Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: wmfights
I'm confused.

I first stated: Even in vs. 3 that "light" isn't the sun. The sun wasn't formed until vs.14.

And you replied: I disagree. I believe the lights in the firmament of the heavens to divide the day from the night are stars. We see stars at night but not during the day.

To which, I replied: That would make more sense but it doesn't fit with 1:16: And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: He made the stars also......Wouldn't that, on the fourth day, be the sun and moon, as well as stars?

And this brings us to your last statement: I don't see the inconsistency. If we go back to verse 11 God has created grasses and trees. If these were growing the light they must have been growing by must have been the light of our LORD. IOW, the progression of what was created first was at GOD's pleasure, not what we believe the progression must be.

I don't understand exactly what you are saying. On what "day" do you believe the sun and moon were brought into existence? (I agree that He decides when and what comes first, at His pleasure).

2,220 posted on 08/12/2007 1:30:43 PM PDT by Ping-Pong
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2210 | View Replies ]


To: Ping-Pong
I'm confused.

Don't feel bad it's probably a result of my clumsy attempt to understand what you were saying.

I first stated: Even in vs. 3 that "light" isn't the sun. The sun wasn't formed until vs.14.

And you replied: I disagree.

It was verse 16 that the "two great lights" are made that we believe are the sun and the moon. I first postulated that the light in v. 3 was the big bang.

I still don't see where there was an age on earth between v. 1&2

2,224 posted on 08/12/2007 4:30:13 PM PDT by wmfights (LUKE 9:49-50 , MARK 9:38-41)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2220 | View Replies ]

To: Ping-Pong
You need to ask yourself why there is NO Historical Christian writings out there that supports this heretical serpent seed doctrine.

The Church fathers and Saints rejected this type heretical teachings.
The Church Fathers who decided Bible canon did not ever interpret scripture of satan and Eve producing cain

Are we to believe that somehow they were not guided by the Holy Spirit and God revealed this serpent seed nonsense to People like Arnold Murray and William Branham?

Neither live or lived lives close to the Saints and early Church Fathers! Murray is a false teacher a deceiver!

The truth is that you can not back up any of these wild claims from historical writings of Christians who read the same scriptures as you and Arnold Murray and NEVER concluded that satan had sex with Eve,

You are giving the devil power that God did NOT give him.

BTW
Jesus called Saint Peter satan once. Are you going to call Saint Peter offspring of the devil too?

Rebuke this belief of yours! It comes from the devil!

I will keep you in prayer!

I wish you a peaceful evening!

2,225 posted on 08/12/2007 4:31:42 PM PDT by stfassisi ("Above all gifts that Christ gives his beloved is that of overcoming self"St Francis Assisi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2220 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


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