I guess not.
-
This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
Do Christians accept that the earth is older than the sun like the Bible says?
- Thread starter Valery
- Start date
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2011
- Messages
- 6,840
- Reaction score
- 3,840
- Location
- UK
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Well the concept of god being beyond human understanding was the basis of the entire discussion I and code1211 were having so your objection isn't relevant.
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2019
- Messages
- 38,116
- Reaction score
- 7,132
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Did he?
Did he indeed?
Did he tweet you something - like Trump does?
For many Americans God = Trump.
I see. But there could be a misunderstanding on what it means for God to be beyond human understanding. Generally I would say He is, but if it comes to claiming we don't know anything about Him, then not. If the meaning is clear, then it is 1+1=2, there's no room for disagreement.
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2011
- Messages
- 6,840
- Reaction score
- 3,840
- Location
- UK
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
That is exactly the problem I'm talking about. What you mean is that you can make any assertions you like about God, which you will unilaterally declare as "clear, with no room for disagreement", but if anyone presents any questions, challenges or flaws in your statements that you can't deal with, you'll fall back on God being "beyond understanding".
What I mean is that if two people can agree on what it means to understand God, then they will not disagree because it would be illogical to both understand and not understand something. I adhere to Islamic teachings. I only assert what I know from good scholars and I declare beyond understanding what they declare beyond understanding. Most things that atheists argue, they have an explanation for.
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2016
- Messages
- 7,349
- Reaction score
- 1,875
- Location
- Canada / Australia
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Conservative
From this website are the first 5 verses of the bible. The Book of Genesis
www.vatican.va
[1:1] In the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth, [1:2] the earth was a formless void and darkness covered the face of the deep, while a wind from God swept over the face of the waters. [1:3] Then God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light. [1:4] And God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness. [1:5] God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day. So, clearly the earth was created before the sun and the moon. Verses 3-5 make that indisputable. However, that causes a problem with basic science. How can there be water if there's no sun yet? Seriously, how can that be? |
- Joined
- Sep 24, 2011
- Messages
- 38,317
- Reaction score
- 44,344
- Location
- Atlanta
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Forget it, the Bible never was and never will be a source of science or history.
To try to make it so defeats the purpose of a system of belief. All the relevant text was based on their understanding at the time of authoring.
Biblical literalism today is mostly a western evangelical phenomenon, whereas even the Catholic Church will recognize that understandings from science are "fact."
To try to make it so defeats the purpose of a system of belief. All the relevant text was based on their understanding at the time of authoring.
Biblical literalism today is mostly a western evangelical phenomenon, whereas even the Catholic Church will recognize that understandings from science are "fact."
It wouldn't have been called a phenomenon 200 years ago. It would have been called a fact.
- Joined
- Sep 24, 2011
- Messages
- 38,317
- Reaction score
- 44,344
- Location
- Atlanta
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Calling literalism fact is a faith based position.
Biblical literalism is frankly a plague, and it is something more found among American splinters of Christianity. But the Catholic Church itself will say it is a problem because it leads to asinine conclusions and the purposeful suspension of science. Like the earth only being 6000 or so years old. Translations and interpretations aside, this Bible you hold up was cannonized by the Catholic Church even if it was called something else under the Roman Empire.
The point of this thread is the literalism of creation specifics, but back then no one cared about these things. Today we do.
The OP's argument is based on the order of the text in Genesis, which speaks to that literalism I am talking about. By the letter of the text the earth was created before "light" (or, the Sun.) Technically the "heavens" were and the earth were created first. No real mention of the Sun directly, or really anything that can be considered source from understandings from Physics, Astronomy, and other Sciences.
By what we know from science the order of Genesis in the literal sense is not accurate, nor can it be. None of these areas of academia existed at the time, and it tells us that it is impossible for the Bible to be a source of science or history.
We have no choice but to conclude that Biblical literalism is not fact.
Genesis 1:1 speaks of the heavens being created, along with the earth...researching the phrase, the heavens, one will learn the heavens in the Bible not only means the realm where Jehovah lives but it also refers to the physical heavens or the sky surrounding the earth, where birds fly, but it also refers to the heavenly bodies in the universe...the planets, moons, stars, and the sun...
It later adds the sun and the moon to it.
No, it later speaks of Jehovah making the light from them being able to reach the surface of the earth...
What about the stars? It doesn't mention their light?
Are the stars not a part of the luminaries mentioned in verse 14?
Are they not mentioned in 1:1?
What sacred days do stars give us a sign of? Do they mark years and days? I suppose they mark the night alright, but traditionally we talk about the moon to be a mark of nights and months.
They are a part of the heavens mentioned in 1:1...astrologers think so...
So they're mentioned again? You skipped my other question. It's a relevant question, I think.
How so, astrologers think so?
So they cannot be mentioned twice? Once when created and again when their light was made visable from the earth? I don't know much about astrology but I do know certain stars and certain celestations are more visable during certain times of the year...
Does it say the light of the stars was created? Does it imply it?
Luminaries, yes, that includes the stars...
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2019
- Messages
- 39,123
- Reaction score
- 31,184
- Location
- Ohio
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Progressive
Pretty much everything. The idea of Jesus as a dying and rising savior born of a virgin birth at the end of the year was plagiarized from previous religions.
The great flood idea was stolen from Gilgamesh.
The idea of the Garden of Eden was from the Sumerian religion.
The Bible is the Readers Digest book of religion, and yet many people claim that it is literally true, despite having zero evidence to support such an absurd claim. The idea that they can reject reality and fact isn't something to be proud of.
- Joined
- Mar 29, 2013
- Messages
- 35,250
- Reaction score
- 5,695
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Nothing was "stolen."
Lol. You're just repeating the usual ignorant claim we find in anti-Christian or anti-God sites!
If you want to really discuss that - let's do it on a separate thread.
ARE YOU GAME? Or....you're all just hot air?
There. I've just thrown the gauntlet to your face.
Has it ever occurred to you that people knew of those things before the Bible or the Torah was written? The fact that similar stories were around before only helps to verify the stories.
- Joined
- Mar 29, 2013
- Messages
- 35,250
- Reaction score
- 5,695
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
The Bible - though not meant to be a science text - had given statements that were later reaffirmed by science.
Some narratives in the Bible had given factual insights to historical periods - archeological artifacts had either reaffirmed, or are found to have been consistent with the narratives.
So, there.