Is God a liar, or is the creation account true?

[dad2]

3 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

Not according to God.   And as I showed you, neither male nor female were there at the beginning.   So you don't take that literally.   You take literally only whatever fits your new doctrines.  

Since the text itself tells us that it's not a literal account, you've tried to literalize figurative verses.

 

False statement. You showed nothing but rejection of what Scripture says. You are overruled when you try to make day 6 NOT part of what Jesus referred to as 'in the beginning'. Period. Nor do you get to disguise unbelief in Scripture by calling whatever doesn't fit your deeply heartfelt so called science beliefs figurative. 

Edited July 29, 2021 by dad2

[The Barbarian]

1 hour ago, dad2 said:

False statement. You showed nothing but rejection of what Scripture says.

I just accept it as it is, without your additions.

1 hour ago, dad2 said:

You are overruled when you try to make day 6 NOT part of what Jesus referred to as 'in the beginning'.

Sorry, God specifically says what's there in the beginning:

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created heaven, and earth. [2] And the earth was void and empty, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the spirit of God moved over the waters.

This isn't good enough for you, so you added a little to it, to make it more acceptable to you.   But that's not what God said; you don't get to decide for Him.

  Nor do you get to disguise unbelief in Scripture by calling whatever doesn't fit your deeply heartfelt new beliefs "false."

 

 

Edited July 29, 2021 by The Barbarian

[The Barbarian]

duplicate

 

 

Edited July 29, 2021 by The Barbarian

[The Barbarian]

18 hours ago, AandW_Rootbeer said:

Those few examples are loaded with reasons why anyone including Science, should want to study God's Creation from the earth and water point of views.

I think there's a lot of truth in what you're saying.

 

[AandW_Rootbeer]

1 hour ago, The Barbarian said:

I think there's a lot of truth in what you're saying.

 

We read nowhere where God tells the water be full of seed.   We only see God said to bring forth, and in return, water brought forth all aquatic life forms.

 

And earth has more detail, but the earth being also full of seed, brought forth life that roots itself into a combination of everything within earth and everything within water.

 

Anyone remotely interested in wondering why God chose this direction would be willing to try and discover the multitude of microorganism in both earth and water.

 

And this type of Study is Scientific, but it remains, to the Truth of God's Word.

[teddyv]

On 7/26/2021 at 2:27 PM, dad2 said:

Some people say God can do anything and is not limited by what He said He did! I would say Jesus and the rest of the bible including angels are correct in confirming creation as per Genesis. One should not try to make God a liar just to get all things including Scripture and God to conform to their scientific beliefs.

Creation as told in the Bible is true, but you appear to be also demanding it be factual. These are not synonymous nor are they mutually exclusive.

On 7/26/2021 at 2:27 PM, dad2 said:

 

To paraphrase 1 kings 18:21 ' And Elijah came unto all the people, and said, How long halt ye between two opinions? if the Lord be God, follow him: but if Science, then follow it'

This is a false choice.

[grahampaul]

On 7/28/2021 at 10:42 PM, The Barbarian said:

As you know, the text itself says that the creation story is figurative. 

i must be missing something,can you tell me where.

[BeyondET]

huh now this is more like it.

 

The Second Day

6 And God said, “Let there be an expanse between the waters, to separate the waters from the waters.” 7 So God made the expanse and separated the waters beneath it from the waters above. And it was so. 8 God called the expanse “sky.”

And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.

The Third Day

14 And God said, “Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to distinguish between the day and the night, and let them be signs to mark the seasons and days and years. 15 And let them serve as lights in the expanse of the sky to shine upon the earth.” And it was so. 16 God made two great lights: the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night. And He made the stars as well. 17 God set these lights in the expanse of the sky to shine upon the earth, 18 to preside over the day and the night, and to separate the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good.

13 And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.

The Fourth Day

9 And God said, “Let the waters under the sky be gathered into one place, so that the dry land may appear.” And it was so. 10 God called the dry land “earth,” and the gathering of waters He called “seas.” And God saw that it was good. 11 Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth vegetation: seed-bearing plants and fruit trees, each bearing fruit with seed according to its kind.” And it was so. 12 The earth produced vegetation: seed-bearing plants according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.

19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.

[The Barbarian]

On 8/2/2021 at 9:53 AM, grahampaul said:

i must be missing something,can you tell me where.

It is logically absurd to have literal mornings and evenings without a sun to have them.  By definition, it requires the sun.   So the text here tells us that it isn't a literal account.

 

[BeyondET]

41 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

It is logically absurd to have literal mornings and evenings without a sun to have them.  By definition, it requires the sun.   So the text here tells us that it isn't a literal account.

 

before the invention of the mech clock, evening and morning dusk and dawn was extremely hard to figure out way back when, its about 18 minutes at sun rise and sun set with light but no shadow to gauge time. i think the people of long ago understood the dynamics of the time mentioned but not so much today, its quite easy to know the time of day at any hour of a day in modern times. thus why i think it was mentioned as such a allusive time of the unknown.