Friday, May 21, 2010

Did God Make Day and Night Before He Made The Sun?

Here is Shane's next problem: My Response is in red.

Here is another descrepency.

Genesis 1:3, "God said let there be light, and there was light. God saw that the light was good. Then He seperated the light from the darkness. God called the light "day" and the darkness night".

So as of the first day of creation week, we have day and night. The scripture even verifies this by saying afterward-"And evening and morning came, marking the first day"!

Yet, we have in Genesis 1:16, "God made two great lights-the larger one (sun) to govern the day, and the smaller one (moon) to govern the night"

So we have here, God creating day and night on the first day of creation week....but God does not make the sun until the fourth day of creation week?

How was it that day and night existed before the sun was even created.....?

We now know in this modern age, that day and night are reconciled with the sun....the sun is our only source of light.

We now know in this modern age, that the moon is not a light....the moon only reflects the sun's light thats it!

It seems pretty obvious that the author of Genesis was not a divinly inspired person.

More likely, the author did not relize the immense size of the sun thousands and thousands of miles away, and did not realize it was the sun itself which gives us our only source of light.

More likely the author did not realize the moon was not a light in and of itself, the moon only reflects the suns light!

It is easy to see why the author would not realize these things. If we never developed the sciences and understandings we have today, we would probably think the same things based on our limited observations.

The first thing I need to say is that I am not an young earth creationist. I think evidence points to the the earth being more than 6000 years old...a lot more. That being said I think that the fact that evening and morning are discussed before the sun is visible tells us that "day:" or ("yom" in Hebrew) must mean something different than a 24 hour day because without the sun how would you know if its evening or morning. Add to that I think that most people look at the Genesis account being told from the point of view of some one standing in orbit and viewing what is happening on earth. However this is not the reference point from which the events are described, It  says that God hovered above the waters. A lot of detail is skipped between verse 1 and that point, but let's start at that point. If someone had been above the waters what would they have seen? Sciences says they would see the earth cloaked with a think layer of gas blotting out the sun. and the stars and the moon. From the standpoint of verse 4, the moon, sun and stars were just made visible at that point just like we know from science that happened.  I agree that the author did not how far away the sun was or the star or that the moon was reflecting sun light. So? Shane, is it your contention that the author was saying the sun was not millions of miles away or that the moon did not reflect sunlight?  I think not. It is describing what a person would have seen had they been on earth at that time (floating in the air with God above the waters  before land was created). It's not trying to give us every single detail or explanation. Does this conflict with science? No. Do all Christians agree with me? No. But although this is a controversy is doesn't show the Bible errant and it's not a salvation issue. Interesting? Yes. I think that this is what science is: Figuring out how God did it.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]


  1. Marcus.


    The author was trying to tell us what one would have seen at the time of creation?

    First of all the word "day" here must mean a 24 hour period,because the scripture says "then evening came, then morning, this marked the first day"!

    This scripture bears all resemblence to a 24 hour day, how would there be an evening or moring if it wasn't?
    How would there be an evening and morning if there was no sun?

    Second, what does your response have to do with my question.....?
    I asked- "how was there a day and a night as of the first day, when there was no sun till the fourth day?
    How was there even a day! until then?

    Also, I did not contend that the sun was not millions of miles away at that time, I specifically said the author probably didn't know that fact.....and you agreed with me in your response!

    I dont think you have a strong answer here so you are trying to switch the topic of discussion?

  2. Marcus,
    I think you meant to write “I am not a young earth creationist” rather than “I am not an old earth creationist.”

    God created light where there was darkness—we do not know what “form” this light took or from whence it emanated. Yet, the light and dark were made to cycle in a 24 hour period—evening and morning (this gives context to the word “day”).

    Later, God encapsulates the light into the Sun, compresses the energy.

    So he is right that, “…in this modern age…the sun is our only source of light.” Yet, this is a presupposition according to which what is true of the universe today must have been true all along, when it was created, etc. and this is uniformaterianism.

    Also, he is wrong in stating that “the moon is not a light....the moon only reflects the sun's light thats it!”
    The text says,
    “Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky…to give light on the earth…God made two great lights…”
    The fact is that the moon is a light—regardless of whether it generates or reflects it. This would be like me reflecting the Sun into your eyes with a mirror, having you say, “Stop shinning that light in my eyes, it burns!” and my responding, “Oh, no, you do not understand modern day astronomy, this is not a light this is merely a reflection.”

  3. Mariano.

    You speak of presupposition in my views......yet you say-"God made light where there was darkness -WE DO NOT KNOW WHAT "FORM" this light took or WHENCE IT EMANATED......later God encapsulates the light in the the sun,.........???????
    Mariano, if your answer here is not a gross amount of presupposition, then I dont know what is!

    Although I see nothing wrong with your answer being a "possibility", it has the ring of theological coverup to me.

    I dont think im using Uniformaterianiasm, Im going by exactly what the author of Genesis records.....and I think it is obvious that he just did not realize it was the "sun" which actually lit the entire earth!....pretty straight need to embellish this concept!

    As far as the moon goes, I said- "the moon is not a light in and of itself"!

    The moon does give off light......but it does not does not give off energy of its own accord.

    Compare the scripture, you even quoted it- "God made TWO GREAT LIGHTS".......

    Here we have the author of Genesis refering to the moon as if it was something similar to the sun!
    The moon here in this scripture is considered to be a light in the same nature as the sun.
    But this is false, the moon is just a rock!

  4. Shane, you are assuming that the author of Genesis is trying to say that the moon is giving off light as if it is the source. I think Mariano's point is valid. The text is talking about what happened from a certain viewpoint not an objective one with omniscient detail. The point is that on the fourth day you could see the Sun, moon, and stars distinctly. That is all the author is saying.

    I am not changing the discussion at all. According to the text there was no sun seen from the earth on days two or my point remains how can evening and morning mean anything if you can't see the sun? I think something more is being communicated: the beginning and ending of a period of time. I did answer your assume that 24 hour days are implied I said that is only one interpretation. I'm also saying that if you were in orbit above the earth, in space, you would see both the sun and moon prior to day it's only on day four the sun, moon, and stars are distinctly visible.

    How would the author know? I accept the tradition that Moses wrote Genesis. We know that Moses was on Mt Sinai for a long time communing with God. What do yo think Moses was doing all that time? He was getting the story from God himself...maybe God even allowed Moses to see it.

    Mariano, thanks for catching my error. I'll change it. Also thanks for weighing in. I agree with your explanation being viable and plausible. I also think mine is also.

    We don't know all the details...that is what science is about - finding those answers. I want to be clear too: Of course God could have done all of it in 6 days, I just don't think the evidence supports that. God could have created all there is in 6 seconds. God can do whatever He wants to do.

  5. Marcus.

    I disagree still, you said the sun, moon, and stars were not visible until day four, and that is why they were not mentioned until day four?

    But I think your totally wrong on the authors intentions here and I'll tell you why.

    In Genesis 1:3 it says, "Then God said, let there be light", and there was light"!

    Here the author is telling us that God called light into existence at that moment. Light did not exist until that time.

    Now, likewise, in Genesis 1:14-"Then God said, "let lights appear in the sky to seperate the day from the night"!

    As you can see Marcus, the author is telling us that the lights (sun,moon,stars) did NOT exist until that moment!
    It gives us the same statement as it does in every day of creation week.

    -Then God said, let there be light (light came into existence).
    -Then God said let there be space between the waters, (and it happened)
    Then God said "let the waters flow together"-"let the land sprout vegetation" (and vegetation came into existence).
    -The God said "let lights appear in the sky" (and it happened).
    -Then God said, "let there be fish,birds,sea creatures, etc, (and they all came into existence)..........etc...............etc...........

    As you can see, you are wrong. The author tells us precisely when all these things came into existence.
    And the sun was NOT in existence (according to bible) until the fourth day, after which there was already a day and night, therefore biblical ERROR!
    Im not saying I believe the account....I am saying that the author was a little misconstrued.

    Marcus, Im a little confused on some of your reasonings,
    for instance, you said-" my point remians, how can evening and morning mean anything if we cant see the sun"?

    I have already explained that I believe the author of Genesis was ignorant to how our solar system worked.
    I said that the author probably did NOT realize how big the sun was or how far away it was, so he probably didn't know that it was the "sun" which actually lit up the world!

    That is why he tells us that there was "day" before he tells us that there is a "sun".

    For all he knew, the sun was just a large ball of light up in the sky, but had no idea of the immensity it really was?

    Marcus, you said "Shane you are assuming the author of Genesis is trying to say the moon is giving off light as if it is the source".

    Well are assuming the author is trying to say IT DIDN'T!

    What does the scripture say....? says God made two great lights"!
    So we have here TWO great lights being created. Well, we already know that one of these great lights is the "sun" which does in fact give off light as a source!!!!!!!!!!!!

    So why.....should we think the author was not ALSO trying to say the moon gave off light as a source as well???????????
    Its not like the author living 4 thousand years ago would know any better!

  6. Shane you can't assume ignorance based on what was written. I'm not. The verse says that the lights "appeared" not that they didn't exist until that point. You are trying to make the text say something that it doesn't say. Mariano' point is right about shining reflected sunlight into your eyes and how the conversation would go. The author is not talking about source for the light but what happened from the point of view of someone on earth watching what was taking place.

  7. Marcus.

    Lol.....whatever you say man......?

    I find it amusing for you to tell me what the author was really trying to if you would no that.....?

    Im taking the scripture at face value and I think my points are obvious.
    Im also making points that are based in observable and scientific grounding.

    You on the other hand, are acting as if you can see into the past, or as if God is relaying this miscontrued information to you in first hand revelation!
    Sorry Marcus, I feel your responses are imaginary.

    Anyway....if you check out-Apologetics will see that they actually agree with me that the author DID in fact mean to say the sun came into existence on the fourth day, and not the first.

    The only answer the give is that some heavenly light existed before the sun, but I dont believe that.
    I think the author was scientifically inept.

  8. Shane, scientific "ineptitude" presupposes that the author was trying to give scientific detail. Why do you think that the author was trying to say the sun came into existence. It does not say that. I find it interesting that if you were standing in the earth's atmosphere during the events of Genesis 1:1 the order of creation would look like how science theory says today the earth was formed. What you see all depends on your frame of reference. Shane, do I expect you to agree with me? No. Not all other Christians agree with me either. One of the things I love is that we don't have all the answers about this. So some Christians agree with you about the text? I know. Doesn't matter. People are in contradiction...not the text. And science hasn't progressed far enough to tell us that either Biblical interpretation is false.

  9. Marcus.

    Well.....I see that you are willing to go to these lengths in order to believe what you believe.
    Maybe your experience as a christian is different from what mine was?

    Me personally, I see things basically the way I've been describing them here, and I cannot bring myself to reject my logic and intuition in what I read in the bible.

    If you as an adult feel your answers here have been sufficient, nd you want to remain a faithful believer in this 2000 year old way of understanding, then who am I to disagree?

    But I see the world differently, and I cant sacrifice my reason just to accept it.

  10. I'm not going to any extraordinary lengths at all. My experience as a Christian is that no matter what happens God is good and faithful and keeps his promises.

    God has no ever asked me to reject logic, but turn loose of my logic and intuition because it's flawed. God has to show you what is right. As a human being you can't see reality right because of sin. This is why it is written in Proverbs 3:5-6

    5 Trust in the LORD with all your heart
    and lean not on your own understanding;

    6 in all your ways acknowledge him,
    and he will make your paths straight.

    And this is why the Bible also says:

    "Come now, let us reason together," says the LORD. "Though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they are red as crimson, they shall be like wool. - Isaiah 1:18

    Meaning that God isn't going to work with you to change His will or plan but that He will change you so that you can see things God's way. It's an on-going process. I'm still going through it.

    This why Paul wrote in Romans 12:1-2

    1Therefore, I urge you, brothers, in view of God's mercy, to offer your bodies as living sacrifices, holy and pleasing to God—this is your spiritual[a] act of worship. 2Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God's will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will.

    It's not about rejecting reason but upgrading your understanding so that you can understand what God is doing. I'm still working on it....or I should say God is still working on me.

  11. Marcus.

    I think you are a deluted individual!

    Dont tell me my logic (as well as normal logic) is flawed because you think you hear from a supernatural voice which tells you that your right!

    I realize that you were brought up in a christian home, and fed this shit your whole life, and grew up to believe it, and think God gave you your life as it is....etc....

    but that only means you lack the ability to understand any differently then you do!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    At least I've been on both sides of the least I have something to compare it to!

  12. Shane, you were not a Christian. You were not born-again. You are comparing apples and oranges. I'm saying that your logic is not normal because you will not take culture into account. The whole thing about Jesus on the colt being lead by its mother is an example of your unwillingness to consider additional information that people contemporary to the account would have understood. I don't hear from any supernatural voice that tells me I'm right. The Bible does. Everyone's logic is flawed unless you see things through God's eyes. The thought that you know what you are doing is the true delusion. If God did not transform you so you can understand His will then you have not been born-again and by your own admission you were not transformed. Being raised in a Christian home does not mean anything without a personal relationship with Jesus. I'm telling you that you can have the real thing that God promised because you didn't get it before in your life. If you had then you would be able to see where your thinking was flawed and you can begin upgrading. Every one who is born again experiences a moment like Isaiah in Isaiah 6. I know you didn't experience that.

  13. By the way, by definition, no one is born a believer. I remember what I was like and how I thought before God saved me...and I'm telling you it's much better now.

  14. Let me be clear: What I mean by an experience like Isaiah 6 is the realization of how sinful and unworthy you are and that although you do not deserve salvation God give you the peace that comes with realizing that God is not going to count your sins against you.

  15. Maybe there is no such thing as being "born again"?

    Maybe some of us have been able to realize its all in the head of the believer?

    And maybe some of you are still trodging along with hopes high and minds shut?

  16. sorry the first post wouldn't send I dont no why its there now?

  17. So, Shane, I am correct you didn't experience being born-again. That means you were never saved and you don't have the experience of being a Christian to compare that with being an agnostic. This means that you lack the ability to understand what the bible is saying. If you sincerely seek God with your whole heart you will find Him. God promised that. I can unabashedly tell you that God keeps all Promises God makes.

  18. Marcus.

    I know many christians who believe that people can be saved...and yet....still lose their faith and walk away!

    In fact, they still tell me to return to God, they consider me a prodigal son and pray that I will return.

    So since these christians and a pastor who was a good friend of mine, actually lead me to the lord, if these people think that I was in fact saved before and want me to return....then what makes you an authority on what I ever was?

    What makes you an authority to judge this and play God?

  19. Marcus.

    Why did the apostle Paul continuosly tell the believers in Rome, Ephesaus, Thesselonica, be vigalint, to endure until the end, to endure through tribulation....?

    I'll tell you why, because he said "so you will not lose faith".

    You obviously dont know much when you speak above matters which your own bible testifies against you!

  20. Shane, no one knows you heart but God. I'm saying that if you know you were not born again then you you are saying you were never saved. I'm saying that no one who truly becomes born again can be un-born-again. Paul admonishes us to persevere so that we won't loose our faith but it's proof that you were saved in the first place. Considering how you read scripture, you should quote the passages that make you you think that that you can just have once been saved and then walk away.

    As for why I'm saying what I'm saying a scripture will help. Hebrews 6:1-6 says

    1Therefore let us leave the elementary teachings about Christ and go on to maturity, not laying again the foundation of repentance from acts that lead to death,[a] and of faith in God, 2instruction about baptisms, the laying on of hands, the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment. 3And God permitting, we will do so.

    4It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, 5who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age, 6if they fall away, to be brought back to repentance, because[b]to their loss they are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace.

    Look, I want you to go back to God and get a taste. You missed out. There is more than what you thought you had. Had you really tasted the truth you would not be able to leave it. You wouldn't want to. And if you had, then God will bring you back.

    If you were born again, you will be back to church. I'm not worried. In the slightest. Philippians 1:4-7 says:

    4In all my prayers for all of you, I always pray with joy 5because of your partnership in the gospel from the first day until now, 6being confident of this, that he who began a good work in you will carry it on to completion until the day of Christ Jesus.

    7It is right for me to feel this way about all of you, since I have you in my heart; for whether I am in chains or defending and confirming the gospel, all of you share in God's grace with me.

    But in case, I don't want to just sit back and assume that. Because according to you no work was begun in you. It's not judgment only what the Bible says. And what you said.

    You are either covered by the passage I just quoted or this one:

    18Dear children, this is the last hour; and as you have heard that the antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come. This is how we know it is the last hour. 19They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us. For if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us; but their going showed that none of them belonged to us. - 1 Jon 2:18-19

  21. Marcus.

    Wouldn't Hebrews 6, indicate that those who tasted of the heavenly gift, and shared in the holy spirit, that if they walk away after all these things, that God cannot/will not bring them back....?....because Christ cannot be crusified twice?

    Maybe I couldn't go back even if I wanted to?

  22. Um no, Shane. The point is that either you were never a part and now can really be a part or if you were a part (which I doubt because you say you weren't born-again) You will be coming back because now you belong to God. Hebrews 6 says that it is impossible to have really been in and then leave because Jesus looses no one entrusted to Him and no further sacrifice could be made if they tried to return. Therefore I how that you will be born-again and accept the gift that God has been offering to you.

  23. Marcus.

    Well, I realize to matter what I say, you are going to find an apologetic answer on the net somewhere whether its acceptable or not.

    So I guess there's really no point in bringing anything back up to you.

    Eitherway, thanks for your time talk to you later.