In Genesis the plants were created before the sun moon and stars

[excreationist]

Just in case people didn't notice it before, this is what it says in Genesis 1:

As you can see there are similarities between days 1 and 4, days 2 and 5, and days 3 and 6. See:

Framework interpretation - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

It has a kind of poetic structure so it might not be intended to be taken 100% literally and historically.

Young earth creationists take it literally and say that the original light source was God and it was then replaced on day 4. Then in Revelation this reverts back:
Revelation 21:23

The city does not need the sun or the moon to shine on it, for the glory of God gives it light, and the Lamb is its lamp.

Revelation 22:5

There will be no more night. They will not need the light of a lamp or the light of the sun, for the Lord God will give them light.

It is a problem for old earth creationists though they would say that on day 3 the plants were receiving light from the sky but the sun moon and stars only became distinct in the sky a long time later. (day-age theory)

https://www.oldearth.org/old_earth_creationism.htm

Btw I’ve heard YECs say that God didn’t create the sun first to not place a lot of importance on it since some people worshipped the sun.

 

[Audie]

Just in case people didn't notice it before, this is what it says in Genesis 1:
View attachment 90402As you can see there are similarities between days 1 and 4, days 2 and 5, and days 3 and 6. See:

Framework interpretation - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

It has a kind of poetic structure so it might not be intended to be taken 100% literally and historically.

Young earth creationists take it literally and say that the original light source was God and it was then replaced on day 4. Then in Revelation this reverts back:
Revelation 21:23

Revelation 22:5

It is a problem for old earth creationists though they would say that on day 3 the plants were receiving light from the sky but the sun moon and stars only became distinct in the sky a long time later. (day-age theory)

https://www.oldearth.org/old_earth_creationism.htm

Btw I’ve heard YECs say that God didn’t create the sun first to not place a lot of importance on it since some people worshipped the sun.

Not 100% literal?
What part is even 1% true?

 

[Tomef]

Not 100% literal?
What part is even 1% true?

Mornings and evenings border days.

 

[Audie]

Mornings and evenings border days.

Morning and night border (very) approximately
half a day. In some places.

Then there's the land of the midnight ssn.

 

[Pogo]

Morning and night border (very) approximately
half a day. In some places.

Then there's the land of the midnight ssn.

From the midnight sun where the hot springs flow
The hammer of the gods
Will drive our ships to new lands
To fight the horde, sing and cry
Valhalla, I am coming
...
We are your overlords

 

[Audie]

From the midnight sun where the hot springs flow
The hammer of the gods
Will drive our ships to new lands
To fight the horde, sing and cry
Valhalla, I am coming
...
We are your overlords

That's not remotely what I thought about
when i was in Fairbanks Alaska

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Not 100% literal?
What part is even 1% true?

Good grief!

 

[Pete in Panama]

Not 100% literal?
What part is even 1% true?

Good grief!

Everyone seems to have something to say about what the text of Genesis means to them, but for me what's more important is working to understand what the text itself means on its own.

Example (from chapter 1 verse 5) "...the evening and the morning were the first day." Anyone who says that the "day" means 24 hours by today's clocks has to explain how they can get that if there was no sun. If we're talking about one rotation of the earth then that's on 23.9 hours, but the word "rotation" is not there.

My personal take is we should work w/ what's there and not make things up. The length of "day" is not defined so it must not matter. What "day" does mean is something that's my job to understand. I'm working on it.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Anyone who says that the "day" means 24 hours by today's clocks has to explain how they can get that if there was no sun.

So a creator is incapable of conceptualizing a time cycle prior to manifesting the means for its perpetuation?

 

[Audie]

Everyone seems to have something to say about what the text of Genesis means to them, but for me what's more important is working to understand what the text itself means on its own.

Example (from chapter 1 verse 5) "...the evening and the morning were the first day." Anyone who says that the "day" means 24 hours by today's clocks has to explain how they can get that if there was no sun. If we're talking about one rotation of the earth then that's on 23.9 hours, but the word "rotation" is not there.

My personal take is we should work w/ what's there and not make things up. The length of "day" is not defined so it must not matter. What "day" does mean is something that's my job to understand. I'm working on it.

There's no there there

 

[excreationist]

Example (from chapter 1 verse 5) "...the evening and the morning were the first day." Anyone who says that the "day" means 24 hours by today's clocks has to explain how they can get that if there was no sun.

Genesis 1 and Revelation talk about God's light (without the sun) and in Genesis it was separated into day and night.

A much bigger problem is that on earth there are always places that are morning and places that are evening - but Genesis 1 implies that everywhere on earth is the same time of day.

Also it seems the Bible always talks about the earth in a way that is compatible with the flat earth theory. I'm not aware of any verses that suggest a round earth.

 

[Pete in Panama]

...the Bible always talks about the earth in a way that is compatible with the flat earth theory. I'm not aware of any verses that suggest a round earth.

If that makes you happy then go w/ that theory. If you want, you could say that the Bible also advocated child molestation because you experience your inner child being bothered by the Bible. Lots of possibilities.

The idea that I go along w/ is the idea that when Genesis mentions "earth" there is no mention of the "Planet Earth", like the "Planet Jupiter". It's just the word "earth". Please be aware that the old English word for farmer was earthling. By "earthling" they're not talking about a being from the "Planet Earth" but rather someone who works w/ the "earth". Soil. Dirt. Mud.

Maybe a better translation of the first verse could be "In the beginning God created the universe, matter, and space. That first day may well have lasted for a few billion years. Nothing in Genesis contradicts w/ that.

 

[excreationist]

If that makes you happy then go w/ that theory. If you want, you could say that the Bible also advocated child molestation because you experience your inner child being bothered by the Bible. Lots of possibilities.

Please give ONE example of a Bible verse that contradicts the flat earth theory (more than it does the globe) or ONE example that suggests a spherical earth. It does talk about the "circle" of the earth in Isaiah 40:22 but I can explain why I think it fits a flat earth better than a sphere. See:

Refuting flat earth

Refuting flat earth teachings with horizon, time zones, southern hemisphere, constellations, circumnavigation, South Pole.

creation.com

Maybe a better translation of the first verse could be "In the beginning God created the universe, matter, and space. That first day may well have lasted for a few billion years. Nothing in Genesis contradicts w/ that.

Actually in day 1 it says that God only created the light - it says the sun, moon, and stars were created on day 4 (after the plants). So it seems the billions of years needs to be around days 3 and 4, not just day 1. Science doesn't say that there were billions of years of empty space (or with non-star matter) and then the stars emerged after the plants.

 

[Tomef]

Morning and night border (very) approximately
half a day. In some places.

Then there's the land of the midnight ssn.

With a bit of poetic licence I think that’s good enough for 1%.

 

[Audie]

With a bit of poetic licence I think that’s good enough for 1%.

Would that 1% pretty much represent the overall
level of fact / accuracy in the bible, iyo?

 

[Pete in Panama]

Please give ONE example of a Bible verse that contradicts the flat earth theory (more than it does the globe) or ONE example that suggests a spherical earth.

You're absolutely right, I can't show you ONE example where the Bible mentions are spherical nature of the Planet Earth. Neither can I show ONE example of where the Bible refutes the notion that the universe was once an enormous aardvark that spewed spaghetti that was the basis for all our neighboring galaxies.

It does talk about the "circle" of the earth in Isaiah 40:22 but I can explain why I think it fits a flat earth better than a sphere. See:

Refuting flat earth

Refuting flat earth teachings with horizon, time zones, southern hemisphere, constellations, circumnavigation, South Pole.

creation.com

Logic is fun, we can use it to explain all kinds of goofy ideas if we want. The big question is why should we choose to insist on what is not there. My preference is to look at what IS there.

fwiw, anyone who thought about it understood that the earth was round. Eratosthenes (Greek head of the library at Alexandria 500BC) was even able to measure the Earth's diameter to a fairly high level of accuracy. It was common knowledge. My take is that the "flat earth" talk is a joke. I can logically argue that the Earth is flat, but imho that says more about the problems /w logic than it does about the nature of the Earth.

Actually in day 1 it says that God only created the light - it says the sun, moon, and stars were created on day 4 (after the plants). So it seems the billions of years needs to be around days 3 and 4, not just day 1. Science doesn't say that there were billions of years of empty space (or with non-star matter) and then the stars emerged after the plants.

Sounds like you're talking about the first few verses (from here):

1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.​

​

2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.​

​

3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.​

​

4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.​

​

5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.​

--and besides light, it says that God also created the heavens and the earth along w/ darkness and possibly other stuff I'm missing. Sounds like it's important to you that the Bible is WRONG WRONG WRONG. That's fine if that's your thing but I got to tell you that lots of other folks have found whole bunches of goodies there & imho it'd be a shame to miss out.

Meanwhile please understand that your having an opinion different than mine does not mean that I think you're stupid. In fact, I'm grateful that you're willing to take the time to interact w/ me as I learn so much more from those w/ whom I disagree than w/ those that say the same stuff I say.

 

[Audie]

You're absolutely right, I can't show you ONE example where the Bible mentions are spherical nature of the Planet Earth. Neither can I show ONE example of where the Bible refutes the notion that the universe was once an enormous aardvark that spewed spaghetti that was the basis for all our neighboring galaxies.

Logic is fun, we can use it to explain all kinds of goofy ideas if we want. The big question is why should we choose to insist on what is not there. My preference is to look at what IS there.

fwiw, anyone who thought about it understood that the earth was round. Eratosthenes (Greek head of the library at Alexandria 500BC) was even able to measure the Earth's diameter to a fairly high level of accuracy. It was common knowledge. My take is that the "flat earth" talk is a joke. I can logically argue that the Earth is flat, but imho that says more about the problems /w logic than it does about the nature of the Earth.

Sounds like you're talking about the first few verses (from here):



--and besides light, it says that God also created the heavens and the earth along w/ darkness and possibly other stuff I'm missing. Sounds like it's important to you that the Bible is WRONG WRONG WRONG. That's fine if that's your thing but I got to tell you that lots of other folks have found whole bunches of goodies there & imho it'd be a shame to miss out.

Meanwhile please understand that your having an opinion different than mine does not mean that I think you're stupid. In fact, I'm grateful that you're willing to take the time to interact w/ me as I learn so much more from those w/ whom I disagree than w/ those that say the same stuff I say.

There were some of the educatrd elite
who understood the earth is a sphere in
ancient times .
People who concocted 6 day creation, flood etc
we're not those.
And, today, people who don't know the earth is
a sphere out umber those who do.

Far from " god inspired" the people who
variously and time devised the tales, those who
picked and chose what to collect into one book
we're just some guys, with no clue to history, biology,
geography or much of anything else.

 

[Tomef]

Would that 1% pretty much represent the overall
level of fact / accuracy in the bible, iyo?

If you mean historical fact and accuracy, by modern standards…I don’t know really, for the whole of the Bible? Maybe something like 10 or 15%. I mean most of the monarchs and some of the major events probably refer to real people and things that actually happened, just reinterpreted and embellished. If you narrow that down to the parts specifically intended to be historically accurate then maybe that percentage goes up a bit.

 

[YoursTrue]

You're absolutely right, I can't show you ONE example where the Bible mentions are spherical nature of the Planet Earth. Neither can I show ONE example of where the Bible refutes the notion that the universe was once an enormous aardvark that spewed spaghetti that was the basis for all our neighboring galaxies.

Logic is fun, we can use it to explain all kinds of goofy ideas if we want. The big question is why should we choose to insist on what is not there. My preference is to look at what IS there.

fwiw, anyone who thought about it understood that the earth was round. Eratosthenes (Greek head of the library at Alexandria 500BC) was even able to measure the Earth's diameter to a fairly high level of accuracy. It was common knowledge. My take is that the "flat earth" talk is a joke. I can logically argue that the Earth is flat, but imho that says more about the problems /w logic than it does about the nature of the Earth.

Sounds like you're talking about the first few verses (from here):



--and besides light, it says that God also created the heavens and the earth along w/ darkness and possibly other stuff I'm missing. Sounds like it's important to you that the Bible is WRONG WRONG WRONG. That's fine if that's your thing but I got to tell you that lots of other folks have found whole bunches of goodies there & imho it'd be a shame to miss out.

Meanwhile please understand that your having an opinion different than mine does not mean that I think you're stupid. In fact, I'm grateful that you're willing to take the time to interact w/ me as I learn so much more from those w/ whom I disagree than w/ those that say the same stuff I say.

Yes. I've been reading about what flat-earthers believe and it has convinced me that some people are -- out of their minds if they believe that. No use trying to reason on things with some people. That's what some of these discussions have convinced me of.

 

[YoursTrue]

If you mean historical fact and accuracy, by modern standards…I don’t know really, for the whole of the Bible? Maybe something like 10 or 15%. I mean most of the monarchs and some of the major events probably refer to real people and things that actually happened, just reinterpreted and embellished. If you narrow that down to the parts specifically intended to be historically accurate then maybe that percentage goes up a bit.

The Bible, even in its historicity, makes so much sense to me that arguments against its reliability and verification are now useless in my mind. That's actually what these "discussions" here have convinced me of.