Bible Vs Scientism

Now we're getting nearer to clearer! Yes, I accept on faith that the Bible is the truth.

I am not asking for photos.

Gotta say, the NASA "globe" images changing the size of the continents every year, is kinda squirrely. Shouldn't these people be able to size continents properly, if they're supposedly highly trained scientists giving factual information about our planet?

The thing is there are now many space agencies besides NASA. It could also be that the further you are away the greater distortion of the continents. Or maybe it's the other way around. While they may be highly trained scientist they are apparently poorly trained photographers.

Well said, Rich. Allow me to make a couple of clarifications...

1. Wolves today still have the genetic info to make every single kind of canine in the world. From wolf to poodle, for example, requires a LOSS of genetic info. You can still breed a poodle from a wolf over time, but you can never breed a wolf from a poodle, because a lot of the genetic info has been bred out. We cannot breed more genetic info back into the offspring of the poodle. And the LOSS of genetic info is by no means "evolution" in Darwin's sense of "common descent evolution".

You are correct that God created "kinds", and that over time, much genetic info has been lost or intentionally bred out, creating a bunch of "sub-kinds".

2. You mentioned "man, and the original progenitors". What do you mean by "the original progenitors".

3. You are correct that science aligns with God's written word. And what you state as, "science as we know it is corrupt" is what I call Scientism. Science is just the empirical data. The corruption isn't in that data itself, but in the biased interpretations of that data by flawed men - most of whom abhor the idea of a creator. The blind-faith belief in those INTERPRETATIONS is the religion called Scientism.

Anyway, thanks for the comment. 👍🙂🙏

I'd be interested in knowing where in the bible it says that the first 5 days were actually a day long? Because the Bible also says a day is like a thousand years...

But, can I blow our collective minds for a second?
The Jews don't believe a day starts until Sunset. For the book of Genesis to say "There was evening, and there was morning- the first day" If there is a Morning after an Evening, and this is The First Day, then technically God Created the waters and the Sky on Day 1, and Light on Day 0.

I meant the origonal creature (canine) from which our present day wolves, dogs, coyotes, etc cane. Same for the first finch that all the different varieties of finch now exists. For instant, Adam was 1 man, and from him came black, brown, whitee, red and so on.

In the 2 verses that say a day is like a thousand years to God, define the word "day".

As for your question, consider...

1. The very concept and creation of "the day" is from God, who created it solely in relation to the earth.
2. God defined "day" as a single light/dark earth cycle - or the light portion of that cycle.
3. Any time the word "day" is modified with a numerical value (the first day, day seven, forty days, etc) it is always and without exception referring to a literal day.
4. Any time the word "day" is modified with evening and/or morning, it is always and without exception a literal day.
5. While the word "day" is often used idiomatically to refer to an unspecified general period of time, the plural word "days" ("in six days I created...") always and without exception refers to literal days.
6. God clearly and intentionally equated the six days of creation with the six days the Israelites were to work before taking a day of rest (you work for six and rest on the seventh BECAUSE I worked for six and rested on the seventh).
7. There is ZERO logical or scriptural reason to understand the six days of creation as anything other than literal days - nor even an inkling of scriptural evidence that anyone in the Bible every considered them as anything other than literal days. For example, "He made them male and female from the beginning of creation" - as opposed to "4.4 billion years after the beginning of creation".


I believe the Hebrew concept of a day going from evening until the following evening is based on that very first day - which began as evening (the darkness which God named "night"), then had a morning (the creation of light), and then ended at evening again - which also began the second day.

So the creation of light (and separation of light from darkness) was the impetus for the first of all subsequent days - and defined a "day" as a period of darkness, followed by a period of lightness, followed by a period of approaching darkness, which begins the next "day".

What are we doing giving them money to put up satellites with cameras if they're that bad at this?
Can't they just put a camera on a rocket and start flying away while looking back? Can't be all that hard, we supposedly just put James Webb out there to do just this. And I hear we have satellites in front and behind us to look at solar flares?
Where is the definitive single satellite image of earth? We've sent at least 5 missions to Mars alone. Has nobody turned around and took parting shots?

Would you say that we're misreading the word we translate as "Morning"? Where evening is the day until sunset, "morning" starts at sunset, or maybe after Twighlight?

I agree with you also that God created the heavens and the earth in 6 literal 24-hour days and rested on the 7th. Let's move forward from there.

That is indeed a great starting point. Okay, do you also agree that God created the heaven on day 2, the earth on day 3, and the sun, moon and stars on day 4?

The quotes are to show you that the Hebrew root word raqa refers to hammering something into a solid shape/object. The Hebrew word raqia refers to the solid object that has been hammered into shape. So what we know from the Bible...

1. God created the raqia (solid object) to separate the waters above from the waters below.
2. God named that solid object "heaven".
3. God later placed lights in that solid object, namely, the sun, moon, and stars.
4. Those lights will eventually fall from the solid object to the earth like figs falling from a tree. (Mark 13:25, Rev 6:13)
5. God opened floodgates within this solid object to let the waters above it fall to the earth and flood the earth.
6. This solid object is still supporting the waters above it - even long after the flood. (Psalm 148:4)
7. This solid object is as "strong as a cast metal mirror". (Job 38:17)
8. God made the sun stand still in the sky - not the earth to stop spinning. (Joshua 10:12-13)

There is no "solar system". Nor is the sun the "center" of anything. It is merely one of the many lights God placed in the firmament of heaven, and it runs its daily circuit over the earth, from one end of heaven to the other. (Psalm 19:4-6) The idea of a "solar system", that we've all been indoctrinated into believing since we were children, goes against every one of the Biblical claims above.

The Biblical description of our world and the heliocentric model contradict each other. They can't both be true. So which one is?

I go to flat earth threads to be entertained, when they start getting aggravating, I leave.

That point has been reached.

Show me some physical evidence as let's end this fruitless discussion.

What are we doing giving them money to put up satellites with cameras if they're that bad at this?
Can't they just put a camera on a rocket and start flying away while looking back? Can't be all that hard, we supposedly just put James Webb out there to do just this. And I hear we have satellites in front and behind us to look at solar flares?
Where is the definitive single satellite image of earth? We've sent at least 5 missions to Mars alone. Has nobody turned around and took parting shots?

Who among us can guess what that reason is?

I do not need to guess...

I know...

Yes, I believe the entire account of creation for each of the days.

The universe is not untold billions of years old. By biblical accounts, which I believe are accurate, the entire universe, including the earth, is roughly 6000 years old. On the 7th day God rested.

Now, in the eyes of the Lord each day is like 1000 years and 1000 years a day. Six days have now passed as the Lord has related how he views time. The earth is now in the 7th day. Some sort of biblical implication for sure in the events to come

God has said that he would shorten the days otherwise no one would survive, due to wars (nuclear), famine, various pestilences, and disease. Time is short.

How do you fit this verse into your idea of what the 'firmament' is?

Genesis 1:20

20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.

I suggest:

The word 'firmament' is translated from ('raqiya') means '[an] expanse'.

The root word it comes from ('raqa') means 'to expand' or '[to] spread out'.

The dome is a solid structure.

The sun, moon, and stars are under the dome in the expanse that is 'heaven'. (where the birds also fly)

The dome itself is not 'heaven'.

However, it does have water above it.

The 'floodgates' definitely have to be part of the dome.

Now we're getting nearer to clearer! Yes, I accept on faith that the Bible is the truth. For example, I cannot PROVE that the God of Abraham created heaven and earth, or created Adam from dust and Eve from Adam. I believe these things on a rational conclusion that the abundance of observable evidence suggests that we and our world are a creation of someone (Rom 1:20) - and on faith that the someone is the God of the Bible.

Scientism is likewise a faith-based belief that "science" somehow PROVES the Big Bang, a heliocentric solar system within a huge vacuum of space filled with billions of galaxies - which are billions of years old - and that living things can emerge via abiogenesis and then evolve into more and more complex beings by random chance.

So in a nutshell, I believe A on faith because I believe (also on faith) that the Bible is God's inspired written word and is the true authority of what's what.

Members of Scientism believe B on faith, because they believe (also on faith) that the interpretations of scientific data by certain men are the true authority of what's what.

Faith-based Belief A and faith-based Belief B clearly and undeniably contradict each other in many ways. This thread was intended to highlight these many contradictions, and to discuss which Belief (if either) is more likely to be the truth of the matter.