Nearly all events in the Bible are drawn from Earth's frame of reference, so it's logical to consider that the Genesis account is as well.



The clues in the text are found in the second sentence of Genesis which clearly indicates that the Earth was not created at this time, but rather renewed.

This is a strong indication that the concept "to appear" is the correct interpretation for the stars.

You would have to agree that "to appear" is certainly an option. Why then is it not the right option, especially considering the context?



Most of the modern translations are purposely corrupt. Here is a video that every Christian should watch from beginning to end to understand this:

http://urlbam.com/ha/M0021

The King James is not without translation errors because it was translated by humans, and as we all know, humans are error prone.

Looking at the original language is a powerful way to more clearly understanding the original intent of the words.

I believe my interpretation is (at least, more) correct because we have more knowledge and more technology today that makes it trivial for us to research these things.

Furthermore, the newer translations are corrupt and some have been copyrighted which requires significantly different words to be used, regardless of whether or not they are accurate.



Or perhaps He could say "they appeared" on the fourth day. Isn't that essentially what He said, putting the assumptive translation aside?

I think there is good science that indicates that the stars weren't created on the fourth day.

Considering this, and considering that nearly all of the Bible is written from an Earth perspective, it only makes sense that Genesis would be written the same way.

So, when we interpret the Bible congruent with the rest of the Biblical writing style, and we also consider good science, everything fits into place perfectly.

This is just good reasoning.



Sure, and I know that you're really stuck on the idea that God used evolution to "create" life on Earth.

The only problem with this idea is a fatal problem, and that is that evolution simply cannot occur with today's known chemical laws. In the 1800's it was an option, today, it isn't.

We know that amino acids do not self assemble and that no chemical-bonding rules exist to facilitate the self-assembly of a cell, much less the self-assembly of a highly-complex, symmetrical, sexual (different organisms having perfectly compatible reproductive parts), self-reproducing human body.

It is much more logical to accept that an Intelligence built these machines, not that they built themselves.

Remember, no chemical laws exist to facilitate a self-building process. This is why the complex mechanisms exist within a cell that build and fold proteins. These mechanisms (machines) must exist for this process to succeed.

I truly realize that the reason that most people get caught up in believing evolution is not because it makes sense, but because people are unable or unwilling to believe that such a grand scientific deception could be pulled-off in this day and age.

In this context, it is important to consider that global-warming has just been essentially conceded as a hoax. If you do some research, you will realize that the elimination of polio had nothing to do with the vaccine. That too was a hoax. The lies about colloidal silver being useless, the safety of mercury in vaccines, the safety of amalgam dental fillings, piltdown man, the safety of Aspartame, and on and on ...Are just that: Hoaxes and lies.

You see, I love science, but the unfortunate truth is that we are living in a time when technology facilitates the promotion of lies with an efficiency never before possible.



This is not what I believe.

Rather, it's more likely that, from an Earth perspective, the dust cleared away as God calmed the winds and then the stars became visible, that is, they "came to pass" (haw-yaw'). Notice that all of the heavenly bodies, stars and the sun and moon, became visible on the same day.

You see, this is a perfectly logical explanation which satisfies both science and the original language of the Bible.



On day 3, God likely initiated the process of plant life. Whether He supernaturally made things grow fast or whether the process was only initiated at that time is not clear. But in my experience with God, I know that he often uses natural processes (based on rules that He devised) to get things done.

So, considering this:

When God makes the statement that He "saw" in Genesis 1:12, we have to consider that the word may be better translated "approved" or "considered". We also have to consider the possibility that when God "saw" the "bringing forth", this does not necessarily mean that His observation was made on the fourth day. This observation could have been made some time later (that is, if it is an observation rather than a consideration). It is possible that only the creation of the seeds and the distribution and planting of the seeds occurred on the fourth day. We also have to consider that God see "through" time, so time-displacement language is also a possibility.

Of course, this makes sense that the seed system was created on the day before the air cleared but a couple days after the Earth was set in rotation (day 1).

The more we sort out Genesis based on the original language and without our presuppositions, the more it makes sense, both logically and scientifically.



I explained this above.



The more modern translations would not have been financially successful if they diverged from the current beliefs.

Remember, these modern translation are meant to deceive while making money.

Again, see this as a reference:
http://urlbam.com/ha/M0021

People's appeal for ideas flow through time much like music. If you were to create and market music that you found popular 50 years from now, it would likely not be very acceptable to the current generation.



Historically, judging truth by popular support is a failed practice.

At one time, 99% of dentists believed that mercury does not offgas from amalgam dental fillings, but it does:
http://herballure.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=32651#Post32651

At one time, most of the population believed that tomatoes were poisonous (see the tomato effect).

You see, those who pay for schooling are prone to believe what they are taught. Now that people are beginning to think for themselves, evolution is crumbling and is being abandon by non-trivial numbers of scientists.

This growing number of scientists agree with me: "Evolution is not supported by science".



First, to be fair, dating methods are in some conflict with each other, so the actual age of the Earth is hard to determine.

Nevertheless, the Earth certainly seems to be older than 6,000 or 12,000 years old, and when properly interpreted, the Bible supports this.

I personally have no idea how old the Earth is, but neither does science. Remember, 20 years ago, science believed the earth was several hundred-million years old. In 20 short years it has grown to be several billion years old.

This makes it apparent that science does not know for sure how old the Earth is. (What will be the claimed age of the Earth 20 years from now?)

I personally lean toward believing that the Earth is quite old (perhaps hundreds of thousands to millions of years old) and that God renewed the Earth quote recently, perhaps 6,000 years ago. This is why we have evidence of a young Earth combined with evidence of an old Earth.

We see molten layers that may have formed as a result of the renewed rotation of the Earth that may have started at Genesis day 1. I don't know for sure. I can only look at the evidence and make my best guesses.

I only ask that science have the integrity to say the same thing, that is, that there is conflicting evidence and they really don't know the answers. In reality, scientists have many conflicting opinions.

This is the only intellectually honest thing to do.

Despite what people think about the Biblical (re)creation account, it's important for people to consider the accuracy of Biblical prophecy, archeology, and numerology.

The Bible is an astounding Book and should be read and studied by anyone searching for truth.



"The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology."

—Professor Steven J. Gould, Harvard University



"It is a mistake to believe that even one fossil species… can be demonstrated to have been ancestral to another."

—Dr. Gareth J. Nelson, American Museum of Natural History



"I think, however, that we must go further than this and admit that the only acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it."

—H. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution," Physics Bulletin, 31 (1980), p. 138.



"The hold of the evolutionary paradigm [theoretical system] is so powerful that an idea which is more like a principle of medieval astrology than a serious twentieth century scientific theory has become a reality for evolutionary biologists."

—Michael Denton, Molecular Biologist, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), p. 306