Originally Posted by Russ
Quote
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.
Where does the Bible say that all the creation events are from the Earth's frame of reference?

Quote
On the contrary, by looking at the original language, I am narrowing and refining the original interpretation.
Except there are a number of meanings for haw-yaw':
Quote
1) to be, become, come to pass, exist, happen, fall out
a) to happen, fall out, occur, take place, come about, come to pass
b) to come about, come to pass

2) to come into being, become
a) to arise, appear, come
b) to become
i) to become
ii) to become like
iii) to be instituted, be established

3) to be
a) to exist, be in existence
b) to abide, remain, continue (with word of place or time)
c) to stand, lie, be in, be at, be situated (with word of locality)
d) to accompany, be with


You choose the meaning "to appear", I guess, concerning God's creation of light. What I don't understand is why that is the meaning that must apply here. What are the clues in the text that lead you to this meaning?

Quote
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
With so many meanings, what makes you so sure that your interpretation is correct, especially since it appears to be in opposition to most Bible scholars or at least those that produced the major translations.

Quote
"Appoint"
"Bring Forth"
etc.

Funny, I don't see the word "Create" in the list.
You are right, I confused "make" to also mean "create".

Quote
Quote
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.
From you. You make the assumption that the stars were not created during creation week but only became visible on Day 4. Why couldn't God just say he made the stars a long time ago? He could have told them that the stars were far away, as many cubits as there are sand grains on the beach.

Quote
Quote
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.
Just like it makes no sense to tell a primitive people that animals evolved to make the forms we see today, when they don't even know what DNA is.

Quote
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".
It makes more sense to tell them that animals produce after their own kind than to tell them that all animals are related to each other through a common ancestor. It is more practical for a primitive people.

Quote
Quote
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.
It just seems a little strange for God to go to all the trouble of making each heavenly body at different times over billions of years of time so that the light from each would reach Earth on the same day when there was no one there to see it happen. A lot of energy and planning expended on God's part just to impress a bunch of plants.

Quote
Quote
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?
God made the stars visible on Day 4, to make the daffodils happy.

Quote
Quote
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 numbers are the distances of those stars in light years. Your cloudy skies scenario apparently dispells my created-stars-over-billions-of-years-so-the-light-from-each-would-reach-Earth-on-Day-4 scenario. I just don't understand why you insist that God made the stars billions of years ago. Could you point out where the text gives that impression?

Quote
Quote
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.
As arbitrary as the scholars that put together the King James version, the NIV, New American Standard, Youngs Literal Translation, the Jewish Publication Society English Translation....etc. Do you have any Bible Scholars that support your interpretation?

Quote
Quote
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.
You say that but have not really attempted to support this assertion. Strangely, more than 95% of scientists agree with the major aspects of common descent. That indicates to me that it is supported by science.

Quote
Quote
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.
And you calling me dishonest does not mean that I am. Repeating the same thing over and over does not make it true either. You believe that the universe is billions of years old, maybe even the 13 billion that cosmologists have concluded. In this, we agree despite the disagreement on the methodology by which we drew our conclusions.

Quote
Quote
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 wink
Well, maybe I'm changing shocked

Quote
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.
You believe the dating methods that show the Earth to be 4.5 billion years old or is the renewed Earth supposed to be new in every aspect?

A faith that connot survive collision with the truth is not worth many regrets. -- Arthur C. Clarke