Evidence for God from Science

zacchaeus wrote:It is a thought then that in the first three days, three realms were created:
1-time,
2-space or sky (from the separation of the waters)
3-earth (from the separation of land from water)

So, in the second three days, correspondingly, were created things to fill the voids of those realms:
1-sun, moon, stars by which we measure time
2-birds in the sky and fish in the sea (to delineate sea from sky)
3-animals, with the crowning achievement...humanity.

I'm not trying to be a know it all and I myself even still have a bad habit of using the word "created" when discussing Genesis 1 but we need to understand the difference between the words "create" and "made" in Genesis 1. It is easy to just say created however there are actually only certian days when God creates in Genesis 1 in all the other days he either "makes" or "forms" things and it is important to notice the difference. God did not create light on day 1 because he is light and it was his light that he can make shine or not if he chooses,we all know Jesus is the light of the world,etc I could go on in each day and point out things God did not create on certian days,even when he created Adam you'll see he created some aspects of him but made other things in creating Adam,these are just examples. YEC's drill this word "created" over and over that is not biblically true,yet it becomes dogma that we just accept and assume when reading Genesis 1 but make no mistake about it in the 6 days of restoration God created only on 2 days. This is being technical however this is God's word and we need to notice what it is really saying.

God wants us to notice the difference between "created" and "made" too. Genesis 2:3 "And God blessed the seventh day,and sanctified it:because that in it he had rested from all his WORK which God CREATED and MADE." This is why it is important to know the difference between the words "created" and "made" when reading Genesis 1 God created some things and made some things.

zacchaeus wrote:Acb, its simple... Not a popularity contest, not going with majority. I simply read scripture, then when questioned by myself, pastor, and others was when I was curious of the Hebrew, and so I've studied it- my conclusions draw 24hr days with the possibility He created everything at once.

I understand that. We all say we simply read scripture i too simply read scripture. I agreed with you that I think the days are normal days also,yet it seems like you overlooked it.However whether the days are normal days or long indefinite periods of time does not mean the earth is 6000 years old. And I have given scripture that shows the earth is not 6000 years old,yet you seem to either not believe what it says or just don't want to accept it.I too have questioned pastor's too and I'd love to question Ken Ham about some things he says that are not biblical like repeating the lie that God created everything 6000 years ago.

Acb,
I agree... He didn't create light, He said let there be light in reference to a dark world. I find it odd though that God is light and one of His persons the Spirit, hovered over the waters... And either 1. Was no light or 2. Proof He was the light. Genesis also seems to pete and repeat many of the same verbage. My responses above have been for kur. I see no gap... I see creation all at once simultaneously, or I hold to a 24hr day... And even those could be congruent. I simply do not see these long-aged days without looking super hard, and I really have no need to look that hard. It's interesting, I'll defend and discuss my position, but it of little importance, and def wasn't a primary focus of Moses when He wrote it... Scriptures always about Gods dealings with man. I'm at peace when my daughter desires and seeks to read the scriptures (she is 9), and she reads the Lord created everything in 6 days, I want to be privileged enough to understand it as a babe in Christ, exactly how she interprets it. Her understanding is precious and the Lord reveals her conscious and will prick her heart.

zacchaeus wrote:Acb,
I agree... He didn't create light, He said let there be light in reference to a dark world. I find it odd though that God is light and one of His persons the Spirit, hovered over the waters... And either 1. Was no light or 2. Proof He was the light. Genesis also seems to pete and repeat many of the same verbage. My responses above have been for kur. I see no gap... I see creation all at once simultaneously, or I hold to a 24hr day... And even those could be congruent. I simply do not see these long-aged days without looking super hard, and I really have no need to look that hard. It's interesting, I'll defend and discuss my position, but it of little importance, and def wasn't a primary focus of Moses when He wrote it... Scriptures always about Gods dealings with man. I'm at peace when my daughter desires and seeks to read the scriptures (she is 9), and she reads the Lord created everything in 6 days, I want to be privileged enough to understand it as a babe in Christ, exactly how she interprets it. Her understanding is precious and the Lord reveals her conscious and will prick her heart.

Zacchaeus,

First let me say that I think it's great that your 9year old daughter is interested in scripture. But I suggest if you and your daughter spoke and read Hebrew as your first language, she wouldn't be reading it as 24 hour days. How many 9 year olds know the meaning of "day" as anything but a 24 hour day?

Don't believe me? Ask her what a day is.

You simply cannot get around the fact that in the original text, the word "yom" is what's there.

Zacchaeus,

You said you've studied OEC. Have you ever read A Matter of Days, by Hugh Ross?

The above is only true if your interpretation of 'yom' is accurate, and 100% definitive.

How do we interpret Rick? What did the author intend for the meaning of the word to convey? What does the 'context' suggest? Is there other scripture to support the theory?

Science conclusions don't dictate belief, not as an absolute.

I find it weird that yom is used like two-thousand times, and yom coupled with a number, or with evening and morning, or with evening or morning, or with night, or with day it's been determined to mean an ordinary 24hr time period, or day (500 plus times). What blows my mind is Genesis includes all of the above, usually together, that's in question...

You cannot select your own definition that is beyond its own context, silly. Contextual principal says explicit constraints the implicit. Ie: If I directly state I built my shed in 6 days...

Clear passages should help us to determine harder passages... It's easier to defend the explicit, we simply give you the address location of scripture. Same when using literal to interpret poetic or figurative, which normally compares to something real.

No I haven't read that Rick, and ACB believes I know nothing or very little. I don't think studying OEC requires me to read it either, and if I haven't doesn't disqualify me or mean I know nothing... As if he is the absolute authority of proof. He may be an excellent source I suppose. So is this what your implying?

zacchaeus wrote:No I haven't read that Rick, and ACB believes I know nothing or very little. I don't think studying OEC requires me to read it either, and if I haven't doesn't disqualify me or mean I know nothing... As if he is the absolute authority of proof. He may be an excellent source I suppose. So is this what your implying?

The book helped me understand OEC, especially in regard to what a creation day could be. I was YEC, and I was struggling terribly with how awful the YEC mindset interprets what we see in nature. When I actually started studying scripture more, that book was a great help to me. It helped me see that scripture doesn't force me to believe in 24 hour creation days. The biblical text allows me to literally believe in long creation days, and still hold to scripture. Contrary to the dogmatic belief of some prominent YEC's that I had believed.

RickD wrote:
But I suggest if you and your daughter spoke and read Hebrew as your first language, she wouldn't be reading it as 24 hour days. How many 9 year olds know the meaning of "day" as anything but a 24 hour day?

Zacchaeus wrote:
The above is only true if your interpretation of 'yom' is accurate, and 100% definitive.

No. What I'm saying is that yom has more than one literal meaning. The first step is knowing that yom can literally mean a long, finite period of time.

How do we interpret Rick? What did the author intend for the meaning of the word to convey? What does the 'context' suggest? Is there other scripture to support the theory?

The historical-grammatical method seems to be a good way to interpret scripture.
As far as what the author meant by using yom in the creation day text, none of us know for sure.
I believe the context suggests long ages, with plenty of scripture to back that up.

Science conclusions don't dictate belief, not as an absolute.

What we see in nature, should not contradict what scripture tells us. God is the author of both nature, and scripture.

I find it weird that yom is used like two-thousand times, and yom coupled with a number, or with evening and morning, or with evening or morning, or with night, or with day it's been determined to mean an ordinary 24hr time period, or day (500 plus times). What blows my mind is Genesis includes all of the above, usually together, that's in question...

That YEC claim about yom being used with a number, and evening and morning, means an ordinary 24 hour day, is just false. In fact, if you go back to the beginning of this thread, that's what Kurieuo is trying to show. That there is no basis in scripture, to call a 24 hour day "ordinary", when the very thing(the sun) that makes a day 24 hours, didn't exist for the first 3 creation days, according to YECs.

You cannot select your own definition that is beyond its own context, silly. Contextual principal says explicit constraints the implicit. Ie: If I directly state I built my shed in 6 days...

That's true. So tell me, if the sun didn't exist for the first 3 creation days, as YECs believe, what basis do you have in the text, to say that the creation days are "ordinary" 24 hour days?

Clear passages should help us to determine harder passages... It's easier to defend the explicit, we simply give you the address location of scripture. Same when using literal to interpret poetic or figurative, which normally compares to something real.

Not sure that's quite the way the historical grammatical method works.

Except Ross gross misguided paraphrased interpretation of scripture that even atheist recognize as incorrect, when Ross says in a public speech:

"Therefore it allows me to make an interesting paraphrase of John 3:16, if you’ll permit—‘For God so loved the human race that He went to the expense of building a hundred billion trillion stars and carefully shaped and crafted them for sixteen billion years so that at this brief moment in time we could all have a nice place to live.’’- H. Ross

But you follow his exegesis on Scripture lol?

zacchaeus wrote:Except Ross gross misguided paraphrased interpretation of scripture that even atheist recognize as incorrect, when Ross says in a public speech:

"Therefore it allows me to make an interesting paraphrase of John 3:16, if you’ll permit—‘For God so loved the human race that He went to the expense of building a hundred billion trillion stars and carefully shaped and crafted them for sixteen billion years so that at this brief moment in time we could all have a nice place to live.’’- H. Ross

But you follow his exegesis on Scripture lol?

Please post the context of that quote. It's easy to criticize quotes taken out of context.

In other words, Ross was trying to make a point. He wasn't changing scripture.

****EDit

I'd like to hear your response to this:

That's true. So tell me, if the sun didn't exist for the first 3 creation days, as YECs believe, what basis do you have in the text, to say that the creation days are "ordinary" 24 hour days?

"What we see in nature, should not contradict what scripture tells us. God is the author of both nature, and scripture."

True, and when nature contradicts Scripture, Gods word isn't wrong, but man is.

"I believe the context suggests long ages, with plenty of scripture to back that up."

Context doesnt, please show 'plenty' of scripture to back up that claim.

And now your concerned with context lol.

"That's true. So tell me, if the sun didn't exist for the first 3 creation days, as YECs believe, what basis do you have in the text, to say that the creation days are "ordinary" 24 hour days?"

The same basis you have to believe, that after the sun was created on day 4 (unless you reject that as well), that day 4-7 are long age periods.

RickD wrote:
"What we see in nature, should not contradict what scripture tells us. God is the author of both nature, and scripture."

Zacchaeus wrote:
True, and when nature contradicts Scripture, Gods word isn't wrong, but man is.

Zacchaeus,

You do realize that man interprets scripture, not only what we see in nature. So, your claim is self-defeating. If man is wrong interpreting nature, why can't man be wrong interpreting scripture?

RickD wrote:
"I believe the context suggests long ages, with plenty of scripture to back that up."

Zacchaeus wrote:
Context doesnt, please show 'plenty' of scripture to back up that claim.

Nothing you haven't seen before:

http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth ... fense.html

And now your concerned with context lol.

What is that supposed to mean?

zacchaeus wrote:"That's true. So tell me, if the sun didn't exist for the first 3 creation days, as YECs believe, what basis do you have in the text, to say that the creation days are "ordinary" 24 hour days?"

The same basis you have to believe, that after the sun was created on day 4 (unless you reject that as well), that day 4-7 are long age periods.

Zacchaeus,

If you're not going to pay attention, I'm not going to waste my time posting. If you understood OEC like you claim, you'd know that OECs don't believe the sun was created on day 4.

Besides,

I already addressed this, here.

The sun was created on or before the first creation day. It became visible from the surface of the earth on creation day 4.
Basic OEC beliefs that you should know, if you understood OEC like you claim.