In going over this scenario once again I'm not sure of the 144 hr or six day theory eljay?

When read closely - gen: vs 5 - states this " and god called the light day, and the darkness he called - light. he continues with " and the evening and the morning were the "first day"

we now - tend to think in terms of a night and a day - but then it was not so. Especially since this light discussed here is not the sun and moon but the light from the stars. The phrase "the evening and the morning" do not give a clear picture as to it being a full 24 hr period every period of creation stated ends with " and the evening and the morning were the 1,2,3,4,5,6 day'?? Nowhere does it state that the night and the morning were the first day - always the evening and the morning. well the evening "till" the morning would include the night - but if morning is to be taken as we take it now or even in judges - this is then not a full day because it leaves out the afternoon. morning is only till the afternoon begins correct? the biblical concept of afternoon is used in judges so it can't be said they did not call it afternoon back then correct? so either the times are symbolic, or the time was different to what in judges is stated, or the days were "shorter than 24 hrs. If we take from Evening - To mean from 6 pm til noon the next day - then we are talking 18 hour days in a literal sense, not a full 24. what this tells me is that it is more an allegory of time not a "specfic" amount of time. So either the days have to be recognized as shorter - or allegory - or another thought brought forward.

then the answer can be deduced logically .. since "according to the bible" it took six days to create creation which included the completion of the sun no matter how you look at it a day would considered to be one complete earth rotation,

this means it can be calculated exactly how many hours it would have taken for the earth to complete one rotation whether the earth is 6,000 years old or 6 billion years old.. one Earth rotation within either of those time periods would probably have taken 24 hours give or take a minute or two

speculation verses speculation, i cant prove my point - you can't prove yours so i let it stand as is.

The other thing i noticed is the issue with the light - in gen 1-3,4,5, - god creates light, this light seperates day from night, - in geisis 1-14,15 - he again makes lights in the heavens to divide day and night, and 2 great lights sun and moon - then it states he made "the stars"

If the first light made was not the planets and stars that he created on the fourth day - then what light is it that he created on the first day? What other light is being spoken of then? all we now are able to see as light is the stars and planets that give off light. but if these were not made til the fourth day - what light was being talked of that he created on the first day -no stars and planets etc., = no light?

'Tribo" you are trying to place time restraints on creation and God ..according to the bible time does not apply to God which means ....a second to God is no different than a day and no different than 6 days and no different than a thousand years which means that God could have created creation before the stars had a chance to shine.. but Genesis claimed that it was 6 days and since time doesn't apply to God then there is no way to dispute that

so now the focus become how long was a day back in the biblical days or after creation ..for that to possibly be answered you would have to answer a question as to how old do you yourself estimate the Earth to be

the question had nothing to do with time funch, read on the lights again, leave time factors out of it ok?

since time did not exist before creation but after creation then how could light exist until after creation was over? so "Tribo" it is you that keep applying the time between day and night into the equation

since time does not apply to God then God would have created the universe faster than a thought which means creation would have been over before the lights had a chance to blink on but yet you keep making reference to light and 18 hour days

the creation period would have taken place so fast that it would have created a void and within that void no light or time would have existed

because Time doesn't apply to God Genesis merely placed all the events that took place during creation into slow motion mode and into a conceivable frame of reference to match our concept of time..6 days

which means you trying to prove that creation didn't take place in 144 hours or in 6 solar days cannot be prove by using your concept ..you simply cannot prove or measure all the events which took place within the time period of a thought

Well - I think getting lost in the details of counting minutes and hours is a modern day phenomina. Surely - in ancient times they did not "punch in" when they went out into the fields, or herded up the flocks - nor did they haggle over how much overtime tey worked in a week. I tend to think that poepe awoke in the morning with the sun rise - went to bed after it went down - and they called that a "day" If I'm not mistaken - rolex's had not been discovered yet. Since thee appeared to be a great consistancy in this "sun appearing, and then going away" - having a lot to do with the earth's revolution as it revolved around the sun - the repeatative patterns started to show themselves - thus revealng weeks, and years. Since these terms were referenced all through scripture - it would only make sense to conclude that the term "day" that is used by Paul in his writings, were no different than the term Moses used in his. So - wouldn't it be 6 days of creation, and one of rest? At least in terms of our understanding - for there is no differentiation betwen the terms of the OT and that of the New.

Now I do find it interesting that it is Evening, and then morning that is the "day" - however it doesn't change the pattern. It just seems evident that somewhere along the way "day" was used to describe the time that the sun shone, and man was actually able to see to do his work. It wouldn't matter much (a mere 12 hours or so) to make a decision about whether or not it is a morning through evening (or night) that is a day - or evening through morning. The length is consistent either way.

As to the exact measure of time - I'm sure it is inconsistant by seconds - perhaps even minutes. The mere fact that every 4 years we have to stick another day in there to catch up is enough of an indication that somewhere, at some time - someone got it wrong. But, everyone seems to be okay with it. I would think at this point it's just too much of a hastle to get it right.

We only assume the Sun stars and moons give off light - for all we know they may merely relect the light that was created on the first day. The scripture tells us that "God is light". Taking a biblical perspective on this question - the Sun, stars and moons could merely be a reflection of the light from God. Since the idea of "giving off light" generally eminates from those who do not believe or recognise the existance of God - this eliminates the reflection possibilty, as there would be no other source but the planets - sun, stars and moon themselves.

I think to try and hypothesis whether or not there would be light without any of these "sources" as they are refered - is a future argument with no resolution. The conclusion dwells in the realm of the subjective.

besides the only people around after creation was Adam and Eve and there is little evidence that those two were any smarter than a leaf-cutter ant which means no one was around to calculate how long a day was after creation which is why the logical conclusion would be that the earth was created in 6 days or 144 hours as according to the bible

I would agree with you ejay accept for the fact that it states in gen:1 vs 1-4 - that:

"in the beginning god created the >heaven< and the earth.

2) and the earth was without form and void; and >>> Darkness<<<< was upon the face of the deep. And the spirit of god moved upon the face of the waters.

3) and god said - >>let there be light<<<

if he - god - was the light you speak of (being reflected), then it would already have exsisted, there would be no need for him to say >"let there be light"< that is what i am meaning.

also where did the >>>darkness<<< come from? Was that there or did he create that also? it seems he must have, but there is no mention specifically that he did unless you incude that as a part of making the >heaven< correct?

Also the singular use of the word >>>heaven<< in the creation story seems to indicate that all the other """heavens""" dimensionally spoken of later on ( pauls and others refferences to third and fourth and fifth heavens, etc. - plural.) must necessarily either have been created "" BEFORE"" the >>heaven<< we are able to percieve correct? - if so then "ANGELS " and all else reffered to had to have been created before - THE HEAVEN - talked about in the beginning - correct?

If so - then this is really only a story of how 3rd dimensional universal things came into being, not how 4th or other spiritual dimensions came into being - correct? If you agree, then this is far from being "THE" story of how "ALL' was created, but only of that which man can and is able to visualize in my opinion.

Tribo,
I hope you aren't being serious when you ask where did darkness come from.

"Darkness" (like "nothing") has no existence. It is like zero. It does not have existence. It is simply the absence of light.

Therefore darkness is not "created" or "destroyed."



I agree with this. From the human standpoint, "All" was simply all of their known world. It would not include the rest of the universe we now know exists, or any spiritual worlds.

JB

"Tribo"keep applying everything to human standards instead of the God ..because darkness wouldn't have existed to God ...God create light for the imperfect creations that he created that needed light to see and/or to grow

tribo quoted.....

and the earth was without form and void; and >>> Darkness<<<< was upon the face of the deep. And the spirit of god moved upon the face of the waters.

_________________________________________________________

it seems most interesting that the "spirit of god" was said to move upon the waters, and not the holy spirit, giving way to a increased perception of what CREATE what, and that there be two spirit that were said to have gone out into all the world, giving way to what MAN has done in making creation, and what "god" or "created without physical hands" has created...

there seems indeed to be a distinction between the two......

jmo.......no need for response

QUOTE:
also where did the >>>darkness<<< come from? Was that there or did he create that also? it seems he must have, but there is no mention specifically that he did unless you incude that as a part of making the >heaven< correct?

JB:



Tribo,
I hope you aren't being serious when you ask where did darkness come from.

"Darkness" (like "nothing") has no existence. It is like zero. It does not have existence. It is simply the absence of light.

Therefore darkness is not "created" or "destroyed."


TRIBO REPLY:

forgive me JB, what im trying to say is - if god - as eljay said - himself "WAS" be the light source that gave off the light to do the illumnation for all the universe, then there would not have been "darkness" at all, if god is light -which i think the bible states somewhere, then absence of light could have never been, so when it states there "was" >>darkness<< how is absence of light possible - if god is/was the light source talked of by eljays thoughts on this?

and yes darkness is just that the absence of "light" not the absence of everything or nothing. that is what i was meaning.

Hi DB, in christianity, the spirit of god and the holy spirit are the same thing just used as needed for the same implication. thnx -

I did not mean to imply that the light source was exclusively God himself. We know that there are numerous sources that give off light - but in order for those source to "give off" or reflect light - it necessitates that light be created first - as a seperate entity from God - I would assume. I think we're getting a tad nit-picking here, but hey - nothin else to do. As to darkness, I think it's just the absense of light.
We know later in scripture that both light and darkness refer to the realms of God and Satan, and the more important of these two is obviously light.

I think the differences in the number of "heavens" can simply be attributed to the differences in authors - the audieces to whom they were speaking, and what was relevant to their experience. Because Genesis speaks only of "heaven" does not preclude that it is - or isn't - subdivided. It should also be noted that Genesis was not an "instruction manuel" nor a "diary". There is a certain amount of literal liscence that can clearly be witnessed in the writig of Genesis - an example of which is the creation acount in Genesis 1 - then it's being "sort of repeated" in Genesis 2. But the purpose of Genesis 2 was never intended as a continuum of one - nor a reflection of it. Just - as you have stated, and I tend to agree with, a different perspectus. One is the account of creation - the other the account of man. Many times Moses (the refered to author) stops his account of the story and throws a geneology at us. Then, out of the blue comes a poem. It's clear that he has written the account for the edification of the jewish race - never intending it to reach the eyes of the gentiles. This in and of itself causes many to ask - why was that, if God intended to save the world? I can conjecture a response - but it's merely subjective.

So - where does one draw the line with examining minute details. The point I ask - "Is the message clear?" When I think of recapping Genesis, I generally come up with:

>God created.
>Man disobeyed and fell - thus abandoning the perfection created for him
>His punishment - though bad as it may seem - was not swift, and not what he deserved (given that he was TOLD what the consequence of his disobedience would be)
>That man essentially seeks "evil" - as opposed to his creator
>That despite this God had a plan for man and stuck with it - and chose to redeem him - despite himself (man that is)
>That even though man is sinful in his very nature - he is capable of worshopping his creator, and can even be considerd rightious (Noah comes along - then Abraham)
>That even though all of man is a part of the creation - that God determined a "chosen people"
>To this chosen people - a savior would be sent to redeem them.

And then we have the account of "those people".
Some were good and did what they were told - some did not. There were a number of wars - and lots of woman and children perished. The concept of slavery is instituted as a punishment for disobedience.

Nothing in the scriptures contradicts these basic facts - they carry through into the New Testament as well. What is contradictory - is perception.
This was a central theme of Jesus himself. He told his disciples that they were not rightly dividing the word of truth. He used parables to drive home his point. The sermon on the mount adresses this issue exclusively. Is it any wonder it runs amok even today? He never said he was going to stop it - or resolve it, just that it existed - and always will. It is the result of Eve's deception, and Adam trying to lay the blame of his fault on another.

Am I missing anything?

I like discussing these finer points though - because it only leads to a better understanding of the larger - more important themes. But it is not worth looking into the minuteness of things if the larger themes are ignored because of it.
I've actively participated in enough Cults to know what that is all about.

Did I adress everything - I seem to be rambling?
Ah... good ole stream of consciousness.

That's a very interesting question. I would imagine to answer it by saying that "light" as seen my mankind is limited.

Light has aspects that cannot be seen in certain vibrational environments. A blind man cannot see light at all, so this indicated that the creature's senses of sight might determine what light is seen.

JB

it is readily apparent that in christianity the two spirits are made as one, but if the text dosen't, and christianilty is supposed to be based on text, then this in no way confirms it as valid my friend, and make for the easiest way to make interpretations as christianity wishes, as this makes it easy to make one good group of born again professed christians, and one bad group the evil and unsaved.......

if it say two spirit have gone into all the world, and jesus was said to has been touched with BOTH spirits, then to now see the atributes of the two, and the distiction, is to not recognize how they control humanity as an invisible force from within each being, since the beginning of time.......

if civilization is to be different tomarrow, then yesterday from days past would have to be completley understood, and what make each being create all they create seen in it's entirety, and how could this be done, when even fear and love are as the same, as the holy spirit to the sprirt of god is as different as fear is to love........

if scripture is indeed prophecy as text describe, then every jot and tittle spelled different or looking different has meaning..........

seems professed christianity in no way indicates what is truth, or more truth.......

We need to ease the tension......so sayith the Lord




A Rare Book

A collector of rare books ran into an acquaintance who told him he had just thrown away an old Bible
that he found in a dusty, old box. He happened to mention that Guten-somebody-or-other had printed it.


"Not Gutenberg?" gasped the collector.


"Yes, that was it!"


"You idiot! You've thrown away one of the first books ever printed. A copy recently sold at auction
for half a million dollars!"


"Oh, I don't think this book would have been worth anything close to that much," replied the man.
"It was scribbled all over in the margins by some guy named Martin Luther."