Read it carefully. That is not what it says.
I read it carefully.
That is exactly what it says.
Ciao
- viole
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Read it carefully. That is not what it says.
You are incorrect in your assumption -as many have been. See edit of above. You must consider what the language allows if you are to say it is incorrect -not what people have assumed about it.I read it carefully.
That is exactly what it says.
Ciao
- viole
Still waiting for that name. Do you have a copy of the signature? A photo? I really, really, really want to see it. Please, don't keep it to yourself anymore!i would say yes.. science fails on two main points. #1 the big bang or the beginning - in science, you cannot create something from nothing. so that points to a higher power making something happen #2 the statistics against a planet giving life such as to the level of humans - in science the statistics are staggering, they had to create alternate universes to come up with more infinite rolling of the dice. God created humans for a reason and everything for us to enjoy, look after, and discover. #3 For science proving there is a God there is intelligent design that shows there is an artist, a poet, a mathematician, engineer, an all knowing God that created the universe and left his initials on all of creation such as an artist signs a painting. There is intelligent design to everything created, that is not random, but rather it is purposely, intricately, and thoughtfully created.
It is a good defense, but it took a couple of hundred years to get over it, and so will it be with evolution. The catholic church today is amazing. I really like the new pope, however the church rejecting science today comprise mostly of evangelical Christians, and they don't have the same excuses though.
edit:
On another note, they didn't have the same excuses for killing Hypatia, 415 AD.
You are incorrect in your assumption -as many have been. See edit of above. You must consider what the language allows if you are to say it is incorrect -not what people have assumed about it.
Also.... It does not state that both the heavens and the Earth were created on the first day -but in the beginning. The first "day" of Genesis began after God said let there be light...... on the earth which was already there
True. I'm not going to argue against that. Just like science has brought both good and bad, religious has too. Not just bad, but also good.I just think it is important to remember that the advancement of science was done by a lot of individuals involved in the church as well (heck wasn't the Big Bang theory developed by a priest?), the church was not always quick to condemn, and if Europe didn't sink into total ignorance it was due to the church as well. I think it's a good lesson to remember that the church as an institution while brought some
Ills did a lot of good.
The question cannot be answered with a yes or no -because the question is flawed -just as the question "Are you the king of the Jews?" was flawed -to which Christ replied "Thou hast said".Who cares? If the earth was already there, then things are even worse.
Question for you: when He talks about the fourth day, that is when He created the stars, was the earth already there or not?
Ciao
- viole
The question cannot be answered with a yes or no -because the question is flawed -just as the question "Are you the king of the Jews?" was flawed -to which Christ replied "Thou hast said".
If you don't care -stop caring. If you want to assume that the verse says every single star in the universe was created that day -do so.
Read it carefully. That is not what it says. It does not say the Earth was formed on the first day.
It says that God created the heaven (universe) and the Earth in the beginning.
Then it says the Earth -at some point -became waste and ruin.
H1961
היה
hâyâh
haw-yaw'
A primitive root (compare H1933); to exist, that is, be or become, come to pass (always emphatic, and not a mere copula or auxiliary): - beacon, X altogether, be (-come, accomplished, committed, like), break, cause, come (to pass), continue, do, faint, fall, + follow, happen, X have, last, pertain, quit (one-) self, require, X use.
What follows is not the initial creation of the sun, moon and stars, etc... that has simply been an assumption.
When God "made" the firmament and divided the waters below from the waters above, it was by affecting/altering what was already there (allowing light to reach the waters) -so "made" does not necessarily mean initial creation.
Furthermore, there were "days" -rotations of the earth in relation to the sun -before it is stated that God "made" the greater and lesser lights. If one assumes this means initial creation, it certainly does not make sense. However it says that God made the two lights TO do something on that day -he did not make them on that day -he made them TO rule over the day and night.
If I make a light to shine on something -it does not necessarily mean I made that light then.
It is a simple question. I can answer it without problems, from my vantage point. If you cannot, then everything it is written in the Bible is, well, useless.
The narrative says clearly that the stars have been created on the fourth day. And the earth predates the fourth day, if we assume a minimal amount of logic in the narrative.
Do you object to that?
Ciao
- viole
Earth must exist for it to be waste and ruin
Yes -the earth must have first existed before it became waste and ruin! That's what I said -and that is what it says!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
It is a simple question. I can answer it without problems, from my vantage point. If you cannot, then everything it is written in the Bible is, well, useless.
The narrative says clearly that the stars have been created on the fourth day. And the earth predates the fourth day, if we assume a minimal amount of logic in the narrative.
Do you object to that?
Ciao
- viole
Well since the Sun comes after the Earth in the chronology of Genesis it shows Genesis to be false. The Sun predates the Earth. It formed first not after.
No. Does not Genesis 1:1 clearly state that -in the beginning -the heaven was created before the earth?
No its says the Heavens and Earth not one before the other. The Sun comes at a later after the Earth and Heavens. At no point in Day 1 nor Day 2 is the Earth created at all, the Earth existed before the first Day. Heck the Sun is created on Day 4.
No -it says heaven before it says Earth.
Obviously (sarcasm), that means chronological order -just as you assume everything else to be in chronological order .-because it says greater and lesser lights before it says stars.
![]()
As long as we only are able to test and perceive things in this universe based on our ability to perceive this universe we will only describe this universe ergo, no, science will never prove God.What in science do we know controls all things and holds the Universe together that could be called God?
Yes. That is not what the narrative clearly says.