₦airaland Forum

joe4christ: Guy, stop twisting the scripture to suit your ideology abeg, the bible says in the 1st Day of creation God said let there be light

How long did it take for the light to appear, instantly, as one would turn on an electric bulb?

and separated the light from the darkness and he called the light day while the dark night, the day and night here is a representative of time which is 24 earthly hours,

If a portion of one creative day (the light portion) was also called 'day', it would be baseless assumption if one says each creative day was the same as a solar day in length.

Moreover, the entire period of the six time units or creative "days" dedicated to the preparation of planet Earth is summed up in one all-embracing "day" at Genesis 2:4: "These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens," KJV...In other words, all the six creative days are described as a "day".

The "day" as used in Genesis creation account, is not the same as a 24-hour solar day.

and the earth has'nt change since then, atleast we know it has been like this for thousands of years of earthly civilizations.

I would rather say the earth has changed a lot since then. There was no direct sunlight on creative days 1-3. The light then was diffused, and came over time.

The earth's atmosphere was thicker,...cleared over time.

Solar days began on day 4 with the discernibility of the stellar bodies - the sun and co.

So, dont think you are doing God any service by twisting the scripture to suite your idea.
Thank you!

It would rather be a twist if I say each creative day, whose length is never mentioned in the bible, was 24 hours in length.

Alfa Seltzer: Exodus 20:11

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.

And don't go about the nonsense that 1 day is not actually 1 day because the same god in Genesis chapter one went out of his way to emphasize that each day is a normal 24 hour day. For example in verse five he said:

"And there was evening and there was morning, one day."

Verse 8: "And there was evening and there was morning, a second day."

Verse 13: "There was evening and there was morning, a third day."

For each day of creation the pattern is the same: evening, morning, number, day. Just part of that pattern, for example using the words "evening" and "day" together, tells us it was a 24 hour day. But god says in three ways -- evening, morning, number -- that the word day means... an ordinary 24 hour day. god is making it very clear: he created everything in six ordinary days.

The evening and morning' in Genesis chapter 1 does not limit the meaning to a literal 24 hours.

Morning = the early part of the day; the earliest period

Evening = the latter part of the day; a latter concluding time period.

If one creative day = 100,000 years; the morning would be the early years of 100,000 years, while the evening would be the latter concluding years of the same 100,000 years.

Man's situation does not compare with that of the Creator, who does not reside within our solar system and who is not affected by its various cycles and orbits. For man, a 1,000-year period represents some 365,242 individual time units of day and night, but to the Creator it can be just one unbroken time period in which he begins the carrying out of some purposeful activity and brings it on to its successful conclusion, much as a man begins a task in the morning and concludes it by the day's end.

Hadeyeancah: This is NIGERIA report card at 53 years.


Kidnapping..............A1

Electricity.... .........E8

Education...... .......E8

Prostitution... .......A1

Good Road........... ..D7

Banking Sector.....E8

Bombing........ .. .......A1

Creativity..... .........D7

Telecommunication.......E8

Security....... ............F9

Corruption..... .........A1

Cash Embezzlement.....A1

Leadership..............F9

Job opportunity.... ...F9

Your grading is inconsistent. Kidnapping and bombing can't each be A1, while Job opportunity and security are marked F9 each.

There is no nation under the sun, where leadership can be marked, F9, while corruption and cash embezzlement are A1.

Erukuomoibadan: The bible says In the beginning God created heaven and earth ...I've always ask this question and no one has been able to answer it ,the question is ,where was God before he made Heaven ?

He was in the spirit realm - the spiritual heaven

It's just a question ,Im a believer not an atheist ..I would be very delighted if someone could answer this for me

The opening words of the bible: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth", refer to the creation of the physical heavens and earth.

God does not reside in the physical heavens, being a Spirit. His throne is in the spirit realm - the spiritual heaven. That is why, from his supreme or ultimate position, God, in effect, is said to 'look down' to see the physical heavens and earth.

"No one can compare with the LORD our God. His throne is high above, and he looks down to see the heavens and the earth". - Psalms 113:5-6 Contemporary English Version (CEV)

The above also explains why man can and will never detect God's presence with any material apparatus in space.

kingteeee: All I knw is dat tithe is compulsory for every christian

You lie!

If one donates 12% of his income, would it be acceptable? Would you call that tithe?

sholasys: Please bro, Jesus is more that angel, he is spirit and HE IS GOD. Sorry i dont have time to explain this.

Are angels flesh?

Emusan: My first quote of you is to clear that Heb 1:5 which you misinterpreted.
My point here is to clear that Jesus is not an Angel according to the OP. If you want to talk about Jesus being God or not, create another thread.

Lol... When you brought in Isaiah 40:3, were you not trying to prove that Jesus is God? Be reminded that you have not answered my questions regarding it.

Hope is clear that Heb 1:5 makes Jesus not an Angel?

You were required to identify someone that was made unique, greater and better than his fellows. See the question in part:
"...For to which of the angels did God ever say..." Heb 1:4-5 KJV

It is clear that the resurected Jesus is the one that was elevated to a unique position above his fellows. True or false?

"..therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows". Heb. 1:9 KJV.

The expression: "...above thy fellows", shouldn't that tell you Jesus is a fellow angel?

If I say: "thy fellow student" or "thy fellow worker" or "thy fellow nairalander", what does that imply? Wouldn't that mean you are also a student, or a worker, or a nairalander, respectively?

In view of the above, the one that was exalted above his fellow angels, is also an angel.

Beside I didn't deny your all your quote above.
Shalom!

Meaning, you have agreed with Jesus Christ that God did not come in person, but sent him as His representative, thus, fulfilling Isaiah 40:3.
If I represent you, I am not you, but different from you in person, though may be one in purpose.

Emusan: My first quote of you is to clear that Heb 1:5 which you misinterpreted.

HEBREWS 1:1-2
God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds; - KJV

Today, God is transmitting his message to us through Jesus. In the past, it was through human messengers - the prophets. Would it be out of place to say Jesus is God's spirit messenger?


HEBREWS 1:4-5
"Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they. For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father , and he shall be to me a Son?" KJV

Heb 1:4 tells us that Jesus has been elevated above his fellows. To buttress this fact, Heb 1:5 asks: "For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?"
The question at Heb. 1:5 authenticates what was said at Heb. 1:4 - that Jesus has been raised above his fellows. The two verses (Hebrews 1:4-5) are in consistent with Hebrews 1:8-9 and prophesy at Psalms 45:6-7.


HEBREWS 1:8-9
"But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom. Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows". KJV.

PSALM 45:6-7
"...therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness [b]above thy fellows"[/b]. - KJV
The above is self-explanatory. Jesus has been exalted above thy fellows.

QUESTIONS:
1. Who are Jesus' fellows?
2. Doesn't that imply Jesus is a fellow angel?


HEBREWS 1:13-14
"But to which of the angels said he at any time, Sit on my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool? Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation?" KJV

Angels are ministering spirits, sent to bring man to salvation. Foremost in this course is Jesus Christ. Recall that at Heb 1:2 God says He is speaking to us through His son. So, ministerial assignment is primarily Jesus'. In fact, Hebrews 2:10 describes him as the captain(KJV) or leader(BBE) of our salvation - no other angel performs this angelic assignment better than their leader.
Conclusively, Jesus is God's chief spirit messenger, with the responsibility of transmitting his father's message of salvation to all thirsty ones.

He leads his fellows - other ministering spirits to ensure the will of his father is accomplished. Virtually all the verses in Hebrews chapter one describe Jesus as God's chief angel (the chief spirit messenger).

Emusan: Forget about this your jumbo-Jumbo who is Isaiah said his coming and who fulfuilled the promise?

Isaiah didn't say prophet, God's messenger, Angel he simply says "...our GOD"

What you people failed to understand is how to differenciate between Jesus Earthly message and His Divinity.

Clear that verse in Isaiah before you comment again.

Shalom!

Anyone who is sincere-hearted would know you have not addressed my post. Go through it again and tell me what you have refuted.

"I am come in my Father’s name..." - John 5:43; 8:29. KJV

"And he that sent me is with me ... for I do always those things that please him". - John 8:29 KJV


1. Did God not come representatively?

2. He that represented God, and acted perfectly according to His instructions, and delivered His message to us, can be described as God's messenger, true or false?

I would appreciate it if you answer the above questions.

Emusan: @Joagba

You've really tried with this people.

How can they explain this verse in Isaiah 40:3 "KJV:The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make straight in the desert a highway for our God.
ESV:A voice cries: “In the wilderness prepare the way of the Lord; make straight in the desert a highway for our God.
NIV:A voice of one calling: “In the wilderness prepare the way for the Lord; make straight in the desert a highway for our God.
AMP:A voice of one who cries: Prepare in the wilderness the way of the Lord [clear away the obstacles]; make straight and smooth in the desert a highway for our God!

The first sentence was fulfilled by John the Baptist. Isaiah made it clear that John will prepare the way for God not Angel. Jesus is the one who fulfilled the last sentence.


Shalom!

Jesus represented his Father. He came in his Father's name and had the assurance that his Father was always with him because he did the things pleasing to his Father.

"I am come in my Father’s name..." - John 5:43; 8:29. KJV

"And he that sent me is with me: the Father hath not left me alone; for I do always those things that please him". - John 8:29 KJV

God came representatively. In view of this, Jesus could say: "...he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; - John 14:9 KJV.

The above role by Jesus qualifies him to be described also as "God's messenger".

Human messengers are called "prophets". Spirit messengers are called "angels".

Therefore, Jesus is both the greatest prophet and the greatest angel - the greatest messenger of God.

true2god: Ok, answer this question possed by Paul in Hebrews without having to jextapose incoherent verses to back up ur falsehood.
Which of the angels has God ever said 'sit at my right hand till i make ur enemy ur foot-stool'?

Highly rewarded and elevated angel Michael

I need u look at the keyword there 'ever'. Simple comprehension makes an elementary school pupil understands that no any angel has God ever asked to sit at his right hand, None (even Michael).

No other angel has ever been given such a dignified heavenly position, except he that was made lower than his fellows in form. He that humbly took the form of flesh, lived like and with man. Perfectly represented his father on earth, suffered trials and died for all.

If a student is uniquely promoted or rewarded for his wonderful performance, such expression can fittingly be used to describe his unique reward. It does not mean he is no longer or had never been a student. In fact, it implies he is not just a student, but the best/greatest among his fellows.

Thank God u admited that an arch angel is an angel. A headboy is still a student as well. Or are u saying u knw better than the writer of Hebrew?

If this headboy is uniquely rewarded for his absolute obedience and humility, the question Paul is asking is: which of the students has the school authority EVER rewarded as such? Are they not all students with the responsibility of...? Read Hebrews 1:13-14 and ponder over it.
The subject of Paul's discussion was about the glorification of Jesus.

Imagine how odd it would be if one responds as follows: 'the headboy is not a student'.

This lie is obviosly taught by the watchtower and not a bible teaching. The verse u quoted in malachi does not in anyway collerate with the book of hebrew. The 'angel' in malachi is rendered by many bible translators as messenger in many translation. Taking a lot at that verse John the baptist (the angel that prepares the way of the lord according to ur quote above) is not an angel, yet the verse rendered it as angel.

The bible never conflicted itself on this issue, it is only u guys that r always swalowing wat watchtower gives as 'bible teachings' without course to do personal/independent study.

Iroko tree, fig tree, mango tree etc are all trees no matter how special u see any of dem. I knw u will not agree with me unless the light becomes brighter and a new teaching tell u dat angel michael is not Jesus christ.

"But to which of the angels said he at any time, Sit on my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool? Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation?" Hebrews 1:13-14 (KJV)

As a leader among his fellows, Jesus plays a leading role in the angelic assignment of bringing man to salvation - no other does it like him.
Propheticall, this is what was said concerning the above:

"...therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows". Psalm 45:7 - KJV

Joagbaje: GOD NEVER CALLED ANGELS HIS SON
Hebrews 1:5-7
For God never said to any angel, "You are my Son, and today I have given you the honor that goes with that name." But God said it about Jesus.

"For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?" Hebrews 1:5 (KJV)

The above, undoubtedly, confirms that Jesus is an angel.

For which of you nairalander have I said at any time "you are my moderator over religious section....if not Obadiah 777?"

Grammatically and logically speaking, Hebrews 1:5 is a-stand-alone-proof that Jesus is an angel of God. It shows he is a fellow angel as Obadiah 777 is a fellow nairalander. Moreover, see below one of the prophesies that relates to Hebrews 1:5:

"Thine arrows are sharp in the heart of the king’s enemies; whereby the people fall under thee.
Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: the sceptre of thy kingdom is a right sceptre.
Thou lovest righteousness, and hatest wickedness: therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness [size=16pt]above thy fellows[/size]". Psalm 45:5-7 - KJV

Note the expression: "thy fellows".

Question: Thy fellows what?

MICHEAL COULDN'T REBUKE SATAN DIRECTLY
Jude 1:9
Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee.

"But Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing judgment, but said, The Lord rebuke thee." Jude 1:9 (ASV)

The blue shows Michael has the power and authority to judge even the devil. Such expression in blue would be very unnecessary if Micheal does not have the power to bring judgement, even upon the devil........Another strong proof that this Micheal is not an ordinary angel, but glorified Jesus, with the power and authority to judge bestowed on him by his Father. He did not judge the devil since his time of judgement was/is still ahead.

JESUS REBUKED SATAN
Matthew 4:10

You miss the point and sense of that scripture. If man can rebuke satan, is it God's angel that can't?

"Get out of here, Satan," Jesus told him. "The Scriptures say, Worship only the Lord God. Obey only him. '"

When faced with temptation, I can also say: "get out of here, Satan..."

Do you know when the tittle, "Lord" is used in connection with the son and the father? Who is Lord God?

MICHEAL HAS EQUALS, HE IS NOT THE ONLY ARCHANGEL , JESUS HAS NO EQUALS

Daniel 10:13
. . . but, lo, Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me. . .

Michael has no equal, he is the only archangel. The only person that is greater than him is his father.

Among gods, there is hierarchy. Among kings, there is hierarchy. Among princes, there is hierarchy. Etc. Dan. 10:13 is very weak a point, in this case.

Archangel = an angel ranked above all other angels in celestial hierarchy. There can never be more than one of such angel. He is the firstborn of all creation. The first to be used as a messenger. Through him, his father created other angelic sons and all human sons.

Joagbaje: GOD DIDN'T SUBJECT THE WORLD TO ANGEL[size=14pt]S[/size]
Hebrews 2:5

Yes, not to angel[size=14pt]s[/size], but a glorified Jesus.

For unto the angel[size=14pt]s[/size] hath he not put in subjection the world to come, whereof we speak.

Paul affirms that God gave only Jesus, not the angels, the authority over the world. Jesus is the only one that humbly took the form of flesh and lived with us, not the angels.

He is the only one that represented his father on earth and delivered his message to us in ways no other being ever did.

He is the one that died for us, not the angels. Hence, it's only Jesus that deserved and received the reward, not the angels. No wonder then other angels were later commanded to bow or do obeisance to him as a mark of honor and deep respect when he was rewarded.

Note: the almighty can never be rewarded by anyone, but Jesus was.

If Jesus had ever enjoyed these privileges before now, such wouldn't have been described as a reward. No one would call it, "elevation".Thus, God rewarded only Jesus, an archangel, not angel[size=14pt]s[/size].

ALL THINGS INCLUDING MICHEAL ARE SUBJECT TO CHRIST
Hebrews 2:8
Thou hast put all things in subjection under his feet. For in that he put all in subjection under him, he left nothing that is not put under him. But now we see not yet all things put under him.

As a reward for his obedience and humility, all things, excluding the father were put under the glorified Jesus.

"For He has put all things under His feet. But when He says all things are put under Him, it is evident that He who put all things under Him is excepted." 1 Corinthians 15:27 NKJV

Even at his glorified state, his father is still greater than him, while he (Jesus) is greater than everyone else. He has been given more authority and power as a reward.

MICHEAL WORSHIP JESUS
Hebrews 1:6

Though many have worshiped self, but Jesus will never. Angel Michael is Jesus.

And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him.

Other angels bow or do obeisance to exalted/highly rewarded son of God. The original word translated as "worship", by some translators, did not convey the sense of rendering sacred service to Jesus, but honor and deep respect.

WORLD WAS CREATED BY JESUS

Ephesians 3:9
. . . . the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ:

Colossians 1:16
Christ himself is the Creator who made everything in heaven and earth, the things we can see and the things we can't; the spirit world with its kings and kingdoms, its rulers and authorities; all were made by Christ for his own use and glory.

Yes, the Heavenly Father created all things by his son much like an earthly father would build and furnish an estate by his son.

The son was the workman to his father. "Then I was by him, as a master workman..." Proverbs 8:30 (ASV)

hisblud: not a translation but a concordance, Strong exhaustive concordance.. look at the picture attached and the circled word in 9999

You said: "This word was added by the translators for better readability in the English..." Ok, but it beats me why no single translation renders it as such. Nevertheless, exclusion of "is" does not change my opinion on the usage of the word, "spirit" at John 4:24a.

Can you please tell us what you know about spirit/who God is? It seems you have a lot to share.

hisblud: Please fresky, kindly look at the original, there is no "is"

i repeat

there is no "is" Thus it is written God a Spirit...

Kindly provide, at least, a translation that supports your claim. If you have none, go ahead.

hisblud: Lol... this is really an interesting rendering there emusan according to fresky...

Your comment implies YOU reason alike.

Emusan: Now that you've chosen option F,

Then the text can read "God an invisible to human eyes, those that worship Him must
worworship him in an invisible to human eyes and in truth" hope I didn't miss the road? Remeber 'is' is not in the original text.

Shalom!

To know if you missed the road or not, do the following:

Substitute the meaning of the word, "is" in places you see "is" in your statement in red.

hisblud: I you to be y guess and you skipped 1, could you show what lead to the Jn 4:24



you are putting the cart before the horse... lets understand the WHO [God a Spirit] before we understand HOW and WHAT [in spirit and truth]



Ok this is interesting...

First of all you agreed that "Spirit" can mean any of this contextually here

https://www.nairaland.com/1422575/frosbel-how-god-god#17876502



then you said later


https://www.nairaland.com/1422575/frosbel-how-god-god#17899404

then later on to this,



you said

https://www.nairaland.com/1422575/frosbel-how-god-god#18261067

then you finally added this




Dear fresky, you are agreeing that contextually, the word "spirit" in jn 4:24 cannot be any of these


but this
?

In addition, remember, the word "is" is not in the original greek, its

"God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth" John 4:24 KJV

"God is a spirit" = God is invisible to human sight

OPTION "F": That which is invisible.

Depending on the context, "spirit" can also be translated to mean any of the things you earlier listed.

hisblud: Add to the list, such as ....



oops,



I now see !



1...Be my guest and fill in the blank spaces...

2. we are not trying to understand the manner of worship , but we want to know WHO God is?

Lol..., you forget we were talking about contextual meaning.

Ok, this is one of the addition to your statement above....

so now..
?

which best fits the context...?

Option f

God is a spirit = He is invisible to human sight.

hisblud: Both of you should read what you said above... you agreed that the word "Spirit" can mean any of this...

Yes, the word "spirit" can be translated to mean any of those four things you listed.

I brought forth a verse for you to give the context of the word used in Jn4:24, and all i get is some confusion

I would say you are rather the one confused, for you make it appears spirit means just four things.

@Fresky, btw, the word "is" is not in the original and it reads thus


So which one can we rightly divide accurately and contextually to be referred to as "Spirit"

Should it be
a. God an impersonal force
b. God a mental disposition
c. God a (an) attitude
d. God a Being

None of the above

"God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth". John 4:24 KJV

To know the context in which the word "spirit" is used, we must answer the following questions.
1. What lead to Jesus' statement at John 4:24?
2. What does it mean to worship God in spirit and in truth?

I repeat, spirit can also mean: that which is invisible to human sight

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?

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: 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.

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: First and foremost Freksy, I commend you for the pain-staking effort you must have put in the above posts, trying to explain away the fallacious, inconclusive, irrational, invalid, incorrect, sophistical, unreasonable, scientific unsound commentary known as the bible.

Take it easy.

Let me take you back in time, before the modern period began.

Ok

You see, the bible was so literal in it's implications that the bible scholars took it at face value. From what they could garner from the passages, the earth was the centre of the universe, while heaven is celestial(otherworldly, not of this dimension). Pursuing their logic, since the earth was the centre, Everything else is secondary.

In fact according to their comprehension of the 'holy book' God lived directly behind the clouds and if you were able to navigate past the clouds somehow, you would see God. The tower of babel Story proves my point in that regard.

Most Christian Apologists of today are quick to plead allegory, claiming that most passages of the bible are metaphoric and shouldn't be taken literally. Somehow, I don't see the poetic state of God as he created man from dust, woman from ribs of man, or when he sent tower of babel crumbling down. All these are biblical literal manifestations of God and shouldn't be further undermine by unreasonable excuses.

You have said it all. Many of those bible scholars pursued their logics according to their comprehension of the holy book.
This is not different from what you and other self-acclaimed science scolars on NL are doing - pursuing your logic according to your comprehension of science.
For example, you fail to realize that the light you see today from stars left them many years ago.

In the beginning God was very literal and clear as he could be. He created the heaven and earth, Heaven being his home along with all his angels and what-not. From the biblical context, he wasn't referring to the 'starry Heavens or he would have mentioned the stars.

Genesis account of creation has nothing to do with spiritual/immaterial heaven - the place of abode of the spirit/immaterial beings.
Everything created in that account was 100% material. The heaven metioned at Genesis 1:1 was physical/material, with its stellar bodies. The earth too was material with its crust.

The earth that was created had its crust, but the bible did not mention it at Gen 1:1. However, we got this information from a related text. Similarly, the heaven that was created had its stellar bodies, but the bible did not also mention it at Gen 1:1. Nevertheless, from related scriptures, we got more information on that.

Moreover, be reminded that the bible was not written as a science textbook, hence, certain scientific details in the account were unnecessary.

The earth was without form and void, in other words, the earth was very dark and completely empty of life. Now how could earth be that dark if the stars were already in attendance? [Even in very dark nights of nowadays when moonlight is not visible, Stars, give out some illuminance of their own, thereby creating a mini-moonlight atmosphere].

When God commanded light to appear, in the physical world it could be construed as daylight coming to the surface of the earth for the first time. In a Scientific world only two things could hide Sun rays from reaching the earth surface - Eclipse(caused by the moon), and, Night(caused by earth rotation) - thereby bringing everything to total darkness.

LOL... the light you see today left those stars many years ago.

So how come that the Sun remained hidden from the earth until God commanded it to appear? If God had already created it, it should have illuminated the earths surface immediately, don't you think? Surely cloud cover isn't enough to keep out the rays of the Sun from reaching the surface(?)

In that regard, the bible was very literal. It meant everything as it left it, religious, sentimental, supernatural. Trying to attach scientific back-up(connotation) or calling it a metaphor would only serve to undermine it further.
Biblical Earth precedes Sun and no amount of excuses would change that. It's what was written in the first chapter of The Book Of Genesis.

You probably know that photons are created by fusion reactions inside the Sun’s core. They start off as gamma radiation and then are emitted and absorbed countless times in the Sun’s radiative zone, wandering around inside the massive star before they finally reach the surface.
What you probably don’t know, is that these photons striking your eyeballs today were ACTUALLY created tens of thousands of years ago and it took that long for them to be emitted by the sun.

[size=16pt]Simply put, the light from the sun that you see today left it core tens of thousands of years ago.[/size]

Once they escaped the surface, it was only a short 8 minutes (with present atmosphere) for those photons to cross the vast distance from the Sun to the Earth.

Can you now see why the earth was in absolute darkness, despite the fact that the sun pre-existed it?

"And the earth was without form , and void ; and darkness was upon the face of the deep..." - Gen 1:2 KJV

"When I made the cloud the garment thereof, and thick darkness a swaddlingband for it," - Job 38:9 (KJV)

unmask: what I love most about the chritian-atheist argument is the amount of maybes it generates


in the article referenced by vicky, the poster siad the earth could have been created in six phases and not six days

another person said all things (electricity, cars and maybe computers had been created, just waiting for mañ to find it)

guess some people should be reminded that christians persecuted scientists for discovering most of the things they used today.....calling them heretics.....

I actually thought someone will say six days meant sixthousand yrs

You quoted my post just to put up this?

Now what is your point?

Ray McBlue: What overcast?

That of the primeval's atmosphere that enveloped the earth then like swaddling bands.

To go further, you need to understand the concept of Space.

Ok sir.

Outside the protection of our ionosphere, the sun rays are deadly. A direct contact with the Sun would cause severe radiation resulting to cancer and death. What the ionosphere does is to filter the rays and reduce the harmful effect without reducing the intensity.

Do other planets in our solar system have such protective atmosphere?

In addition to being a protective shell, the atmosphere keeps the warmth of the earth from being lost to the coldness of space. And the atmosphere is itself kept from escaping by the earth's gravitational pull. That gravity is just strong enough to accomplish this, but not so strong that our freedom of movement is hampered.

Are these, and lots more, works of blind chance?

What I'm trying to say is that no amount of natural overcast(cloud) would stop the Sun from peeking through, take for instance, even when the Sun isn't shining on daytime, daylight remains present. That's because, the overcast(cloud cover) couldn't prevent Sunlight from peeking through.

The primitive earth's atmosphere (initially rich in carbon dioxide) was far thicker and darker than what we have today. It enwrapped the earth like swaddling bands around a baby.

"When I made the cloud the garment thereof, and thick darkness a swaddlingband for it," - Job 38:9 (KJV)

Thus, the light from the sun came in a gradual process, extending over a long period of time, not instantaneously as when you turn on an electric light bulb. The light source(s) were not discernible immediately until much later.

Bottom line; Your overcast theory is invalid.

No!

Bottom line:
1. Impliedly, your equation of the refractive index of today's atmosphere with the primeval's is quite illogical.

2. It's diffused light, not direct light from the sun that first reached the earth. This explains why the sun was not visible on "day" one. There is essentially no direct sunlight under an overcast sky, so all light then was diffuse sky radiation.

In other words, on the first "day" diffused light from the sun evidently penetrated the "swaddling bands", but the sources of that light could not have been seen by an earthly observer (had man been there) because of the cloud layers still enveloping the earth.

Ray McBlue: Joshua told the Sun and moon to stand still and they complied, implying that Sun and the moon were revolving around the planet. Now, how is that logical?

Very logical!

Joshua told the sun and moon to stand still in relation to the viewpoint of those at the battle scene. The sunset was postponed for almost a day's time. Joshua 10:1-14

Today, we know the sun neither rises nor sets in reality, but the rotating earth makes it seem so to earthly observers.

Sunrise = sun rising above the horizon.....gives mental impression of an upward movement of the sun.

Sunset = sun falling below the horizon......gives mental impression of a downward movement of the sun.

Although the Sun appears to "rise" from the horizon, it is actually the Earth's motion that causes the Sun to appear. The illusion of a moving (rising and falling) Sun results from Earth observers being in a rotating reference frame.

Nevertheless, we consider it normal and logical to use those expressions (sunrise and sunset) when considering the aforementioned. This does not imply the sun literally rises or falls. It does not mean we rather take the earth to be the center of the universe. Logically too, Joshua was correct, considering the viewpoint of those at the battle scene.

Moreover, while the event at Jos 10:1-14 could mean a stopping of earth's rotation, it could have been accomplished by other means, such as a refraction of solar and lunar light rays to produce the same effect.

Whatever the method employed, it demonstrated that "Whatever the Lord pleases he does, in heaven and on earth, in the seas and all deeps". Psalms 135:6

Ray McBlue: Kinda made sense...

I knew that...

I object!

In the biblical context, heaven represents God's home, which isn't visible in the corporeal universe, so thus couldn't be the stars. In fact, Earth is the centre of the universe, if you take the bible literally.

According to the bible, the physical heaven(s) may apply to the full range of earth's atmosphere in which dew and frost form, the birds fly etc.

"Therefore God give thee of the dew of heaven, ..." Gen. 27:28 (KJV)

"Behold the birds of the heaven, that they sow not,..." Matthew 6:26 (ASV)



Also, the physical "heaven(s)" extend through earth's atmosphere and beyond to the regions of outer space with their stellar bodies - sun, moon, stars, and constellations. (De 4:19; Isa 13:10; 1Co 15:40,)

"When you look up to the sky and see the sun, moon, and stars – the whole heavenly creation ..." Due. 4:19 - NET

"For the stars of heaven and the constellations thereof ..." Isa 13:10 KJV

[size=16pt]The first verse of the Bible describes the creation of such starry heavens prior to the development of earth for human habitation. (Ge 1:1)[/size]

These heavens show forth God's glory, even as does the expanse of atmosphere, being the work of God's "fingers."

"When I consider thy heavens, the work of thy fingers, The moon and the stars, which thou hast ordained; What is man, that thou art mindful of him?" Psalms 8:3-4 (ASV)

Ray McBlue: Genesis 2:1 And the earth was without form and void, and the darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
This verse showed that he had already created the planet itself. It was without form because of the darkness encroaching it. The void meant that it was devoid of any life(it was empty).
You don't seem to know your scriptures, do you?

I am sure you mean Genesis 1:2, not Genesis 2:1.

It tells us about the condition of the earth prior to its preparation for life.

It does not erase what was written at Gen. 1:1 which shows that, in the BEGINNING God created the HEAVEN (starry heaven, with the sun inclusive)...

Gen 1:2 does not say there was no material/physical heaven with its stellar bodies before the earth was created.

Ray McBlue: Genesis 1:3 And God said, "Let
there be light," and there was light"

That light was the Sun.

Genesis account was not written to tell us the how/detail of creation, but the order in which things first appeared from the perspective of an earthly observer, had man been there.

"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth" - Gen 1:1
Beginning means the time when something starts; the first part of an event.

Gen 1:1 shows that God first created:
1. the heaven
2. the earth
Question: What made up this material heaven? Were the stars (including the sun) not part of this material heaven? Certainly, they were!

God also created the earth in the beginning. The earth was formless, lifeless and in darkness. Gen 1:1,2.

Subsequent events were no longer about the creation of the material heaven and earth, but the preparation of the earth for life.
At Gen 1:3, the preparation of the earth for life commenced. "And God said, Let there be light: and there was light"... This was light from the long-existing sun in the outer space, but the sun itself could not be seen through the overcast.

idnoble135: ^
The wind is a spirit? Lol

The wind bloweth where it listeth , and thou hearest the sound thereof , but canst not tell whence it cometh , and whither it goeth : so is every one that is born of the Spirit. John 3:8 KJV

the Spirit where he willeth doth blow, and his voice thou dost hear, but thou hast not known whence he cometh, and whither he goeth; thus is every one who hath been born of the Spirit.' John 3:8 YLT

The Spirit breatheth where he will; and thou hearest his voice, but thou knowest not whence he cometh, and whither he goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit. John 3:8 (DRB)