Let's for a minute suppose that the Big Bang theory is correct. Not many people in today's world understand it. How would God have described it to early man? It's not anti-Biblical to assume that God impacts us using natural forces. We don't understand these entirely and never will until we see Him face to face. Do you claim to understand the ways of God?
Genesis 1:16 and its added words.
Discussion in 'Bible Versions & Translations' started by 37818, May 2, 2019.
Page 3 of 5
-
FollowTheWay Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
FollowTheWay Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
What was the source of the light created on Day 1 if not the sun and stars? -
-
What if a book came out claiming the earth was not 6000 years old or 4-5 billion years old, but was between 1.2 billion years and 2 billion years old. Could this new science be interpreted to be consistent with scripture? Yes.
What if a book came out claiming humankind was not 6000 years old or hundreds of thousands of years old, but was 50 to 70 thousand years old. Could this new science be interpreted to be consistent with scripture? Nope Scripture says Adam was the first man and he lived about 6000 years ago. -
This is just my opinion, and it’s worth about what you paid for it...but I believe scripture is the standard of truth that everything else should be reconciled to. Not the other way around.
-
Reformed1689 Well-Known Member
-
-
Strictly my opinion, but to read Genesis 1 as some sort of Historic Narrative or Astronomy/Geology text book is to miss the purpose and the true message of Genesis 1. I see Genesis 1 as a polemic aimed directly at refuting all of the polytheistic creation myths that dominated the thinking of all of the cultures around God’s chosen people. Egypt, India, Babylon, the Persians ... all shared certain similarities and had subtle differences. Genesis 1 openly declares war on all other ‘gods’ and creation myths by directly contradicting all of them in all of the critical details.
All other cultures begin with a story of SOMETHING existing, often chaos or water, and how one ‘god’ was created from the chaos/water and then that ‘god’ created all of the other ‘gods’. Genesis 1 begins with God already eternally existing, there was no story of the creation of God because God was not created. God always existed. God does not come from the chaos/water, God is above the chaos/water. God does not create everything from some already existing SOMETHING, God creates from nothing, speaking reality into existence.
You focus on the ‘day and night’ of day 1 and worry about the science of when the sun and stars are created. I think that God creating LIGHT and DARKNESS before there was a sun or stars is part of the point. Think about how many times the analogy of Light and Darkness will be used in scripture after the writing of Genesis 1. It is an important THEOLOGICAL distinction that God, and not the sun is the ultimate source of light. In the new “Heaven and earth” of Revelation, there will be no sun. God will illuminate His holy city.
Can you see the polemic? Beginning to end, God is the source of our light. It has nothing to do with understanding physical reality, and everything to do with understanding the more important spiritual reality. -
church mouse guy Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
church mouse guy Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
In my opinion we do not know how old creation is, we were not there. Job 38. But on the other hand, we do know about when Adam was created, because we have the whole list of generations, and using the times given in scripture for the early part of the list, and the time from David to Jesus (about 1000 years) and if we allow the longest average generation time from either known part, we come up with about 6000 years ago.
Therefore, in accordance with your opinion, I believe science has wrongly dated all the evidence, such as cave paintings, for early man if they claim it occurred much before 6000 years ago. -
FollowTheWay Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
Revmitchell Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
The Bible is not a science textbook but when it speaks to history and to creation and science it is absolutely correct.
-
FollowTheWay Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
Sample of Famous Artists and Scientists who were Christians
Sir Frances Bacon
Robert Boyle
George Washington Carver
Samuel Taylor Coleridge
Nicolaus Copernicus
Leonhard Euler
Michael Faraday
Johannes Kepler
Father Georges-Henri LeMaitre
Carolus Linnaeus
Matthew Fontaine Maury
James Clerk Maxwell
Gregor Mendel
Samuel F. D. Morse
Sir Isaac Newton
Blaise Pascal
Louis Pasteur
Sir James Young Simpson, Founder of gynecology and modern anesthesiology
Nicolaus Steno, Father of Stratigraphy
and many more ...
Of the ones you cited, the only one I've ever heard of is LaPlace. On my list are Robert Boyle, Copernicus, Faraday, Kepler, Maxwell, Mendel, Sir Isaac Newton, Pascal, Pasteur..... All of these were giants in the history of science. -
FollowTheWay Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
NASA: 60 Years & Counting - Mysteries of the Universe
The Age of the Universe
The Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) satellite returned data that allowed astronomers to precisely assess the age of the universe to be 13.77 billion years old and to determine that atoms make up only 4.6 percent of the universe, with the remainder being dark matter and dark energy. Using telescopes like Hubble and Spitzer, scientists also now know how fast the universe is expanding.
What's your source? -
church mouse guy Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
church mouse guy Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
FollowTheWay Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
."In fact, Einstein tells us that, if a person could travel at the speed of light, then the trip would be completely instantaneous (from his or her point of view)."
That should be a BIG IF because:
The theory says it can't happen, so obviously the theory has nothing to say if it did happen.
Einstein said about such scenarios, "our deliberations are meaningless."
This part of your source I believe:
"We should also remember that God is not limited to natural methods as we are."
Personally, I believe that there are different types of literature in the Bible (history, science, law, glorification, gospel, prophesy, etc.) and these need to be interpreted differently. Certainly, the Bible needs to be interpreted in its historical context. There are a lot of cases in which something said in the 1st century AD would be interpreted differently in the 21st century AD. -
FollowTheWay Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
Page 3 of 5