Fresky, I hail thee.

But you did exactly what most Christian apologists do, you try to prove your points using science. Wrong approach.


First and foremost, I will start off with this verse;

Psalm 104:5 "You fixed the earth
upon its foundaton not to be moved forever."

If that doesn't prove that biblical earth is the centre of the Universe around
which everything else revolve, I don't know what else will.


I will prode further...



Daniel 4:11 The tree grew large and strong and its top touched the sky; it was
visible to the ends of the earth.

This proves that biblical Earth is flat.



Bat is a bird in the bible...
Deutoronomy 14:11 to 18 You may eat any clean bird. But these you may not eat: the eagle, the vulture, the black vulture, the red kite, the black kite, any kind of falcon, any kind of raven, the horned owl, the screech owl, the gull, any kind of hawk, the little owl, the great owl, the white owl, the desert owl, the osprey, the cormorant, the stork, any kind of heron, the hoopoe and the bat


The Biblical rabbit chews the Cud...
Leviticus 11:6 The rabbit, though it chews the cud, does not have a divided hoof...

The above is only the tip of the iceberg.

Let me dissect it from the beginning.

Fasten your seat belt cuz you are in for a wide ride!


"In the beginning"
(When was the universe created?)

The Genesis 1 creation account conflicts with the order of events that are known to science. In Genesis, the earth is created before light and stars, birds and whales before reptiles and insects, and flowering plants before any animals. The order of events known from science is just the opposite.

God creates light and separates light from darkness, and day from night, on the first day. Yet he didn't make the light producing objects (the sun and the stars) until the fourth day(1:14-19). And how could there be "the evening and the morning" on the first day if there was no sun to mark them? (1:3-5)

God spends one-sixth of his entire creative effort (the second day) working on a solid firmament. This strange structure, which God calls heaven, is intended to separate the higher waters from the lower waters. 1:6-8

Plants are made on the third day before
there was a sun to drive their photosynthetic processes ( 1:14-19). God lets "the earth bring forth" the plants, rather than creating them directly. Maybe Genesis is not so anti-evolution after all. (1:11)

In an apparent endorsement of astrology, God places the sun, moon, and stars in the firmament so that they can be used "for signs". This, of course, is exactly what astrologers do: read "the signs" in the Zodiac in an effort to predict what will happen on Earth. (1:14)

God makes two lights: "the greater light [the sun] to rule the day, and the lesser light [the moon] to rule the night." But
the moon is not a light, but only reflects light from the sun. And why, if God made the moon to "rule the night", does it spend half of its time moving through the daytime sky? (1:16)

"He made the stars also." God spends a day making light (before making the stars) and separating light from darkness; then, at the end of a hard day's work, and almost as an afterthought, he makes the trillions of stars.(1:16)

"And God set them [the stars] in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth." (1:17)

In verse 11, God "let the earth bring
forth" the plants. Now he has the earth "bring forth" the animals as well. So maybe the creationists have it all wrong. Maybe God created livings things through the process of evolution.

In Genesis 1 the entire creation takes 6 days, but the universe is 13.7 billion years old, with new stars constantly being formed.

Humans were not created instantaneously from dust and breath, but evolved over millions of years from simpler life forms.

After making the animals, God has Adam name them all. The naming of several million species must have kept Adam busy for a while.

God fashions a woman out of one of
Adam's ribs. Because of this story, it was commonly believed (and sometimes it is still said today) that males have one less rib than females. When Vesalius showed in 1543 that the number of ribs was the same in males and females, it created a storm of controversy.

Let me stop here.

I've already made my point. Science contradicts the bible, and vice versa, period.

so what is your point? When you build a house does the building come up first or the electricity.

naijaboyof4life: so what is your point? When you build a house does the building come up first or the electricity.

In the most logical sense, the building precedes the electricity, but again, the contractor may decide to work only at night and thus illuminates the whole site with flood lights, making electricity to precede the building even before it goes up. It can go either way, mate.

So how does your question contradicts what I said??

Ray McBlue: Fresky, I hail thee.

But you did exactly what most Christian apologists do, you try to prove your points using science. Wrong approach.

I learn about God by studying his words and works. Established scientific facts and revealed Bible truth are not at odds; rather, it's we that sometimes are.
Creation itself bears witness to the existence of a Creator. ( Romans 1:19, 20.)
Science confirms the Bible, not otherwise.

First and foremost, I will start off with this verse;

Psalm 104:5 "You fixed the earth
upon its foundaton not to be moved forever."

If that doesn't prove that biblical earth is the centre of the Universe around
which everything else revolve, I don't know what else will.

"Who laid the foundations of the earth, that it should not be removed for ever." Psalm 104:5 KJV

The verse stresses the permanence of the earth, not its immobility. The earth will never be 'shaken' out of existence, or destroyed, as other Bible verses confirm. (Psalm 37:29; Eccl. 1:4)

Psalm 104:5 has nothing to do with the relative motion of the earth and the sun.

I will prode further...



Daniel 4:11 The tree grew large and strong and its top touched the sky; it was
visible to the ends of the earth.

This proves that biblical Earth is flat.

What you quote up there was a dream....
"I Nebuchadnezzar was at rest in mine house, and flourishing in my palace: I saw a dream which made me afraid , ....This dream I king Nebuchadnezzar have seen. Now thou, O Belteshazzar, declare the interpretation thereof,...." Dan 4:4,18

Read Dan 4:20-37 for its interpretation, if you care.

The bible has never given any impression of a flat earth, instead, this is what it says:

"It is he that sitteth upon the globe of the earth,..." - Isaiah 40:22 (DRB)

"He stretched out the north over the empty space, and hangeth the earth upon nothing". - Job 26:7 (DRB)

Millenniums later, science confirmed the above scriptural truth, namely; that the earth is not flat, but spherical and is hung upon nothing.

Like i said earlier, established scientific facts and Bible truth are not at odds, it's we that sometimes are.

Bat is a bird in the bible...
Deutoronomy 14:11 to 18 You may eat any clean bird. But these you may not eat: the eagle, the vulture, the black vulture, the red kite, the black kite, any kind of falcon, any kind of raven, the horned owl, the screech owl, the gull, any kind of hawk, the little owl, the great owl, the white owl, the desert owl, the osprey, the cormorant, the stork, any kind of heron, the hoopoe and the bat

Bat was categorised as a bird in the bible because of a different classification system.

To the ancients, creatures such as bat were considered birds since they categorised all flying animals as birds. It was generic categorization. Hence, it is not an error, but a difference in categorization procedure.
Imposing upon the ancient text a modern system of categorization and then say that the bible is wrong, is a big error in thinking.

The Biblical rabbit chews the Cud...
Leviticus 11:6 The rabbit, though it chews the cud, does not have a divided hoof...
The above is only the tip of the iceberg.

"The hare is unclean to you because it chews the cud even though its hoof is not divided." Leviticus 11:6 NET

Rabbit and Hare, though alike, are two different creatures.

Centuries ago, the idea of “cud” had a somewhat broader meaning than a modern definition.
In modern English, animals that ‘chew the cud’ are called ruminants. They hardly chew their food when first eaten, but swallow it into a special stomach where the food is partially digested. Then it is regurgitated, chewed again, and swallowed into a different stomach. Animals which do this include cows, sheep and goats, and they all have four stomachs. rabbits are not ruminants in this modern sense.

However, the Hebrew phrase for ‘chew the cud’ simply means ‘raising up what has been swallowed’. Rabbits and hares practise refection, which is essentially the same principle as rumination, and does indeed ‘raise up what has been swallowed’. The food goes right through the rabbit and is passed out as a special type of dropping. These are re-eaten, or re-ingested. They just do so without the aid of multiple stomach compartments and can now nourish the rabbit as they have already been partly digested.

Is this the same as cud? In the final analysis, it is. Cud - chewing completes the digestion of partially digested food.

In view of the above, it is not an error of Scripture that ‘chewing the cud’ now has a more restrictive meaning than it did in Moses’ day. Indeed, rabbits and hares do ‘chew the cud’ in an even more specific sense.
It is not reasonable to accuse a 3500 - year - old document of error because it does not adhere to a modern man-made classification system. Once again, the Bible is right and you are wrong.

Ray McBlue:
Let me dissect it from the beginning.

Fasten your seat belt cuz you are in for a wide ride!

"In the beginning"
(When was the universe created?)

The Genesis 1 creation account conflicts with the order of events that are known to science. In Genesis, the earth is created before light and stars, birds and whales before reptiles and insects, and flowering plants before any animals. The order of events known from science is just the opposite.
God creates light and separates light from darkness, and day from night, on the first day. Yet he didn't make the light producing objects (the sun and the stars) until the fourth day(1:14-19). And how could there be "the evening and the morning" on the first day if there was no sun to mark them? (1:3-5)

Your failure to start your quote from Gen 1:1 implies you know the truth but just willfully ignor it.

"In the beginning God created the heaven (with it stellar bodies that later became visible on day 4) and the earth (with its crust that later became visible as dry land on day 3)" - GEN 1:1

"And God said, Let there be light: and there was light" - Gen 1:3
The light mentioned at Gen 1:3 was obviously from the starry heaven. Its source(s) were not seen because of THICK primordial atmosphere. It was diffused light.

God spends one-sixth of his entire creative effort (the second day) working on a solid firmament. This strange structure, which God calls heaven, is intended to separate the higher waters from the lower waters. 1:6-8

"God said, “Let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters and let it separate water from water. So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. It was so. God called the expanse “sky.” There was evening, and there was morning, a second day" Gen 1:6-8 New English Translation (NET)

The King James Version Bible, which uses "firmament," says in the margin, "expansion." This is because the Hebrew word ra·qi'a, translated "expanse," means to stretch out or spread out or expand.

The Genesis account says that God did it, but it does not say how. In whatever way the described separation occurred, it would look as though the 'waters above' had been pushed up from the earth. And birds could later be said to fly in "the expanse of the heavens," as stated at Genesis 1:20. - BBE, DARBY, YLT ...

Plants are made on the third day before
there was a sun to drive their photosynthetic processes ( 1:14-19). God lets "the earth bring forth" the plants, rather than creating them directly. Maybe Genesis is not so anti-evolution after all. (1:11)

God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: plants yielding seeds according to their kinds, and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds.” It was so."—Genesis 1:11.

By the close of this third creative day, land plants had been created. The diffused light would have become quite strong by then, ample for the process of photosynthesis so vital to green plants.

Note: Plants need light to produce their food, not necessarily sight of its source. They don't need to see light source(s) with "their eyes" before they can manufacture their food..... Lol, as if they have eyes.

Errors in the Creation

Aside from the obvious contradictions,
there are just a lot of things in this short section of the Bible that just doesn't make sense.

In Genesis 1:1 it says "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.", then later on in Genesis 1:8 it says "And God called the firmament Heaven."

So did he create heaven twice? Are there two heavens?

I thought maybe the first statement was just saying what God did, then it was going to explain in detail how he created heaven and earth...but in Genesis 1:2 the earth has already been created. So I have to believe that there was a double creation of heaven.


On the first day, God created light. No problem there, right? But God didn't
create any sources of light until the forth day. So did he only invent the concept of light on the first day, but no light was around until the forth day?

If he had light, as well as darkness, and light and day...then why did he have to make the sun, moon, and stars?

No matter how you look at the subject of light during the creation, it just doesn't add up.

Sunlight brings us to another problem. We know the sun was created on the forth day...but plants were created on the third day. We know plants require sunlight to live, so why did God make these things in this backwards order?

Now if we take the literal time frame, and a day in creation as being a 24 hour period, the plant thing isn't a real problem...plants can survive 24 hours. But then the whole creation story loses credibility...who really believes the universe was created in less than a week? Not even most creationist believe this one.

That is why many people say that a day in the creation was 1,000 to 7,000 years (depending on who you ask). Name a plant that can live 7,000 years with perfect
conditions...much less with no sunlight.


Its amazing that anyone would try to get this stuff taught in class as a fact, do you believe it, with all of these errors?

[size=16pt]Two Accounts of Creation[/size]

If there is one thing to be said about the Bible, its that it doesn't waste time in contradicting itself. Technically the very first word of the Bible is the beginning of the first contradiction.

The very first thing the Bible covers is creation, and there are two accounts of creation in Genesis...two different accounts.

The first account starts at Genesis 1:1 and ends at Genesis 2:3.

The second account begins at Genesis
2:4 and ends at Genesis 2:25.

Now let's see how they differ.

The order of creation in the first account.

1. Heaven and Earth

2. Light (night and day)

3. Sky

4. Plants

5. Sun, moon, and stars

6. Fish and birds

7. Land animals

8. Man and woman at the same time


The order of creation in the second account

1. Man

2. Plants

3. Birds and land animals

4. Woman

There is a reason to this, as there is for many of the errors in the Bible. The first account originated in a time when man wanted to believe that they were God's pride and joy. That this world was made for mankind. God created everything, and made this nice little place for him to put his masterpiece...man.

The second account is from a time when men were seeking dominance over women, and justified it by saying man was God's original creation, and worked with God in
naming things. Then women were made from a left over part of a man. Women always get dumped on in the Bible.

Ray McBlue:
In an apparent endorsement of astrology, God places the sun, moon, and stars in the firmament so that they can be used "for signs". This, of course, is exactly what astrologers do: read "the signs" in the Zodiac in an effort to predict what will happen on Earth. (1:14)

Firmanent = expanse
"God said, “Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them be signs to indicate seasons and days and years" Gen 1:14 - NET

Previously, on the first "day," the expression "Let there be light" was used. The Hebrew word there used for "light" is 'ohr, meaning light in a general sense. But on the fourth "day," the Hebrew word changes to ma·'ohr', which means the source of the light.

On the first "day" diffused light evidently penetrated the swaddling bands (Job 38:9), but the sources of that light could not have been seen by an earthly observer because of the cloud layers still enveloping the earth. Now, on this fourth "day," things apparently changed.
An atmosphere initially rich in carbon dioxide may have caused an earth-wide hot climate. But the lush growth of vegetation during the third and fourth creative periods/days would absorb some of this heat-retaining blanket of carbon dioxide. The vegetation, in turn, would release oxygen - a requirement for animal life.

Now, had there been an earthly observer, he would be able to discern the sun, moon and stars, which would "serve as signs and for seasons and for days and years." (Genesis 1:14)

The moon would indicate the passing of lunar months, and the sun the passing of solar days and years. The visibility of the long existing sun on this "day" laid the foundation for a 24-hour time division of a solar day.

These bodies were to serve "as signs" for the aforesaid, not for astrology, as you claim. God has repeatedly warned us against such practices.

God makes two lights: "the greater light [the sun] to rule the day, and the lesser light [the moon] to rule the night."

At first glance, this might seem to contradict the foregoing Scriptural explanation. Bear in mind, however, that Moses, the writer of Genesis, penned the creation account from the viewpoint of an earthly observer, had one been present. Apparently, the sun, moon, and stars became visible through earth's atmosphere at that time.

SUN, MOON AND STARS MADE VISIBLE FROM EARTH.... NOT CREATED!

"And God proceeded to make ('a•sah') the two great luminaries (ma•'ohr), the greater luminary for dominating the day and the lesser luminary for dominating the night, and also the stars." The Hebrew word 'a•sah' does not mean to create as with 'bara' in Genesis 1:1 where it says "God created Heaven and Earth," but rather to accomplish, bestow, or bring to completion - in this case, makes visible or bring to completion what was already existing.

The source of the once diffused light of day one, is now fully revealed by day four to be the already existing sun.

But the moon is not a light, but only reflects light from the sun. And why, if God made the moon to "rule the night", does it spend half of its time moving through the daytime sky? (1:16)

The moon serves as light by night, yes or no?

"He made the stars also." God spends a day making light (before making the stars) and separating light from darkness; then, at the end of a hard day's work, and almost as an afterthought, he makes the trillions of stars.(1:16)

Yes, he made trillions of stars of the starry heaven that were created in the beginning (Gen. 1:1) to also become visible in the expanse on this fourth creative "day".

"And God set them [the stars] in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth." (1:17)

"And God set them in the expanse of the heavens, to give light on the earth," Gen 1:17 BBE

Some of us believe in the myth that the inanimate trillions of stars created themselves, set trafic laws for themselves, obey and position themselves suppeply in space. If you look carefully at that scripture, what you'll see is not the hand of a blind chance, but that of an intelligent being. He sets celestial laws that superbly define the distance/positions of these bodies relative to the earth.

Ray McBlue:
In verse 11, God "let the earth bring forth" the plants. Now he has the earth "bring forth" the animals as well.

Recall that God used his son to create things. Those words were commands that prompted actions. His son carried them out. This is one of the reasons the son is also called, "the word".
"All things were made through him. Without him was not anything made that has been made". John 1:3 - WEB
"Then I was the craftsman by his side. I was a delight day by day, Always rejoicing before him," - Proverbs 8:30 - WEB

So, when God said: "let there be..., let the earth.... Etc. someone was there to carry those instructions out.

So maybe the creationists have it all wrong. Maybe God created livings things through the process of evolution.

WRONG! God created everything distinctly according to its kind. [size=14pt]Evolution of life from non-living matter is a myth and is full of speculations.[/size] To believe it, I need the faith as big as the universe.

In Genesis 1 the entire creation takes 6 days, but the universe is 13.7 billion years old, with new stars constantly being formed.

An hour, a thousand or a million years can mean a day. Has the bible ever told you the length of each "creative day"?

Humans were not created instantaneously from dust and breath, but evolved over millions of years from simpler life forms.

Your statement implies you believe man was created from dust and breath, but only disagree with the process.

[size=16pt]I challenge you to provide verifiable evidence of how man evolved from dust (non-living matter).[/size]

After making the animals, God has Adam name them all. The naming of several million species must have kept Adam busy for a while.

God fashions a woman out of one of
Adam's ribs. Because of this story, it was commonly believed (and sometimes it is still said today) that males have one less rib than females. When Vesalius showed in 1543 that the number of ribs was the same in males and females, it created a storm of controversy.

Yes, he was busy, not lazy. So?
You can't blame the bible for man believing what it does not say. Where is it written that man is less of one rib than woman?

Revisiting...

Revisiting

in the beginning, God created the HEAVENS and the earth.