Yes, I am a bit confused by what he meant. Did they have any (scientific) concept of the age of the earth? The universe existed, light existed, gravity existed. People had some experience with all of these. Why doesn't the Bible address gravity and light? I'm not sure why Turgonian feels some things need to be addressed and others don't, or what the significance is of some physical phenomenon being written about. In brief, I don't understand at all what point he is making.Swamper wrote:Turgy meant that people had no concept of these things 3000 years ago.sandy_mcd wrote:Of course these things all existed 3000 years ago, didn't they?Turgonian wrote:The difference being, the universe existed 3000 years ago. '...speed of light, Gravity, Electrons, the power of the atom...' did not, and therefore the Bible has nothing to say about them.
Stars
-
Turgonian
- Senior Member
- Posts: 546
- Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 12:44 pm
- Christian: No
- Location: the Netherlands
No, Turgy missed the gravity and speed of light among the microwave ovens and cellphones. Turgy didn't see that Faithinware included natural laws too.
The universe existed. People lived in it, paying especially much attention to the planet Earth (oddly enough
). People knew it was there and attributed a lot of significance to it, as well as to the sources of light (sun, moon, stars).
The Bible doesn't address light and gravity because it didn't need to. The Bible is a religious book. The Creation account demonstrates that God is sovereign and that He is the omnipotent Creator. Should the six days be taken as 24-hour days? I do interpret them that way, but if people come to different conclusions, I can live with it, as long as they believe that God is the omnipotent, sovereign Creator of heaven and earth.
The same goes for the Fall, which is vital to Christian doctrine. Was there a literal tree with fruit? Did a snake really talk? I do think so, but other people don't, while still stressing that the first couple disobeyed God with all disastrous consequences.
I don't think the speed of light and gravity have grave theological implications, and as the Bible is God's Special Revelation and not a science textbook, it didn't need to say anything about them.
The universe existed. People lived in it, paying especially much attention to the planet Earth (oddly enough
). People knew it was there and attributed a lot of significance to it, as well as to the sources of light (sun, moon, stars).The Bible doesn't address light and gravity because it didn't need to. The Bible is a religious book. The Creation account demonstrates that God is sovereign and that He is the omnipotent Creator. Should the six days be taken as 24-hour days? I do interpret them that way, but if people come to different conclusions, I can live with it, as long as they believe that God is the omnipotent, sovereign Creator of heaven and earth.
The same goes for the Fall, which is vital to Christian doctrine. Was there a literal tree with fruit? Did a snake really talk? I do think so, but other people don't, while still stressing that the first couple disobeyed God with all disastrous consequences.
I don't think the speed of light and gravity have grave theological implications, and as the Bible is God's Special Revelation and not a science textbook, it didn't need to say anything about them.
The Bible says they were "willingly ignorant". In the Greek, this means "be dumb on purpose". (Kent Hovind)
[quote="Turgonian"]No, Turgy missed the gravity and speed of light among the microwave ovens and cellphones. Turgy didn't see that Faithinware included natural laws too.
The Creation account demonstrates that God is sovereign and that He is the omnipotent Creator. Should the six days be taken as 24-hour days?
It has been said, back then they did not comprehend or use the word
million or billion etc. so when they said the Lord come with 10 thousands of his angels. OR a day is like a thousand years it may have ment a million or billion etc
It did not take God 6 days to create Earth He took 6 days
to create earth cause he wanted to. As we all KNOW he could have done it in one day if He wanted to.
Could these 6 days actually be 6 billion years?????
The Creation account demonstrates that God is sovereign and that He is the omnipotent Creator. Should the six days be taken as 24-hour days?
It has been said, back then they did not comprehend or use the word
million or billion etc. so when they said the Lord come with 10 thousands of his angels. OR a day is like a thousand years it may have ment a million or billion etc
It did not take God 6 days to create Earth He took 6 days
to create earth cause he wanted to. As we all KNOW he could have done it in one day if He wanted to.
Could these 6 days actually be 6 billion years?????
-
bizzt
- Prestigious Senior Member
- Posts: 1654
- Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 12:11 pm
- Christian: No
- Location: Calgary
Here is an excellent source for your answersphoney wrote:Turgonian wrote:No, Turgy missed the gravity and speed of light among the microwave ovens and cellphones. Turgy didn't see that Faithinware included natural laws too.
The Creation account demonstrates that God is sovereign and that He is the omnipotent Creator. Should the six days be taken as 24-hour days?
It has been said, back then they did not comprehend or use the word
million or billion etc. so when they said the Lord come with 10 thousands of his angels. OR a day is like a thousand years it may have ment a million or billion etc
It did not take God 6 days to create Earth He took 6 days
to create earth cause he wanted to. As we all KNOW he could have done it in one day if He wanted to.
Could these 6 days actually be 6 billion years?????
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/creation.php