olin,
In answer to your so called problems with the bible and science please note the following;
You claim the bible says earth was created in six literal days;
well, you are making an assumption that the bible writers are using "day" to represent a 24 hour period. The truth is we have no idea how long one of God's creative "days" really was. It could mean epochs long for all that we know.
You also claim that Ecclesiastes 1:5 states that the sun revolves around the earth?
My bible does not say that it says " The sun rises and the sun sets,
and hurries back to where it rises.
This vese says nothing about the sun revolving around the earth, it is talking about the rising and setting of the sun. If you mean the part that says "it hurries back to where it rises" this statement is not literal but figuratively speaking saying that it is like the sun hurries back to where it started.
You claim Genesis 1 says that plants are created before the sun, and so this cannot happen because the plants need the sun. Thus you are saying this is a scientific impossiblity because of photosynthesis.
Well, look at Genesis 1 again;
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.
3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.
6 And God said, "Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water." 7 So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the expanse "sky." And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.
9 And God said, "Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear." And it was so. 10 God called the dry ground "land," and the gathered waters he called "seas." And God saw that it was good.
11 Then God said, "Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds." And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.
14 And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth." And it was so. 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.
You will notice from the above that BEFORE plants were created God created Light and Water. First off that light WAS the sun, so he did create the sun prior to plants (vrs3). What he created after plants was a "division between night and day" by putting the two great luminaries into the sky, the sun and the moon.
But let us say you argue that the light was not the sun as some do. Well if so then let me ask you this; Can a person grow a plant indoors with LIGHT and WATER but no sun? Absolutely. I put seedlings under an ordinary lamp and water them all the time and they grow. So this arguement about needing the sun incorrect anyway. You only need a light source and water. Both of which God provided before the vegetation.
Last arguement is about the flood and that waters cannot have reached as high as the tallest peak? Well, you yourself claim that this is "probably" did not happen, yet you provide no postive proof that it did not. Your are making an assumption therefore. And since YOU are not providing any definate proof it could not be possible, I don't need to defend anything here.
Perry,
Great comments!
