Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: jimmyray; Alamo-Girl; betty boop
To be honest and faithful, I must correct myself: my term, "human" convention" in the following statement is wrong.

"...and the human convention of marking the angular position of light rays from the (later-formed, self-iluminated) sun, striking the "revolving" earth -- as a means of earthly time measurement."

The timing convention for Earth and its inhabitants, was, obviously, ordained and provided for by our Creator, Himself:

Gen 1:14 "And God said, “Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth.” And it was so. 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth, 18to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day."

~~~~~~~~~~~~

Nonetheless, the special and specific formation ("making") of Sun & moon ("God made two great lights") relative to the "rotating" Earth was totally separate and distinct from the initial, fundamental release of light, itself, (photons) ["Let there be light."] on the first day.

The erroneous "human" convention" is in insisting that the pace of God's days in Heaven is in any way influenced by (or related to) the statements in Gen 1:14-19.

In fact, God, Himself, specifically states-- in both the Old and New Testaments -- that is NOT the case:

Psalm 90:4 "For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night." (KJV)

and...

2 Peter 3:8 "But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day." (KJV)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I apologize for my hasty proofreading.

58 posted on 04/28/2014 6:12:00 PM PDT by TXnMA ("Allah": Satan's current alias... "Barack": Allah's current ally...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies ]


To: TXnMA
To answer my own question above, I will tell you why you do. You compromise the simple reading of scripture with "science falsely so called". You should take note of Paul's admonition to Timothy in 1 Tim 6:19-20

20 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:
21 Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen.

And you are deluded if you think the scientists who propagate the Big Bang compromise with you to admit God started it all. In fact, those of the same ilk as Mr. Hawking mentioned above vehemently oppose any concession to a Causal Agent.

If you want to dismiss the Genesis account out of hand, please feel free to do so. But don't be so naive as to think you can compromise both the scripture and Godless "scientific" theories about origins and satisfy anyone but the scriptural illiterate. You may be happy with what you've always believed, but it is plainly at odds with the scripture.

As evidence, please note how in previous assertions you "clarify" what the scripture meant by reinterpreting it via your pet theory.

62 posted on 04/28/2014 7:26:54 PM PDT by jimmyray
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson