God created Earth in 6 days?

Status
Not open for further replies.
D

dougum3882

Guest
I've never read the Bible or any other religious work, but I've heard many times before by some who have that God created Earth in 6 days and rested on the 7th (or something like that). Though the exact theory of planet formation might not be as well-understood or as well-founded as some other physical theories, I have never heard any theory that allowed a planet to form in any timeframe within 6 orders of magniude of that. Does anyone know what the religious argument is to the science of planet formation, other than the Bible says so and the Bible is the word of God?
 
R

rfoshaug

Guest
There seems to be two separate religious arguments here:<br /><br />The most extrelemy religious people say that science is wrong (or even the evil work of Satan), and that if the Bible says the world was created in 6 days, then it <i>was</i> created in 6 days. They also claim that there was no evolution of the species, that dinosaurs never existed and that Earth is about 5,000 years old.<br /><br />The rest of them seem to say that this story in the Bible is meant figuratively, not literally. They say that, since this part of the Bible has been scientifically proven wrong, it's obvious that this was written to explain roughly the concept of what happened, condensed down to 6 days (although it's still not a correct timeline - if it had been the story would be that God created the universe on Monday, the Earth on Friday morning, and all animals that exist today and humans in the last hours on Saturday evening).<br /><br /><br />Wheter or not one believes in God, most people realize that the Bible was written a very long time ago, and that there are parts in it that are not just metaforical but simply plain wrong or just stories. It's just like the story that God created the rainbow to remind himself not to flood the Earth again, just after that part with Noah's Ark. Makes you wonder if water didn't have the refractive properties then that it has today, or if total reflection was invented at that point. It doesn't make much sense, so most Christians say that one shouldn't concentrate too much on single stories, but on the essence in the Bible as a whole. <br /><br />But for me, personally, I think that these stories are some of the aspects of the Bible that destroy its credibility the most.<br /><br />If the Bible had contained information about the creation of the Universe, dinosaurs, primates that became humans, the size of Earth and distance to the Sun and Moon, a heliosentric world description etc. - facts that would centuries later be confirmed (instead of proven wrong) by <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff9900">----------------------------------</font></p><p><font color="#ff9900">My minds have many opinions</font></p> </div>
 
R

rfoshaug

Guest
BTW, this is a topic that should probably be moved to the Phenomena thread.<br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff9900">----------------------------------</font></p><p><font color="#ff9900">My minds have many opinions</font></p> </div>
 
N

newtonian

Guest
dougum3882 - Actually, the Bible and science are in harmony.<br /><br />However, many religious interpretations and traditions are in contradiction with true science.<br /><br />Galileo noted this, recognizing, for example, that the Bible was in harmony with his discoveries in astronomy despite the fact that the 'Church' taught Aristotle's astronomy and the geocentric model.<br /><br />Newton also rejected popular religious traditions in favor of the Bible.<br /><br />Likewise, many 'creationists' insist on interpretations of the Bible which are clearly in contradiction with known scientific facts - as you have noted.<br /><br />However, the Bible simply states:<br /><br />"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" - Genesis 1:1.<br /><br />Careful examination of the Genesis creation account shows the first creative day did not begin until Genesis 1:3.<br /><br />Genesis 1:1,2 were BEFORE the first creative day.<br /><br />Also, the creative days were God's, not man's. Therefore they would have been based on God's concept of time, not man's concept of time.<br /><br />Moses wrote both Genesis and the 90th Psalm. Note what Moses states about God's concept of time:<br /><br />(Psalm 90:4) 4 For a thousand years are in your eyes but as yesterday when it is past, And as a watch during the night.<br /><br />A watch during the night was typically 4 hours long which would calculate out to 1 24 hour day in man's concept of time = 6,000 years in God's concept of time - but that assumes this is to be an exact calculation rather than a relevant approximate comparison of the two concepts of time.<br /><br />There are other Biblical hints the creative days may have been 7,000 years long - and those of my faith no longer are confident we actually can know what the exact length of God's creative days were - except that it is obvious from Biblical context that we are still in the 7th day.<br /><br />See my threads on Biblical astronomy for the many examples of the harmony with the Bible and s
 
T

tplank

Guest
Please forgive me if this is a breach of protocol, but I wrote a post a few weeks ago that is relevant to this discussion. Since I spent some time on it, I thought I'd repost it here for whatever value it might have.<br /><br /><br />I view the Bible as God’s revealed truth to Man. I believe it is infallible and should be taken literally where the language is clearly meant as literal. Thus, I believe in Adam and Eve, the flood and much of what is easier to write off as legendary or allegorical. But, I’m also a fairly well educated person and my wife of twenty-one years is a molecular biologist. Reconciling this matter is of significant importance to me and my family. <br /><br />This is where we find ourselves on the matter. God gave us reason and intends for us to use it. As time has marched on, we continue to learn more about our universe and as we learn more, our thinking on God’s revelation grows with that learning. Few now deny that the Earth orbits the Sun, but educated and faithful men of another age felt passionately about the Earth being the proper Biblical center of the universe. We came to understand that maybe the perceived clarity on the point was an error and we learned how to reconcile the new learning with our faith without stretching or twisting faith or reason. <br /><br />I believe that faith will be completely reconciled with reason when God restores Creation to its as-created Goodness. Our inability to perform that reconciliation now reflects our limitations as men. As our knowledge continues to accumulate, we will perhaps reconcile more of this gap than what we have managed thus far. <br /><br />I for one have a real difficulty understanding people who are so certain that they understand even the act of creation when we do not even have a firm handle on our own human ability to create. How can any of us be so certain that we understand what creation means as applied to an infinite God? Clearly, God spoke to us at times in abstract ways such as when he “ <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>The Disenfranchised Curmudgeon</p><p>http://tonyplank.blogspot.com/ </p> </div>
 
N

newtonian

Guest
tplank - good post - I agree with most of it, but a few details... (see, for example, my above post).<br /><br />Some of what you posted is summed up in this verse:<br /><br />(Isaiah 55:8-11) 8 “For the thoughts of YOU people are not my thoughts, nor are my ways YOUR ways,” is the utterance of Jehovah. 9 “For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so my ways are higher than YOUR ways, and my thoughts than YOUR thoughts. 10 For just as the pouring rain descends, and the snow, from the heavens and does not return to that place, unless it actually saturates the earth and makes it produce and sprout, and seed is actually given to the sower and bread to the eater, 11 so my word that goes forth from my mouth will prove to be. It will not return to me without results, but it will certainly do that in which I have delighted, and it will have certain success in that for which I have sent it.<br /><br />However, we are invited to learn about God by our study of the various sciences, including astronomy:<br /><br />(Romans 1:20) 20 For his invisible [qualities] are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship. . .<br /><br />By our study of the things made in the various sciences, whether molecular biology or astronomy or any of the many other branches of study of the things made we do learn of God's qualities, notably power and wisdom.<br /><br />In molecular biology one learns about God's book, including both protein coding DNA and epigenetic coding including methyl and acetyl links to histones on the chromatin - see Psalms 139:16 for a simple statement as to how God's book sets the time of formation of body parts in the human embryo.<br /><br />In astronomy we learn of the fine tuning of the 4 forces of physics such that stars and life could exist - and we learn how much power - or energy - was involved in this nearly instantaneous creation - it is awesome and mind boggling to comprehend how such exac
 
D

dougum3882

Guest
Thanks guys for the replies. I don't know about anything when it comes to religion, but my fiance and her family are pretty religious, so I try to learn what I can to bring together the science and religion.<br /><br />Another question on the topic of religion. I have heard many religious people say that the Big Bang Theory is wrong and God created the universe, but why can't the Big Bang be the way in which God created the universe? Does the Bible say somewhere that when God created the universe it just was (like he created the entire thing all at once)? That wouldn't make sense with the expanse of the universe.
 
U

umpa_lumpa

Guest
Another thing is, God created the Earth and everything else in six days, but who is to say that One day in God time is the same as in our time. He made us and watches as grow and live. This may also be true making the universe and everything. He made it and said make earth there, dust started spining and started to form our solar system. Know what i mean?<br /><br />P.S. Congratulations, and good luck.
 
N

newtonian

Guest
dougum3882 - Your welcome. I hope things go well with you and your fiance.<br /><br />I trust you realize not all relilgions are the same.<br /><br />There are some details in the Bible as to how heaven and earth were created, and these do harmonize with scientific observations.<br /><br />Isaiah 40:26, by linking energy and power with the existence of stars, is in harmony with the extrapolation back towards the big bang to a time when it was too hot for matter to exist - i.e. simply: energy pre-existed matter and matter was created from energy.<br /><br />The Bible also links God's spirit with creation and the Hebrew word for spirit (ruahh) and the Greek word for spirit (pneuma) literally mean invisible active force (compare invisible energy, power).<br /><br />This is in harmony with creation of matter from God's energy and power, and in Isaiah 40:26 energy is in the plural in Hebrew - denoting plural forms of energy.<br /><br />The expansion of the universe, which began at the 'big bang,' is also in harmony with the Bible:<br /><br />(Isaiah 40:22) . . .There is One who is dwelling above the circle of the earth, the dwellers in which are as grasshoppers, the One who is stretching out the heavens just as a fine gauze. . .<br /><br />Besides accurately noting the earth is round, this verse also gives an accurate description of how our universe is expanding.<br /><br />Specifically, just like a fine gauze has filaments and threads, so does our universe - that is, in fact, the overall appearance of our stretching out universe.<br /><br />It is true, however, that some speculative parts of big bang theory, such as assuming this bang happenned by chance rather than intelligent design, is out of harmony with the Bible.<br /><br />However, the actual scientific observations, such as of the expansion of our universe, are in harmony with the Biblical statements.<br /><br />It should come as no surprise that the energy or force or power which is being used to cause the expansion of our universe w
 
C

CalliArcale

Guest
<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>I am strongly influenced in this regard by the engaging book Flatland.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />A wonderful book! There's a sequel of sorts, written much more recently, called "Sphereland", which you may enjoy. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>
 
T

tplank

Guest
As I have said before, it is hard presently to reconcile the Bible with our understanding of Creation. Six Days is very interesting indeed since a “day” is a manifestation of a created universe. Or more precisely, a created Earth. Prior to God separating the light and the dark, what does a “day” mean anyway?<br /><br />I for one do not think we have the answers to these simple questions. To me personally, this is a beautiful thing about the created order. I consider standing in awe before a universe that we are scarcely scratching the surface of understanding to be a high order of worship for a Christian such as myself. I’m sure other worldviews (pantheism comes to mind) would have a similar perspective.<br /><br />I would say that Newtonian’s exercise, while somewhat amusing, is unnecessary for myself, and yet I share with him (her?) an awe over such matters. Based on my understanding of the science and the Bible, I think anyone (without regard to their subjective view of the utility of either) who asserts that they are positive that the Big Bang is true or false is not being completely honest with themselves.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>The Disenfranchised Curmudgeon</p><p>http://tonyplank.blogspot.com/ </p> </div>
 
T

tplank

Guest
I discovered Sphereland a year or go, but alas have not had the pleasure-yet. It is good to run into someone who is also familiar with it. It should be required reading in my view. Very good stuff. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>The Disenfranchised Curmudgeon</p><p>http://tonyplank.blogspot.com/ </p> </div>
 
N

newtonian

Guest
tplank - I too am in awe over the order in our universe, etc.<br /><br />To your question:<br /><br />"Prior to God separating the light and the dark, what does a "day" mean anyway?"<br /><br />God's concept of time would be independent of the creations he made during his concept of time. <br /><br />[Compare primordial time during which our universe specific space-time was created]<br /><br />I think I quoted Psalms 90:4 and 2 Peter 3:9 - e.g. one thousand years in God's concept of time = one day in man's concept of time. <br /><br />In modern English usage and also in Biblical usage the word "day" has many definitions - one needs to connect context to determine the specific definition being used.<br /><br />Here are a few of the many examples:<br /><br />1. Day = 12 hours, variable during season and lattitude, the period of daylight in contrast with night or darkness.<br /><br />This definition is used in the Bible also, for example:<br /><br />(Genesis 1:3-5) . . .And God proceeded to say: “Let light come to be.” Then there came to be light. 4 After that God saw that the light was good, and God brought about a division between the light and the darkness. 5 And God began calling the light Day, but the darkness he called Night. . . .<br /><br />That would, as you note, be caused by the rotation speed of the earth.<br /><br />2. Day = 24 hours. This is the most common literal usage of "day" in both common English and the Bible.<br /><br />For one example in the Bible:<br /><br />(Genesis 7:11) . . .In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on this day all the springs of the vast watery deep were broken open and the floodgates of the heavens were opened. . .<br /><br />A day of the month is, of course, 24 hours long (hours are also used in the Bible).<br /> <br />3. Day in God's concept of time = 1,000 years in man's concept of time. See Psalms 90:4, 2 Peter 3:9<br /><br />4. Creative Days in Genesis 1 = ? thousands of years - compare Ps
 
D

dark_energy

Guest
Well, it's odd as in Genesis,<br /><br />"And there was evening, and there was morning -- the first day. (Genesis 1:5) <br /> And there was evening, and there was morning -- the second day. (Genesis 1:9) <br /> And there was evening, and there was morning -- the third day. (Genesis 1:13) <br /> And there was evening, and there was morning -- the fourth day, Genesis 1:19) <br /> And there was evening, and there was morning -- the fifth day. (Genesis 1: 23) <br /> And there was evening, and there was morning -- the sixth day. (Genesis 1: 31) "<br /><br />I would assume these to be <b>literal</b> days, not indefinite time periods.<br /><br />In the Qu'ran, they say God created the heavens and whatnot in 6 periods. The word for that is "Yawm", however, this can also mean day, as most early Muslim Scholars had interpreted it that way.<br /><br />My conclusion is that religious scholars simply twist words in the holy books just so that it agrees with science.<br /><br />Denial, anyone? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
C

CalliArcale

Guest
Actually, there is a school of thought which holds that each of those days lasted a specific period of time but one which is much longer than our human day, and that school of thought owes nothing to twisting the Bible to suit science. Believe it or not. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /><br />Basically, there is a passage in Scripture stating that a day for God is much longer than a day for us, and it gives a figure. Frankly, to me it seems obviously figurative when taken in context (the point is that time doesn't work the same way for God, not to provide a mortal-to-divine time conversion factor), but to the theologans of the time it wasn't figurative at all. It was literal.<br /><br />The objective for theologans of the Middle Ages was to learn how our world works by studying Scripture. Just as scientists today can make names for themselves by discovering new genes or comets or whatever, they were making names for themselves by reaching new conclusions based on Scripture. But with less to work with than modern scientists, they often came up with some rather bizarre conclusions; the problem with using Scripture in this way is that your data set will never grow, no matter how much you might want it to, and that can make scholars rather desperate. It was a serious academic question at the time how many angels could dance on the head of a pin, for instance, and papers were even written on the subject.<br /><br />Anyway, they came to the conclusion that the world was something like 6,000 years old. (I don't remember the exact number.) It was later that other scholars started to notice evidence that the Earth was in fact much older than that, so the interpretation by Biblical literalists was not created to explain away scientific discoveries, because it predated them. However, it did lead to a lot of anger when contradictory evidence started to come in. The literalists did not, however, attempt to synchretize the scientific discoveries with their beliefs. I <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>
 
T

tplank

Guest
hahaha...perhaps someone would make the case that Biblical scholars NEVER distort things for their own agenda, but it certainly would not be me.<br /><br />My point is that such contortions should be avoided at all costs. The text is inconclusive in terms of applying it as hard science. What it is not inconclusive-in terms of apply the text to the world-is the greater truth that God created all.<br /><br />I always read the ping pong of yeah but...yeah but...with a bit of humor. Best I can tell this has all been argued for at least 4,000 years and still we have not resolved it.<br /><br />I suppose one could accuse me of fence setting or being uncertain in my own beliefs...I know this because I have been accused before. But my position is that I am honest and will candidly assert that which I rely on by my own reckoning, and that which I rely on because of a degree of devine revelation. (I'm using revelation in it's broadest sense-not asserting prophetic vision or special access to God.) <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>The Disenfranchised Curmudgeon</p><p>http://tonyplank.blogspot.com/ </p> </div>
 
T

tplank

Guest
Paul,<br /><br />So in other words, it is not clear what a day is. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>The Disenfranchised Curmudgeon</p><p>http://tonyplank.blogspot.com/ </p> </div>
 
D

dougum3882

Guest
See, I knew this was the right place to ask these questions. Somwhere that I wouldn't get lopsided answers either for religion or for science and somewhere that it wouldn't start a major riot.<br /><br />Being a mathematician, I try to look at things from the point of view of logic (whether it be formal logic or more along the lines of good old common sense, everyday logic). I would assume God to be logical, afterall, the universe He created follows the laws of biology, chemistry, and physics all of which follow the laws of math which in turn follows the laws of logic. But telling a human, who He knows has a certain definition of a day, that something occurred in 6 days when His definition of day is different from what a human, who only knows his own definition of day, would define a day to be doesn't seem logical (that run-on sentence should show exactly why I went into mathematics instead of English). It would be like if I called any creature with 4 legs a female and I told any of you that I love females when I mean it in a different way than you would understand it to be since you define a female in a different way which I know to be the only way in which females are defined. Furthermore, it is placed in a context that could be interpreted by you to make complete sense given your definition.
 
R

rfoshaug

Guest
But even if God's perception of time is different, it's still not coherent with science, unless the first day was several billion years long, but the later days were only a few million years long. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff9900">----------------------------------</font></p><p><font color="#ff9900">My minds have many opinions</font></p> </div>
 
N

newtonian

Guest
tplank - NO. In other words, the definition of day in the Bible, as in modern English, is determined by context.<br /><br />Calli accurately noted that the Bible gives God's concept of time. It is not a matter of twisting Scripture. It is a matter of reading what the Bible actually states.<br /><br />I don't like repeat posting, but it seems some above simply have not read the two verses I posted on this subject - so here we go again:<br /><br />(Psalm 90:4) . . . For a thousand years are in your eyes but as yesterday when it is past, And as a watch during the night. . .<br /><br />(2 Peter 3:8) . . .However, let this one fact not be escaping YOUR notice, beloved ones, that one day is with Jehovah as a thousand years and a thousand years as one day. . .<br /><br />So that this is not mere repetition, note who wrote these two verses and when.<br /><br />Moses wrote the 90th Psalm about 1513 BCE - Moses also wrote (&/or compiled) Genesis about 1513 BCE. Same writer, same time. That is good reason to believe that the definition of day in Psalms 90:4 is the definition of God's creative days in Genesis chapter one. Remember, there were no humans existing until the end of the 6th day - so these were the days God was using, not man.<br /><br />The apostle Peter wrote the words in 2 Peter 3:9 about 64 CE (= AD), some 1577 years later than Psalms 90:4 was written. This indicates there was no change in understanding among worshipers of Jehovah as to how different God's concept of time is compared with man's concept of time.<br /><br />To repeat for emphasis, this is not twisting Scripture. It is. rather, reading and studying Scripture.<br /><br />Now, if the creative days were shorter than 6,000 years long each (4 hour watch = 1,000 years yields 24 hour day = 6,000 years from Psalms 90:4), then when did the 7th day end?<br /><br />I submit that in depth study of Scripture will prove that the 7th day continues and has not yet ended (which I will prove if someone else does not do so f
 
N

newtonian

Guest
rfoshaug - No. You apparently missed my posted comment that the first creative day did not begin until long after heaven and earth were created.<br /><br />You would need to study Genesis chapter one to note this - and sadly few really study the account but simply assume things.<br /><br />Each creative day begins with a specific phrase indicating that day begins.<br /><br />The first creative day begins in Genesis 1:3. <br /><br />The creation of heaven and earth is thus billions of years before the first creative day began.<br /><br />BTW, Genesis 1:2 is also before the first creative day and may be referring to the creation of microscopic life in earths primordial waters.<br /><br />Here is the account - note the characteristic phrase for the beginning of each day and also the end of each day.<br /><br />Note also that the 7th day did not end:<br /><br />(Genesis 1:1-2:3) 1 In [the] beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth proved to be formless and waste and there was darkness upon the surface of [the] watery deep; and God’s active force was moving to and fro over the surface of the waters. 3 And God proceeded to say: “Let light come to be.” Then there came to be light. 4 After that God saw that the light was good, and God brought about a division between the light and the darkness. 5 And God began calling the light Day, but the darkness he called Night. And there came to be evening and there came to be morning, a first day. 6 And God went on to say: “Let an expanse come to be in between the waters and let a dividing occur between the waters and the waters.” 7 Then God proceeded to make the expanse and to make a division between the waters that should be beneath the expanse and the waters that should be above the expanse. And it came to be so. 8 And God began to call the expanse Heaven. And there came to be evening and there came to be morning, a second day. 9 And God went on to say: “Let the waters under the heavens be brought together into one place a
 
T

tplank

Guest
Newtonian,<br /><br />That is great if you are completely satisfied with that as an answer but I do not share your certainty in the meaning. When I read those passages, I get a bit different reading and I do not believe that the intent was necessarily a literal calendar measurement.<br /><br />For one thing, since God created time, I do not see it even being relevant to him in the way that verse would seem to suggest if you take it literally. Getting hung up on the length of a God day is kind of pointless. An infinite and omnipotent God stand outside of the created order and hence outside of time itself.<br /><br />Again, I think God is doing his best to help us Flatlanders grasp his enormity. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>The Disenfranchised Curmudgeon</p><p>http://tonyplank.blogspot.com/ </p> </div>
 
N

newtonian

Guest
dark_energy - OK, you can assume that - many do. Many do not. Assumptions are often wrong. Research is often necessary to prove things one way or the other. Note my above posts.<br /><br />Btw, the Hebrew word for day, yohm (in various forms), is obviously related by derivation to yawm as in your post.<br /><br />I did not know that - thank you for informing me (us).<br /><br />Also, note above that reading Psalms 90:4 and 2 Peter 3:9, not twisting, shows God's concept of time is very different from man's concept of time.<br /><br />Did you note in your list the obvious fact that the 7th day did not end?<br /><br />Study of Scripture, not twisting, shows that the 7th day continues.<br /><br />Here is a sample of what research, not twisting, turns up on this:<br /><br />[Note in the following account whether we can still enter into God's rest day, whether this rest day still continues, or whether in fact it is too late because that day has already ended]<br /><br />(Hebrews 3:7-4:11) . . ."For this reason, just as the holy spirit says: “Today if YOU people listen to his own voice, 8 do not harden YOUR hearts as on the occasion of causing bitter anger, as in the day of making the test in the wilderness, 9 in which YOUR forefathers made a test of me with a trial, and yet they had seen my works for forty years. 10 For this reason I became disgusted with this generation and said, ‘They always go astray in their hearts, and they themselves have not come to know my ways.’ 11 So I swore in my anger, ‘They shall not enter into my rest.’” 12 Beware, brothers, for fear there should ever develop in any one of YOU a wicked heart lacking faith by drawing away from the living God; 13 but keep on exhorting one another each day, as long as it may be called “Today,” for fear any one of YOU should become hardened by the deceptive power of sin. 14 For we actually become partakers of the Christ only if we make fast our hold on the confidence we had at the beginning firm to the end, 15 while it is b
 
N

newtonian

Guest
tplank - I am not completely satisfied - still researching. <br /><br />It is fine to have faith without the degree of proof I prefer - consider me a doubting Thomas type.<br /><br />I would like to know the exact length of each creative day - that is why I am so interested in science since it fills in details we are left to discover.<br /><br />The Bible does not tell all - it does leave us the joy of scientific discovery - as we are invited to do in Romans 1:20 - i.e. to learn of God's qualities by the study of the things made - for one example: by scientific study.<br /><br />Yes, I am aware some religions teach God is timeless. However, the Bible does not state that, and my religion does not teach that. <br /><br />The very name of God, Jehovah, comes from the Hebrew verb for "to be" in the causative sense and is defined: "He causes to be." [there are other definitions, as is the case with many words]<br /><br />Thus the definition of God's name {YHWH, not elohim (=God, plural of excellence) or adonay (= Lord)}is linked to the observed scientific principle of cause and effect and identifies Jehovah God as the First Cause.<br /><br />Cause and effect cannot proceed without time, so God's name is linked with time in its very definition.<br /><br />The Bible repeatedly refers to time in reference to God.<br /><br />This shows God's qualities of long-suffering and patience.<br /><br />Here is one of many examples of this:<br /><br />(2 Peter 3:8-9) 8 However, let this one fact not be escaping YOUR notice, beloved ones, that one day is with Jehovah as a thousand years and a thousand years as one day. 9 Jehovah is not slow respecting his promise, as some people consider slowness, but he is patient with YOU because he does not desire any to be destroyed but desires all to attain to repentance.<br /><br />BTW - will what God desires actually happen - i.e. will all attain to repentance? Often religions cite "omnipotence" without really learning about God's qualities in the Bible!<br /><br></br>
 
B

ben89

Guest
theres a heated argument in teh Human Biology forum bout creation too. just thought people here might b intersted/ the thred is ID replace evolution
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

Latest posts