If you are referring to me in the underlined I challenge you to find a point where I disagree with Scripture.
I'm not saying that you disagree with scripture but it seems if
Spammy likes your position of putting light first it seems like you
are co-existing. An atheist likes what you said, not what I said.
Your ENGLISH translation, particularly the King James, has its own issues. Most English translations are done from the original Hebrew and Greek directly to English. The King James was actually translated from the Latin Vulgate Bible, so it went through 2 translations.
Many translations say the same as King James such as RSV and
NIV to name two. Meanings get lost when translating from the original
language in any work of art or historical record but again, if God wanted
it to be 13B years he would have said that instead of 6 days.
Jewish scholars who understand Hebrew way better than you or I believe the earth was created over 6 lengthy time frames, why is this an issue for you?
Again, because that's what my Bible says. Translations like NIV and RSV say the same thing. If God wanted it to be years he would have said years,
not day.
Time has no meaning for a timeless God. That Jewish scholars disagree on Jesus isn't part of THIS discussion, Christians believe the same creation history as Jews. Jesus taught that the Jews had a very good understanding of the Scriptures, they just didn't live them out well.
I told Spammy that God had to put the universe into something, it was
void and w/o form. God put it in time. Time is just not measurement like
Spammy said.
As for science and God, your view is ridiculous. If science discovers truths about the universe these are things God wants us to discover.
There you go again. It's ridiculous. The atheist point of view is science vs God.
Trap, do you have ANY understanding of the scientific method (developed by Christians like Newton, a STAUNCH believer)? Hypotheses are proposed, from them theroies are developed and these theories make predictions. The Big Bang thoery posited several predictions, many of them have been shown to be correct and some are still to be confirmed or denied. The main basis of the Big Bang theory is the Theory of Relativity, which has been proven to a greater degree than accepted laws like Newton's laws of motion.
List a few scientists that take issue with the Big Bang and their published articles in peer reviewed journals for me. Meanwhile, I can show you many more that agree with it. The deniers, Trap, are either uneducated Christians or atheists.
I used a link where a guy said that and you've been arguing it since.
I'll have to check it out but haven't had time.
This is utter nonsense. Agreeing with an atheist is a compromise? Do you agree with atheists that 2 + 2 = 4?
The math is irrelevant here. Were talking creation - science vs scripture. The two don't jive.
Spambot agrees there was a beginning to the universe. He does not agree on the cause.
Yes, but he liked the way you put light being created before the earth
so he said he likes what you said. That's because you're accepting the Bang. Maybe not like him but you're allowing it. I'm hog wash because I'm fighting it according to scripture. He disagrees with me that light came after the 6th day.
By the way, YOU ARE THE ONE LINKING TO AN ATHEIST WEBSITE IN REGARD TO THE PROBLEMS WITH THE BIG BANG! Try removing that log sir, and you will then be in position to point out and help remove any specks I have.
Do you disagree that the universe began to exist or DO YOU AGREE WITH THE VERY FEW ATHEISTS THAT HOLD TO TO THE STEADY STATE IDEA?
No, it says 6 "yoms." And light came before the earth. Most Biblical scholars agree that Genesis 1:1 is a summarizing statement that says there was a beginnning and God created everything, then the rest of the chapter goes into a brief description of what he did. After space, time, matter and energy then came light. Light was FIRST of the created objects after the universe was established in which to place these creations. This is scientific as well. The early universe was pure light with no darkness until it had cooled to a point.
Correct. It wasn't a "bang" but the name isn't the idea. It is just a name and you are correct, it is not a good desciprtion. It is simply the coming into existence of everything from nothing we would call natural.
I got something right here.
http://www.everystudent.com/wires/universe.html
Take a few minutes and read that. ^
Ok.
Do you still not understand WHY Hoyle did this initially? The idea of a Creator was abhorrent to the THEN atheist Hoyle. He understood what the Big Bang implied, that a Creator God began the universe. He accepted the Big Bang and went on to say, while becoming a believer in a Creator, that "a super-intellect had been 'monkeying' with the laws of physics." Do you not understand how profound this was in converting this atheist into a believer of a Supreme Creator?