I...don't...know. I never have professed to know.
Conversly, why don't you tell me what event took place when He uttered the words, "let there be light"...?
Something happened. One would presume that there was light.
You are being so intractable by insisting that there was nothing at the very moment of creation that could have resembled what many refer to as "The Big Bang". What are you afraid of? Entertaining the possibility that the Lord started the whole thing with an explosion of matter and energy where none existed before, does not make you an unbeliever. It is merely being human by trying to explain the unexplainable. It does not deny Faith by trying to do so.
Once again, going back to my original statement, I was only trying to reconcile the two by stating it as a personally held belief that the two events share a commonality.
That is my belief. Not a theory or an argument. You won't convince me otherwise. End of discussion.
What it really comes down to is that you can't explain yourelf out of this.
We know that there was light for days 2 and three. That was the same source as the "Let there be light" light of the first day.
God never said "let there be light" again. We also know that the light of the first day was seperated by the light of the second day. The same thing happened between days two and three.
I've heard you say that the first day light was the big band, but then we have the light on the second day. You cannot explain where it came from if you hold to the notion that it was the result of the big bang- That is too funny, as darkess separated the light of the first three days, and God only said "Let there be light" one time.
Then, you attempted (as did AndrewC) to tell me that the light on days 2 and 3 were stars.
You are too funny. I made it perfectly clear that the light from those days could not be stars, as He made them on day 4.
Tell me now-biblicly speaking, were you right or wrong about the possibility of the day 2 and day 3 light being stars? YES or NO
You calim that you are attempting to explain the unexplainable, but you do all you can to insert the creation of stars on day 2, and went through the trouble in the early part opf this thread to tell me that you were not interested in looking at anything past day one. Do I need to point tht out one more time?
You are not explaining the unexplainable-you are inserting the uninsertable. He made the stars on day 5, against your statement otherwise. Darkness separated the light on days one, two and three (and actually four, since the sun, moon and all the stars were created at the nd of the day).
Really?
It is obvious that you were wrong on at least two accounts:
- You claim that the first light was a big bang, but cannot explain why it returned on day two and also on day three, although separated by darkness.
- Then, you claim that it was the stars, ignoring (or more likely, not knowing) that the Lord created them on day four, along with the sun.
It is one thing for you to say that you have a belief, but it's another thing to attempt to attribute the belief to the Lord.
I am very sad to see that you go through the trouble to be attribute the big bang to God, but then openly tell me that you do not want to discuss anything after day one.
After all of this, I am glad that you were honest in saying that "You won't convince me otherwise".
You spoke volumes.