They are defined by the sun because you say so? Show me in the bible where it says the SUN defines morning and evening?
Last edited:
toldailytopic: Theistic evolution: best arguments for, or against.
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
They are defined by the sun because you say so? Show me in the bible where it says the SUN defines morning and evening?
Mornings are when the sun rises. Evenings are when the sun sets. That's what those words mean.
Morning n.
a : dawn
b : the time from sunrise to noon
Evening n.
the period from sunset or the evening meal to bedtime
Merriam-Webster
If you have to redefine words to fit your theology, isn't that a revelation for you?
Which is why we know it's not a literal history.
If that were so, we'd call it "morning" when the aurora borealis appears. But we don't. You're redefining words to save your modern re-interpretation of Scirpture.
Um, what part of merriam - webster = scripture?
The actual bible talks about sun not being needed because of the light of God being cast, genesis also talks about morning and evening before there was a sun, and states why there is one, it was for US.
Tell me something, what has more authority, scripture or your church
Dictionaries just list words and how they are used. That's what they mean.
In heaven, not in the physical universe. C'mon, you knew that. Why pretend otherwise.
Which, as the early Christian acknowledged, is why we know it's not a literal history.
You're welcome to have your new doctrine, but that has never been Christian orthodoxy.
It's God's church. We just belong to it. You do, too, if you truly believe and accept Him. Scripture itself says that it's not the only source of truth about God, so trying to set God's word against His church is not very smart.
I asked you for biblical support for your position, not for a word definition from the dictionary.
The verse i quoted was of a future city on earth, did you read it, or just pretend you did?
You have an even bigger problem too here with your preterist teachings of revelation especially if now you deny that verse and claim its being in heaven when the church teaches it was rome which is here on earth.
So try again.
back this up with evidence please.
Psalm 104:19 Seems i better stay away from your church then if it doesnt teach as orthodox, what is in scripture since what i said comes from the bible, not "new doctrine" and scripture that preceeded the church at that.
Im not catholic, and you didnt answer the question.
Barbarian observes:
Dictionaries just list words and how they are used. That's what they mean.
If you don't use words as others do, then you will not communicate very well. English is what it is.
Barbarian chuckles:
In heaven, not in the physical universe. C'mon, you knew that. Why pretend otherwise.
Well, let's take a look...
1And I saw a new heaven and a new earth. For the first heaven and the first earth was gone, and the sea is now no more.
2And I John saw the holy city, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.
Notice, a new Earth not the one we live in, in which a city from heaven is placed. Didn't you read the whole thing?
Surprise. Try again.
Barbarian observes:
Which, as the early Christian acknowledged, is why we know it's not a literal history.
St. Augustine, for example, in De Genesi ad litteram libri duodecim pointed this out. No one argued with his understanding.
Barbarian observes:
You're welcome to have your new doctrine, but that has never been Christian orthodoxy.
As you see, you revised scripture to make it more acceptable to you.
Barbarian observes:
It's God's church. We just belong to it. You do, too, if you truly believe and accept Him. Scripture itself says that it's not the only source of truth about God, so trying to set God's word against His church is not very smart.
All Christians are catholic, even those who aren't Catholic.
You just didn't like the answer you got.
Dictionaries just list words and how they are used. That's what they mean.
If you don't use words as others do, then you will not communicate very well. English is what it is.
Barbarian chuckles:
In heaven, not in the physical universe. C'mon, you knew that. Why pretend otherwise.
Well, let's take a look...
1And I saw a new heaven and a new earth. For the first heaven and the first earth was gone, and the sea is now no more.
2And I John saw the holy city, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.
Notice, a new Earth not the one we live in, in which a city from heaven is placed. Didn't you read the whole thing?
Surprise. Try again.
Barbarian observes:
Which, as the early Christian acknowledged, is why we know it's not a literal history.
St. Augustine, for example, in De Genesi ad litteram libri duodecim pointed this out. No one argued with his understanding.
Barbarian observes:
You're welcome to have your new doctrine, but that has never been Christian orthodoxy.
As you see, you revised scripture to make it more acceptable to you.
Barbarian observes:
It's God's church. We just belong to it. You do, too, if you truly believe and accept Him. Scripture itself says that it's not the only source of truth about God, so trying to set God's word against His church is not very smart.
All Christians are catholic, even those who aren't Catholic.
You just didn't like the answer you got.
Another cop out, in other words you cannot support your position biblically since i asked for scripture and you keep refusing to answer me.
You said before the verse was about heaven where Sun wasnt needed, why would Sun be needed now when you admit it wont be needed on new earth and how do you reconcile that verse when your church has already taught that the city in question there is ROME?
By your statement you are refuting what your own church teaches, because if that city is rome and not a city on a new earth like it says, you cannot even support yourself biblically in ANY way.
Again, Sun was not needed in creation any more than its needed in that verse and that verse explains why it was not needed, because the Glory of God serves its light.
You try again, your posting contrary to preterist teachings that revelation is not literal and already happened and that the city there is not rome like your church already stated it was.
And you just contradicted your own response, that verse cannot be suggestive parable/metaphor and support you - you cant have it both ways.
Post what he said on this issue with a link to the reference material it came from.
I quoted a verse only that is self explanitory and says why sun and moon were creation, and it says as I and another already said in this thread, it was for us to know the times and seasons, morning and evening could happen whether we realized them or not.
I'm not catholic and never will be, sorry. Jesus is the head of my church not a pope or a preist.
No, i asked you a direct question, when scripture and your church contradict, who is right, scripture or your church?
You've been misled about that. And of course, a city from Heaven would not be bound by the rules of the physical world.
Someone's had a little fun with you on that. Why not learn what the Church actually teaches?
Barbarian observes:
Which, as the early Christian acknowledged, is why we know it's not a literal history.
I think you're going to need more than an unsupported assertion to make your new beliefs plausible.
Barbarian observes:
As you see, you revised scripture to make it more acceptable to you.
And yet most Christians don't buy your new take on it.
Barbarian observes:
It's God's church. We just belong to it. You do, too, if you truly believe and accept Him. Scripture itself says that it's not the only source of truth about God, so trying to set God's word against His church is not very smart.
All Christians are catholic, even those who aren't Catholic.
You just didn't like the answer you got.
If you're Christian, you are.
Mine, too.
So far, that's not been a problem. For the obvious reasons. And this thread is about evolution. Why not start a new thread like "weird misconceptions people have about the Catholic Church?"
Stripe is nothing if not creative in revising what other people say.
Don't think he'll have much luck trying to redefine words to fit his religious beliefs, though.
eameece
New member
God said, let there be light. He didn't say it dissipated or went away.It dissipated. As light tends to do.
The light that God let be, was generic light. It was not a light in a particular place like the Sun, which could have caused a day. The Bible must mean something else by the terms morning and evening; it must have been a phase or an eon of time.
Jesus said clearly that his words must be interpreted. He spoke in parables and said "them who have ears to hear, let them hear." Your literalism is not in accord with Jesus' word.
Evolution is science. That's not the problem with it. Science is inadequate to explain life.
The implication of what you said.
Last edited:
eameece
New member
Show me a science that proves the Bible.
Intelligent design.
Is morning and evening defined by God or by man?
After doing some thinking, I realized that God was showing his work week. You start your work day in the morning, and you end your work day in the evening. That is reason for the phraseology there. When I used to work the graveyard shift, 10 pm was my morning and 8 am was my evening , because that was my workday. The sun came up at the end of my workday, but it was evening for me at any rate.
Genesis was initially written to the israelites who were wandering in the desert for 40 years. Do you really think they could not envision an evening and a morning without a megaton hydrogen-helium thermonuclear oven hundreds of thousands of miles away? They knew how bright the presence of God was in pillar of fire that followed them. It didn't take much imagination to see how there could be a bright point of light in the sky during the first three days of creation when the very physical shekinah glory of God moved about the face of the earth.
That's because after a few days He made a replacement and permanent source. :duh:
Why not and why? Because you say so? We know the light was separated from the darkness. How do you think that was achieved?
And Jesus explained His parables. Do you know what the explanation of six days is?
Naw, it's just a theory.
Lucky we know How God created life then, huh?
You need to go back and read again what I said. :thumb:
Intelligent design is a religious belief. Here's what it was invented for, according to the guys who invented it:
Governing Goals
To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies.
To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and hurnan beings are created by God.
http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.html
It's a religion. Intelligent Design is the official doctrine of Rev. Myung Son Moon's "Unification Church." Moon, as you might know, also considers himself a superior version of Jesus.
That depends on whether you think men or God developed English. Turns out, it's men. If you have to redefine words to make your theology work, then there's something gravely wrong with your theology.
As to Genesis 1:3 and specifically “light”. It has been noted by some scholars that the Hebrew word אור is not limited to “light” only in the visible sense but also in the sense of incandescence, related to heat. (the word can be found in various passages to mean “fire”) It is possible that the Light ( אור ) in Gen. 1:3 refers to caloric or latent heat which would emit light.