love dis 1 .. ur right creation was not 6days but restoration can be...Creation happened in Gn.1:1. in vs.2 destruction vs.3 restoration... no one knows how long it was in between vs 1 & vs 2..it could be 100,000,000 years not sure but still creation or restoration is an ack of GODs love..
I'm not a JW but I believe the world was created more than 7 solar days, yet I believe the world was created in "Generations". Genesis 2:4-5 (KJV) - "These are the GENERATIONS of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens, And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew..." Please continued to read the Scriptures, there are "nuggets of gold" for understanding.
For old earth creationists (such as JW’s): If a “day” equals a thousand (or more likely millions of) years; if Adam was created on the sixth day (Genesis 1); then god rested on the seventh; then Adam and Eve sinned sometime after the seventh, then you’d expect Adam to have lived thousands or millions of years, since his life spanned at least one “day” (the seventh). Yet, Genesis 5:5 says Adam lived 930 years. How can a “day” be more than his total years?
I suppose they could say that the “day” varies. But I see that as an ad hoc argument, by changing the definition of the word in question, to meet whatever the hypothesis is. If they argue that a “day” is a large number such as a million years; then change the definition when it doesn’t add up, then you’re committing a logical fallacy. It’s internally inconsistent and bias.
A not so obvious detail you mentioned but didn't explain:
Cut down a living tree that is 200 years old, and compare it to a dead tree that lived for 500 years but died 100 years ago. They rings would overlap for 100 year and you could compare the rings for wet/dry years and match them up to see that the dead tree died 100 years ago. You can also do this to go back thousands of years ... even before the univers was created :)
@heyawhaw Precisely. Amount of rain, amount of sun, desert dust storms that originate thousands of miles from the forests being studied, volcanic eruptions (things that make for hazy skies)... A lot of things combine to make for a very interesting chronological tool... Amazing how all those things happened before the universe began, isn't it!
Hi Isabela. It seems you haven't fully analyzed your solar/lunar calendar point. It seems you think that the differences between the modern solar calendar, and the lunar calendar used by the ancient Hebrews would make up for the millions of years' discrepancy between the Genesis account and reality. You should research this point.
As for your second point, simplifying a statement shouldn't make it false. Simple or not, the Genesis account must either be true or false.
Given that the Solar Calendar is most logical, why weren't God's people told about it ahead of time ? And why did they think the Earth was flat ? Given their deity was the font of all knowledge, how could these truths not be in scripture ? Why did it take secular thinkers observing the world and risking their necks by publishing in a hostile religious climate to allow these truths to become known ?
Currently, a day is 24 hours. We start them at midnight in whatever time zone we're in.
The Israelites didn't measure days in hours, however. They measured them in darkness and light, with a day beginning at sunset. That's why, for instance, the Sabbath would begin at dusk on Friday night, and end at dusk on Saturday. Genesis stuck to that pattern, as one would expect.
Good point: God does create day and night twice in Genesis. However, there are other things that are created twice, including Adam and Eve, and the Garden of Eden. (Creating the Sun after the Earth presents its own problems, but I'm trying to keep these videos on one subject, and not too complicated.) But you do make a (relatively) valid point regarding the creation of the Sun, and of day and night.
no problem, it is something that has puzled me, but it could point to the reasoning that days were periods of time before the sun was created. take care.
Hello again, I see there are no comments yet so I'll start. First of all, let me say I don't have all the answers. That being said, I do have questions on your point of view. One of which is this. On what basis do you establish your faith in science? If having faith in the Bible as the word of God is flawed, couldn't it also be said that critical thinking could lead one to reject Science as unreliable also? On both sides of the issue, wouldn't it always come back to "what do I want to believe?"
Hi ES. Thanks for your comment. In short, the answer to your question is: No. It isn't the same. Think of all of the scientific research that went into the computer you're using to watch this video, along with all of the other objects you use in your daily life. Science produces results. And it's based on observations, research and testing. Science requires proof. Belief in the Bible requires two steps: 1) read it; 2) believe it.
Science is willing to throw out a theory if the evidence doesn't bear it out. Is the Bible willing to do that? Or do believers in the Bible simply refuse to accept any evidence that contradicts their way of thinking?
To be honest, I don't see that anyone can reasonably say they don't see a difference in faith and reason. It doesn't all boil down to what one wants to believe.
I agree it all boils down to what we want to believe. It requires a certain amount of faith either way. Magicians preform tricks with slight of hand that look pretty convincing, but it doesn't mean that their real. ES
Likewise science requires a certain amount of (believing it) even if the proof isn't available to you. Let's use the global warming theory. Some state that it's a scientific fact, but some state that it's just a cyclical thing. Which are we to believe? And do we have all the hard data in front of us to provide un-deniable evidence either way? ES
No, actually science doesn't require belief without proof. That wouldn't be science. People can disagree about a scientific theory, without that meaning that science is a faith, like religion. Global warming is a fact. The Earth is getting warmer. It is the extent to which human "greenhouse gas" emissions are affecting the change about which scientists disagree. As more evidence comes to light, the theory that humans are CAUSING global warming with either be dropped, or more widely accepted.
love dis 1 .. ur right creation was not 6days but restoration can be...Creation happened in Gn.1:1. in vs.2 destruction vs.3 restoration... no one knows how long it was in between vs 1 & vs 2..it could be 100,000,000 years not sure but still creation or restoration is an ack of GODs love..
MsSanoe 8 months ago
I'm not a JW but I believe the world was created more than 7 solar days, yet I believe the world was created in "Generations". Genesis 2:4-5 (KJV) - "These are the GENERATIONS of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens, And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew..." Please continued to read the Scriptures, there are "nuggets of gold" for understanding.
abwsmmg 9 months ago
For old earth creationists (such as JW’s): If a “day” equals a thousand (or more likely millions of) years; if Adam was created on the sixth day (Genesis 1); then god rested on the seventh; then Adam and Eve sinned sometime after the seventh, then you’d expect Adam to have lived thousands or millions of years, since his life spanned at least one “day” (the seventh). Yet, Genesis 5:5 says Adam lived 930 years. How can a “day” be more than his total years?
mhoytus 1 year ago
Continued:
I suppose they could say that the “day” varies. But I see that as an ad hoc argument, by changing the definition of the word in question, to meet whatever the hypothesis is. If they argue that a “day” is a large number such as a million years; then change the definition when it doesn’t add up, then you’re committing a logical fallacy. It’s internally inconsistent and bias.
mhoytus 1 year ago
@mhoytus Precisely.
nathanaelstacy1 1 year ago
A not so obvious detail you mentioned but didn't explain:
Cut down a living tree that is 200 years old, and compare it to a dead tree that lived for 500 years but died 100 years ago. They rings would overlap for 100 year and you could compare the rings for wet/dry years and match them up to see that the dead tree died 100 years ago. You can also do this to go back thousands of years ... even before the univers was created :)
heyawhaw 1 year ago
@heyawhaw Precisely. Amount of rain, amount of sun, desert dust storms that originate thousands of miles from the forests being studied, volcanic eruptions (things that make for hazy skies)... A lot of things combine to make for a very interesting chronological tool... Amazing how all those things happened before the universe began, isn't it!
nathanaelstacy1 1 year ago
Now, think with me. This was written almost 2000 years b.C. Did they use the Solar Calendar at this time? I don't think so.
And think about the people that were supposed to read this at that time! That's why was written in such a simple way.
Isabela874 2 years ago
Hi Isabela. It seems you haven't fully analyzed your solar/lunar calendar point. It seems you think that the differences between the modern solar calendar, and the lunar calendar used by the ancient Hebrews would make up for the millions of years' discrepancy between the Genesis account and reality. You should research this point.
As for your second point, simplifying a statement shouldn't make it false. Simple or not, the Genesis account must either be true or false.
nathanaelstacy1 2 years ago
Given that the Solar Calendar is most logical, why weren't God's people told about it ahead of time ? And why did they think the Earth was flat ? Given their deity was the font of all knowledge, how could these truths not be in scripture ? Why did it take secular thinkers observing the world and risking their necks by publishing in a hostile religious climate to allow these truths to become known ?
formless777 2 years ago
Thanks Catch. I could do a video on just about every sentence in the creation account -- but I think it might get to be a bit tedious for the viewer!
nathanaelstacy1 2 years ago
hi bud, just a question as much for me as for you, but how long is a day,
alamo11 2 years ago
Currently, a day is 24 hours. We start them at midnight in whatever time zone we're in.
The Israelites didn't measure days in hours, however. They measured them in darkness and light, with a day beginning at sunset. That's why, for instance, the Sabbath would begin at dusk on Friday night, and end at dusk on Saturday. Genesis stuck to that pattern, as one would expect.
nathanaelstacy1 2 years ago
and are hours and minutes fractions of that period that it takes for the sun to complete its cycle (or the earth)
alamo11 2 years ago
Yes, it takes 24 hours for the Earth to rotate on its axis. It could just as easily be divided into 30 units, or 5, or 2.
nathanaelstacy1 2 years ago
so how long was a day before the sun was created
alamo11 2 years ago
Are you asking from a biblical perspective, or a scientific one?
nathanaelstacy1 2 years ago
what i am asking is ,if the sun was created on the 4th day, then how can we accurately say that the first 3 days were 24hours each day.
alamo11 2 years ago
Good point: God does create day and night twice in Genesis. However, there are other things that are created twice, including Adam and Eve, and the Garden of Eden. (Creating the Sun after the Earth presents its own problems, but I'm trying to keep these videos on one subject, and not too complicated.) But you do make a (relatively) valid point regarding the creation of the Sun, and of day and night.
nathanaelstacy1 2 years ago
no problem, it is something that has puzled me, but it could point to the reasoning that days were periods of time before the sun was created. take care.
alamo11 2 years ago
You too, mate.
nathanaelstacy1 2 years ago
Hello again, I see there are no comments yet so I'll start. First of all, let me say I don't have all the answers. That being said, I do have questions on your point of view. One of which is this. On what basis do you establish your faith in science? If having faith in the Bible as the word of God is flawed, couldn't it also be said that critical thinking could lead one to reject Science as unreliable also? On both sides of the issue, wouldn't it always come back to "what do I want to believe?"
earnestlyseeking 2 years ago
Hi ES. Thanks for your comment. In short, the answer to your question is: No. It isn't the same. Think of all of the scientific research that went into the computer you're using to watch this video, along with all of the other objects you use in your daily life. Science produces results. And it's based on observations, research and testing. Science requires proof. Belief in the Bible requires two steps: 1) read it; 2) believe it.
nathanaelstacy1 2 years ago
Science is willing to throw out a theory if the evidence doesn't bear it out. Is the Bible willing to do that? Or do believers in the Bible simply refuse to accept any evidence that contradicts their way of thinking?
To be honest, I don't see that anyone can reasonably say they don't see a difference in faith and reason. It doesn't all boil down to what one wants to believe.
nathanaelstacy1 2 years ago
I agree it all boils down to what we want to believe. It requires a certain amount of faith either way. Magicians preform tricks with slight of hand that look pretty convincing, but it doesn't mean that their real. ES
earnestlyseeking 2 years ago
Actually, what I said was that it doesn't all boil down to what someone wants to believe. Not that it does. :-)
nathanaelstacy1 2 years ago
Likewise science requires a certain amount of (believing it) even if the proof isn't available to you. Let's use the global warming theory. Some state that it's a scientific fact, but some state that it's just a cyclical thing. Which are we to believe? And do we have all the hard data in front of us to provide un-deniable evidence either way? ES
earnestlyseeking 2 years ago
No, actually science doesn't require belief without proof. That wouldn't be science. People can disagree about a scientific theory, without that meaning that science is a faith, like religion. Global warming is a fact. The Earth is getting warmer. It is the extent to which human "greenhouse gas" emissions are affecting the change about which scientists disagree. As more evidence comes to light, the theory that humans are CAUSING global warming with either be dropped, or more widely accepted.
nathanaelstacy1 2 years ago