RGacky3
DP Veteran
- Joined
- May 8, 2012
- Messages
- 9,570
- Reaction score
- 1,493
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Socialist
“Literally” that’s not what the text says.
umm ... yes Literally it does ... Do you want me to find the Hebrew trasliteration? The light was called "day" and the darkenss was called "night," I'll get the text if you waht to deny it.
Can there be heat with light?
Yes.
Where is the light coming from?
(btw I find it hillareous that you would have the audacity to try and use science to defend 6 day creationism).
Huh?
This comment is “arbitrary”.
yeah, you decide that chapter one's use of day is literal but chapter two is not.
No.
Per the text you only need “light” and “darkness” to have day and night.
Read what it says and stop trying to make it mean what you want it to say.
That’s what cultist do.
Then preSun how do you know the days were 24 hours? **** since it was "day" meaning light" wouldn't that mean 12 hours? Taking the text literally is nonsensicle.
So what was making the light and darkness before the sun? Did God put a lamp up in the cosmos before? Did he turn the lights of the stars on and off?
Also enough with this "cultist" ****, 6 day creationists are in the minority amung Christians ... trying to do personal attacks is just bad form.
So, according to Genesis 2 and you, God:
1. Made the male,
2. planted the Garden of Eden,
3. placed the male in the Garden of Eden,
4. caused every tree to grow in the Garden of Eden,
5. put rivers in the Garden of Eden,
6. noticed that it was not good for man to be alone,
7. had the male name all of the animals in the Garden of Eden,
8. put him to sleep and removed a rib, and then
9. made the female.
So why not just make both the male and female at the same time? Why the wait?
I have no idea, I don't need to defend a literal interpretation of Genesis .. YOU have to defend it, but you can't because it's indefensable.
So tell me, do you agree with Genesis 1? Did he make them at the same time? Or Genesis 2?
1. Where does it say God talked to birds?
2. Yes. God “spoke” and things were created.
3. It’s “clear” only to cultist about the “style in which it is written”.
Genesis 1:21,22 (NRSV) 21 So God created the great sea monsters and every living creature that moves, of every kind, with which the waters swarm, and every winged bird of every kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 God blessed them, saying, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth.”
1. God blesses and talks to the animals here ... did that LITERALLY happen?
2. It's also clear to many many scholars and the majority of Christians, again, fake adhomonim attacks just make you look desperate.
Straw-man fallacy all over again.
“Literal” in only one part of the three parts of the hermeneutics we use to interpret Scriptures.
C’mon, now!
What were the other two parts and how do we read them?
Once again, straw-man fallacy. See above.
I’ve already explained it to you! So why do you take Genesis literally and not those other scriptures?
I understand that you believe that.
And you’re wrong and I’ve grown bored trying to reason this point with you.
I don’t know what kind of cult you’re wrapped-up in but does it ever have you messed-up.
It's funny you use the word "reason" when trying to defend 6 day creationism ...
I answered the contradiction between the word day in Genesis 1 and 2, it's the fact that day isn't to be taken literally ... you havn't, because you can't.