The earth was not created in seven days

Originally posted by BadMojo
The Bible also explains God's definition of a "day" within Pslams and II Peter as I previously stated. Mind you, I haven't used Strong's Concordance to determine whether or not the same terms were used for "day" in the instances in Genesis and the verses I mentioned. If you have one handy, I would be much obliged for the help...

I don't really know how it compares to Strong's Concordance - haven't seen one of those in awhile, but this site is extensive and I find it quite useful as a resource for understanding different translations.

www.blueletterbible.org...

Zip

A thousand years is like a day to God
It took 6000 years....1000 he rested

the earth is 7-8 thousand years old.
Carbon dating says lava JUST made is millions of years old so ...dumb

Originally posted by Wisdumb
A thousand years is like a day to God
It took 6000 years....1000 he rested

the earth is 7-8 thousand years old.
Carbon dating says lava JUST made is millions of years old so ...dumb

And God created man on the sixth day, so we've only been around for 2000 years?! You do know we have written (never mind everything else) history going back a lot longer than that don't you?

[edit on 29-6-2005 by kegs]

I don't think the earth is 6,000 years old. I don't find any evidence Biblically or scientifically that suggests it. I've heard the reasoning behind the 6,000 date as a chronological progession in Genesis but I think it makes too many assumptions.

Originally posted by saint4God
I don't think the earth is 6,000 years old. I don't find any evidence Biblically or scientifically that suggests it. I've heard the reasoning behind the 6,000 date as a chronological progession in Genesis but I think it makes too many assumptions.

Yeah, I agree that it's based on weak connections. Moreso if one is of the opinion that some of the characters in Bible ancestry are illustrative or allegorical.

Zip

Originally posted by sjn240785
In the first book of the bible (genesis) it says the earth was created in six days and rested on the seventh, but how can this be if the concept of light (the sun) was created after the earth was created? how can their be "days" without the sun?

TIME COMPARED TO GOD !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I have been waiting so long for this thread to come up .... and I have already covered it for you guys ... but if you are aruging about this there is no way that you are goign to understand anythign as complex as my other thread lol .. But here it is anyways

Why 7 days?
The Bible is associated with numbers. Numbers mean different things like codes in a software programme. The Bible is too, it shows that there is an order to our unverse and their are finger prints that God left behind. Do you wounder why 7 is always associated with God? This is one of many numbers are spread throught out the Bible that connect the whole Bible up.
Example Verses in the Bible originating from the original hebrew text can be divided by 7 every time from single words to each sentence. And there are patterns within these verses.
Below is a quike website I found about numbers in the Bible. You could say that the Bible is just an instruction book based on our universe and that its based on levels of understanding that go deeper everytime.

asis.com...
www.christcenteredmall.com...
www.findingmrright.net...

Its up to who ever believes but hope someone will find it usefull.

Yeah it was created in 6 thousand years....for all we know it was 4000 or 7000 years later that jesus was born so there ya go...But flood history is 4000 years ago or so so Ide guess 10-13 thousand years old...

Is that a real tree in your avatar pic? It took me a second look to get it. If it is in it's true form, can you give me the location and any other surrounding context?



[edit on 29-6-2005 by saint4God]

Time for unveiling the next line of thinking is required.

Obviously everyone is caught up with a day being that of 24 hours or the period between the rising of the sun. We do take much for granted with subliminally applying what we know as opposed to what we read. Yet, when we clearly dissect the verses we find that knowledge to be taken for granted and without context

According o Genesis, the first day was total darkness, where all the Biblical text does is divide light from darkness. We assume this to be the sun, but that is not so.

Day two brought the division of water by the firmament, and called the latter Heaven. We have no indication as to what this has to do with our acceptance of a solar day, and therefore no idea as to the timeframe as we measure time; solar days.

Day three, he parted the waters from this previously unknown land, brought about grass, seedlings and fruit trees. And we still have no indication of a solar/lunar day.

Day four, he made lights in Heaven to divide day from night, the sun and the moon we presume. That which we attribute to a solar/lunar day.

In other words, humans have taken the application of day four as the literal meaning of a day relative to the actions of god as to his first three ‘daily’ tasks, when in fact we cannot apply the solar or lunar day to same since the two ruling entities were not yet created until after god’s version of three days had passed, so why do so many of you assume the solar/lunar day applied to same?

I suggest, no I unequivocally state to you that you read the scriptures with the pre-conceived notions of that which you are told happened rather than with an open and inquisitive mind. Nowhere! Does it claim that a solar/lunar day applies to Genesis verses 1:1 through 1:13.

That brings me to day 7 which is just another permutation of man’s calendar, for at the end of the sixth day he was through creating, and nowhere does it state that he created a 7th day, or even a 7th and final day which required the recycling of those previous. Biblical text refers to the 7th day on which he rested because this was a man made law, and if in fact he rested on the 7th day, he would still to this day be resting.

I don't buy it. I didn't buy it when I was a Christian and I don't buy it now. A day is a day - in reality, we don't measure our days by revolutions around the sun, we measure our days by a certain number of vibrations of an atom of Cesium. It is accepted that time is relative, but redacting the Bible to recreate the length of a day should be unnecessary.

The rest of the Genesis story is so simple, why should the day's length be something of a challenge to understand?

Zip

Originally posted by Wisdumb
Yeah it was created in 6 thousand years....for all we know it was 4000 or 7000 years later that jesus was born so there ya go...But flood history is 4000 years ago or so so Ide guess 10-13 thousand years old...

You don't happen to have any evidence for a global flood do you.

Other than the bible.


You do know that there was no global flood.

Carbon dating is only one method of radiometric dating. Other methods exist and are used to place many of the older ages.

www.gpc.edu...

You do know there was a global flood.

You also know you dont want to believe in god so you can sin.

Any proof there Wisdumb?

No global flood could have happened within the last 4000 years.

First of all a global flood would have drowned everything, all the trees and vegetation, most of the earths biomass. Where did the oxygen come from?

And what did the survivors eat?

The fossil records dont show any great floods in antiquity, just lots of meteors and volcanos. Ancient legends talk of a long ago flood. It was an ancesteral thing, possibly recalling the end of the ice age.

Yeah where is the evidence of a global flood 4000 years ago?

This may be of assistance?
Global Flood Geology

Just one person's objective collection and research.
I have no doubt that if an objective research was taken, there might be others?
evidence for a global flood?





seekerof

Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween
Time for unveiling the next line of thinking is required.

Obviously everyone is caught up with a day being that of 24 hours or the period between the rising of the sun.
We do take much for granted with subliminally applying what we know as opposed to what we read.

traditional thought has it that G-d reveals everything, in its due time

and 'Due Time' is evidently any day when men can comprehend Gods' revealing 'words'
...as they continue to unfold, as men grow intellectually & comprehend...

i just couldn't stop thinking that the next actual meaning of 'Days'
is G-d explaining the larger issue "Time"

* i.e. at the very beginning, 'time' (Day 1) was created
* therefore time=day is not merely a construct of humans, but a constituent part of the material universe.
* time=day, has an characteristic of a wave action or an oscillation (recall the light-+-darkness analogy)
and is not a series of connected points which we concieve as a 'arrow of time' or a linear procession like a ray of light...
no sir ree, G-d explained that 'time' which was coded as 'day'
was equivelent to a yin-yang process, a wave, an oscillation...

[and... if the 'string theory/super-strings' is to have any longevity it, too,
will eventually evolve to embrace the 'pattern' that G-d revealed to men, way back in his primal-enlightened, edenic, state.]

thanks, for the prod, SomewhereinBetween
i found the info you presented, right on target

Ta for the links Seekerof.

Unfortunately there really was nothing to suggest the possibility of a global flood in them. Just one man hypothesis.

Originally posted by St Udio
* i.e. at the very beginning, 'time' (Day 1) was created
* therefore time=day is not merely a construct of humans, but a constituent part of the material universe.
* time=day, has an characteristic of a wave action or an oscillation (recall the light-+-darkness analogy)
and is not a series of connected points which we concieve as a 'arrow of time' or a linear procession like a ray of light...
no sir ree, G-d explained that 'time' which was coded as 'day'
was equivelent to a yin-yang process, a wave, an oscillation...

I really don't see how you are arriving at this conclusion. What do you mean by "time=day"? Please explain again. A day is 24 hours.

EDIT: Also, if you mean that time and space are closely related, I should tell you that you are in agreement with many scientists who have come before you, including Einstein and Newton.

from WikiPedia
Units of time have been agreed upon to quantify the duration of events and the intervals between them. Regularly recurring events and objects with apparently periodic motion have long served as standards for units of time - such as the apparent motion of the sun across the sky, the phases of the moon, the swing of a pendulum.

We are all aware of the division of time into units. One such unit is the "day," which is 24 hours long. It is relative to a number of things, such as the Earth's rotation around the sun, or the number of vibrations of a Cesium atom, but even without these relative mile-markers, without extensive "rationalization" such as that above, or massive re-interpretation of various Bible passages, there is no reason to think that a "day" in the Bible is not "a day" to the person writing or reading the Bible (i.e., *24 hours*).

If the Bible read, "On the first day, which was much longer than the days we have nowadays..." or something like that in Genesis then there wouldn't be so much of a problem.

I think it's great that a person can read a book like the Bible and, at a whim, interpret sections as they please while taking other portions at their absolute face value. It's fantastic that the Bible can be all things to all people, but I cannot stand the convolution that occurs when apologists attempt to describe their interpretations of the text, and they can turn a simple concept such as a "day" into a #ing "yin-yang oscillation process" or whatever. It might work well for you, but it doesn't work so well for me.

Zip

[edit on 6/30/2005 by Zipdot]

Originally posted by Zipdot


I really don't see how you are arriving at this conclusion. What do you mean by "time=day"? Please explain again. A day is 24 hours.





We are all aware of the division of time into units. One such unit is the "day," which is 24 hours long. It is relative to a number of things, such as the Earth's rotation around the sun, or the number of vibrations of a Cesium atom, but even without these relative mile-markers, without extensive "rationalization" such as that above, or massive re-interpretation of various Bible passages, there is no reason to think that a "day" in the Bible is not "a day" to the person writing or reading the Bible (i.e., *24 hours*).



I think it's great that a person can read a book like the Bible and, at a whim, interpret sections as they please while taking other portions at their absolute face value. It's fantastic that the Bible can be all things to all....

Zip

[edit on 6/30/2005 by Zipdot]

all i can say is,
apparently your view is very much like a Galley Oarsman on a Roman Boat
time, the immediate 'time' is the beat of the drum,
upon which you lower, stroke, raise, your oars...a sequential routine
broken down into parts of duration.

that's still only one perspective.

As far as the notation (time=day) i was trying to express that in the Bible , the word 'Day' was used....most likely because men could fathom
the concept of a Day, which more-or-less directed & structured a persons life & living,

'Day' was a comprehensible package of thought.....
but, as complexity of thought grew deeper and more profound
We, as a whole, continued to peel back the layers of undiscovered
knowledge...(mental picture of an onion here) and men can preceive
that 'Day' may have other meanings...and one meaning might be 'Time'

i'm not engaging in this to prove a point (that time=day)
but only that the concepts are inter-changeable...

if one were to delve further, i'm sure one could find that the 'days'
defined stages in an evolutionary process...thus there are subtile
breaks in the continuity of things/events=which could correspond to our practiced 'division-of-days' (time periods).

Yes, it is incredible, that some cherished writings(incl scriptures),
just might have deeper and profound meanings & lessons in it.
But, i don't subscribe to the 'Diety' of the author or elevate the words
to a particular SupremeBeing....but that dosen't mean i have to
accept scripture as 'pious & holy' and accept every jot & tittle in-toto,
those actions are for the believers & faithful.

i'm just trying to analyse. just shining another spotlight on things,
instead of mirroring, reflecting several thousands years of managed
or directed end-results. (see the cartoon within this thread, science view vs creationsts view)

~~~~~~~~