What is a "dispensation of time" in the context of what you are saying?
The current one.
By changing the point of reference to the observation of people on Earth, you open up the Bible for all sorts of interpretations.
I am not changing the point of reference FROM anything other than your previous ASSUMPTIONS.
I am simply clarifying what the book says by looking at the original language.
...you open up the Bible for all sorts of interpretations.
On the contrary, by looking at the original language, I am narrowing and refining the original interpretation.
The word used for the creation of the Sun, Moon and stars is `asah which means to make or create.
Here is a complete definition of aw-saw' directly from Strong's:
"A primitive root; to do or make, in the broadest sense and widest application: - accomplish, advance, appoint, apt, be at, become, bear, bestow, bring forth, bruise, be busy, X certainly, have the charge of, commit, deal (with), deck, + displease, do, (ready) dress (-ed), (put in) execute (-ion), exercise, fashion, + feast, [fight-] ing man, + finish, fit, fly, follow, fulfil, furnish, gather, get, go about, govern, grant, great, + hinder, hold ([a feast]), X indeed, + be industrious, + journey, keep, labour, maintain, make, be meet, observe, be occupied, offer, + officer, pare, bring (come) to pass, perform, practise, prepare, procure, provide, put, requite, X sacrifice, serve, set, shew, X sin, spend, X surely, take, X thoroughly, trim, X very, + vex, be [warr-] ior, work (-man), yield, use."—Strong's H6213
"Appoint"
"Bring Forth"
etc.
Funny, I don't see the word "Create" in the list.
From the viewpoint of the Hebrews that produced Genesis, the animals appear to have always been in the form (kinds) that they are now. So from the observer's point of view God created them all as they are now, which may not have been how God actually did it or how long God actually took to do it.
First of all, God produced Genesis.
Secondly, I have no idea how you can make this assumption.
That means the stars were created on Day 4. Are you saying that it actually means the observance of the creation of the stars occurred on Day 4 even though they were made billions of years before that?
Yes. From an Earth perspective, they became visible at that time.
It makes no sense to tell a child that a medicine will stimulate T-cell production when he does not even know what a cell is. Rather, you tell him/her what it will do in an egocentric perspective.
Likewise, it makes no sense to tell primitive people that you are creating great spheres vast distances away that perform nuclear reactions when they don't even know what an atom is.
It makes much more sense to describe the event in an egocentric perspective for the benefit of the target audience: The stars became visible, they were "
brought forth".
Who was there to observe this creation event so that it could be noted that this occurred on Day 4, plants?
What different does it make?
If the stars are visible from Earth, they are visible whether people are there or not.
The creation account was written by inspiration of God.
Did God time all the creation of the stars such that they would appear on the same day?
In all likelihood, God cleared the air in such a way that the stars became visible from an Earth perspective.
The entire Earth on the same day?
Yes, or do you think that is beyond God's ability?
The Sun could have been created on the same day, but Proxima Centauri was created 4.2 years before that. Sirius created 8.6 years before Day 4. The star that became SN1987A was created 168,000 years before that? Is this how you view the creation scenario?
Don't understand the question.
Where are you pulling these numbers from?
The Earth existing prior to Day 1 does not require the stars to exist at that time. A literal reading of the Bible shows the stars being created on Day 4.
As I explained earlier and initially, the stars became visible on day 4. Your choice of the word "created" is incorrect and arbitrary.
People that might not need to know the details of inflation theory or evolution in order to understand that God is mighty and that He is a personal God.
Nice try, except that evolution is ridiculous on it's face, and it is not supported by science.
Ok...then we have no disagreement here unless you say Genesis 1 and 2 are literal history.
You are playing word games. This is not intellectually honest. Let the reader be the judge.
Literal history, yes, your choice of words (which happens to be in opposition to Strong's), no.
Until he actually relates it to my thread topic in a clear fashion, I will treat it as an off-topic diversion.
History shows that you need no excuse to do that
My theory:
In short, God "created" the universe a long time ago.
God rearranged the solar system (to support life on Earth) and created life on Earth a long time after.
Again, we have to pay careful attention to the words in the original language. The read also has to be aware that your choice of the word "create" (above) is arbitrary.
To "appoint" or "bring forth" are much different in meaning than the word "create".
So, the reason I think we see evidence of an old universe and a new universe is that God made the universe a long time ago (it is old) and rearranged or renewed the Earth and some bodies in the local solar system recently (about 6000 years ago) to facilitate life on Earth.
I believe this is the current best-standing explanation considering the evidence while excluding the junk science and propaganda.
