Originally posted by @divegeester I'm not trying to destroy anything, I'm just getting you to confirm that you have no scriptural basis for your stated assumptions.
I have no scriptural support that God created the Sun, Moon,stars and the Earth?
I'm afraid I do.
Is my theory a valid interpretation? Yes it is.
Is it the only interpretation? Of course not.
All anyone has is an interpretation. I created this thread to discuss mine and how it allows for a Big Bang theory to coinside with the creation account. Based on how I view things there is no inconsistency between science and Creation.
Originally posted by @eladar I have no scriptural support that God created the Sun, Moon,stars and the Earth?
I'm afraid I do.
Is my theory a valid interpretation? Yes it is.
Is it the only interpretation? Of course not.
All anyone has is an interpretation. I created this thread to discuss mine and how it allows for a Big Bang theory to coinside with yhe creation account. Based on how I view things there is no inconsistency between science and Creation.
If you are going to be a prick then I'm not going to talk with you; this is your last chance. Here is your post I'm referring to:
"That God did not fill the universe with light rays at the moment the stars were created.
Each star was created with age and the light rays extending from that sun based on its age. That light was created with all the effects that would have resulted from the physical universe if the universe existed before creation."
If you don't want to be intellectually honest that's fine, but I'm not interested otherwise.
Originally posted by @divegeester If you are going to be a prick then I'm not going to talk with you; this is your last chance. Here is your post I'm referring to:
[i]"That God did not fill the universe with light rays at the moment the stars were created.
Each star was created with age and the light rays extending from that sun based on its age. That light was created with all the ...[text shortened]...
If you don't want to be intellectually honest that's fine, but I'm not interested otherwise.
Explain to me how light from stars could be seen from earth if the billions of years old rays of light were not part of that creation.
Originally posted by @eladar Explain to me how light from stars could be seen from earth if the billions of years old rays of light were not part of that creation.
Then God said, “Let there be [s]lights in the [t]expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night, and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years; 15 and let them be for [u]lights in the [v]expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth”; and it was so. 16 God made the two [w]great lights, the greater [x]light [y]to govern the day, and the lesser [z]light [aa]to govern the night; He made the stars also. 17 God placed them in the [ab]expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth, 18 and [ac]to govern the day and the night, and to separate the light from the darkness; and God saw that it was good. 19 There was evening and there was morning, a fourth day.
Originally posted by @eladar Explain to me how light from stars could be seen from earth if the billions of years old rays of light were not part of that creation.
You made some claims in the post I quoted, the onus is one you to call up scripture you think supports them.
Originally posted by @divegeester You made some claims in the post I quoted, the onus is one you to call up scripture you think supports them.
The onus is on me to prove what would have had to have happen if the literal interpretation is true?
The onus is on you to prove that the theory I present is impossible.
Ridiculous of you to demand that I prove my unprovable theory is true because other unprovable theories don't need to be proven. Of course the only unprovable theory that is correct is the one you accept.
Originally posted by @eladar The onus is on me to prove what would have had to have happen if the literal interpretation is true?
The onus is on you to prove that the theory I present is impossible.
Ridiculous of you to demand that I prove my unprovable theory is true because other unprovable theories don't need to be proven. Of course the only unprovable theory that is correct is the one you accept.
6 days to create and 1 to rest. Rest? Does He need a Red Bull? "I just made the heavens and the earth, and boy, are my arms tired!" (paraphrasing here).
Originally posted by @xyyz 6 days to create and 1 to rest. Rest? Does He need a Red Bull? "I just made the heavens and the earth, and boy, are my arms tired!" (paraphrasing here).
Originally posted by @josephw It's amazing how much people presume to know about an event they weren't there to witness.
It is amazing. But then I did not say that it did, just that it is possible and that science and the Bible need not be in conflict. Even atheist science does not disprove the literal account.
Genesis 1
08 Oct '17 19:291 edit
Back to Top