Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,485 Year: 3,742/9,624 Month: 613/974 Week: 226/276 Day: 2/64 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   And God saw that it was good
Jesuslover153
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 17 (36783)
04-11-2003 7:53 PM


I had not put much thought towards considering what God said this too and what he did not say this to in an assesment of the 6 day creation until reading 'Starlight and Time' by Russel Humphreys...
He makes mention that day 2 is the only day in which God did not say that what he did on that day was good, but after looking over the creation events this is not the only day in which God makes something and does not give the good words...
on day one he does not imply that the heavens or the earth are good, which to me implies that they were not complete and/or that God was not satisfied with that current state of creation...
but on the first day he does say that the light is good...
but yet we see him making objects of light on day 4...
which is the reason that I believe that the light of day one is actually a process rather than the observable particles of light,
what could this good process be? Nuclear Fusion or gravity ? most likely
which just prior to his making this process all that was in existance was;
First off God himself,
contained within him was the earth, which is formless, void and is completly water,
and the heavens
The only thing of these which is good is the light (genesis 1:4) but not the heavens neither the earth at this time.. none the less the process of nuclear fusion has been started within this mass of water which is Gods Spirit is moving over... I can only imagine the nuclear reactions taking place at point zero of this watery mass... anyone able to do the physics?
On day two he makes the expanse to seperate the water from the water,
I assume that this means he seperated the mass of water into two sections, the small area in which the majority of nuclear fusion took place from the rest of the water.
This process is not called good at the end of this day
On day three the dry land appears ( which I assume is the complete cooling of the surface of earth) and the H2O that is still just that pools to make the seas,
which leads to the next creative act of God where he combines the appropriate molecular structures to seed the earth with vegetation.
He saw that all of day three events are good. Genesis 1:10 & 1:12
On day four God makes the lights in the expanse of the sky to seperate the day from the night and for signs and to mark seasons and days and years.... but the major part is to be lights in the expanse of the sky to shine light upon the earth.... which leads me back to my earlier reference that the light of day one than is not the light particles but rather the process in which light particles come from....
He saw that day four events were good. Genesis 1:18
Day five God creates the sea creature and every living and moving thing in the water, and every winged bird.. he blesses them to be fruitful and multiply and to fill the water and for the birds to increase on the earth.
He saw that day five events were good. Genesis 1:21
Day six God creates all the creatures that move along the ground, and sums up the creation with mankind, to be the ruler over all the other creatures.
He saw that day six events were good Genesis 1:25 and not only that but all of his creation he now sees as good Genesis 1:31.
In this final seeing that it was good I assume that the heavens are now complete and the earth also, and that the expansion of day two is finalised too.
anyone with constructive critiscism or willing to get into the physics of this?
[This message has been edited by Jesuslover153, 04-11-2003]

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by drummachine, posted 04-11-2003 9:00 PM Jesuslover153 has replied
 Message 11 by Orion, posted 04-19-2003 11:01 PM Jesuslover153 has not replied

  
Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 2 of 17 (36788)
04-11-2003 8:39 PM


Thread moved here from the Origin of Life forum.

  
drummachine
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 17 (36792)
04-11-2003 9:00 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Jesuslover153
04-11-2003 7:53 PM


I believe when he created light on day 1 it was the property of light. The seperating of the waters from the waters? Maybe there was something like a water-vapor canopy around the earth. It was like a green house. It was like a tropical paradise. When the flood happened that canopy broke. I just take the word how it says. Because there is no evidence of millions of years. If there was that means there was sin and death before Adam. That wouldn't be a very good creation. And on day 6 Adam was created. If that was 6 million years that would be an interesting week! In Exodus 20:11 and 31:17 it says the Lord made everything in 6 days. And the word day is yom. When it is qualified with evening, morning and number it has to mean an ordinary day. Here's a few sites that you might already know about.
Answers in Genesis
Home / Mars Hill
The Institute for Creation Research | The Institute for Creation Research

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Jesuslover153, posted 04-11-2003 7:53 PM Jesuslover153 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Jesuslover153, posted 04-11-2003 9:26 PM drummachine has replied

  
Jesuslover153
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 17 (36797)
04-11-2003 9:26 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by drummachine
04-11-2003 9:00 PM


I certainly agree that there is no millions of years.. only like 6000 years...
and if you think the canopy vapor theory is biblical than explain how it is on day 4 that God puts the sun, moon and stars into the expanse that he created on day 2 to seperate the waters from the waters...
We are on the same side drummachine....I hope

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by drummachine, posted 04-11-2003 9:00 PM drummachine has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by drummachine, posted 04-11-2003 9:47 PM Jesuslover153 has not replied
 Message 8 by drummachine, posted 04-12-2003 5:33 PM Jesuslover153 has not replied

  
drummachine
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 17 (36802)
04-11-2003 9:47 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Jesuslover153
04-11-2003 9:26 PM


Yeah, I'm sure we are. I believe our salvation is in His sacrifice alone. Maybe something like this. May you be blessed.
1.The water on the earth.
2.The first heavens.
3.The water canopy. Where the ozon layer is. I believe they have found water in the atmosphere.
4.Then the second heaven where the sun, moon and stars are.
5.The third heaven where the kingdom is.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Jesuslover153, posted 04-11-2003 9:26 PM Jesuslover153 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Minnemooseus, posted 04-11-2003 9:58 PM drummachine has not replied
 Message 7 by joz, posted 04-12-2003 12:23 AM drummachine has not replied

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3945
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 6 of 17 (36804)
04-11-2003 9:58 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by drummachine
04-11-2003 9:47 PM


This is not an admin-mode message.
That said, I think it might be interesting if the evolution side stay clear of this topic for a while, and see where the creationism side takes it.
Moose
Edit: Oops. This message was intended as a general comment, not a reply to drummachine.
[This message has been edited by minnemooseus, 04-11-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by drummachine, posted 04-11-2003 9:47 PM drummachine has not replied

  
joz
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 17 (36812)
04-12-2003 12:23 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by drummachine
04-11-2003 9:47 PM


ok moose but....
can I just get one smartarse answer in?
quote:
Drummachine:
.The water canopy. Where the ozon layer is. I believe they have found water in the atmosphere.
Yep its those big fluffy white things called clouds.....
Sorry couldn't resist....
Over to you two again...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by drummachine, posted 04-11-2003 9:47 PM drummachine has not replied

  
drummachine
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 17 (36847)
04-12-2003 5:33 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Jesuslover153
04-11-2003 9:26 PM


Because there is water in the ozone thats why there was a possible canopy. And thats what makes since for a theory about the waters seperated from the waters. What about your ideas?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Jesuslover153, posted 04-11-2003 9:26 PM Jesuslover153 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Gzus, posted 04-15-2003 8:39 AM drummachine has not replied

  
Gzus
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 17 (37069)
04-15-2003 8:39 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by drummachine
04-12-2003 5:33 PM


'waters separated from waters'
doesn't that just mean that the land masses were formed hence 'splitting the oceans'.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by drummachine, posted 04-12-2003 5:33 PM drummachine has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by funkmasterfreaky, posted 04-19-2003 6:54 PM Gzus has not replied

  
funkmasterfreaky
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 17 (37355)
04-19-2003 6:54 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Gzus
04-15-2003 8:39 AM


Drummachine, Jesuslover will be gone for a while I am sorry he cannot continue this discussion with you. I would pick up where he left off except I do not know exactly where he was going for here. I do not much care about the specifics, to me God created the heavens and the earth and who cares how. I'm more worried about how God wants me to live. So I am not qualified to continue this discussion.
------------------
Saved by an incredible Grace.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Gzus, posted 04-15-2003 8:39 AM Gzus has not replied

  
Orion
Inactive Member


Message 11 of 17 (37373)
04-19-2003 11:01 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Jesuslover153
04-11-2003 7:53 PM


Genesis 1 - where did that light come from?
Any answer to this question is, of necessity, speculative. However, we are given some clues. For example, consider the order of creation in Genesis 1...
  • The earth
  • Day and night
  • A celestial firmament
  • Dry land
  • Vegetation
  • Sun, moon, and stars
The list continues, but we have enough here with which to work. This ordering makes sense when you recall the nature of ancient Near East (ANE) cosmology. These folks considered the earth to be the centre of the universe. The earth was stationary and immovable, and supported by pillars. This flat earth, in turn, supported a solid, inverted dome or firmament (imagine an inverted bowl resting on a dinner plate). The sun, moon, and stars were attached to this firmament. So, where did this "day" and "night" come from?
Apparently, the author did not make the connection between day and night vs. the position of the sun in the sky. In other words, day and night were entities separate and distinct from any effect produced by the sun. And this is why the author could have God create the earth (first things first) followed by day and night, a few other things (plants, etc.) and, finally, he had God create the sun and moon to 'divide' and 'rule' over the day and night and to serve as markers of the seasons.
This concept appears to repeat itself in the book of Joshua, where God commands the sun (which 'rules' the day) to 'stand still' and thus prolong the day, giving the Hebrews additional time with which to wipe out one of their enemies.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Jesuslover153, posted 04-11-2003 7:53 PM Jesuslover153 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by drummachine, posted 04-21-2003 7:47 PM Orion has replied

  
drummachine
Inactive Member


Message 12 of 17 (37483)
04-21-2003 7:47 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Orion
04-19-2003 11:01 PM


Orion,
Maybe there was the property of light before the source. Maybe He provided light before the sun. I dont see a problem with that. Maybe He has chosen not to explain everything to us because we wouldn't have enough time to read an infinite amount of books. I believe day and night were 24 hour periods. We have day and night today and there 24 hour periods. It says He created everything in 7 days. We live by 7 seven days. I believe its pretty cut and dry. I believe the Bible doesn't claim that the earth was flat.
This concept appears to repeat itself in the book of Joshua, where God commands the sun (which 'rules' the day) to 'stand still' and thus prolong the day, giving the Hebrews additional time with which to wipe out one of their enemies.
Where is this passage?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Orion, posted 04-19-2003 11:01 PM Orion has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Orion, posted 04-22-2003 6:49 PM drummachine has not replied
 Message 16 by Karl, posted 04-23-2003 5:05 AM drummachine has not replied

  
Orion
Inactive Member


Message 13 of 17 (37622)
04-22-2003 6:49 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by drummachine
04-21-2003 7:47 PM


Maybe...
Maybe there was the property of light before the source. Maybe He provided light before the sun.
And maybe the Bible is not a very useful source for determining the way in which the universe came into being. For instance, you may wish to consider Occam's Razor - if it's possible to explain the origin of the earth and universe from the operation of natural laws, then there exists no need to introduce supernatural events as an explanation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by drummachine, posted 04-21-2003 7:47 PM drummachine has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Paul, posted 04-22-2003 8:47 PM Orion has replied

  
Paul
Inactive Member


Message 14 of 17 (37627)
04-22-2003 8:47 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Orion
04-22-2003 6:49 PM


Re: Maybe...
And maybe the Bible is not a very useful source for determining the way in which the universe came into being.
No maybe about it Orion. The Bible is "not" a useful source for determining "the way" in which the universe came into being.
However, it is the "only" useful source for determining "who" brought the universe into existance and "why" it was.
Knowing "the way" that the universe came into being, and exists, is extremely important to the mind of Science and all of its adherants. Yet the deeper Science gets in its quest, the broader they realize that depth is, and that they get farther and farther away from scientific mastery the deeper they go. Do scientists fear the future as a result of this? Perhaps some. Do its adherants? Most definately.
Realizing, acknowledging, and supporting that there is a realm that transcends their lifes passion, draws closer every day for most scientists. Regardless of how they handle that day, I do hope they will press on in their work as it is a most excellent cause, that has helped to positively shape our world. I'm sure that they will.
Paul :-)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Orion, posted 04-22-2003 6:49 PM Orion has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Orion, posted 04-22-2003 9:05 PM Paul has replied

  
Orion
Inactive Member


Message 15 of 17 (37628)
04-22-2003 9:05 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Paul
04-22-2003 8:47 PM


Re: Maybe...
No maybe about it Orion. The Bible is "not" a useful source for determining "the way" in which the universe came into being.
Pretty much agreed.
However, it is the "only" useful source for determining "who" brought the universe into existance and "why" it was.
In this regard, I would caution you against the use of absolutes such as 'only'. In many cases, the employment of such absolutes will serve only to get you into trouble

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Paul, posted 04-22-2003 8:47 PM Paul has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Paul, posted 04-23-2003 10:45 AM Orion has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024