[_ Old Earth _] Was the moon once part of the earth which broke off

[Not_Now.Soon]

Do you think that a plant would not survive a few days of no sun. Also, it does say that He created light before anything else. I'm sure a few days would not kill the brand new plants.

Under regular conditions and regular days, I'm sure a plant would do fine to be in the dark. But if a day isn't a 24 hour period. Just a cycle of light and darkness, it could be moments or millions of years. Either way though if it's under God's protection, and in His care, it would be alright. Jesus is said to be the light of the world, and the word of God. If that's the case applied here, then anything God creates through Jesus might be like the light cycle of the days. On the other hand the light and darkness of the days and night could be cosmic events that occured while the earth was being formed into what we know it as today.

On a level of plants existing without the sun, one theory of earth's history is a rich carbon dioxide filled planet that plants thrived on, but animals did not exist on yet. The theory has in it's foundation that the plants survived because of the carbon dioxide and the sun's light, and because of that vast plant life, the waste product oxgyan made earth viable for animal species to develope. However if you take the theory and figure in that the solar system was a nebula instead, not quite a formed star, who knows, it could be possible that planets could form in those conditions, and both light and plant life could take place in that enviornment.

The current theory of planet formation (as I understand it) is on a basis of a gravational anchor. The sun is needed to be the gravational center of the solar system which puts the other matter in the system into an orbital fall and eventually mass together to form planets at the different ranges in the solar system. I think one theory/explaination is that the elements in the solar system that are heaviest are closest to the sun while the lightest elements are farther away and formed planets in the outer rings if the solar system. That said, that's where my knowledge base stops. I don't know enough about the planets to confirm or reject that explanation.

If it's possible for the earth, or other planets to form in conditions without a sun, in a pre sun state, then perhaps plants could exist on that planet too.

Assuming day one is God's spirit over a formless matter. Day Two is the matter of the solar system separating from itself and forming planet bodies instead of a formless mass, very much like God separating the waters, and creating a vault between the waters that is the heavens and space between the planets. Then Day Three is on Earth the plants filling the earth. Then so far this is very simular to the scientific theory of the develope,net of the solar system and of Earth. Day 4 is what throws a wrench into the mix and separates the Genesis account from our current scientific understanding. The sun and moon are made in that day instead of having the sun made much earlier, and plants later then both the sun and the moon finding their places.

 

[Jacks Bratt]

Under regular conditions and regular days, I'm sure a plant would do fine to be in the dark. But if a day isn't a 24 hour period. Just a cycle of light and darkness, it could be moments or millions of years.

I understand that some believe that the "evening and morning" was more than 24 hours and may be even millions of years... However, that is not what it says. I don't need the billions of years for God to have done this. I do not conform to man's input into how this all came about. I totally believe it was six literal days and nights. God would have no difficulty in doing this and this is what was written in the scriptures.

I do not intend to bend the word of God to fit the whims, wishes and thoughts of the men of science. If the science doesn't fit the Bible, the science is wrong.

 

[brother Paul]

Do you think that a plant would not survive a few days of no sun. Also, it does say that He created light before anything else. I'm sure a few days would not kill the brand new plants.

Yes "eretz" (earth) was already created but it was without form...it was void....(not the planet as we know it which is neither) when He created "light"

 

[Barbarian]

understand that some believe that the "evening and morning" was more than 24 hours and may be even millions of years... However, that is not what it says. I don't need the billions of years for God to have done this. I do not conform to man's input into how this all came about. I totally believe it was six literal days and nights.

That's one belief, but Genesis does not say it was 24 hour days. That's is a very modern revision. If science and the Bible seem to you to be contradictory, it's because you have misunderstood one or both of them.

 

[Jacks Bratt]

That's one belief, but Genesis does not say it was 24 hour days. That's is a very modern revision. If science and the Bible seem to you to be contradictory, it's because you have misunderstood one or both of them.

It says He created light and separated the light from the darkness. He called the light day and the darkness, night. Later He created the sun and the moon and stars. These were to mark the sacred times, days years. No change in the length of the evening and morning the next day, was given or indicated. There is no reason to believe that until the sun, moon and stars were created that the days were some extremely long time period. It is all written with the same rhythm with no change.

Is there any reason, in your view, that God could not have created everything in six literal days?

 

[Barbarian]

It says He created light and separated the light from the darkness. He called the light day and the darkness, night. Later He created the sun and the moon and stars. These were to mark the sacred times, days years. No change in the length of the evening and morning the next day, was given or indicated.

In fact, no length at all. And the notion of mornings and evenings without a Sun to have them, is why Christians have concluded that if is a figurative description of the kinds of creation. St. Augustine, when he concluded that this was the case, published his book, and no one at the time took issue with it. But Augustine also openly admitted, that it is extremely difficult, if not impossible to know for sure. Hence, his advice that we should be careful not to make dogmatic pronouncements pending any further understanding. Good advice, that.

Is there any reason, in your view, that God could not have created everything in six literal days?

I'm wondering why you suppose the only reason God wouldn't do it in seven 24 hour days, would be if He couldn't do it. I'm sure He could have, if that what He willed. But that's not what He willed.

 

[Lewis]

This is often what we are told yet the earth bears no evidence that it is so...and then how did "moons" so round, uniform, and necessary for our positional maintenance in regards to our orbit in relation to the sun, appear for the other planets? The moons of Jupiter for example demonstrate such a wide variety of characteristics it seems unlikely they came from the same source in the same way....

Thoughts?

Very easy God created the moon and put it in place to help keep earth going steady with just enough gravitational pull on the earth the sun also has a pull but weaker. The moon's gravitational pull and the centrifugal forces work together. The moon was put into place on purpose by God Genesis 1 to help light the earth at night and other earth duties. So did God break it off of something or did He form it when He needed it ? Man will never know.

 

[Not_Now.Soon]

But Augustine also openly admitted, that it is extremely difficult, if not impossible to know for sure. Hence, his advice that we should be careful not to make dogmatic pronouncements pending any further understanding. Good advice, that.

Sounds good so far, however....

I'm wondering why you suppose the only reason God wouldn't do it in seven 24 hour days, would be if He couldn't do it. I'm sure He could have, if that what He willed. But that's not what He willed.

....however, the next line of thought was exactly that kind of pronouncement.

I'm ok with someone saying it happened in 6 days, billions of years, or even an undetermined time. The truth is that we don't know, and that our salvation is not based on knowing that. God is able to do so in either regard. However, here is my complaint. The perspective you've poses to correct Jacks Bratt, is one that you don't apply to your own reasoning. When used in that way seems like very oburtunitistic logic, and quite Hypocritical. If you feel confidant that your right in your understanding, great. Sounds like Jack is confidant in his own understanding, and at least I am less confident in the scientific explainations as
I understand them currently. But when you use logic to counter another person that you can't use on your own perspective, it kind of erks me. A bit of a pet peve. If you could, please try to refrain from doing that. Thanks.

 

[Sinthesis]

As soon as one takes a literal seven day creation week as a sign of God's power because it didn't take Him billions of years, you have to ask why He didn't do it in just five days, or three, or one, or while His laundry was drying.

 

[Jacks Bratt]

I'm wondering why you suppose the only reason God wouldn't do it in seven 24 hour days, would be if He couldn't do it. I'm sure He could have, if that what He willed. But that's not what He willed.

Wow, we have to meet. Are you serious that you are gifted with the ability to know what God willed at the very time of creation?
Seriously.........It says six days, it takes time to even state, there was evening there was morning, the first day, in order to emphasize that it was a day.

You agree that He has the ability to do it in six literal days, it says He did it in six days. I have no need for it to have taken any longer.

Only those who find the need for billions of years to squeeze in their apostate view of evolution have any need for creation to take more than six literal days.

At the beginning of the week there was only God. At the end of the first literal seven days we had all the animals, plants trees and Adam and Eve. All the animals were perfect in there kind. They did not take billions of years to evolve. Man was created by God specifically and personally given the breath of life from God's own mouth. He did not evolve from some other animal.....

At the end of this week, God observed it and said it was good.....then the story begins.

 

[Barbarian]

Is there any reason, in your view, that God could not have created everything in six literal days?

Barbarian observes:
I'm wondering why you suppose the only reason God wouldn't do it in seven 24 hour days, would be if He couldn't do it. I'm sure He could have, if that what He willed. But that's not what He willed.

Wow, we have to meet. Are you serious that you are gifted with the ability to know what God willed at the very time of creation?

You're forgetting something:
Romans 1:20 For the invisible things of him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made; his eternal power also, and divinity: so that they are inexcusable.

He left us plenty of evidence as to how He did it.

Seriously.........It says six days, it takes time to even state, there was evening there was morning, the first day, in order to emphasize that it was a day.

God is not limited by your expectations. Sorry.

You agree that He has the ability to do it in six literal days,

Yep. But He didn't says six 24 hour days. He said "Yom." Which can mean anything from "right now" to "always." So that's not going to help you, either.

I have no need for it to have taken any longer.

That was His choice. If you don't approve, its a good thing for you that it's not a salvation issue.

Only those who find the need for billions of years to squeeze in their apostate view of evolution have any need for creation to take more than six literal days.

Long before Darwin, Christians knew it wasn't six literal days. No way to dodge that.

Have a little humility. St. Augustine pointed out that no one can completely understand Genesis. I don't think you're better connected with God than He was. And few people had his intelligence and devotion to God. Just let God do it His way, and this won't bother you any more.

 

[Barbarian]

Sounds good so far, however....

....however, the next line of thought was exactly that kind of pronouncement.

I don't know it from Genesis, which as Augustine notes, is not sufficiently clear to give us a reliable timetable. However, it is (as St. Paul notes in Romans 1:20) possible to learn about Him and His creation by observing what He has done in this world. And so we know that it wasn't six 24 hour days.

I'm ok with someone saying it happened in 6 days, billions of years, or even an undetermined time. The truth is that we don't know, and that our salvation is not based on knowing that.

Precisely. It's not a religious issue. It's a scientific issue, as Paul suggests.

God is able to do so in either regard. However, here is my complaint. The perspective you've poses to correct Jacks Bratt, is one that you don't apply to your own reasoning.

Theologically, it has to remain an open question. Scientifically, it's settled. Hence, most churches don't make the physical evidence for billions of years, to be a doctrinal point. And they shouldn't.

When used in that way seems like very oburtunitistic logic, and quite Hypocritical.

Would be, if I was merely citing Genesis. But as God tells us, not everything we can learn about his creation is in the Bible.

If you feel confidant that your right in your understanding, great. Sounds like Jack is confidant in his own understanding, and at least I am less confident in the scientific explainations as I understand them currently. But when you use logic to counter another person that you can't use on your own perspective, it kind of erks me.

Sorry to mislead you. Genesis, as Augustine shows, isn't clear on details like how long it all took. But we can learn about it by studying His creation, as Paul says.

I was noting the observed fact of billions of years, not suggesting that Genesis said so.

 

[WIP]

Reading this thread sounds like a lot of speculation to me.

 

[brother Paul]

Anyone see the headline yet
The Moon Was Created When Earth Collided Head-On With A Young Planet Called ‘Theia’

 

[Not_Now.Soon]

I don't know it from Genesis, which as Augustine notes, is not sufficiently clear to give us a reliable timetable. However, it is (as St. Paul notes in Romans 1:20) possible to learn about Him and His creation by observing what He has done in this world. And so we know that it wasn't six 24 hour days.



Precisely. It's not a religious issue. It's a scientific issue, as Paul suggests.



Theologically, it has to remain an open question. Scientifically, it's settled. Hence, most churches don't make the physical evidence for billions of years, to be a doctrinal point. And they shouldn't.



Would be, if I was merely citing Genesis. But as God tells us, not everything we can learn about his creation is in the Bible.



Sorry to mislead you. Genesis, as Augustine shows, isn't clear on details like how long it all took. But we can learn about it by studying His creation, as Paul says.

I was noting the observed fact of billions of years, not suggesting that Genesis said so.

I think we're reaching to a point that goes past the subject matter in this thread. Or at least I feel that I am. If it's ok with you Barbarian, I might continue my reply in a privite conversation.

 

[Barbarian]

I haven't kept up on that theory, but the composition of the moon, the incongruity of such a large satellite for a relatively small planet, and the orbital mechanics of the moon suggest that a collision caused it to be.

 

[Barbarian]

I think we're reaching to a point that goes past the subject matter in this thread. Or at least I feel that I am. If it's ok with you Barbarian, I might continue my reply in a privite conversation.

Sounds good.

 

[turnorburn]

Your stepping up in this world now you are telling us what God wills...

"Barbarian observes:
I'm wondering why you suppose the only reason God wouldn't do it in seven 24 hour days, would be if He couldn't do it. I'm sure He could have, if that what He willed. But that's not what He willed."

 

[Barbarian]

Your stepping up in this world now you are telling us what God wills...

As St. Paul says, we can learn about His creation by seeing it. The Bible says that the Bible isn't the only way to learn about that.

 

[Not_Now.Soon]

This is often what we are told yet the earth bears no evidence that it is so...and then how did "moons" so round, uniform, and necessary for our positional maintenance in regards to our orbit in relation to the sun, appear for the other planets? The moons of Jupiter for example demonstrate such a wide variety of characteristics it seems unlikely they came from the same source in the same way....

Thoughts?

One other thought. God made Eve from the rib of Adam. Why couldn't do the same or something simular with Earth and the moon? Granted the moon and earth don't have sex together and form a new population of moons and planets, so being the same species in design might not be as important. Still God could have crafted the moon out of the earth. It doesn't need to have a collision with another planet to form the moon. God could have created the moon from a colliding object meeting the earth, or just shaped the moon like a potter using clay.