Results 1 - 5 of 5
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Plants were created, and then stars? | Gen 1:14 | sharonrose | 46770 | ||
It is said in Genesis 1, God created light and plants before he created the sun, the moon and the stars. It conflicts with what the science research said, for example, the earth is not the center of the universe, and it is younger than many stars. How to explain it? | ||||||
2 | Plants were created, and then stars? | Gen 1:14 | Parable | 46773 | ||
See "The Genesis Question" by Dr. Hugh Ross. Therein, he explains that current scientific understanding is consistent with the Genesis account of the creation of Earth. His argument is based on the premises that the initial conditions of the earth and perspective of the observer must be understood in a way that he supports well in his treatment. To summarize his thesis: 1. the perspective of the Genesis account is that of an observer on Earth, not someone viewing the creation of the entire cosmos from some astronomical location. 2. the initial conditions of the Genesis account are not the first stages of cosmic or even planetary formation, but rather when the opacity of the atmosphere prevents anyone from seeing the stars, and not that light or the stars were created then. I don't necessarily agree with everything Dr. Ross says later in the book, but I find his treatment of Genesis 1 to be quite reasonable. Furthermore, he espouses that ultimately, there will be no conflict with our scientific understanding of creation and what the Bible teaches and we must work to remove the supposed conflict between science and faith, surely an artificial stumbling block, from the paths of those who might otherwise come to faith in Christ. Parable |
||||||
3 | Plants were created, and then stars? | Gen 1:14 | Lionstrong | 46793 | ||
Dear Parable, It sounds like the Dr. is simply imposing unbiblical premises on the Bible to make it conform to the current winds of scientific doctrine. In other words if the Bible were read as it is written, it is clear that it would not agree with current scientific opinion. What we do not need is a rubber Bible. If a straight forward reading does not happen to agree with our present cultural/scientific norms, then so much the worse for our norms. Good scholarship does not mean bending the Bible. The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, and the entrance of His word gives light (Pro. 9:10, Ps. 119:130). If one starts with unbiblical premises, one will logically end up with unbiblical conclusions. What Moses wrote was not from the human, earthly perspective. It was revelation from God. God revealed the order in which he created the universe. The revealed order of creation was not a mistake (i.e., false). God was not compensating "early man's" "unscientific" worldview. God cannot lie. So God created by fiat (not by some long process) the luminaries on the fourth day, which may be contrary to current scientific opinion. But so be it. The Bible is true not only in “religious” matters, but also in its historical details. What we have in Genesis is history, revealed history, but true space/time history nonetheless. It happened the way God through Moses said it happened “in the beginning.” If clearing a path to faith means compromising the truth of Scripture, then the supposed stumbling blocks must be purely imaginary, and we must ask ourselves what faith are we making a path for? Peace, |
||||||
4 | Plants were created, and then stars? | Gen 1:14 | Hank | 46795 | ||
Lionstrong, for the second time today, I find myself moved to applaud you on a fine post, and so I do on this one, without reservation but with much alacrity. Keep up the excellent work, my brother. --Hank | ||||||
5 | Plants were created, and then stars? | Gen 1:14 | tomn | 47094 | ||
alacrity meaning cheerful readiness, BRISKNESS, for those w/o a dictionary handy. | ||||||