I am a Christian but I find it hard to believe in creationism as it is popularly known. The Old Testament has too many discrepancies. The first problem I have is with Genesis 1:5,

1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

There is nothing worrying about the above verse. The verse that really confuses me is, 1:16

1:16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

It is clear that whoever wrote the first chapter of Genesis was suggesting that Day and Night was created before the Sun and Moon were created.

Can somebody explain how Day and Night could have occurred on earth without the Sun and Moon?

Daytime is when its light out and night time is when it is dark out. It may still be considered night time without a moon(considering it doesn't produce darkness anyways) and day time can be considered so without the sun but just has to be light out. So this Light God made seemingly exists without the sun or stars. So I guess before the creation of the sun day time and night time where directly controlled by God himself and after on the second day he created the sun and let it take over.

Thats my stab at it anyways. Keep on reading on more and you will find the part where God seperates 'the ocean below from the oceans above' with some kind of magical bubble and how rain comes from a hatch that is opened from this bubble...I don't remember the exact wording or passages and a bit to lazy to look them up but I'm sure you can find them.

It is commonly believed that the opening scenes of Genesis are metaphorical in nature anyhow.

Good guess. So, should we just add a few lines in the bible whenever the answer is not there?

The Bible wasn't intended to be a book of answers or explanations but a book to teach faith, morality, whatever. To a believer it isn't important how God created existence but that he did create existence.

For future reference this type of thread goes in the Spirituality v.s. Skepticism forum I think. I think the way it goes is this one is for discussion and the one below is for debating.

You ought to listen to the doors:

You know the day destroys the night
Night divides the day
Tried to run
Tried to hide
Break on through to the other side
Break on through to the other side
Break on through to the other side, yeah

Moved to Spirituality vs Skepticism.

I think the Bible was intended to be a book of answers and explanations. The problem is the Bible answers some question but does not answer all the questions. If it is a book to teach only faith there is a lot unnecessary information in the Bible.

Your answer that God directly controlled night and day before the Sun and moon were created can be used to answer every unanswerable question in the Bible. For example:

Q. Where did canes wife come from?
Answer: God directly controlled her. To a believer it isn't important where she is from but that she was canes wife.

Anyway, thanks for your answer. My catholic priest gave me the same answer when I was 16. That helped me quit the catholic church.

I am new to this forum. You are right this post belongs in Spirituality v.s. Skepticism forum. Thanks for alerting the moderators.

God could have created other couples after the creation of Adam and Eve, the Bible says that they were the first but I don't believe it says they were the last.

My memory of the Bible isn't very good but I think most of the stories in it are there to teach a lesson. It is a book to explain and teach the rules and morals of God(and by extension, Jesus). For example the point of Exodus isn't to give a history lesson as much as it is a way to portray the moral of the story and to teach the Ten Commandments. All the stories of the Bible teach some sort of lesson, moral, or rule there isn't much in there that serves only as a history lesson.

A religion isn't its mythologies, it is its teachings and practices. The mythologies of a religion are just a way to get the point across. The point and intention isn't to describe and explain in which matter God created existence but to just teach you that he did and the Creation Story just sets up the rest of Genesis(more or less). Remember the opening scroll of Star Wars where it told you about the Rebellion and what not? It doesn't go into much detail in those few lines does it? Doesn't tell you where R2D2 came from or how light speed is possible which is because it isn't very important to the story, the opening scroll is just a set up.

A person reading the Bible either already believes in God and wouldn't need a literal and detailed description of the origin of the universe or if they don't believe in God they also don't need explanations because they already don't believe. Would a detailed account of Genesis make you a believer? Probably not. Would a less detailed one make a believer a skeptic? Probably not.

Also note that the laws of science would only go into effect after God created them so before he did light could exist without stars or a source at all.

I didn't alert the mods they are so efficient that they can psychically detect all misplaced threads(hehe)

Oh and by the way welcome to UM...make sure your seatbelt is fastened because its a bumpy ride.

I:5 was god's concept drawing and 1:16 was the final product. Things always come out different when you take something from a schematic and apply it to the real world; always having to change something here or add something there.

I've experienced this so many times before myself.

taking the bible literally can cause confusion

First of all, what kind of christian would say that the Old Testament has "too many discrepencies"? Not a very learned christian.


In any case, look at the wording of the verse (its easier to understand in Hebrew). It says "the evening and morning were the first day." This terminology is not found ANYWHERE else in scripture (also easier to understand in the Hebrew). The terminology suggests that there was something different about these seven days then all the other days (because the term in describing the day is different). Thus, it would not be illogical to say that the "days" could have been much longer than the normal 25 hour Jewish day.

1. Hebrew scholars of standing have always regarded this to be the case. Thus, Professor James Barr, Regius Professor of Hebrew at the University of Oxford, has written:
   
   
   'Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1-11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that:
   • (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience
   • 
     ( the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story
   • © Noah's flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark.
   • Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the “days” of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know.' <a href="http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c024.html#f9">[9].

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c024.html

This shouldn't even be taken literally. The story of creation is just that, a story. I do believe that God created everything, but not necessarily as how these few verses describe.

It is interesting how the inexplicable parts of the Bible become unimportant simply because they defy explanation. The early church fathers explained them away with the simplicity of creating "mysteries." But if a God represents perfection and his own inspired words fail to provide that perfection, it is not acceptable to declare that they are not important.

Questions posed by the Egyptians that Cyril attempted to convert were perplexing . . . if one must receive Jesus as a personal savior to enter heaven, what happened to all the people who died before Jesus was born? To answer the question the church invented the Apostle's Creed wherein Jesus entered hell before ascending into heaven and supposedly offered salvation to the damned.

How can there be in hell eternal fire and eternal darkness at the same time?

As the questions and doubts mount, so does the credibility of religion fade, especially when the questions are considered to be unimportant.

I agree ex.... Unfortuantely when you are touting infallable and making the omni move you get yourself in a bind.. so your best recourse is to plead the 5th as many do.....the ole one can't comprehend what god thinks or means he does what he wants, I also think the detering from questioning is the most common solution ...........I think faith is really to agree and keep agreeing this avenue provides the basis for proving ones fathfulness if you will, if I just agree i am faithful if I do not question i am faithful that whole thing ......IMO anywyas....

i had a co worker yesterday say that to her if so and so came into the room and and say yahweh called her on her cell she would beleive it .. she said to be faithful means anything is possible and it eliminates the need for questioning or crtical anaylysis because you already beleive anything is possible therefore a pink unicorn, or a contradiction goes unquestioned.. this is what was explaiined to me last night, she was also very troubled that her son questions everything she found it annoying..... ..... i jsut said hmm, interesting........

assuming the bible to be accurate.

i would refer you to the planets birth in science. planets are formed by the cooling of gases in a nebula. this i beleive would leave a shrouded planet until the excess gas settled into a stable atmosphere. the creation of the sun, moon and stars may merely be when this "shroud" faded away.

True, but you would be using evolutionary facts to explain a creationist theory.

exactly and religion misses this,in order for them to prove anything they will no longer be iin the realm of faith they will be in the realm of sceince using scientific methodology....

ive always assumed early man knew what we do but just lacked the words to describe it. afterall someone had to discover gravity yet its always been there.

evolution works the same way
god made us of dirt.
ultimately what does science say.
the only arguements are the "7 days" tell me this what is a day.
a measurememt. and from what metric and imperial can teach us there more than one way to measure [tons/tonnes]

Yep, the creation story is just a legend, and about as real as the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus. Just a symbolic story.

'Mysteries' were not invented to explain the unexplainable. Their purpose was to give more spiritual insight into what others accepted on face value. They are, as far as we know, a Romano-Greek innovation, who taking foreign religion reworked it into what we would normally call today the metaphysical. In this regard simple events like the Sun rising become symbolic and translated into some crawling in caves in the middle of darkness and then coming out at dawn to become part of the process. From the Bible they took events like Mary Magdalene visiting the empty tomb of Christ but instead the two angels appearing and transformed them into something deeper. The system they developed was based on esoteric knowledge that was only divulged from the master to the initiate to gain a deeper appreciation and connection. It was an extra layer that came to be known as arcanum.

Your assertion that it was used to 'explain things away' is not true and it would be more accurate to say the mysteries 'explained things in greater depth'. It is highly based on semiotics as much as some examples of the theater are. Anyone can gain an appreciation for the mysteries if they have imagination and use this example: Think about a movie that means so much to you, that has deeper layers, and where one just sees acted out events, the fan can see hidden meaning, symbolism, in a way Hollywood and TV Land has caught a little bit of the mystery. Well I am not sure if everyone can relate to that example but I am sure a few can.

Either way I disagree the Bible needs extrabiblical mysteries to offer it further depth, especially since mysteries are not gnosis, that is to say it is not secret knowledge gained by personal revelation, it is systematic knowledge hidden from the neophyte, and while the Bible does consist of matrices, where anyone can see deeper meaning, it still remains in the Bible, so that a believer can find something additional, but it will be not a matter of personal revelation, or something unique to them, for someone else would have seen this deeper layer themselves at another time, so when the two discuss this later they would have both came to some understanding that is not apparent at first read, so while mysteries and revelation of the Spirit might sound the same they are different.




So some people are gullible but most who have faith do not have the blind type but have a developed, spiritually mature, relationship with God. It is the gullible who when tested fall away and suddenly find independence away from God. They are not really gullible but actually have a shallow depth of faith, they might consider their faith greater because they never question God, but how can a student who never questions ever learn in class? 'There is no dumb question, just dumb answers' says the mantra of learning.



This is true that man can hardly understand God. Then again man can hardly understand the Universe and even if our knowledge grows much still remains unknown and inescapable. The saying that the more one learns what they truly learn is that they can never learn it all applies to God too. What is true in both cases of science and God is that we can learn enough to live really well and then even learn things just to know. You are right though dirt has all the nutrients needed to create life. In my view, not grounded in any sort of dogma, just a theory which does not make or break salvation, but I believe God created mankind. The Hebrew word translated as Adam means mankind. The word translated as Eve means life. It was not only until God breathed the breath of life into mankind (Adam) that mankind became sentient. So before this time man was not fully evolved, consciousness, as we know it, was not evolved. Well just taking a flight of fancy here nothing too hard core so maybe I am way off the mark. Some will complain that we are using science to explain the Bible as if one or the other was more superior when they actually do not even compete and serve different purposes.

Clovis said " So some people are gullible but most who have faith do not have the blind type but have a developed, spiritually mature, relationship with God. It is the gullible who when tested fall away and suddenly find independence away from God. They are not really gullible but actually have a shallow depth of faith, they might consider their faith greater because they never question God, but how can a student who never questions ever learn in class? 'There is no dumb question, just dumb answers' says the mantra of learning. "


yes the thinking man knows that questions lead to more questions and that answers are limts which create dogmas.. the minute one says they 'know' they have closed their mind.....

Alot of issues come from practices that once something has been identified as 'good', moral or the authority ut tends to let us of the hook and we can then do what ever needs to be done this was done when ,many were burned at the stake... as a matter of fact this was called a 'work of faith'an excercise of ones piety.."

we have to use great care and responsibility when we start throwing around how weak one is who doesn't stand faithful or question a canon... this is where the issues lies Clovis IMO not in gullibity,...., gullibility is a stepping stone.....its what are you willing to do for faith, where is your line ??????

You have offered two examples of faith thus far. One who will believe anything that another tells them which I have called gullibility due to a shallow faith or lack of it even if they believe they have all the faith in the world. Blind faith is no faith at all. The second example is one who will do anything which I will call evil. They are both constructs and what people imagine the faith of the Word to be yet the faith explained in the Word has nothing to do with either of those examples.

I draw the line at not believing others who claim what the Bible says this or that without reading it for my self and also draw it at not doing something of my own desire and claim the Bible says it was OK when clearly no where does it mention to burn people. Fortunately those who believe understand your two examples are not grounded in biblical faith but in those having faith in other men so when they are told to believe this they do or when they are told to attack that they do.

Some might see the past is an ill suited example because the lack of having Bibles to read led to the burning times because their priest or some other so called representative of the faith told them to harm others. But that example rings true today for even if people have Bibles some simply do not read them. If it says do not suffer a witch to live it is unfortunate they did not read more and understand this applied to the ancient Israelites only within their own territory and that those even right outside of that land were not subject to such. If someone tells me the Bible will lead to bad things because of faith, such as you are, anyone can read for themselves and see that that is not the case. Who to believe, the preacher, you, me? I say read it for self.

okay clovis what is faith, i tend to agree with you there are probalby alot of expresssions of faith..


I am not saying it will lead to bad things but it seems you concur it does. can and has.......so define faith ....

in fact i have been exploring this construct called faith for a long time and have not arrived at a conclusion .....

I have placed in bold the definition of what is faith from the perspective of a believer but I did have more to add regarding those who have other types of faith, or the reverse side of the coin, doubt. And why faith, not the kind the believer should have, can lead to bad things by following, not the Word, but other men who have doubt. Even if they wish to count their doubt as faith, since anyone who does evil and uses the Word as their excuse, is not really following the Word through faith, they are doubting it, while their faith only extends to their own actions. In essence they are rationalizing their evil deeds so they can sleep better at night even as they mislead others. After all if they have the vox populi in their favor it just leads to a greater sense of false purpose and belief they are on the right path even as they do harm to others. Like the evil men who wanted land, who fooled the local congregation that someone was a witch, and then burned that witch. All bad things and not grounded in faith of the Word but in faith of their own hearts and other men.

I have no issue with someone who sees the Word as evil or capable of producing evil. They have that full right for even the Word claims they have that choice. This evil though is just in the hearts of men, as is goodness, and that is how one will approach the Word. Also it is better that those who find this evil in the Word do not follow it for God forbid some of them, not all, will be the the ones who will deceive, mislead, and hurt others while using the Word as their excuse. You will know them by their fruits.

In God's eyes it is most likely He would not want doubters in His service for all they can do is harm, be it from the lectern of the Church or even the university class room, from the fellowship or student body, so it is infinitely better that those who see evil in the Word attack it rather than pretend to follow it. In the end they would just be following their own hearts anyways. Better they do it from the perspective of a skeptic than that of a believer which has the potential of them attempting to deceive the faithful. The strong in faith will not be fooled but the weaker who lack or have none will likely fall away and if so God did not truly need them either way even if He wants them. In the end the amount of faith (level of trust we have in God built through a real relationship) we have is our choice.

The choice is ours and it is good we each make the one most comfortable to us.

Are you building a relationship with the bible or am I missing something????? I am confused by the bolded part how are you doing this clovis is what i am wondering?????

Many people see the poetic imagery embedded in the early chapters of Genesis and conclude that the story of creation was not meant to be a a scientific account of how the world came to be, but rather a spiritual explanation as to why, and perhaps more importantly, who was responsible.

The passage is filled with conventions of figurative language that is consistent with Hebrew poetry. The relationship between the days of creation is quite telling. If you have ever had the chance to study it, you will note that the 1st day and the 4th day are inextricably related, as are the 2nd and 5th day, and the 3rd and 6th day (very structural - 1,4; 2,5; 3,6). To break each day down into its relation, what you really have is:

Day 1: God creates light
Day 4: God creates the source of light

Day 2: God creates the seas and the sky
Day 5: God creates creatures to live in the seas (fish, etc) and the sky (birds, etc)

Day 3: God creates land
Day 6: God creates creatures to live on land.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Day 7: God rests from creation

As you can see there is a distinct relationship between the first half of the creation story to the second. These six days of creation are then completed by a 7th day of creation, when God rested from his work - the seventh day was likely added to address one of the symbolic numbers of the Hebrews - 7, which represents perfection and completion (read up on other pieces of symbolic writing and the number 7 is used extensively for just that purpose). The underlying meaning of all of this is that God's creation was now complete. Six, the sign of incompletion in Hebrew symbology, would not have made sense, hence God rested on the seventh.

The structure of Genesis 1 is a clear indication that this is a piece of poetry and thus not necessarily taken literally. I would say that the context of this passage for me supports a metaphorical interpretation.

Just something to consider,

(Salaam) Peace

Prior to the formation of galaxies ("sun, moon, stars") when the universe was very young and consisted of primarily large gaseous clouds, there was an opaque light; trapped photons which glowed in the early darkness.

Wrong thread....

GIve him a break, he is new to the forum and already you have judged him and branded him a not very learned christian!!!

he is a christian that has his own questions...he is allowed to use his free mind like it or not

What implys that there is no sun or moon yet???
Perhaps the greater light IS the sun and the lesser light the moon???