Jump to content
Evolution Fairytale Forum

Dredge

Advanced member
  • Content Count

    84
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4

Posts posted by Dredge


  1. That doesn't really work with Genesis 1:16 though. There is one (non-infinitive) verb in verse 16--'asah (וַיַּ֣עַשׂ--and He made), and there are three definite direct object indicators (Hebrew 'et-- ×ֶת)...one for the sun, one for the moon, and one for the stars. So, rather than being a side note, the stars are tied to the verb of God "making" at that time just as much as the sun and the moon.

    Thanks for that. In that case, what are the "heavens" in v.1, which existed before the "light" in v.3 and the "stars" in v.16?

  2. Well Day 1 is here...

     

    (Genesis 1:1-5) "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. {2} And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. {3} And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. {4} And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. {5} And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

     

    According to the above passage, Was the Earth there before Day 1??"

    Yes, I believe it was, because I believe it can be demonstrated that your definition of the first "day" is wrong, as it is amounts to a period of time longer than one day.

     

    I believe Day 1 starts with "Let there be light" in verse 3, not with the darkness of verse 1. Day 1 extends from "and there was light" to "and there was morning" in verse 5. God defines "one day" (v.5) as the period of light-evening-light ... ie, the first "light" to the light of the first "morning".

     

    Or look at it this way, the definition of "one day" ends with the light of "morning" (v. 5). Therefore the beginning of "one day" must also be light (v.5). The beginning of one day cannot be the darkness before the first light, as that would be more than one day.

     

    Imagine for argument's sake that the dawn of first "morning" (v.5) is 6am - go back one day (24 hours) and you have the first dawn at 6am. It cannot be the darkness before the dawn of 6am, as that would be longer than 24 hours - ie, longer than one day.

     

    So I think your claim is that "one day" is from darkness-light-darkness-light is erroneous as it too long and so doesn't fit the definition of one day (ie, light-evening-light).

     

    ---------------------------------------------

     

    The only place the creation of the planet earth is mentioned (chronologically) is in Gen 1:1, which occurs before the light of the first day (v.3). Therefore "in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" refers to a time before the "six days" of creation.

    (Exodus 20:10-11) "But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: {11} For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it."

    I don't believe this verse includes the planet earth (as in Genesis 1:1). The "heaven and earth, the sea" is referring to the earth's atmosphere, land and oceans respectively (see Gen 1:8, 10). That is to say, Exodus 20:11 is referring to what happened in the six days after the creation of planet earth in v.1. (See my post to Goku, #40).

     

    ------------------------------------

    After all that, I've noticed that Enoch has been banned! Oh well, I'll submit this post anyways; maybe it will interest someone else.


  3. If we are to take the Bible literally and use scripture to interpret scripture, then we have Exodus 20:11, "For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth".

     

    This suggests that the entire creation period lasted one week, not thousands or more.

    You have misquoted Exodus 20:11. It says "for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them". I don't believe this is referring to the planet earth, but to the earth's atmospehere, land and sea (which are called "heaven ... earth ... seas" respectively in Gen 1). The crucial point in this verse is the inclusion of "the sea" - since the sea is part of planet earth, there would be no point mentioning it if the verse was referring to the planet earth. That would amount to a tautology.

     

    In other words, imo Exodus 20:11 is referring to the second creation (the six days) that came after Gen 1:1, in which the planet earth and the stars were created.


  4. The mass murderers, mass rapists,slavers of ISIS have banned the teaching of evolution in their self proclaimed caliphate.

     

    http://www.dailytech.com/ISIS+Imposes+Ban+on+Teaching+Evolution+in+Iraq/article36569.htm

    http://europe.newsweek.com/islamic-state-bans-math-social-studies-evolution-classrooms-271096?rm=eu

     

    Evolution-teaching countries like the UK, USA, France, Belgium, the Netherlands, germany, Russia are fighting ISIS.

    At least they got one thing right.

  5.  

    I'm not reading too much into what happened during the Gap. But it makes sense to me that the stars would have to have been created a long, long time before the "six days". If the stars were created during the six days, we wouldn't see many of them.

     

    Stars were created on day 4; Genesis 1:14-19

    Actually, I somehow missed "and he made the stars also" v.16!! But no problem, because these words seem out of place with the rest of the passage, which is all about our Sun and moon. Notice the first sentence - "And God said: Let there be lights made in the firmament of heaven, to divide the day and the night, and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years: To shine in the firmament of heaven, and to give light upon the earth. And it was so done."

     

    So I think the reference to "stars" here could be read: "Oh, by the way, while where on the subject of the Sun and the moon ... God made the stars too - that is to say, not on this day, but earlier."

     

    ---------------------------------------------------

     

    Another thought I had was that when God said "Let there be light" (which marked the beginning of Day 1), this could have marked the moment when the light of the stars he'd created much earlier finally reached earth (in unison, of course, which means the various stars when created at different points in time, according to their distance from earth).


  6.  

    One of my main problems with gap theory is that it was created around 1800 in order to reconcile scripture with the scientific understanding of an old Earth.

     

    That's my problem with it too, although, when I was a gap theorist, I was one more for theological reasons, than scientific. When I started examining both its scientific problems (e.g. invoking a pre-Adamic global flood to harmonize with a geological methodology that presupposes and requires no such event, whether Noachic or pre-Adamic), and its theological problems (e.g. postulating that a pre-Adamic earth was ruled by angels for billions of years until Lucifer fell when the Bibles clearly states that the devil sinned from the beginning 1 John 3:8), I abandoned it as an untenable position, and began to do some serious study on the whole issue of origins.

    I'm not reading too much into what happened during the Gap. But it makes sense to me that the stars would have to have been created a long, long time before the "six days". If the stars were created during the six days, we wouldn't see many of them.

  7. the evidence supporting ToE is GARGANTUAN.

    Infact it is regarded as one of the most rigorously tested and supported scientific theory we have

    "And then shall be revealed the lawless one ... even he, whose coming is according to the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, and with all deceit of unrighteousness for them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this cause God sendeth them a working of error, that they should believe a lie, that they all might be judged who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness." - 2Thess 2:8-12.


  8. b]"Oh Lord, how manifold are your works! In wisdom you have made them all. The earth is full of your possessions ... You send forth your Spirit, they are created ; and you RENEW the face of the earth."[/b] - Psalm 104:24,30. (Emphasis mine)

     

    It seems obvious to me that this passage is referring to the Genesis creation ... which is described as a RENEWAL. Interesting. Does this suggest that there was a previous creation that was destroyed? After all, the state of the earth in Genesis 1:2 is very reminiscent of the state of the earth during noah's Flood.

    I wish to recant this part of my post ... on account of it being erroneous.


  9. Based on the Scriptures, I believe creation took place in two separate stages.

     

    Stage 1 is described in Genesis 1:1 - "in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth."

     

    -Stage 2 is described in Genesis 1:2-31 - the "six days" of creation.

     

     

    In other words, Stage I of creation can be likened to a 'blank canvas', onto which God later adds the 'paint' of Stage 2 of creation. So the possibility exists for a gap between the two Stages.

     

    -----------------------------------

     

    Exodus 20:11 - "for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them".

     

    This verse is commonly thought to be a reference to "the heavens and the earth" of Gen 1:1, but I beg to differ. Notice that the "earth" is mentioned, but then also "the sea". This strikes me as odd because the planet earth includes "the sea", so why is "the sea" mentioned separately? It seems to be an unnecessary tautology. I believe the answer to this puzzle can be found in Genesis 1 ...

     

     

    The earth's atmosphere was created on Day 2 (Gen 1:6-7), and God called it "heaven" (v.8);

    The land was created on Day 3 (Gen 1:9), and God called it "earth" (v.10);

    The oceans were created on Day 3 (Gen 1:9), and God called them called "seas" (v.10).

     

    So I believe the "heaven ... earth ... sea" of Exodus 20:11 actually refer to the earth's atmosphere, land and oceans, respectively.

     

    Thus, Exodus 20:11 describes only Stage 2 of creation. Stage 1 is described elsewhere - in Genesis 1:1 - "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."

     

    --------------------------------

     

    Genesis 1:1-2 begins with the creation of "the heavens and the earth", but the earth was empty and dead, "without form and void" - this is the aforementioned 'blank canvas' of Stage 1 of creation.

    Then, "the Spirit of God" begins moving over "the face of the waters". This I believe heralds the commencement of Stage 2 of creation, which actually begins in verse 3, with the words, "And God said ...".

    I think this phrase, "And God said ..." Is significant and adds weight to my theory of a two-stage creation. Why? Because each of the eight creations from verses 3-26 are preceded by this same phrase, "And God said ...", yet this phrase does not precede Stage 1, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" (v.1).

     

    Now, if the planet earth was created during the "six days", surely God would have mentioned it in this verse - after all, the planet earth is the centre-piece of the whole shebang. But I don't believe he has; he's mentioned the earth's atmosphere, land and sea ... but nothing about the planet earth. This leads me to suspect that the planet earth was created separately, ie, before, to the "six days". Hence, I contend there must have been two separate stages of creation.

     

    At the end of the six days of Stage 2 of creation, we read, "Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them" (Gen 2:1). I believe this verse is referring Stage 1 ("the heavens and the earth" of Gen 1:1) and Stage 2 ("and all the host of them").

    In other words, Stage 1 of creation has been "finished" by the addition of the six days of creation of Stage 2. Stage I is the 'blank canvas' and Stage 2 the 'paint' that finishes the job.

     

    -------------------------------------------

     

     

    "Oh Lord, how manifold are your works! In wisdom you have made them all. The earth is full of your possessions ... You send forth your Spirit, they are created ; and you RENEW the face of the earth." - Psalm 104:24,30. (Emphasis mine)

     

    It seems obvious to me that this passage is referring to the Genesis creation ... which is described as a RENEWAL. Interesting. Does this suggest that there was a previous creation that was destroyed? After all, the state of the earth in Genesis 1:2 is very reminiscent of the state of the earth during noah's Flood.


  10. If the Bible described an electric eel and we didn't have any of them extant, folks would he lined up around the blocked claiming that such a creature is obviously mythical.

     

    The description of Leviathan would sound plausible to most readers until it gets to the part about the fire and smoke, but I don't doubt its veracity. (I'd love to see one!)

     

    Was Johan really swallowed by a great fish in which he spent three days? Jesus seems to think so.

     

    If a Christian can believe in the miracles described in the Bible, then a Christian should have no trouble believing that Leviathan was a real creature.

    • Like 1

  11.  

     

     

    Fjuri: Don't forget the talking snake from genesis and donkey from numbers.

    Both supernatural events, the serpent and donkey couldn't talk from biology. I believe it's reasonable to not take them hyper-literally.
    I think there has been plenty of evidence of Demonic posession where a different voice is heard coming from people... For example Young girls spewing obscenities and other utterances in low hideous voices.
    In one of his books, the late Catholic exorcist, Fr. Gabriele Amorth, relates the story of a very young Italian girl who lived in a small village and who suddenly started speaking a strange language that was eventually identified as ancient Greek. Previously, she couldn't even speak common Italian, but only the dialect that was unique to her region. Suddenly being able to speak a foreign tongue is apparently a common sign of demonic possession, which turned out to be the case for this girl.

     

    Atheists dismiss documented cases like these as nonsense, of course, which is not an explanation, but simply wilful denial of reality.


  12. apes will never sit typing on computers, nor will they ever shape the world around us and be stewards of the earth as the bible describes.

    Mike, you seem to be forgetting Lassie, Rin Tin Tin and Rex - all very smart dogs.  Then there was Skippy the Bush Kangaroo, whom I once saw driving a speed boat!  And what about the redoubtable Mr. Ed, the horse that mastered human speech and human thoughts.  All this adds up to irrefutable evidence that the "lower creatures" are evolving intelligence that will one day rival that of humans.
    • Like 1

  13. What is human dignity? Is it the pretense that you're above everyone else? Or can it be that you know your place?

    Human dignity is hard to define, I think, but it's related to being made in the image of God. If naturalistic evolution is true, I can't see how humans can have any dignity at all, as they just pointless, accidental machines that come from nothing and go back to nothing. How can dignity be extracted from meaninglessness?

     

    I don't think I'm above anyone else. God loves everyone.


  14. I've spent considerable time recently, conversing online with theistic evolutionists, many of whom are scientists. While I found them sincere and highly intelligent and knowledgeable, I noticed that they do not hesitate to torture and "re-interpret" any Bible verse to accommodate evolution. The genealogy in Genesis 5 is a prime example - their view is that this may be a "condensation" of thousands of generations. Exodus 20 is another - in which Yahweh directly compares the six days of creation to six literal days of work.


  15. What is evil about the idea that humans evolved from a lower primate?

    There are evo' Christians who also believe that man descended from a lower primate, but that point of view still repulses me. I hard to put my finger on why exactly, but my spirit recoils from the idea. There is a voice coming from deep in my soul that keeps telling me evolution is not the truth. I prefer to think of my "common ancestor" as God Almighty, not some smelly ape. I think the "ape" theory is an offence against human dignity.


  16.  

    how so?

     

    are you saying a doctor takes into account whether a germ evolved from some other germ when administering their "cure"?

    to imply that it matters whether you came from a blade of grass or an oak tree makes a difference to medical diagnosis is ridiculous.

     

     

    It has to deal with keeping superbugs under control. We are literally running out of types of medication to give to people because bacteria are evolving resistance to the drugs we use. Any competent doctor or nurse needs to be aware of this in order to properly deal with patients on a daily basis.

    That's true, but accepting that all life shares a common ancestor doesn't help the medical profession fight super-bugs, imo. The common ancestor thing is an irrelevance.

  17.  

    Asians want to hang out with asians, blacks want to hang out with blacks and whites want to hang out with whites .... as a general rule. It's obvious that there are "natural barriers" between the races.

    i'm sure you have heard of the movie "planet of the apes".it was noted that during the filming of this movie, the gorillas, orangutans, and the chimps hung out with their "kind".the gorillas took their lunch breaks together etc.it apparently didn't matter what the actor was.
    Interesting!

  18. And what do you see as the zeitgeist of the West?

    Cultural Marxism.

     

     

    I suspect that many of the recent converts into such movements (they've been gaining popularity over the past decade or so) don't share the traditional view that Jews are evil people that need to be harmed for killing Jesus.

    I get the impression that Far-right anti-Semiticism has little to do with religion. Hitler wanted to exterminate the jewish race, not just the Jewish religion. The Far-right has learnt to keep their Jew-animus as inconspicuos as possible. But it's true what you say - a lot of folks who are now being attracted to the Far-right aren't anti-Semitic - more like anti-Islam.

     

     

    I find your last sentence to be the most interesting. I agree there are genetic and cultural differences between various races that have real world impacts, but I don't see any natural barriers between the races. I think most of the barriers we see between the races are cultural, not genetic, if I understand what you are saying.

    Asians want to hang out with asians, blacks want to hang out with blacks and whites want to hang out with whites .... as a general rule. It's obvious that there are "natural barriers" between the races.


  19.  

    Perhaps embryonic creation and flood ideas spread before humans came out of Africa

     

    Looking at the news nowadays it seems like floods aren't so uncommon.

    Considering where humans tended to settle (near fresh water supplies) its not unlikely that local floods contributed to flood myths.

     

    With regard to creation myths, I'm under the impression that "Goddidit" used to be a very common explanation.

    When I look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_creation_mythsonly a relatively small part have creation ex nihilo like the Abrahamic religions propose.

    Many ancient cultures didn't record anything in writing; folklore relied on oral transmission. Imagine how different a story could end up from the original if it is passed on orally over thousands of years. Only the kernel of the original story may be left - if you're lucky.

     

    For this reason God had his word written down, so that the truth could accurately be transmitted down through the generations.


  20. If evolutionary ideas are such an unnecessary irrelevance why do creationists advocate microevolution within kinds?

    Because micro' within kinds is a demonstrable fact. Demonstrable facts tend to find practical uses in applied science - such as medicine. On the other hand, it is not a demonstrable fact that man and chimps share a common ancestor, for example ... and surprise, surprise, this non-fact is useless to applied science and useless to medicine.

    • Like 1

  21. ask any doctor (your personal physician perhaps) if they use the theory of evolution in their daily practice.

    "In fact, over the past 100 years, almost all of biology has proceeded independent of evolution, except evolutionary biology itself. Molecular biology, biochemistry, physiology, have not taken evolution into account at all." - Dr. Marc Kirschner, chairman of the Department of Systems Biology, Harvard Medical School

×

Important Information

Our Terms