According to the Bible, God took rest on the 7th day while creating earth.

Why Christians put limitation on God, because this means that God felt tired like humans and decided to take some rest?

Resting means stopping, you don't have to be tired to stop doing something.

http://www.answers.com/topic/rest

There is another Bible quote (according to my knowledge) which means that God "refreshed" himself, so it resting means you are tired.

Jews said that God took rest on the 7th day and it was Saturday known as resting day for them.

This is a Christian's response to your charge.

Does God refresh Himself? (http://www.answeringislam.info/Responses/Osama/zawadi_god_refreshed.htm)

The text is essentially saying that God was refreshed in the sense of receiving satisfaction from what he had created since he saw that everything he made was very good:

"And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, a sixth day." Genesis 1:31

Putting it simply, saying that God rested and was refreshed is simply a vividly poetic way of saying that Yahweh received great delight and pleasure after surveying the work of his creation.

This shouldn’t be too hard for Zawadi to comprehend since the word refreshed is even used in a similar way in the English. One can speak of being refreshed in the sense of restoring one’s physical energies or in the sense of being delighted. For instance, if a person were to say that his heart was refreshed then the obvious meaning would be that the person was glad and joyful, not that he was physically restored.

According to the Bible, God took rest on the 7th day while creating earth.

Why Christians put limitation on God, because this means that God felt tired like humans and decided to take some rest?

Yes you are correct Sir Ice Tea.
It is the Christian conviction or believes.
We may disagree with the concept but must not hart to their feelings.
It is very primary teaching from the Bible.

According to our believe ( For Muslim readers only), when they go for 1+1+1=1, they impose limitations.

The text is essentially saying that God was refreshed in the sense of receiving satisfaction from what he had created since he saw that everything he made was very good:



That explanation valid for human only not God.

It gives the impression that there is a possibility what God had created can't be good or not perfect, so God took rest to see if what he had created is good or not, if it's not good he will have to modify the design (which means God can make mistakes). Or took rest because he felt tired.

Bottom line, words such as resting and refreshing belongs to human and not God.

Bottom line, words such as resting and refreshing belongs to human and not God.

False. According to the Christian response, in this context the words rested and refreshed mean stopped and delighted respectively. So all it means is: when he finished creating, he stopped, and was delighted.


It is a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever: for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed.

-Book of Exodus, Chatper 31, Verse 17


Case closed.

In which day earth created according to the Bible?

In which day sun and moon created?

Ice Tea, I have asked mono these questions before. As far as I remember, its because the Torah used to refer to God in metabolic forms.
Man these people respect God so much that they type G-d without writing the correct name, so that it wont be printed and stepped on. So I think we shouldn't doubt their respect to God :)

as far as i know...god didn't take a rest while creating earth. he took a rest after creating earth and he saw 'all was well'.

I read something a Rabbi once said, that you can not even describe God as infinite because it is limiting God from the choice of self limitations.

Same with other adjectives such as omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient.

In which day earth created according to the Bible?

The earth was created on the first day along with Heaven and light.

In which day sun and moon created?

They were created on the fourth day.

as far as i know...god didn't take a rest while creating earth. he took a rest after creating earth and he saw 'all was well'.

If all was not well then what?

The earth was created on the first day along with Heaven and light.



They were created on the fourth day.


How can there be light when sun and moon created on the fourth day?

Is it scientifically possible that the earth was created before the sun?

How can there be light when sun and moon created on the fourth day?

Is it scientifically possible that the earth was created before the sun?

Erm aren't you questioning why people have put limitations on God?

I think God "resting" just means that on the seventh "day", He didn't do any creation.

Anytime you say anything about God, you are placing a "limitation" on Him by not being able to say the opposite. But I think the real "limitation" involved is in human understanding.

So we can argue about is it a "limitation" on God that He gets angry or has wrath as in Sura 5, verse 60.

Shall we say, "What? Does God lose His temper like a human being? After all, He couldn't have been surprised because He knew what would happen..."

But I think if we ask about the Bible or the Quran, we have to think more deeply than this...

as far as i know...god didn't take a rest while creating earth. he took a rest after creating earth and he saw 'all was well'.

I totally agree with u...i was gonna say the exact same thing...

I think God "resting" just means that on the seventh "day", He didn't do any creation.

Anytime you say anything about God, you are placing a "limitation" on Him by not being able to say the opposite. But I think the real "limitation" involved is in human understanding.

So we can argue about is it a "limitation" on God that He gets angry or has wrath as in Sura 5, verse 60.

Shall we say, "What? Does God lose His temper like a human being? After all, He couldn't have been surprised because He knew what would happen..."

But I think if we ask about the Bible or the Quran, we have to think more deeply than this...

ur right

Bye

Erm aren't you questioning why people have put limitations on God?

Yes in relation to earth creation.

Above questions also related to the topic, waiting for your answer.

If all was not well then what?
up to him. he is God. you're gonna question God now?

up to him. he is God. you're gonna question God now?

In that case you are making limitations on God because you assume God can make mistakes like human.

In that case you are making limitations on God because you assume God can make mistakes like human.
God did not make mistakes. his big bang was perfect.

Do you believe God can make mistakes?

Do you believe God can make mistakes?
no, cos he's a God.
can i suggest you take a bachelor of theology degree at a Jesuit university where you'll get your questions answered. :)

Yes in relation to earth creation.

Above questions also related to the topic, waiting for your answer.

By asking "How can there be light when sun and moon created on the fourth day? Is it scientifically possible that the earth was created before the sun?" is putting a severe limitation on God if you think about it. Why does God need to obey science (as we know it)?

This is putting science above God.

But scientifically (theoretically) speaking there are heavy metals in the hunk of rock that we live on that did not come from our sun, its too small. The earth was probably formed from a supernova, floated about a bit, found a star and started orbiting it. Ehh but I'm no physicist.

By asking "How can there be light when sun and moon created on the fourth day? Is it scientifically possible that the earth was created before the sun?" is putting a severe limitation on God if you think about it. Why does God need to obey science (as we know it)?

This is putting science above God.

But scientifically (theoretically) speaking there are heavy metals in the hunk of rock that we live on that did not come from our sun, its too small. The earth was probably formed from a supernova, floated about a bit, found a star and started orbiting it. Ehh but I'm no physicist.

Science is not above God, because everything created by God. But what if someone claim that there are signs in a scripture revealed by God then people found out it contradicts with today science, for example if God said the sun is fixed while in fact it rotates!. Don't you think this will let people lose faith in such scripture and they will say this can't be from God?

If you are talking about iron then there is a verse in the Quran which says that iron was sent down.

Back to the Bible, from this article it looks that it contains many scientific errors:


Bibliolaters claim that the Bible is inerrant in every detail, in matters of history, science, geography, chronology, etc., as well as faith and practice. It is a claim that has won wide acceptance among fundamentalist Christians, but, as is true of most zealotic tributes that have been paid to the Bible, it
has no basis in fact. As past articles in TSR have clearly shown to anyone who really wants to know the truth, the Bible is riddled with mistakes. Many of those mistakes were scientific ones.

The creation account in Genesis divided time into days and the days into evening and morning for three days before the sun was even created (1:1-19). "There was evening and there was morning," we are told, "one day... a second day... a third day," but as any astronomer knows, evening (night)
and morning (daylight) result from the earth's rotation with respect to the sun. With no sun, there would have certainly been evening or night, but there could have been no morning.

On the fourth day when God created the "two great lights" (the sun and the moon), he created the stars too. This creation of the rest of the uni-verse was treated by the Genesis writer(s) as if it were little more than an afterthought: "he made the stars also" (v:16). To the prescientific mind that wrote this, it probably made sense. To him (her), the earth was undoubted-ly the center of the universe, but today we know better. The solar system of which earth is only a tiny part is itself an infinitesimal speck in the uni-verse. Surely, then, the creation of the stars would not have occurred so quickly and suddenly if six days were needed to create the world. Scientists now know that the creation of stars is an evolutionary process that is still
ongoing. Matter coalesces; stars ignite, shine, and ventually burn out or explode. From the existence of heavy elements in our solar system, astrono-mers generally agree that it formed from debris left over from a supernova that occurred billions of years ago. The prescientific Genesis writer knew none of this, however, and that is why he viewed the creation of the uni-verse as an Elohistic afterthought. No modern, scientifically-educated writer would have made that mistake.

The creation of the stars is the subject not only of scientific error in the Bible but also of textual contradiction. Clearly, the Genesis writer(s) said that God made the stars on the fourth day (1:16). By then, the earth had been created, light (somehow without the sun or stars) had been created, the gathering together of dry land had occurred, and vegetation had been creat-ed. One could surely say that by then the foundations of the world had been laid, yet Yahweh Elohim presumably told Job that the stars already existed when the foundations of the earth were laid:

Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? Declare if thou hast understanding. Who determined the measures thereof, if thou knowest? Or who stretched the line upon it? Whereupon were the foundations thereof fastened? Or who laid the cornerstone there- of, when the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy? (38:4-7).

Granted the "singing of the morning stars" is clearly a poetical expression, but that does not explain away the problem. How could it be said in any sense, poetical or otherwise, that "the morning stars sang together" at a time when stars didn't even exist? Obviously, then, the Genesis writer(s) and the author of Job had different perceptions of when stars were created.

The Genesis writer(s) didn't understand the nature of darkness either.

He said that God created light (somehow before the sun and stars were made) and then "divided the light from the darkness" (1:3-4). Light, however, is not something that can be separated from darkness. Light is an electromag-
netic radiation from an energy source like the sun or stars, and darkness is merely the absence of light. Without light, there will automatically be dark-ness. No god is needed to separate or divide light from darkness. We know that today; the prescientific Genesis writer(s) didn't.

The Genesis writer's genetic knowledge was no better than his under-standing of astronomy. In chapter 30, he told of Jacob's scheme to increase his wealth while he was still in the employ of his father-in-law Laban. The two had reached an agreement whereby Jacob would be given all striped,
spotted, and speckled lambs and kids subsequently born in Laban's flocks. Laban then removed all the striped, spotted, and speckled animals from his flocks and put them in his sons' care at a three-day distance from the flock Jacob attended. Not to be outsmarted, Jacob devised a plan:

Then Jacob took fresh rods of poplar and almond and plane, and peeled white streaks in them, exposing the white of the rods. He set the rods that he had peeled in front of the flocks in the troughs, that is, the watering places, where the flocks came to drink. And since they bred when they came to drink, the flocks bred in front of the rods, and so the flocks produced young that were striped, speckled, and spotted (30:37-39, NRSV).

The editors of The New American Bible were reputable enough to affix a frankly honest footnote to this passage:

Jacob's stratagem was based on the widespread notion among simple people that visual stimuli can have prenatal effects on the offspring of breeding animals. Thus, the rods on which Jacob had whittled stripes or bands or chevron marks were thought to cause the female goats that looked at them to bear kids with lighter-col- ored marks on their dark hair, while the gray ewes were thought to bear lambs with dark marks on them simply by visual crossbreeding with the dark goats.

We know today that the color characteristics of animals is purely a matter of genetics, so a modern, scientifically-educated person would never write any-thing as obviously superstitious as this tale of Jacob's prosperity. The Gene-
sis writer(s), however, knew nothing about the science of genetics, so to him the story undoubtedly made good sense.

One thing the Bible definitely is not is inerrant in matters of science.

Science is not above God, because everything created by God. But what if someone claim that there are signs in a scripture revealed by God then people found out it contradicts with today science, for example if God said the sun is fixed while in fact it rotates!. Don't you think this will let people lose faith in such scripture and they will say this can't be from God?

Then the world would have far more atheists in it.

Yet the scriptures have been around for 3 or so millennium so I don't think there is much we don't know about it and I somehow don't think there is anything much in it that is faith shattering.

Humans created science. God created the natural and physical world where we apply science.

If you are talking about iron then there is a verse in the Quran which says that iron was sent down.

I was actually thinking of uranium and lead.

Back to the Bible, from this article it looks that it contains many scientific errors:

It probably does, I mean the bible states a woman was created from a mans rib!

Its epic poetry, I'm not expecting scientific precision.

But I see what this is leading to and I don't really want a Quran vs the Bible debate. We are also deviating from the original question.

I didn't mention the holy Quran.

So basically you agree that there are many scientific errors in the Bible, then how can someone claim it is the true word of God.

Because the Bible is not a scientific report and doesn't claim to be.

Ice T, what a laugh. Of course the bible has interesting logical flaws! As does the Quraan. They are written by humans. Please remember that just because 1 book (ie the bible) is flawed that doesn't mean the Quraan is perfect!

I think more important is to take what helps you - be it any book. and for ***** sake start thinking for yourself instead of just either replaying the stuff thats been poured into your head, or finding new ways to justify what's been poured in. Its not your fault. Luckily whatever force created you also gave you the most wonderful creation there is - the human mind.

If you want to discuss religious philosophy, there are some great books (also written by humans) you might like to read first. A good start might be to try some stuff by an old guy called Bertrand Russell... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bertrand_Russell

One problem a lot of you youngsters seem to have is it seems you've been protected from about 200 years of really top notch thinking by some incredibly smart people on real questions, like religion, supernatural beings, logic, what we can and can't know, etc etc etc. Presumably you only get taught stuff on maths, english, science etc, and not anything on Western Philosophy because perhaps they're afraid you'll figure some stuff out (if you're smart - and I must admit, even the wiki on Bertrand scares me with how smart he was...).

El Ray will even be pleased - he supported the Palestinians...

Quoting again a dear member for those who wish to continue baiting the Christians on this forum:

You are the last person to tell us that we should either follow all the rules completely or not. We know very well what we believe in , and you're not to tell us what to believe in and what not to believe in. We are mature enough to determine what is reasonable and what is not. We are educated enough to know what is CLEARLY stated in the Qur'an and what is not. So please don't give me that crap. Clear?

Does Amjad's comment relate to Christians tho'?

It did in regards to Christians questioning Muslim beliefs therefore, my comments are relating to people questioning the beliefs of Christians...fair is fair.

I guess I'd rather allow mutual baiting... :6:

but I'll post a nice one for tomorrow on maths in the Quraan :os

I hate baiting. Debating is fine as long as one respects the other religion but is hard to see it sometimes with people who might have agendas. Will be interesting to read what you have about the Quran and math. I will check it out.

Haha poor Amjad, now his words will be also mentioned in the US prsedential elections

Because the Bible is not a scientific report and doesn't claim to be.

Very important and notable comment.

I hate baiting. Debating is fine as long as one respects the other religion but is hard to see it sometimes with people who might have agendas. Will be interesting to read what you have about the Quran and math. I will check it out.

Marianna - I think things have to earn respect, and not demand it as a right. Just because someone believes, say, that there is an alien spaceship following comet Hale-Bop, doesn't mean it automatically deserves respect just because someone happens to call it their belief. I think you should be free to question beliefs, including those of others.:D

Anyhow, I promised you the math question - I posted it as a new thread under Islamic sabla, as it asks a simple inheritance question that the Quraan answers.:think: