Originally posted by @divegeesterI have no scriptural support that God created the Sun, Moon,stars and the Earth?
I'm not trying to destroy anything, I'm just getting you to confirm that you have no scriptural basis for your stated assumptions.
I'm afraid I do.
Is my theory a valid interpretation? Yes it is.
Is it the only interpretation? Of course not.
All anyone has is an interpretation. I created this thread to discuss mine and how it allows for a Big Bang theory to coinside with the creation account. Based on how I view things there is no inconsistency between science and Creation.
08 Oct 17
Originally posted by @eladarIf you are going to be a prick then I'm not going to talk with you; this is your last chance. Here is your post I'm referring to:
I have no scriptural support that God created the Sun, Moon,stars and the Earth?
I'm afraid I do.
Is my theory a valid interpretation? Yes it is.
Is it the only interpretation? Of course not.
All anyone has is an interpretation. I created this thread to discuss mine and how it allows for a Big Bang theory to coinside with yhe creation account. Based on how I view things there is no inconsistency between science and Creation.
"That God did not fill the universe with light rays at the moment the stars were created.
Each star was created with age and the light rays extending from that sun based on its age. That light was created with all the effects that would have resulted from the physical universe if the universe existed before creation."
If you don't want to be intellectually honest that's fine, but I'm not interested otherwise.
Originally posted by @divegeesterExplain to me how light from stars could be seen from earth if the billions of years old rays of light were not part of that creation.
If you are going to be a prick then I'm not going to talk with you; this is your last chance. Here is your post I'm referring to:
[i]"That God did not fill the universe with light rays at the moment the stars were created.
Each star was created with age and the light rays extending from that sun based on its age. That light was created with all the ...[text shortened]...
If you don't want to be intellectually honest that's fine, but I'm not interested otherwise.
Originally posted by @eladarThen God said, “Let there be [s]lights in the [t]expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night, and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years; 15 and let them be for [u]lights in the [v]expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth”; and it was so. 16 God made the two [w]great lights, the greater [x]light [y]to govern the day, and the lesser [z]light [aa]to govern the night; He made the stars also. 17 God placed them in the [ab]expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth, 18 and [ac]to govern the day and the night, and to separate the light from the darkness; and God saw that it was good. 19 There was evening and there was morning, a fourth day.
Explain to me how light from stars could be seen from earth if the billions of years old rays of light were not part of that creation.
08 Oct 17
Originally posted by @divegeesterThe onus is on me to prove what would have had to have happen if the literal interpretation is true?
You made some claims in the post I quoted, the onus is one you to call up scripture you think supports them.
The onus is on you to prove that the theory I present is impossible.
Ridiculous of you to demand that I prove my unprovable theory is true because other unprovable theories don't need to be proven. Of course the only unprovable theory that is correct is the one you accept.
08 Oct 17
Originally posted by @eladarYep, just as I thought.
The onus is on me to prove what would have had to have happen if the literal interpretation is true?
The onus is on you to prove that the theory I present is impossible.
Ridiculous of you to demand that I prove my unprovable theory is true because other unprovable theories don't need to be proven. Of course the only unprovable theory that is correct is the one you accept.
08 Oct 17
Originally posted by @divegeesterSo why bother asking a ridiculous question at all if you knew I was too smart to fall for it?
Yep, just as I thought.
Because you are a self righteousness horse's butt?
08 Oct 17
Originally posted by @divegeesterYou should know.
It’s very easy to post unsubstantiated opinion Eladar.
Presenting an unprovable scenerio is by definition unsubstantiated. It only need be consistent with a literal interpretation of the text.
What I wrote fits the description and at the same time puts the nay sayers on their ear.
09 Oct 17
Originally posted by @josephwIt is amazing. But then I did not say that it did, just that it is possible and that science and the Bible need not be in conflict. Even atheist science does not disprove the literal account.
It's amazing how much people presume to know about an event they weren't there to witness.