Religion II

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Then you should work really, really hard to cease and desist from thinking up your own horse manure. To tell us (no doubt with a straight face) that the universe did not evolve and is not evolving flies in the face of the Law of Identity, since this non-evolving universe somehow, someway found a way to act contrary to its nature by evolving biological lifeforms. But an entity cannot act contrary to its essence (nature)! Therefore, how could this non-evolving universe still manage to produce evolving biological lifeforms? (Is this your personal, naturalistic version of the "virgin birth"? A miracle really happened?)

Moreover, the dichotomy you have established between biology and physics is a false one because biology is an intricate part of the physical processes of the entire universe. Biology could not happen apart from these physical processes.
Biological life did not occur inside a vacuum. It occurred inside of and as a part of the universe. The universe, therefore, was quite amenable, supportive and sympathetic to biological evolution, since it itself evolved over a gazillion ages.

I told you with a perfectly straight face that the universe is constantly changing. Anybody (except you) who read the threads will see that repeated over and over. But I also said the changing of the universe is in accordance with the physical laws of the universe, which haven't changed since the beginning of the universe. If you are using the term evolve to be synonymous with the word change, then you misuse the word evolve. The universe changed, is still changing, and will continue to change.

Your blind belief in Genesis prevents you from considering the mountains of evidence for how the universe started and changed from the beginning of time until now. But all the change in the universe, no matter how old you think it is has been in accordance with the laws of the Universe. That includes the evolution of species which is also in accordance with the physical laws of the universe. You don't understand evolution (what a shock) so you don't understand why the process of evolution can be understood. Anyone who took biology 101 would have a good laugh at your ridiculous argument about physical processes, vacuums. There is nothing about evolution that cannot be explained through known biological processes. Your logic fails every test. PA had it right. You are a fraud and a blowhard, and that is available for everyone to see. As I said, if you had any self respect you'd stick to things you actually know about instead of babbling ignorant horseshit about science that you know nothing about.

By the way, you misquoted me (again) on what I said about "in the beginning." I said that since the next words were "God created the heavens and the earth," he had created matter and energy, part of the universe. Stephen Hawking said the universe had a beginning, and the beginning of the universe coincided with the beginning of time. So your argument is with one of the smartest men in physics.

And I also predicted you'd come up with some horseshit explanation for how beginning didn't mean start because of the original Hebrew.

This is from the Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges:

In the beginning] B’rêshîth: LXX ἐν ἀρχῇ: Lat. in principio. This opening word expresses the idea of the earliest time imaginable. It contains no allusion to any philosophical conception of “eternity.” The language used in the account of Creation is neither that of abstract speculation nor of exact science, but of simple, concrete, and unscientific narrative.

Ellicott's Commentary:

(1) In the beginning.—Not, as in John 1:1, “from eternity,” but in the beginning of this sidereal system, of which our sun, with its attendant planets, forms a part. As there never was a time when God did not exist, and as activity is an essential part of His being (John 5:17), so, probably, there was never a time when worlds did not exist; and in the process of calling them into existence when and how He willed, we may well believe that God acted in accordance with the working of some universal law, of which He is Himself the author.

Wow. Biblical scholars agree with my interpretation. I guess that means it wasn't pulled out of thin air like the sun on day four was the beginning of time.

I'm not sure even God could explain how you could continue to get your ass kicked on the Hebrew translation per PA (who produced an expert who wrote an absolutely clear explanation), physics, biology, and climate by me, and yet you come back as if you actually are winning the argument. Delusional is the only explanation.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by HalvOnHorseracing

I told you with a perfectly straight face that the universe is constantly changing. Anybody (except you) who read the threads will see that repeated over and over. But I also said the changing of the universe is in accordance with the physical laws of the universe, which haven't changed since the beginning of the universe. If you are using the term evolve to be synonymous with the word change, then you misuse the word evolve. The universe changed, is still changing, and will continue to change.

Your blind belief in Genesis prevents you from considering the mountains of evidence for how the universe started and changed from the beginning of time until now. But all the change in the universe, no matter how old you think it is has been in accordance with the laws of the Universe. That includes the evolution of species which is also in accordance with the physical laws of the universe. You don't understand evolution (what a shock) so you don't understand why the process of evolution can be understood. Anyone who took biology 101 would have a good laugh at your ridiculous argument about physical processes, vacuums. There is nothing about evolution that cannot be explained through known biological processes. Your logic fails every test. PA had it right. You are a fraud and a blowhard, and that is available for everyone to see. As I said, if you had any self respect you'd stick to things you actually know about instead of babbling ignorant horseshit about science that you know nothing about.

By the way, you misquoted me (again) on what I said about "in the beginning." I said that since the next words were "God created the heavens and the earth," he had created matter and energy, part of the universe. Stephen Hawking said the universe had a beginning, and the beginning of the universe coincided with the beginning of time. So your argument is with one of the smartest men in physics.

And I also predicted you'd come up with some horseshit explanation for how beginning didn't mean start because of the original Hebrew.

This is from the Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges:

In the beginning] B’rêshîth: LXX ἐν ἀρχῇ: Lat. in principio. This opening word expresses the idea of the earliest time imaginable. It contains no allusion to any philosophical conception of “eternity.” The language used in the account of Creation is neither that of abstract speculation nor of exact science, but of simple, concrete, and unscientific narrative.

Ellicott's Commentary:

(1) In the beginning.—Not, as in John 1:1, “from eternity,” but in the beginning of this sidereal system, of which our sun, with its attendant planets, forms a part. As there never was a time when God did not exist, and as activity is an essential part of His being (John 5:17), so, probably, there was never a time when worlds did not exist; and in the process of calling them into existence when and how He willed, we may well believe that God acted in accordance with the working of some universal law, of which He is Himself the author.

Wow. Biblical scholars agree with my interpretation. I guess that means it wasn't pulled out of thin air like the sun on day four was the beginning of time.

I'm not sure even God could explain how you could continue to get your ass kicked on the Hebrew translation per PA (who produced an expert who wrote an absolutely clear explanation), physics, biology, and climate by me, and yet you come back as if you actually are winning the argument. Delusional is the only explanation.

Yeah, too bad that "biblical scholar's" interpretation doesn't square with vv.14-19. Nor does his commentary address the contradiction it presents with vv.14-19. Time was not created until Day 4. Some scholar. You and he deserve one another. Why don't grow a backbone and give us your definition of vv.14-19. You keep ignoring this passage because it doesn't fit your narrative.

Also, the Hebrew word B’rêshîth has multiple meanings. And don't forget: that the term "time" is not found in v.1. That is an assumption that you and others impose upon the text.

Again, you didn't address the violation of the Law of Identity your interpretation of the universe presents either. Yes, you're good at talking out of both sides of your mouth all at once and simultaneously. While you have admitted that the universe is in a constant state of change, you have at the same time denied that the universe itself evolved from an "infinitesimal kernel", as it were to what we observe currently. Besides, this you're playing word games. A definition of "evolution" is "a process of change in a certain direction." So...you say "change"; I say "evolution".

Also, you conveniently overlook an important fact about physical laws: A law is a description of observed phenomenon. Laws become theories after rigorous testing under controlled conditions. In other words, any given law will fail to function as predicted if there is a variance in the conditions. Assuming, therefore, that you buy into the Big Firecracker in the Sky hypothesis to account for how the universe began, it's not logically or physically possible that at the precise moment the fuse was lit that set the firecracker off that all the current conditions manifested themselves instantaneously gazillions of years ago. The conditions back then had to have been very different from what we currently witness.. The conditions, therefore, had to evolve into what we empirically observe now. And unless all evolution has come to a screeching halt, then that "process of change in certain direction" continues to this day. (But between us girls, Shirley: the only reason the physical laws remain constant is because all evolutionary theory, save for the micro type) is pure, unadulterated swine's piss.) But since you have drunk the yellow cocktail and buy into evolutionary theory, then the universe itself must have evolved. The Laws of Physics, as it were, are the "mother" that gave birth to Laws of Biology. After all, the organic proceeded from the inorganic -- the rational from the irrational -- the moral from the amoral. And that, sir, I would call evolution!

Have a nice, evening.

P.S. Stay tuned for my reply to PA. You'll enjoy it.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by HalvOnHorseracing

I know why the term climate change replaced global warming. I was there when it did. And it was not strictly for political reasons.

If you understood how hurricanes form and why, you might understand the genesis of any prediction. But since you don't understand physics or climate science, I wouldn't expect you to know why anyone would speculate about weather. And you didn't disappoint us. You don't. You ever try to predict the path a hurricane takes? Do you have any clue why some hurricanes make landfall and some don't? Do you understand how meteorologists predict weather (which is different than climate)?

In the last 11 years we've had two of the most destructive hurricanes in history find land in the United States. Sandy and Katrina. There is a critical phrase in there. Land in the United States. A hurricane that doesn't make landfall, doesn't really count does it. And if it doesn't hit the United States, it's really not our problem, is it. How about Matthew wiping out most of southern Haiti and killing hundreds in 2016? How about Ike leaving Galveston crippled in 2008. I could go on.

The great thing about being you is that information is all relative to what you already believe. Facts? You laugh at facts? Science? For fools.

No, I understand perfectly how weather predictions are made and how precarious and imprecise they can be. Sadly, the Doom and Gloom weather forecasters didn't, which is why you no longer find very many hysterical prognostications coming out of the major weather reporting institutions or stations.

All major hurricanes are no fun and I don't wish them on anyone. But really--- 2 "biggies" in the last 11 years is way under the global warming/climate change alarmists' expectations.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by HalvOnHorseracing

His "field of expertise" is physics which is not close to expertise in weather and climate. His Nobel was for experimental discoveries regarding tunnelling phenomena in superconductors. Again, nothing to do with paleoclimatology or climatology in general. By his own words he knew nothing about climate change until he spent half a day googling on the internet.

By that measure, we have dozens of experts on biblical theology right here on PA.

No, we have dozens of wanna-be experts in biblical theology.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

https://www.gci.org/god/elohim4

Good evening, Mr. No Answers:

Just here to let you know that I did not ignore the link you sent; I did read it. And what is ironic about that organization is that I do find myself much more often in agreement with their theological views and interpretations than not. But...NOT in this case. Three things very quickly.

1. The argument completely ignores the annoying, "little" fact that there is a specific Hebrew term for "god" in the singular form. The term is El. And I presented this argument and the the proof texts way back on 4/19 in my 783. So...if the writer, who wrote this article, is correct and "Elohymn" also has a singular form, why would there be two words for "god" in the singular form? So, you might want to check that out. Although on the other hand, since you're going to be true to yourself, Mr. No Answers by not having a coherent rebuttal, you may not want to waste your valuable time.

2. Then the writer gives two "proof texts" in Exodus that he alleges supports his argument. On the surface, it sounds plausible but what the writer overlooks is that Moses is a type of Christ. (I presented a very strong case for this several years ago on the Religious thread when I did my Typology series on the Exodus.) Moses was a type of Christ in all of Christ's offices -- King, Priest and Prophet. But the emphasis in the OT is that God is the King of the universe thereby having all power and authority to rule and to judge in this world, and God is the Redeemer of his people and God is the Lawgiver that gave the law to Israel through Moses. And the biggest role of most prophets was that of forthtelling (teaching, religious instruction) not foretelling (prophesying). But as progressive revelation unfolded, these three offices of Priest, Prophet and King all become bound up in Christ who will at the end of the age deliver up his kingdom to the Father. Also, the Father and Son sent the Holy Spirit as the teacher of Christ's church. So, what does all this have to do with Moses? Only Everything.

Moses was God's chosen, hand-picked representative SENT to Pharaoh (a type of Satan). Moses possessed great power to perform many miraculous signs and wonders both in Egypt and to the Jews in the Wilderness. So...Moses was a type of God the Father; for YHWH empowered Moses to perform those miracles, signs and wonders.

But Moses also led God's chosen people out of bondage from Egypt. Moses, therefore, was also a type of the Son of God whom the Father sent into this world to deliver his elect from the bondage and darkness of Satan's kingdom.

Finally, Moses was a type of Holy Spirit because he not only gave the Law to Israel but he taught them the law. Moses taught the Israelites the way of righteousness. Moses, as God's greatest OT prophet was an even greater teacher -- in fact, he did far more of the "forthtelling" in his ministry than the "foretelling".

So, because Moses assumed all three offices of the Godhead, he wrote what he did under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. The plural form for "God" was used only for Moses because he did assume, by God's authority, all the offices of the Godhead. Moses was quite unique in this respect. No other prophet enjoyed such favor and privilege from God. And to go a step further, the context of those two Exodus passages is the Exodus itself!

3. Lastly, the writer made much ado about the singular form of "created". But again, this is just as easily explained under my explanation that "Elohymn" is simply a collective noun, and collective nouns very often take singular form of verbs. Note this example, please:

My schools' science competition team created its science project from scratch. Any problem with the grammar here? No, I didn't think so.

Honestly, I can't even score you a lousy "e" for effort. Don't you have better things to do with your life than to be constantly beaten down by me?

But... you have a nice evening, as well.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Because a sundial is a more poignant way of demonstrating how the movement of Time in the universe is as natural as the sun's rising and setting.

Poignancy implies emotional, look it up. You tell everyone else to consider implications. Take the plank from your own eye. Face cold, hard facts.

[Actor]

There's no denying it's a lucrative business. Look at Joel Osteen. No telling his net worth but he lives in a mansion. And most of his income is tax free because it's from religion.

It can't be that hard. Just make up some BS and tell people God talks to you. Look at all the people who have done it: Moses, Paul, Joseph Smith. L. Ron Hubbard.

L. Ron Hubbard was The Master (pun intended). Scientology is a multi-billion dollar business based on a story only an idiot would believe. Among its followers are John Travolta, Tom Cruise, and the daughters of both Elvis Presley and Stanley Kubrick.

Of course I need to make sure that no one ever finds out that the Rev. Alan Smithee is the atheist Actor on PA. I need a front man. Maybe boxcar would be interested.

$$$$

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

Poignancy implies emotional, look it up. You tell everyone else to consider implications. Take the plank from your own eye. Face cold, hard facts.

You need to "look it up". One of the sub meanings is "designed to make an impression", which compared to watching an atomic clock, observing a sundial would.

And what "cold, hard facts" should I face? That time is produced by Motion in space?

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Yeah, too bad that "biblical scholar's" interpretation doesn't square with vv.14-19. Nor does his commentary address the contradiction it presents with vv.14-19. Time was not created until Day 4. Some scholar. You and he deserve one another. Why don't grow a backbone and give us your definition of vv.14-19. You keep ignoring this passage because it doesn't fit your narrative.

Also, the Hebrew word B’rêshîth has multiple meanings. And don't forget: that the term "time" is not found in v.1. That is an assumption that you and others impose upon the text.

Again, you didn't address the violation of the Law of Identity your interpretation of the universe presents either. Yes, you're good at talking out of both sides of your mouth all at once and simultaneously. While you have admitted that the universe is in a constant state of change, you have at the same time denied that the universe itself evolved from an "infinitesimal kernel", as it were to what we observe currently. Besides, this you're playing word games. A definition of "evolution" is "a process of change in a certain direction." So...you say "change"; I say "evolution".

Also, you conveniently overlook an important fact about physical laws: A law is a description of observed phenomenon. Laws become theories after rigorous testing under controlled conditions. In other words, any given law will fail to function as predicted if there is a variance in the conditions. Assuming, therefore, that you buy into the Big Firecracker in the Sky hypothesis to account for how the universe began, it's not logically or physically possible that at the precise moment the fuse was lit that set the firecracker off that all the current conditions manifested themselves instantaneously gazillions of years ago. The conditions back then had to have been very different from what we currently witness.. The conditions, therefore, had to evolve into what we empirically observe now. And unless all evolution has come to a screeching halt, then that "process of change in certain direction" continues to this day. (But between us girls, Shirley: the only reason the physical laws remain constant is because all evolutionary theory, save for the micro type) is pure, unadulterated swine's piss.) But since you have drunk the yellow cocktail and buy into evolutionary theory, then the universe itself must have evolved. The Laws of Physics, as it were, are the "mother" that gave birth to Laws of Biology. After all, the organic proceeded from the inorganic -- the rational from the irrational -- the moral from the amoral. And that, sir, I would call evolution!

Have a nice, evening.

P.S. Stay tuned for my reply to PA. You'll enjoy it.

It doesn't apply to YOUR interpretation of 14-19. Many, many other scholars have figured it out. It has nothing to do with the start of time, and there is no mention of time (although there is a new division of time - day and night). Whatever you think the implication of those verses is with regard to time, it is in your head and the other parts of your zany clique. But here's an interesting thing. You saying there is a contradiction in the Bible. As I said. Matter and space were created on Day 1, and it is a completely plausible interpretation that that represented the beginning of the universe and the beginning of time. The is no contradiction later The Greater light was created in verse 3. Read 1:13 - "And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day." Clearly, with that line the sun was already there. No other interpretation makes sense. And, further, by that time, the third day, He had identified a measure of time - morning and evening. Then in 1:14 he created the lights in the vault of the sky and talked about the separation of the two great lights, "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." Clearly, again, the greater light to govern the day had already been created. He was referencing it, not creating it a second time. There was no contradiction. The language is plain, simple and crystal clear.

The word time is not found, but the divisions of time are. Equivalency. I put the interpretation of time based on the plain language and mention of the divisions of time, not to mention the smart people say time was coincidental with the start of the universe - Day 1.

If you think evolution is the equivalent of change, you do not understand the word evolution. Come to think of it, I use the phrase "do not understand the word" in relation to you far to often for it to not be an endemic issue. But if you want to say, when I say evolution, I mean change, sure, that's fine. But the change in the universe does not mean there has been any change in the laws of the universe. Change - in your word evolution - occurred and continues to occur in accordance with established laws. I have a feeling given your brain block on this you'll never understand it. Change in the universe is not a change in the laws governing the universe.

I haven't denied the Big Bang. I've argued that even if the universe started in accordance with Genesis, everything is still explainable under the laws of the universe. Now if you are asking me about probability, yes, I think Genesis is the lower probability of the two explanations for the start of the universe. But that is irrelevant. No law of the universe was violated under the Genesis story. Everything is explainable consistent with the physical laws. I proved that. There has been no violation of the Law of Identity except in your mind, which I believe I've also proved doesn't work exactly as God intended.

That paragraph that started with "Also, you conveniently overlook an important fact about physical laws: A law is a description of observed phenomenon. Laws become theories after rigorous testing under controlled conditions" tells everyone all they need to know about your understanding of science. Laws don't become theories (at least you didn't use the word evolve into theories). The explanation of the observed phenomenon is a scientific theory. Use the evolution of species. Which law turned into a theory? Although perhaps I should give you the benefit of the doubt since you do not understand science. Perhaps you meant theories are intended to explain what we observe. Hey, where have I heard that before? I know, in multiple posts of mine. Imagine that. You're telling me you finally get the difference between a theory and a law. Almost.

And one other important point. Theories don't become laws. The laws are constant. Where have I heard that before?

That last paragraph seems to say the Big Bang theory (there's that word again) was real. Good for you, understanding Genesis is metaphorical. I've said all along that the universe has changed (you call it evolved) in accordance with the laws of the universe. The Big Bang sent particles every which way, and as I have said on multiple occasions, the changes that occurred from the Big Bang forward have left us where we are today. All in accordance with the laws of the universe. THEY HAVE NOT CHANGED, EVOLVED OR WHATEVER WORD YOU WANT TO USE. That is what I have said consistently. For you to conflate the change of the universe with change in the laws of the universe is simply wrong. Not an alternate opinion. Wrong. I can't tell you how many times I've said a universe in constant motion constantly changes, and now you steal my line as if you came up with it for the first time. Pretty ballsy, if not actually cheating.

Oh yeah. The laws of biology.

- First Law of Biology: all living organisms obey the laws of thermodynamics.

- Second Law of Biology: all living organisms consist of membrane-encased cells.

- The Third Law of Biology: all living organisms arose in an evolutionary process.

In the sense that they must obey the laws of thermodynamics, yes, they have a connection to the laws of physics. But once again, they have not "evolved" even if species have.

Is there anyone else out there who is having a hard time understanding this?

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Originally Posted by boxcar

My schools' science competition team created its science project from scratch. Any problem with the grammar here? No, I didn't think so.

Yes, actually. The word schools' means more than one school, which would mean the word "team" should be plural. Second, the word created is only applicable in a broad colloquial sense. The correct terms would be conceptualized and built. I suspect they created nothing.

[boxcar]

Now that I have a little more time, I want to dig further into that downright stupid article to which PA linked us.

The writer begins his argument talking about the "form" and "sense" of words. And there's nothing wrong with that approach, providing one compares apples with apples, which the writer did not do. He chose, instead, to try to build his case by using the word "put", which is a verb. But "Elohiymn" is a noun! And collective nouns always take the singular form of verbs, with one exception. (And everyone will just love this exception. But more on this in a moment.)

Then, as I pointed out last night, the writer tried to make a case by appealing to Exodus 4 and 7, wherein God told Moses that he would be as God, i.e. "Elohiymn". The writer's off-the-wall logic was that since Moses was just one person, the name "Elohymn" must have a singular sense. The first problem with this argument is that writer failed to tell his readers that there is a singular form for the name "God" -- it's "El" -- not "Elohymn". But there's a second problem as well.

The second problem is that the formal name for God is God (i.e. "Elohiymn"). Only under very special circumstances does God refer to himself in the singular sense (i.e. as "El") and I pointed this out in my post 783, so I'm not going to repeat the argument here. "Elohiymn" is used in the OT over 2,600 times, as the formal NAME for "God". Now...let's do this for the sake of discussion: Let's say God had another name...Harry, maybe. God is the Harry of the universe. So, in Ex. 7:1, for example, wherein Harry (speaking to Moses) tells his prophet that he will make him as HIMSELF -- i.e. he will make him as Harry, what other name should God have used when speaking to Moses!? If Moses has always known Harry as Harry, should Harry now change his name to Ivor?

Now, let's move on to probably a little known "factoid" about collective nouns. There can actually be agreement errors between collective nouns and their verbs, and even pronouns. Now here's the rule for when to know when a collective noun should take a single or plural form of a verb or even of a pronoun. Collective nouns always take the single form of a verb when the group (such as a science team) ACT as a UNIT (the science team building its project). Let me repeat this because there are some here who insist on remaining dense because they just love the comfort of their dark, spiritual ignorance so much, they just will not step into the light: Collective nouns always take the singular form of a verb when the group acts as unit. Conversely, collective nouns take the plural form of a verb whenever the group does not act as a unit. Here's an example of the latter situation:

After the three-hour practice under the brutal sun, the team shower, change into their street clothes, and head to their air-conditioned homes.

Grammatical Reason for the above grammar:

Team = plural; shower, change, head = plural verbs; their = a plural pronoun. The teammates are dressing into their individual outfits and leaving in different directions for their individual homes.

http://www.chompchomp.com/terms/collectivenoun.htm

This rule of grammar, doubtlessly, applies to all languages. This explains why the collective noun "Elohiymn" is always used with the singular verb forms Always! The three persons (the group) in the Godhead always, think, speak and act in perfect unison. And there is actually a biblical and logical reason for this, as well.

PA, stay away from the antichrist Kool Aid you're drinking. Trust me when I tell you: The stuff will kill you in the end! It Shirley will be your death.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by HalvOnHorseracing

Yes, actually. The word schools' means more than one school, which would mean the word "team" should be plural. Second, the word created is only applicable in a broad colloquial sense. The correct terms would be conceptualized and built. I suspect they created nothing.

Oh, you got me. I did a typo. Go to the head of class and your reward is that you get remove your dunce cap for one whole hour.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by HalvOnHorseracing

It doesn't apply to YOUR interpretation of 14-19. Many, many other scholars have figured it out. It has nothing to do with the start of time, and there is no mention of time (although there is a new division of time - day and night). Whatever you think the implication of those verses is with regard to time, it is in your head and the other parts of your zany clique. But here's an interesting thing. You saying there is a contradiction in the Bible. As I said. Matter and space were created on Day 1, and it is a completely plausible interpretation that that represented the beginning of the universe and the beginning of time. The is no contradiction later The Greater light was created in verse 3.

You're shot. The greater light was created in vv. 14-19 on Day 4.. Learn to read. Also, vv. 1-5 does not teach that God created the entire universe (all matter) on Day 1. The only matter he created was planet earth. You're stuck on stupid, Halv. You just refuse to believe what the plain, crystal clear creation passage in Genesis is saying.

Oh yeah...and there were evenings and mornings on Day1, 2 and 3 because the glory of God (the light in vv.1-5) illuminated only on one half of the rotating earth at any given time. But after God created the sun, moon and stars on Day 4, those physical, celestial bodies took over the governance of Time -- those bodies governed days, week, years, seasons, etc.

Gotta run. The rest of your post is just as much double-talking nonsense as your words above. You're pathetic. (I was especially amused by your take of "time" in vv.14-19 when you said, "and there is no mention of time (although there is a new division of time - day and night").). Talk about doublespeak! The only logical inference is that Time was created at the same moment the sun, moon and stars, which is precisely why God talks about the "divisions" of time. With a straight face, no doubt, you're going to tell me that Time is not specifically mentioned in this passage, yet neither is it mentioned in vv.1-5! You simply ignore that the Hebrew term translated "in the beginning" has only one meaning when clearly that is not the case, as I have shown previously.

But I'd still be tickled pink to hear your interpretation of Gen 1:14-19. I would just love to hear that double-speak!

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Originally Posted by boxcar

No, we have dozens of wanna-be experts in biblical theology.

Finally. I have to concede you are right. Anyone who has no formal training or study in a topic and only got his information from the internet - let's say climate change - and yet pontificates in a public forum, is no better than a wanna-be expert.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by HalvOnHorseracing

Finally. I have to concede you are right. Anyone who has no formal training or study in a topic and only got his information from the internet - let's say climate change - and yet pontificates in a public forum, is no better than a wanna-be expert.

Oh...and you and Actor and Hcap have all written peer-reviewed papers on "climate change"? Or were you all just born with the "climate change" gene?