|
Author
|
Topic: If our sun is second or third generation, does this not conflict with Genesis ?
|
Jon
Inactive Member
|
Re: Science?
Gen. 1 says nothing about God creating land on the third day. Where are you reading this?
Love your enemies!
|
Jon
Inactive Member
|
Re: Science?
Jon writes: Gen. 1 says nothing about God creating land on the third day. Where are you reading this? Gen 1:9-13 taken from here 9 And God said, Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear. And it was so. 10 God called the dry ground land, and the gathered waters he called seas. And God saw that it was good. 11 Then God said, Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds. And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morningthe third day. Yep, I read that. My question still stands, though. Edited by Jon, : added quote
Love your enemies!
|
Jon
Inactive Member
|
Re: Science?
I guess I don't understand your question, I know it wasn't directed at me but I figured I would put my 2 cents in as I had just got done looking at the passage. Do you think he means gen 1:1 or ??? It seems clear to me it was on 3rd day based on gen 1:9-13... Am I wrong and why?? I think jar hit the nail on the head. The whole notion of there actually being a creation is just ridiculous. An attempt to look for ways to reconcile scientific facts with a story is just pointless and silly. The story is just wrong. Plain and simple. Nonetheless, if one wishes to take shots at the story, it helps if they've at least actually read the story. Jon
Love your enemies!
|
Jon
Inactive Member
|
Re: Science?
Not sure about the future of this topic?? I don't think it has a future. There's simply no way to reconcile the facts with some literal reading of Genesis.
Love your enemies!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 24 by fearandloathing, posted 05-12-2011 1:42 PM | | fearandloathing has seen this message but not replied |
|
Jon
Inactive Member
|
Re: Science?
if our sun is a second or even third generation star, how is this accounted for in this narrative ? The obvious answer is that it simply isn't accounted for. There was no Genesis creation.
Love your enemies!
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 34 by Buzsaw, posted 05-13-2011 7:45 AM | | Jon has replied |
|
Jon
Inactive Member
|
|
Message 44 of 231 (615490)
05-13-2011 2:53 PM
|
Reply to: Message 34 by Buzsaw
05-13-2011 7:45 AM
|
|
Re: Science?
Jon writes: if our sun is a second or even third generation star, how is this accounted for in this narrative ? The obvious answer is that it simply isn't accounted for. There was no Genesis creation. LOL. Your assertion remains debatable. Then, by all means, debate it. Present your evidence; show us your method. Give us some reason to think that the Genesis creation myths are anything other than fables with no scientific merit whatsoever. We're all waiting for your evidence; have been for years. Here's your chance! Jon
Love your enemies!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 34 by Buzsaw, posted 05-13-2011 7:45 AM | | Buzsaw has not replied |
|
Jon
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 50 of 231 (615522)
05-13-2011 9:38 PM
|
Reply to: Message 49 by Buzsaw
05-13-2011 9:32 PM
|
|
Re: Science?
NoNukes writes: There is no indication in the Bible that evening and morning became different lengths after the sun, moon, and stars were created. Say what? No indication whatsoever? None? What then are the implications of verse fourteen?
quote:
4 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years:
The implication is that one of the purposes of the sun being created on day four was to determine the days years and seasons for the planet. No? For those of us who missed it, would you be kind enough to point out the part of that verse that mentions a change in the length of days?
Love your enemies!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 49 by Buzsaw, posted 05-13-2011 9:32 PM | | Buzsaw has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 51 by Buzsaw, posted 05-13-2011 10:47 PM | | Jon has replied |
|
Jon
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 52 of 231 (615527)
05-13-2011 10:52 PM
|
Reply to: Message 51 by Buzsaw
05-13-2011 10:47 PM
|
|
Re: Science?
The verse implicates a determination of days, years and seasons. Pray tell, in context, what do those words imply to you, given that we, on planet earth, observe 24 hr days, etc? Why not run us through the reasoning behind the implication? 'Cause I still don't see what you're seeing. Edited by Jon, : formatting
Love your enemies!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 51 by Buzsaw, posted 05-13-2011 10:47 PM | | Buzsaw has seen this message but not replied |
|
Jon
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 56 of 231 (615532)
05-14-2011 12:16 AM
|
Reply to: Message 53 by Buzsaw
05-13-2011 11:11 PM
|
|
Re: Evening and Morning, the classic Jewish Day.
The context of days one through four imply an undetermined length of evening and morning and the context of days five and six imply a literal day determined by the lights being created on day four. The context says emphatically that that was the purpose of the created lights on day four. Instead of evading and avoiding, how about you actually provide some evidence for this claim?
Love your enemies!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 53 by Buzsaw, posted 05-13-2011 11:11 PM | | Buzsaw has seen this message but not replied |
|
™ Version 4.2