Genesis 1

-Removed-

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 the creation account. Based on how I view things there is no inconsistency between science and Creation.

-Removed-

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.

Originally posted by @eladar
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.

Then 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.

-Removed-

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.

-Removed-

So why bother asking a ridiculous question at all if you knew I was too smart to fall for it?

Because you are a self righteousness horse's butt?

-Removed-

You should know.

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.

Originally posted by @js357
This could be an interesting "thought experiment" thread or it could come off the rails

You know this forum.

Originally posted by @josephw
It's amazing how much people presume to know about an event they weren't there to witness.

It 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.