It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


The Biblical Account of the Creation - Debunked

page: 3
<< 1  2   >>

log in


posted on Oct, 28 2013 @ 04:47 PM
reply to post by edmc^2

How exactly is the word day in this verse suppose to mean epoch in context?

Gen 1:5

God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

I see no possible way to mean epoch if reading it in context.

posted on Oct, 28 2013 @ 09:15 PM

Text The Bible also tells us that the world was created in six days, and fixes the epoch of this creation at about 4000 years before the Christian era. Previously to that period the earth did not exist. At that period it was produced out of nothing. Such is the formal declaration of the sacred text, yet science, positive, inexorable steps in with proof to the contrary.
reply to post by Shadow Herder

I understand the riff of the meaning of "day" and I realize that Moses must have used other traditions and or writings to pen the book of Genesis. He had to have had tradition and other forms of understanding in order to convey his thoughts into Genesis. He may very well have had other scribes who penned some of the other parts of his work which is accredited to him. I don't doubt that some Apostles have accepted ghost writers in their ministry as well.

But the word "day" is the key to understanding much of the creation story. What I do not understand is the assumption of something to exist before it exists. If you have a child then you can understand that the child could not exist in the terrestrial world before it was conceived. Every flesh has a birth day and every flesh has a date of being conceived. How can flesh be conceived before it was conceived?

That is exactly what the bible critics are suggesting. Most are insisting that our present 24 hour day of terrestrial life existed before it existed. How can this be shown? The account of Moses declares that the heavenly bodies were placed in the universe on the forth era of creation. Without these heavenly bodies we would have no time to mark as time. Then for three days, of which Moses calls a day, the universe was without this mark of time "day". How could the world have a day without a star (sun) to mark the twenty four hour period? The sun was not placed in the universe till the fourth era and then it started to mark a period of time.

posted on Oct, 28 2013 @ 11:04 PM
There always the 'Gap Theory'. My personal choice

"The word "was" in Genesis 1:2 is more accurately translated "became". Such a word choice makes the gap interpretation easier to see in modern English.[11][13][14]

God is perfect and everything he does is perfect, so a newly created earth from the hand of God should not have been without form and void and shrouded in darkness. Deuteronomy 32:4, Isaiah 45:18 1 John 1:5[10][11][14]

The Holy Spirit was "renewing" the face of the earth as he hovered over the face of the waters. Psalms 104:30[11][14][15][unreliable source?]

Angels already existed in a state of grace when God "laid the foundations of the Earth", so there had been at least one creative act of God before the six days of Genesis. Job 38:4-7[11][15]

Satan had fallen from grace "in the beginning" which, since the serpent tempted Adam and Eve, had to have occurred before the Fall of man. Isaiah 14:12-15, Ezekiel 28:11-19, John 8:44[10][11][15]

Space, time, water, and the rock which constitutes the main body of the earth, existed before the period of six days began in Genesis 1:3.[12]"

Chuck Missler is very good explaining it too.

edit on 1006Mon, 28 Oct 2013 23:06:24 -0500Mon, 28 Oct 2013 23:06:24 -0500America/ChicagobAmerica/Chicagox by Mirrebex because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 29 2013 @ 08:54 PM

...when the uni-verse (means single spoken scentence) came from...

I'm not going to engage you in a theological debate, because I sense doing so would be an exercise in futility, but I'm curious about one thing. Why do people make up these false etymologies and definitions and use them as ammo in their arguments? They prove nothing but the arguer's own ignorance and relying on them undermines their credibility. "Universe" demonstrably does NOT mean "single spoken sentence," and the -verse part has its origin in the Latin versus ("turned toward"), which is the past participle of vertere ("to turn"). Not only that, but the modern word "verse" does not mean "spoken sentence."

This is just one example of a phenomenon I've observed many times here on ATS, among other places. I can't wrap my mind around the reasoning behind it. With the internet, anyone can, in seconds, look up the actual definition of a word and (usually) trace its etymology. Why try to pass off a falsehood as the truth when you can so easily be shown to be in error?

new topics

top topics
<< 1  2   >>

log in