things, you're missing the message.

14 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

. The Bible doesn't mention everyone who ever lived, only certain people.  These people had sons, daughters, brothers and sisters.  Genealogies can be recorded many different ways and still be accurate. 

In the case of Jesus, there are two, mutually contradictory genealogies.   One doesn't sometimes descend from one set of people and other times from a different set.   This tells us that the Biblical genealogies are not literal descriptions of descent.

 

15 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

I don't know the exact age of the earth.  I am confident that it is thousands of years old; not millions.

Since scripture doesn't say, we have to depend on evidence.   Evidence says billions of years.  

What matters is whether we accept or reject the creator.  The concept of mere thousands of years  is to attempt to replace God with one's own wishes.

 

 

[Duck]

1 hour ago, The Barbarian said:

Evidence says billions of years.  

?

Those who attempt to read millions of years into the Bible narrative not only violate traditional accepted standards of Hebrew linguistics (which are never questioned when applied to other passages in the Bible) but severely undermine the authority of God’s Word and brings the God of the Scriptures into disrepute.

D.Durstan 

https://askjohnmackay.com/earths-age-where-does-the-age-for-the-earth-of-around-6000-years-come-from/

Edited November 3, 2021 by Duck

[The Barbarian]

Evidence says billions of years.  

Those who attempt to read mere thousands of years into the Bible narrative not only violate traditional accepted standards of Hebrew linquistics (which are never questioned when applied ot other passages in the Bible) but severely undermine the authority of God's Word and brings the God of Scriptures into disrepute.

Let it be God's way, and set your new doctrines aside.

 

[RV_Wizard]

8 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

1. There did need to be a sun.   "Morning" and "evening" in Hebrew is defined by the sun.  

2. Sorry, that's wrong.  Nothing in scripture precludes long ages.

3. No, it does not.   Nothing of the kind.   

4. What matters is whether we accept or reject the creator. 

5. The concept of mere thousands of years  is to attempt to replace God with one's own wishes.

1. Evening and morning constitute a day.  That is a single rotation of the earth relative to a point of illumination.  If there were a ball of light called Fred then Fred would suffice until the sun was created.  However, the entity was called "Light."  It provided illumination just as the sun did, but was in another form and likely another location.  It only had to exist for four days.  FYI, evening and morning are caused by the rotation of the earth, not a sun orbiting around the earth.  You have an earth, you have light, you have days.  Point made.

2. The numbered days of Genesis preclude long ages, the genealogies preclude long ages, the Fourth Commandment precludes long ages, Jesus citing the creation of Adam and Eve as the first man and woman precludes long ages.  Sorry, you're wrong.

3. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Science_Confirms_the_Bible

4. Absolutely!

5. No, I don't care how many birthdays the earth had.  I contend that the concept of billions of years has one goal; to eradicate the need for a Creator so the ungodly can convince others there is no God.

[The Barbarian]

12 minutes ago, RV_Wizard said:

1. Evening and morning constitute a day.

Which, in Hebrew require a sun to have them.   You seem to have made my point for me.

13 minutes ago, RV_Wizard said:

If there were a ball of light called Fred then Fred would suffice until the sun was created. 

No.   "Big light in the sky" won't work.  A sun is required.   And there was none at that point.

14 minutes ago, RV_Wizard said:

The numbered days of Genesis preclude long ages

As you have seen, the text itself shows us that they are not literal 24-hour days.

14 minutes ago, RV_Wizard said:

the genealogies preclude long ages

As you have seen, the Bible has two mutually contradictory genealogies for Jesus, so we know they aren't literal genealogies.

15 minutes ago, RV_Wizard said:

Jesus citing the creation of Adam and Eve as the first man and woman precludes long ages.

No, that doesn't have anything at all to do with the age of the Earth.   So you're wrong about that, too.

16 minutes ago, RV_Wizard said:

No, I don't care how many birthdays the earth had.  I contend that the concept of billions of years has one goal; to eradicate the need for a Creator so the ungodly can convince others there is no God.

That would be rather hard to defend, since (for example) Darwin wrote that God created the first living things.    You're clearly wrong there, too.

"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved."

Charles Darwin, last sentence of On the Origin of Species 1859

[dad2]

On 11/2/2021 at 7:58 AM, The Barbarian said:

Since the text tells us that they are not literal days, that's not a concern for anyone who takes the Bible as it is.

 

So if we take the bible as it is, will we believe that God put a man to sleep and made the first woman from his bone?

[dad2]

15 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

Since scripture doesn't say, we have to depend on evidence.   Evidence says billions of years. 

No. Not in any way is that true.

[The Barbarian]

5 hours ago, dad2 said:

So if we take the bible as it is, will we believe that God put a man to sleep and made the first woman from his bone?

As you see, the Genesis story is presented to us as a figurative account, so that isn't a problem, any more than the fact that there are two contradictory "genealogies" for Jesus in the Bible.

 

[The Barbarian]

5 hours ago, dad2 said:

No. Not in any way is that true.

The evidence God shows us says it's true.   I believe Him.   You should, too.

 

[Duck]

On 11/3/2021 at 5:25 PM, The Barbarian said:

Evidence says billions of years.  

Those who attempt to read mere thousands of years into the Bible narrative not only violate traditional accepted standards of Hebrew linquistics (which are never questioned when applied ot other passages in the Bible) but severely undermine the authority of God's Word and brings the God of Scriptures into disrepute.

Let it be God's way, and set your new doctrines aside.

 

Whose evidence? Science?

Please.

God's way is recorded in Genesis. it's His doctrine.

Gen 2

² And on the seventh day God ended His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done.

 ³ Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested from all His work which God had created and made.