bill nye the science guy has agreed to a debate

[horsecamp]

any thing that disagrees with a 6 day creation is a God denying form of theology. I don't care how many degrees they have or how kindly they try to promote it..

There at odds with God His bible The Lutheran confessions and every single confessional Lutheran in heaven and earth including me.. dodo-- David

 

[Dodo_David]

any thing that disagrees with a 6 day creation is a God denying form of theology. I don't care how many degrees they have or how kindly they try to promote it..

There at odds with God His bible The Lutheran confessions and every single confessional Lutheran in heaven and earth including me.. dodo-- David

So, we are suppose to conform to a modern-day western ethnocentric interpretation of those six days in order to believe in God?

 

[Purity]

any thing that disagrees with a 6 day creation is a God denying form of theology. I don't care how many degrees they have or how kindly they try to promote it..

There at odds with God His bible The Lutheran confessions and every single confessional Lutheran in heaven and earth including me.. dodo-- David

Can you explain (with actual facts) how Gen 1:5 has the evening and the morning being the first day, when the sun, moon and stars were not appointed until day four? Remember now; if you are pushing a literal reading of the text you will be able to provide a literal interpretation in your answer.

So, we are suppose to conform to a modern-day western ethnocentric interpretation of those six days in order to believe in God?

Answer: no

 

[Arnie Manitoba]

Can you explain (with actual facts) how Gen 1:5 has the evening and the morning being the first day, when the sun, moon and stars were not appointed until day four? Remember now; if you are pushing a literal reading of the text you will be able to provide a literal interpretation in your answer.

The literal interpretation is right in front of you if you care to read it

God was creating light ... he was not creating sun moon and stars (yet) .... Genesis 1:3

He called the light "day" and the darkness "night" Genesis 1:5

No sun moon or stars are required to have light

 

[Purity]

The literal interpretation is right in front of you if you care to read it

God was creating light ... he was not creating sun moon and stars (yet) .... Genesis 1:3

He called the light "day" and the darkness "night" Genesis 1:5

No sun moon or stars are required to have light

You missed the point.

For there to be an "evening and a morning" requires planets

If you believe God turned the light down like a dimmer and turned the darkness up please provide scripture.

 

[UppsalaDragby]

For there to be an "evening and a morning" requires planets

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth...

 

[Arnie Manitoba]

You missed the point.

For there to be an "evening and a morning" requires planets

If you believe God turned the light down like a dimmer and turned the darkness up please provide scripture.

.
Not necessarily ..... read it again ....

First God called the light "day" and the "night" darkness (before the sun and moon)

Then he said,...... “Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night"

Then ...... God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars.

Then .... 17 God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness.

 

[Purity]

.
Not necessarily ..... read it again ....

First God called the light "day" and the "night" darkness (before the sun and moon)

Then he said,...... “Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night"

Then ...... God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars.

Then .... 17 God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness.

Sorry Arnie you are missing on day one it speaks of evening and morning.

Please explain evening and morning on day one with out taking us to day four.

 

[snr5557]

since when has atheism become cool?
the cool guy in the debate is the Christian who believes the bible..

Actually, evolution itself is not atheist. Science does not have emotions or thoughts. That's like saying a toothbrush is a mormon, or a computer mouse is a satanist. And he's an agnostic, there's a difference. He's debating Creationism and evolution. Although the men up there are important, it's the message that they're trying to bring attention to is what is the main feature.

Edit: I was assuming that she (he?) was talking about how evolution is an atheist idea, and if I'm wrong correct me. But, I believe everything I said still stands.

 

[Arnie Manitoba]

.
I could invent a new light bulb today
I could build it tomorrow
I could turn it on the third day

When did I invent the light bulb ??

 

[Purity]

.
I could invent a new light bulb today
I could build it tomorrow
I could turn it on the third day

When did I invent the light bulb ??

This is how you explain evening and morning on the first day?

Explain why the sun and moon are not given their proper names in Gen 1?

 

[Forsakenone]

This is how you explain evening and morning on the first day?

I split so I could transverse U

 

[Purity]

http://www.ibtimes.com/bill-nye-vs-ken-ham-debate-who-won-creationism-evolution-battle-full-video-1553464

Bill Nye emerged the clear winner in this debate. On one hand I was pleased to see Ken become the apologist having lost so much ground in his arguments, however it saddens me that hyper literalism discredits God, His Word and His Works by a fundemnetialist appraoch to Bible reading. This was true of every argument Ken produced, Bill was able to use his faulty premise along with the mountain of evidence for a very old earth to discredit all his opinions.

Purity

 

[aspen]

Purity - i agree completely