"Day" in Genesis 1:5
Comments
-
I think one thing we also need to know are people's presuppositions about the creation account? Do you believe the Bible is literal? Do you believe the story is an allegory? Did God actually create?
-
@reformed said:
- When we look at this star through a telescope, it would appear young, not old, because we'd look at starlight that would have been emitted 999,994,000 years ago, when the star would have been young (which it never was, because God created it only with the appearance of being old 999,994,000 years later).
False, if God created it with age it would appear as it should just as Adam and all plants and animals did.
An "aged" star at 1 billion light years distance away should look young to us when we observe it through a telescope.
- We'd have to be able to actually observe the process of God creating this "past" starlight through our telescopes at a distance of 6000 light years away - the supposed YEC view creation date.
Why? Why must you captivate God in our limited understanding about how the universe works instead of just taking Him at His word?
Why have Christians universally once held a geocentric world view, and now (almost) completely reject it, despite a literalistic reading of Scripture clearly describing a geocentric view? Psalm 104:5 for example.
-
@reformed said:
I think one thing we also need to know are people's presuppositions about the creation account? Do you believe the Bible is literal? Do you believe the story is an allegory? Did God actually create?I do believe the creation account literally. "Yom" can be literally translated as a long period of time.
I literally believe that God created ex nihilo whenever the Hebrew word "bara" is used, in Genesis 1:1 (the heavens and the earth, i.e. the cosmos), Genesis 1:21 (animals) and Genesis 1:27 (mankind).
When the word "asa" is used, I believe that God made something from pre-existing matter, or made it to appear visibly (such as the sun, moon and stars which pre-existed, but "appeared" visibly only after the plants had been cleaning the atmosphere for some million years).
I believe in the literal place Eden, and Adam and Eve as the literal first people, and reject all kinds of evolution models, including theistic evolution.
-
@Jan said:
@reformed said:
- When we look at this star through a telescope, it would appear young, not old, because we'd look at starlight that would have been emitted 999,994,000 years ago, when the star would have been young (which it never was, because God created it only with the appearance of being old 999,994,000 years later).
False, if God created it with age it would appear as it should just as Adam and all plants and animals did.
An "aged" star at 1 billion light years distance away should look young to us when we observe it through a telescope.
Why? Because we say so?
-
@reformed said:
Why? Because we say so?No, because the speed of light makes it impossible to observe an object at 1 billion light years away in real time.
-
I still don't see how that impacts the creation with appearance of age.
-
This is why I keep coming back to the universe being older than the matter that makes it visible. Everything that exists comes from God's eternal decree. Elements in the decree might have existed invisibly for billions of years, and the matter making them visible for only thousands of years. But materialized age can appear aged when the matter making it visible is not.
Regardless, I cannot trust science knowing it is the product of the reprobate carnal mind. I always go with the bible despite all of the contradictions science hurls at it.
-
@reformed said:
I still don't see how that impacts the creation with appearance of age.When we look at objects (stars etc.) through our telescopes, we actually are looking back in time. When the object is 1 billion light years away, that means we're looking at the object as it was 1 billion years ago.
Assuming that the object was created 6000 years ago with the appearance of age implies that it did not exist 1 billion years ago. Therefore: Why are we seeing it? Is it just a projection of something that never happened?
-
@Dave_L said:
Regardless, I cannot trust science knowing it is the product of the reprobate carnal mind. I always go with the bible despite all of the contradictions science hurls at it.You're forgetting something. Whereas Scripture itself is inspired and infallible, interpretation of Scripture is the product of the same reprobate carnal mind as science.
-
@Jan said:
@Dave_L said:
Regardless, I cannot trust science knowing it is the product of the reprobate carnal mind. I always go with the bible despite all of the contradictions science hurls at it.You're forgetting something. Whereas Scripture itself is inspired and infallible, interpretation of Scripture is the product of the same reprobate carnal mind as science.
Not exactly. If you compare scripture with scripture, you can get a clear understanding. Like, literal 24 hour days referred to elsewhere as literal 24 hour days in common OT usage.
-
@Dave_L said:
Not exactly. If you compare scripture with scripture, you can get a clear understanding. Like, literal 24 hour days referred to elsewhere as literal 24 hour days in common OT usage.So why have Christians in general rejected the geocentric worldview after science has discovered that it is flawed, despite a literalistic reading of Scripture clearly dictating a geocentric worldview?
What about the usage of "day/yom" in Genesis 2:4? Is it a literal 24-hour-day? If so, you have some explaining to do to make it consistent with the rest of Genesis 1-2.
-
@Jan said:
@Dave_L said:
Not exactly. If you compare scripture with scripture, you can get a clear understanding. Like, literal 24 hour days referred to elsewhere as literal 24 hour days in common OT usage.So why have Christians in general rejected the geocentric worldview after science has discovered that it is flawed, despite a literalistic reading of Scripture clearly dictating a geocentric worldview?
What about the usage of "day/yom" in Genesis 2:4? Is it a literal 24-hour-day? If so, you have some explaining to do to make it consistent with the rest of Genesis 1-2.
The geocentric passages can be read metaphorically. But Exodus is quite literal when using the six days of creation to make the weekly Sabbath Law. “For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth and the sea and all that is in them, and he rested on the seventh day; therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and set it apart as holy.” (Exodus 20:11) (NET)
-
I don't think that the 7th day is complete yet. God is still resting. "There was evening, and there was morning" is missing from the 7th day in Genesis. Also Hebrews 4:10 tells us that the 7th day is not over yet.
-
@Jan said:
@reformed said:
I still don't see how that impacts the creation with appearance of age.When we look at objects (stars etc.) through our telescopes, we actually are looking back in time. When the object is 1 billion light years away, that means we're looking at the object as it was 1 billion years ago.
Assuming that the object was created 6000 years ago with the appearance of age implies that it did not exist 1 billion years ago. Therefore: Why are we seeing it? Is it just a projection of something that never happened?
Yes, no different than Adam would been a projection of a birth that never happened. Not sure why that is a difficult concept.
@Jan said:
I don't think that the 7th day is complete yet. God is still resting. "There was evening, and there was morning" is missing from the 7th day in Genesis. Also Hebrews 4:10 tells us that the 7th day is not over yet.I don't see how you arrive at that interpretation at all.
-
@reformed said:
Yes, no different than Adam would been a projection of a birth that never happened. Not sure why that is a difficult concept.All right. Are we then seeing through our telescopes events that have never occurred in reality? Do wee see the death of stars 1 billion light years away that have actually never existed? Did God create 13 billion years of history that have actually never existed, but are just a projection?
And if that's no different than Adam, and there's a projection of his birth, who is is mother in this alleged projection?
I don't think that the 7th day is complete yet. God is still resting. "There was evening, and there was morning" is missing from the 7th day in Genesis. Also Hebrews 4:10 tells us that the 7th day is not over yet.
I don't see how you arrive at that interpretation at all.
So how could we enter God's Sabbath rest, if he actually is no longer in his Sabbath rest?
-
@Jan said:
I don't think that the 7th day is complete yet. God is still resting. "There was evening, and there was morning" is missing from the 7th day in Genesis. Also Hebrews 4:10 tells us that the 7th day is not over yet.Hebrews 4 is about the rest we have in Christ when we cease from our own works.
-
Wich co-incides with God's Sabbath rest (Hebrews 4:4).
-
It comes down to interpreting scripture with scripture. And Moses defines his use of "day" in the creation account as what we call 24 hours. He does this in Exodus 20:11.
Pertaining to the 6 day work week and one day rest, Moses reasons: "because in six days Yahweh made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and on the seventh day he rested. Therefore Yahweh blessed the seventh day and consecrated it."
-
@Jan said:
@reformed said:
Yes, no different than Adam would been a projection of a birth that never happened. Not sure why that is a difficult concept.All right. Are we then seeing through our telescopes events that have never occurred in reality? Do wee see the death of stars 1 billion light years away that have actually never existed? Did God create 13 billion years of history that have actually never existed, but are just a projection?
And if that's no different than Adam, and there's a projection of his birth, who is is mother in this alleged projection?
Now you are just being ridiculous. If you want to limit God that is your business, if you don't want to believe what He said that is your business.
I don't think that the 7th day is complete yet. God is still resting. "There was evening, and there was morning" is missing from the 7th day in Genesis. Also Hebrews 4:10 tells us that the 7th day is not over yet.
I don't see how you arrive at that interpretation at all.
So how could we enter God's Sabbath rest, if he actually is no longer in his Sabbath rest?
There is a difference between the Sabbath rest and the 7th day of creation.
-
@Jan said:
I do believe the creation account literally. "Yom" can be literally translated as a long period of time.
I literally believe that God created ex nihilo whenever the Hebrew word "bara" is used, in Genesis 1:1 (the heavens and the earth, i.e. the cosmos), Genesis 1:21 (animals) and Genesis 1:27 (mankind).
When the word "asa" is used, I believe that God made something from pre-existing matter, or made it to appear visibly (such as the sun, moon and stars which pre-existed, but "appeared" visibly only after the plants had been cleaning the atmosphere for some million years).
I believe in the literal place Eden, and Adam and Eve as the literal first people, and reject all kinds of evolution models, including theistic evolution.
Jan,
What is it, then, that you are having a problem with the creation week? Why can't you accept it as revealed and written? Don't you accept God as Creator and capable of doing things beyond human comprehension? Do you believe and accept the first article of the “Apostles’ Creed” which most Christians recite and/or accept, states: “I believe in God the Father, Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth? This belief is implied in the opening declaration of the Bible: “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth” (Gen. 1:1). Faith in God as Creator is the cornerstone of the Christian faith.Jan, are you entertaining, in the back of your academic mind, that there were two creations, where the first one didn't count? Dismiss it. God has given us enough to believe. CM
SOURCES:
-- Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, 1959, II, pp. 528-537.
-- Philip Schaff, Creeds of Christendom, 1884, I, pp. 3-42; II, pp. 10-73. -
@Jan said:
I don't think that the 7th day is complete yet. God is still resting. "There was evening, and there was morning" is missing from the 7th day in Genesis. Also Hebrews 4:10 tells us that the 7th day is not over yet.Jan, the pattern has been established. Must one say it a seventh time? Besides, on the seventh day, God cease his work or creating. The seventh day is a memorial of what God did the first six days.
Hebrews 4:4, part of Genesis 2:2 is quoted (“And God rested on the seventh day from all his works”) to establish the universality of rest which includes all the blessings of salvation to be found by entering personally into “God’s rest” (Heb. 4:1, 3, 5).
Let's not get ahead of our skis, we must understand and accept the Creation Week before we can appreciate the "rest" of Hebrews 4.
This chapter (Heb 4) and topic require a new thread to address it justly. I would say in passing, this "rest" covers:
- The Sabbath rest (weekly)
- The Sabbath liberation-- (immediate national concerns for political restoration and to future expectations of divine redemption).
- Thirdly, the Biblical and extrabiblical sources-- There are certain allusions to sabbatical themes in the OT that becomes clearer in the light of their NT interpretation.
TRUTH FOUND TRUTH SHARED. CM
-
@reformed said:
@Jan said:
@reformed said:
Yes, no different than Adam would been a projection of a birth that never happened. Not sure why that is a difficult concept.All right. Are we then seeing through our telescopes events that have never occurred in reality? Do wee see the death of stars 1 billion light years away that have actually never existed? Did God create 13 billion years of history that have actually never existed, but are just a projection?
And if that's no different than Adam, and there's a projection of his birth, who is is mother in this alleged projection?
Now you are just being ridiculous. If you want to limit God that is your business, if you don't want to believe what He said that is your business.
I am being ridiculous about it indeed, so that I can demonstrate that there's a difference between Adam having been created with the appearance of age, which Is leading to ridiculous conclusions when trying to equal this to an alleged creation of starlight with the appearance of age.
I'm certainly not saying that God could not have created the universe 6000 years ago together with a "projected" history of 13 billion years that we can research in great detail and thanks to the speed of light even visibly observe (not only observe the current universe could just have appearance of age, but to observe the past itself).
However, that would have been quite deceptive of him, and also not consistent with Scripture, which says that God reveals himself through creation, and not that he has created everything to look as natural as possible, and made his own intervention as secretive as possible. (Romans 1:20, Psalm 19:1).
If creation is God's revelation (which Scripture says it is), then it must be infallible as well, just as every revelation of God.
Therefore, if I can visibly observe 13 billion years of cosmic history, I have no reason to doubt that these 13 billion years of history really happened.
And there are several small details in Scripture that indicate long periods of time. I've listed the unequivocal use of "yom" as periods longer than 24 hours for example in Genesis 2:4 and Genesis 2:17. No explanation has been offered for these so far.
Then there's Noah using pitch to coat the ark (Geneisis 6:14). Pitch is made from tar, which consists of fossile remains. Where did the tar come from? According to YEC, all the tar was formed during the flood, and not through a process that took millions of years.
@C_M_ said:
What is it, then, that you are having a problem with the creation week? Why can't you accept it as revealed and written? Don't you accept God as Creator and capable of doing things beyond human comprehension?I believe that all of God's revelation must be consistent, not only Scripture, but creation as well. All of God's revelation conveys the same quality of Truth.
If the Bible contradicted our observation of creation, there would be no reason to give it special preference over other sacred texts. I could as well become a Hindu, and believe the earth would rest on a giant turtle because the Vedas say so, and just ignore that every observation of our planet shows something else. Or I could become a Muslime, and believe that the sun sets in a pool of muddy water, because Muhammad taught so, and just ignore the fact that NASA has never come up with a photo of that pool. I could even become an atheist, believe that we evolved through natural processes, and ignore the dozens of dozens of little details that indicate that it can't actually have happened that way.In fact I have grave concerns that exactly this is happening all over the world. I don't have anything against the teaching of young earth creationism, but I fear that the teaching that young earth creationism is the only valid interpretation of Genesis 1-2 is causing more harm than good.
When young people reach that crossroad when they realize that there's overwhelming evidence of the age of the universe, which can not be reconciled with Scripture through the teachings of the most prominent young earth creationists such as Ken Ham and Kent Hovind, so many of them these days choose the path of apostacy. The teaching that YEC is the only valid interpretation breeds a generation of angry and aggressive atheists, who feel they've been lied to all their lives, and make it their mission to convince as many as possible. They have no idea that there's a third path at these crossroads. A message that drives people away from God over a secondary, no salvatoric issue, is that actually the Gospel message? (Mark I'm not talking about YEC teaching in general, but absolutistic teaching that YEC is the only valid option).
@C_M_ said:
Jan, are you entertaining, in the back of your academic mind, that there were two creations, where the first one didn't count? Dismiss it. God has given us enough to believe. CMThis is something I did in the very distant path, and dismissed a long time ago (probably around the time when I became a Christian).
@reformed said:
I don't think that the 7th day is complete yet. God is still resting. "There was evening, and there was morning" is missing from the 7th day in Genesis. Also Hebrews 4:10 tells us that the 7th day is not over yet.
I don't see how you arrive at that interpretation at all.
So how could we enter God's Sabbath rest, if he actually is no longer in his Sabbath rest?
There is a difference between the Sabbath rest and the 7th day of creation.
CM has already quoted Hebrews 4:4 which makes the connection between God's Sabbath rest and the 7th day of creation. Viewing them as the same thing is only an interpretation of this text, and according to my standards which I already set, therefore not infallible. Therefore, I rest my case about this text.
-
@Jan said:
@reformed said:
@Jan said:
@reformed said:
Yes, no different than Adam would been a projection of a birth that never happened. Not sure why that is a difficult concept.All right. Are we then seeing through our telescopes events that have never occurred in reality? Do wee see the death of stars 1 billion light years away that have actually never existed? Did God create 13 billion years of history that have actually never existed, but are just a projection?
And if that's no different than Adam, and there's a projection of his birth, who is is mother in this alleged projection?
Now you are just being ridiculous. If you want to limit God that is your business, if you don't want to believe what He said that is your business.
I am being ridiculous about it indeed, so that I can demonstrate that there's a difference between Adam having been created with the appearance of age, which Is leading to ridiculous conclusions when trying to equal this to an alleged creation of starlight with the appearance of age.
I'm certainly not saying that God could not have created the universe 6000 years ago together with a "projected" history of 13 billion years that we can research in great detail and thanks to the speed of light even visibly observe (not only observe the current universe could just have appearance of age, but to observe the past itself).
This is what I am proposing. Everything was created to appear to have a history to look natural to us.
However, that would have been quite deceptive of him, and also not consistent with Scripture, which says that God reveals himself through creation, and not that he has created everything to look as natural as possible, and made his own intervention as secretive as possible. (Romans 1:20, Psalm 19:1).
Yes, reveals himself through nature, however, you are trying to say that is deceptive by mixing two things together that do not go together. There is no evidence to support that his own intervention was secretive, quite the opposite, his creation was bold and blatant.
If creation is God's revelation (which Scripture says it is), then it must be infallible as well, just as every revelation of God.
Which has nothing to do with what I am proposing.
Therefore, if I can visibly observe 13 billion years of cosmic history, I have no reason to doubt that these 13 billion years of history really happened.
Of course you don't know that you can view 13 billion years of cosmic history, that is a theory and assumptions.
And there are several small details in Scripture that indicate long periods of time. I've listed the unequivocal use of "yom" as periods longer than 24 hours for example in Genesis 2:4 and Genesis 2:17. No explanation has been offered for these so far.
The other meanings do not fit the context of Genesis 1 and other Scripture, such as Moses and Jesus, that interpret Genesis 1 to be a literal week.
Then there's Noah using pitch to coat the ark (Geneisis 6:14). Pitch is made from tar, which consists of fossile remains. Where did the tar come from? According to YEC, all the tar was formed during the flood, and not through a process that took millions of years.
Have you ever heard of wood tar? Tar does not only come from fossil remains.
-
@Jan said:
@C_M_ said:
What is it, then, that you are having a problem with the creation week? Why can't you accept it as revealed and written? Don't you accept God as Creator and capable of doing things beyond human comprehension?I believe that all of God's revelation must be consistent, not only Scripture, but creation as well. All of God's revelation conveys the same quality of Truth.
If the Bible contradicted our observation of creation, there would be no reason to give it special preference over other sacred texts. I could as well become a Hindu, and believe the earth would rest on a giant turtle because the Vedas say so, and just ignore that every observation of our planet shows something else. Or I could become a Muslime, and believe that the sun sets in a pool of muddy water, because Muhammad taught so, and just ignore the fact that NASA has never come up with a photo of that pool. I could even become an atheist, believe that we evolved through natural processes, and ignore the dozens of dozens of little details that indicate that it can't actually have happened that way.In fact I have grave concerns that exactly this is happening all over the world. I don't have anything against the teaching of young earth creationism, but I fear that the teaching that young earth creationism is the only valid interpretation of Genesis 1-2 is causing more harm than good.
When young people reach that crossroad when they realize that there's overwhelming evidence of the age of the universe, which can not be reconciled with Scripture through the teachings of the most prominent young earth creationists such as Ken Ham and Kent Hovind, so many of them these days choose the path of apostacy. The teaching that YEC is the only valid interpretation breeds a generation of angry and aggressive atheists, who feel they've been lied to all their lives, and make it their mission to convince as many as possible. They have no idea that there's a third path at these crossroads. A message that drives people away from God over a secondary, no salvatoric issue, is that actually the Gospel message? (Mark I'm not talking about YEC teaching in general, but absolutistic teaching that YEC is the only valid option).
You are right, they HAVE been lied to all their lives. It's called teaching them evolution, the biggest illogical lie of all to eliminate God. It is also a lie to say with absolute certainty that the universe is billions of years old. That is highly debatable.
@reformed said:
I don't think that the 7th day is complete yet. God is still resting. "There was evening, and there was morning" is missing from the 7th day in Genesis. Also Hebrews 4:10 tells us that the 7th day is not over yet.
I don't see how you arrive at that interpretation at all.
So how could we enter God's Sabbath rest, if he actually is no longer in his Sabbath rest?
There is a difference between the Sabbath rest and the 7th day of creation.
CM has already quoted Hebrews 4:4 which makes the connection between God's Sabbath rest and the 7th day of creation. Viewing them as the same thing is only an interpretation of this text, and according to my standards which I already set, therefore not infallible. Therefore, I rest my case about this text.
I still say that it is using that as an example and not an interpretation. I have read quite a few commentaries on that verse since we have started this discussion and I have yet to find one that puts forth your view on this matter.
-
@Jan said:
However, that would have been quite deceptive of him, and also not consistent with Scripture, which says that God reveals himself through creation, and not that he has created everything to look as natural as possible, and made his own intervention as secretive as possible. (Romans 1:20, Psalm 19:1).It's never made theological sense to me that God would create a universe that by every scientifically pursued indicator appears billions of years of years old to the brains and senses with which God blessed humanity, but that in actuality is only 6,000 years old. For what purpose, with what intention, would God create a world that was 0.0000004% as old as it appears to be?
Therefore, if I can visibly observe 13 billion years of cosmic history, I have no reason to doubt that these 13 billion years of history really happened.
I agree.
@reformed said:
Of course you don't know that you can view 13 billion years of cosmic history, that is a theory and assumptions.In science, a "theory" is not a collection of conjectures, assumptions, or guesses, reformed. It is an explanation of observed reality that a) explains that reality, 2) is verified by others in the scientific community, and c) makes accurate predictions about future events. There is EVERY scientific reason to believe that the universe we live in is about 13.8 billion years old - so much so that I think it can be said that its age is a scientific fact.
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@Jan said:
However, that would have been quite deceptive of him, and also not consistent with Scripture, which says that God reveals himself through creation, and not that he has created everything to look as natural as possible, and made his own intervention as secretive as possible. (Romans 1:20, Psalm 19:1).It's never made theological sense to me that God would create a universe that by every scientifically pursued indicator appears billions of years of years old to the brains and senses with which God blessed humanity, but that in actuality is only 6,000 years old. For what purpose, with what intention, would God create a world that was 0.0000004% as old as it appears to be?
Did he create Adam as a baby? It's the same thing. This has nothing to do with deception but the fact that he wanted to make things functional for mankind http://www.icr.org/article/starlight-age-universe/ @jan
Therefore, if I can visibly observe 13 billion years of cosmic history, I have no reason to doubt that these 13 billion years of history really happened.
I agree.
Except we can't see that for sure. That is what we BELIEVE to be true, but not proven.
@reformed said:
Of course you don't know that you can view 13 billion years of cosmic history, that is a theory and assumptions.In science, a "theory" is not a collection of conjectures, assumptions, or guesses, reformed. It is an explanation of observed reality that a) explains that reality, 2) is verified by others in the scientific community, and c) makes accurate predictions about future events. There is EVERY scientific reason to believe that the universe we live in is about 13.8 billion years old - so much so that I think it can be said that its age is a scientific fact.
Actually there is evidence that suggests otherwise. Feel free to visit ICR. There is just as much evidence that the universie is 13 billion years old as there is that we came from primordial ooze. ZERO. Also zero evidence of common ancestors.
-
@reformed said:
Did he create Adam as a baby? It's the same thing. This has nothing to do with deception but the fact that he wanted to make things functional for mankind http://www.icr.org/article/starlight-age-universe/ @janAs an astronomy buff, I'm unimpressed by the scientific literacy displayed in the article to which you linked, reformed. The author seems to know little about standard candles - crucial in determining galactic distances - and raises the possibility that the entire universe might be no broader than 400 light years across - an astonishingly scientifically uninformed idea. And then there's the matter of the essentially flat geometry of the universe, which the article's author distorts so badly as to propose a table of distances in which an object 10,000 light years from here might only be 15.71 light years away. Absurd beyond words.
God wanted a functional creation for humanity? Why not start us off with cell phones, subways, and jetliners?
There remains the core issue: Why would God create a fundamentally deceptive universe? Functional, perhaps, but also fundamentally deceptive:
- Physical laws and properties allow us to understand creation accurately in countless ways, but our eyes deceive us when it comes to the age of the universe.
- Our observations, when viewed through the lens of science, are almost never wrong. God has blessed us with the intellect to perceive and predict the world around us to an astounding degree. But when it comes to the age of the universe, the brains and methods that accurately describe SO much of the world around us, miss it by a factor of 2.3 million.
- We can theorize then be correct about the existence of electrons, but we miss the universe's age by 99.9999996%. How could God be a party to such deception?
Actually there is evidence that suggests otherwise. Feel free to visit ICR. There is just as much evidence that the universe is 13 billion years old as there is that we came from primordial ooze. ZERO. Also zero evidence of common ancestors.
In my review of the matter and study of astronomy, there is "evidence" of a young earth only in the minds and theologies of those who want it to exist. There is no hypothesis of a young earth that withstands rigorous scientific review, or that is is broadly accepted in the professional scientific community.
-
@Bill_Coley said:
God wanted a functional creation for humanity? Why not start us off with cell phones, subways, and jetliners?Hmn .... I functioned quite well without cell phones, subways and jetliners
... admittedly, this was not billions or thousands of years but only a few decades ago 
-
Folks, just to show you that there are other possibilities aside from current majority science held views about what the globe might actually be like ... have a look at the following website .... and instead of immediately dismissing it, give what the author proposes some equal thought as you would give to authors supporting your currently held world view
rolf-keppler.de/2frame.htm -
“He answered, “Have you not read that from the beginning the Creator made them male and female,” (Matthew 19:4) (NET)
“For six days you may labor and do all your work,” (Exodus 20:9) (NET)
“For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth and the sea and all that is in them, and he rested on the seventh day; therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and set it apart as holy.” (Exodus 20:11) (NET)
![[Deleted User]](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/fcddec765be35f238a0844bd23f54b59/?default=https%3A%2F%2Fvanillicon.com%2F8ce8323767a20f0f45db140c4cd2cea1_200.png&rating=g&size=200)