Posted on 02/17/2005 3:10:32 PM PST by DannyTN
I don't think I accused anyone of false witness and I don't think you know anything about science.
But you did manage to get me off the subject using spurious attacks and the typical rhetorical tricks. Good job!
"So we are back to same old evolutionist crap argument."
I think you have twisted the term "creationist crapsite".
"1)Don't publish anything that talks about design or creation because that's "supernatural" and not science. "
If ID or creation science would come up with some good data, have it peer reviewed and present a coherent explanation of the data, without resorting to misinterpretations of the Baahbull, it would be accepted by science. Until then, yall can whine all you want.
"2)And don't acknowledge any creation or ID arguments because they aren't published. "
They aren't published in science journals because they are not science. That is why you have to have all the creationist crapsites and the charlatans peddling comic book pamphlets for filthy luchre instead.
"You are burying your head in the sand and taking comfort that there are many evolutionist ostrich people with their heads buried next to you."
I understand that ostriches do not bury their heads in the sand. That it is an old wives tale, like all the trash creationists spout. The science is there for anyone to study and draw conclusions it is correct. For those that will be driven from their church if they talk about real science, it is understandable they will live in fear of being shunned. However, that is no excuse for attempting to put mindless superstition in kids science classes.
My view on the type of energy involved in "let there be light" is it is some type of primordial energy. The Hebrew language would have no other terms for energy other than heat or light. No writer in Hebrew thousands of years ago, given a picture from God of cosmic rays or some such, would ever be able to find a word to describe it.
So, I think it might be a good bet that light in the passage could be any one of a number of different types of energy. It might even be a type of energy we no longer are able to observe.
A trick me thinks not. Is the sky really blue or does God trick our eyes???
Why search outside of scripture when John and Jesus tell us that Jesus is the light ?
There are several different levels of meaning in many passages of the Bible. Both your interpretation, which I agree with btw, and mine are probably true.
In the first sentence of Genesis 1 where it says In the beginning (at first) created God the heavens and the Earth, created is the word bara. Bara and Bar meaning son have the same roots. The first sentence literally is, "At first, God sired the whole universe." Bara has the sense of God the father and the son in the same word. Then later when it talks about the Spirit of God, using ruach from the root for breathe. Thus in the first few sentences we have the whole Trinity described and a general idea of its role in Creation.
Then right after that we have the "let there be light" passage. But since Jesus the Son was already present before the beginning, this was not the creation of Jesus but a description of how an omnipotent God in three persons effected the start and continuation of everything we now see (including the process of evolution which allows life to adapt to a changing universe).
Jesus is part of creation as the light of the world, but He is more than that as well. Like I said, the Bible is written on more than one level at the same time. Hebrew is a holy language that contains more insights than we can imagine.
Well if you think the light on Day 1 must have been energy, that might explain why you think Morning and Night could only have been accomplished by having a Sun on Day 1 instead of Day 4.
But I think the more likely explanation is that initial light and/or energy allowed the first morning and night without the Sun.
You do understand that day and night are caused by the rotation of the Earth on its access with the Sun shining on half of it at a time, don't you?
You can rationalize all you want or claim faith over what the Bible says, but the fact is you can't have day and night without the Sun being present. The ancients would not have known this little fact, but that is no reason for you not to apprehend it.
As I said before, all you need is a directed light source. It doesn't have to be the sun. As long as light hits one side of the earth and not the other and the earth rotates, you can have Day and Night.
Given that God's record says, He created light first and separated it from the darkness. I don't see where you have a problem. Just because you aren't told how He created the light or what was the source, He had the necessary item to pull off Day and Night. Light!!!
I just think it's foolish to think that the ONLY option God had for providing light was to create a Sun.
You are open to entertain a form of energy from an unknown source and possibly even an unknown type of energy. But you aren't willing to consider it possible that God pulled off generating light without a Sun.
I don't understand that closedmindedness. One (energy) is so close to the other (light), but you insist scripture must be wrong.
You seem to want to take a literalist view, until that idea fails to meet your idea of what the Bible says.
There is no indication that the light first created before the Sun came from any source or that source would cause night and day on earth. You seem to postulate a 24 hour blinking light cycle or some other idea that is clearly not Biblical.
I wouldn't be so quick to charge someone else with not believing God's word from now on, if I were you. Just because your pastor told you the Bible says that there were 24 hr days does not mean the Bible really says that. Why do you want to give the morning and evening passage more weight than the creation of the Sun? It is obvious the morning and evening are part of the thought poetry of the Hebrew in Gen 1.
I think I have shown there are far better reasons to say that the Bible shows much deeper and more accurate meanings than most literalist pastors would consider. This is probably because they lack adequate training and are rather simplistic. That is ok. Before most people could read, the Roman Catholic church devised the mass to teach the basics of the Bible without any literacy at all.
Whatever you say Mr Science.
I assume your rant was directed at me. I don't think there is any doubt the Bible says the Moon and Sun were created on the fourth "day". I can't believe you didn't know this verse:
And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so. And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the dayand the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good. And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
The Holy Bible : King James Version. 1995 (Ge 1:14-19).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.