Prior Verse | Next Verse | Next Chapter | Next Book | Viewing NASB and Amplified 2015 | |
NASB | Genesis 1:14 ¶ Then God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night, and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years; |
AMPLIFIED 2015 | Genesis 1:14 ¶ Then God said, "Let there be light-bearers (sun, moon, stars) in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night, and let them be useful for signs (tokens) [of God's provident care], and for marking seasons, days, and years; [Gen 8:22] |
Subject: Plants were created, and then stars? |
Bible Note: Yes, Lionstrong, I also enjoy sharing on this forum with you. I have learned much from your many postings and this one is no exception; your reply about the duration of creation events is cogent. However, I'd like to clarify a point. I said: "Our scientific understanding of nature is consistent with what the bible teaches, if the Genesis texts are understood from the perspective of an observer on earth at a time after the planet had formed. Ross suggests there is nothing in scripture that precludes this "observer perspective" and "system initial condition". In your reply, you said: "Positively let me start by saying that it is false that nowhere in the text are we given information that refutes or supports either a six-day creation or a many-years creation. The plain reading of the text supports a six-day creation." The point of the original question for this thread is about the order of events, not how long they may have taken. Ross' contribution is his explanation of how the order of creation events, as suggested by planetary geology, are the same as the order given in Genesis, if one adopts the perspective and initial conditions he describes, which to me are not unreasonable. In your conclusion, you said it well "we must honestly deal with the Scripture even though it may seem to go against the prevailing doctrines of our day." In this matter of creation sequence, Ross' exposition clearly demonstrates that God's word is indeed true. To me, it is a simple question of what is meant by "plain reading". I submit that Ross' reading is plain, but it just has a different perspective and initial condition than what most people impose on the text. Peace, Parable |