How could there be light on day one when the sun is not created until day four?

inertia

Super Member
Genesis 1:1-3 – Is the passage a sequence of events or a summary?
_______________________________________________________________________

“How could there be light on day one when the sun is not created until day four?” [1]

Biblically, the first creation day was set in motion with God saying “Let there be light”. Here, the time between God’s command, and created light that propagates to the atmosphere is unstated. It may have gradually increased in radiance or it may have arrived at its maximum level of intensity. What remains is stated in verse five where night coexists with the day.

Day and Night terminal.JPG
Day and night simultaneously

Nevertheless, the light from celestial objects was not introduced until the fourth creation day (Genesis 1:14), with God saying “Let there be lights in the vault of the sky…”. Here is where light from celestial objects finally provided the energy required to view night and day on the surface of the Earth. Earlier in the narrative Genesis 1:2 tells us that at one time the earth was in a state of darkness and covered in deep water. This is consistent with Job 38:9 that discusses the foundations of the earth, stating: “...when I made the storm clouds its garment, and thick darkness its swaddling band…” The deep-water description is also consistent with a relatively recent discovery in the Australian outback.

The answer to the question is clear. Our host star, the sun, was created in the heavens as outlined in Genesis 1:1. Its light did not penetrate the storm clouds until the fourth creation day.

While this conclusion relies on the traditional interpretation of Genesis as it relates to successive passages, two other mainline interpretations are commonly discussed [2]. The traditional interpretation appeals to a syntactic linkage between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 via the key term “the earth” linking backward to Genesis 1:1. The narrative structure of Genesis 1:1-2 also uses the Hebrew perfect tense referring to an antecedent event. Theologically, this interpretation contends for the absolute sovereignty of the monotheistic God. Namely, the true God that rules everything and contrasts itself with ancient Near Eastern narratives where gods are born and there are conflicts between deities.

Another interpretation assumes that Genesis 1:1 is simply a subordinate clause written as: “In the beginning, when God created the heaven and the earth, the earth was without form…” and this interpretation is fading after receiving many credible refutations [3]. A third mainstream interpretation is the summary view and it has a lot of support [4]. Here the expression “the heavens and the earth” describes an organized universe and does not view verse 1:2 as an unorganized state, and Genesis 1:1 is read as a summary statement describing the events of verses 2 through 31. The summary interpretation provides a sense of the expression ‘the heavens and the earth’ that includes the concept of an organization. Difficulties occur when trying to make the distinction between the sense of the expression from its referent. In Genesis 2:1 the expression “all the host of them”, for example, refers not only to celestial bodies but the birds, plants, and animals. Here the hosts are distinguished and include inhabitants, therefore, in this light, the context of the compound expression “the heavens and the earth” designates two spatial regions. If one specifies “organized” as a finished state, as the universe looks now, a tension is created with 2:1 because the passage states that the heavens and the earth were finished. This implies a process where the heavens and the earth were in flux. A once ardent supporter of the summary interpretation, Waltke, no longer supports the organized universe claim.



[1] John H. Walton, The Lost World of Genesis One; Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate, (Downers Grove, IL: (InterVarsity Press, 2009), P. 56
[2] Vern S.Poythress, Genesis 1:1 Is the first event, not a summary, WTJ 79 (2017): 97 -121, last accessed online on 6/5/2021
[3] Collins, Genesis 1–4, 50–52
[4] Waltke, “Part III.” Genesis, 58-59
 
Last edited:

En Hakkore

Well-known member
Genesis 1:1-3 – Is the passage a sequence of events or a summary?
_______________________________________________________________________

“How could there be light on day one when the sun is not created until day four?” [1]

Biblically, the first creation day was set in motion with God saying “Let there be light”. Here, the time between God’s command, and created light that propagates to the atmosphere is unstated. It may have gradually increased in radiance or it may have arrived at its maximum level of intensity. What remains is stated in verse five where night coexists with the day.

View attachment 1280
Day and night simultaneously

Nevertheless, the light from celestial objects was not introduced until the fourth creation day (Genesis 1:14), with God saying “Let there be lights in the vault of the sky…”. Here is where light from celestial objects finally provided the energy required to view night and day on the surface of the Earth. Earlier in the narrative Genesis 1:2 tells us that at one time the earth was in a state of darkness and covered in deep water. This is consistent with Job 38:9 that discusses the foundations of the earth, stating: “...when I made the storm clouds its garment, and thick darkness its swaddling band…” The deep-water description is also consistent with a relatively recent discovery in the Australian outback.

The answer to the question is clear. Our host star, the sun, was created in the heavens as outlined in Genesis 1:1. Its light did not penetrate the storm clouds until the fourth creation day.

While this conclusion relies on the traditional interpretation of Genesis as it relates to successive passages, two other mainline interpretations are commonly discussed [2]. The traditional interpretation appeals to a syntactic linkage between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 via the key term “the earth” linking backward to Genesis 1:1. The narrative structure of Genesis 1:1-2 also uses the Hebrew perfect tense referring to an antecedent event. Theologically, this interpretation contends for the absolute sovereignty of the monotheistic God. Namely, the true God that rules everything and contrasts itself with ancient Near Eastern narratives where gods are born and there are conflicts between deities.

Another interpretation assumes that Genesis 1:1 is simply a subordinate clause written as: “In the beginning, when God created the heaven and the earth, the earth was without form…” and this interpretation is fading after receiving many credible refutations [3]. A third mainstream interpretation is the summary view and it has a lot of support [4]. Here the expression “the heavens and the earth” describes an organized universe and does not view verse 1:2 as an unorganized state, and Genesis 1:1 is read as a summary statement describing the events of verses 2 through 31. The summary interpretation provides a sense of the expression ‘the heavens and the earth’ that includes the concept of an organization. Difficulties occur when trying to make the distinction between the sense of the expression from its referent. In Genesis 2:1 the expression “all the host of them”, for example, refers not only to celestial bodies but the birds, plants, and animals. Here the hosts are distinguished and include inhabitants, therefore, in this light, the context of the compound expression “the heavens and the earth” designates two spatial regions. If one specifies “organized” as a finished state, as the universe looks now, a tension is created with 2:1 because the passage states that the heavens and the earth were finished. This implies a process where the heavens and the earth were in flux. A once ardent supporter of the summary interpretation, Waltke, no longer supports the organized universe claim.



[1] John H. Walton, The Lost World of Genesis One; Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate, (Downers Grove, IL: (InterVarsity Press, 2009), P. 56
[2] Vern S.Poythress, Genesis 1:1 Is the first event, not a summary, WTJ 79 (2017): 97 -121, last accessed online on 6/5/2021
[3] Collins, Genesis 1–4, 50–52
[4] Waltke, “Part III.” Genesis, 58-59
There are two different issues raised in your initial post and there is no necessary connection between them... that is, one could potentially answer your question in the manner you suggest while holding to any of the three interpretations concerning the relationship between Gen 1:1 and 1:2 that you outline. I will return to the question itself in the third section of my response, focusing in the remainder of this section on highlighting the governing assumptions you bring to analysis of the text and their implications. Within your hermeneutic, the text is viewed as a timeless and apparently correct account of the universe's origins and the earth's creation by a divine agent which therefore must harmonize with the contemporary body of scientific knowledge. Attempts to resolve the cognitive dissonance the juxtaposition of these two data sets inevitably creates leads you to distort the plain meaning of the biblical text. My hermeneutic, on the other hand, is aimed at an interpretation of the text that is consistent with how its ancient author(s) intended it to be understood within its own historical and cultural context. If this conflicts with current scientific data, so be it... no harmonization can or should be attempted --- one or the other or both should be dismissed as presently incomplete in all the facts or erroneous.

As for the three interpretations of Gen 1:1-2, we can dispense with and discuss no further the second one... that is, neither of us think that 1:1 should be read as a subordinate clause --- we agree that it is an independent clause. Our difference of interpretation hinges on whether 1:1 narrates an initial act of creation that 1:2 follows sequentially (your position) or whether it is a summary statement of the creation that follows beginning with 1:2 (my position). I am not aware that Waltke has withdrawn his support for the summary interpretation so if you could please provide the citation for where he offers this alleged self-refutation... thanks.

As to the question presented, it takes for granted our contemporary astronomical knowledge and your proposed solution simply builds on this. None of that, however, is appropriate to properly understanding a text written in the ancient world that did not have this knowledge. The light of daytime (Hebrew: אור) was not, to the ancient Israelite observer, caused by the sun or the rotation of our planet, but called into existence as an entity in itself by the deity (1:3). Its presence began the cycle of nighttime followed by daytime by which the very days could be numbered, beginning in 1:5 --- your claim that night and day here coexist is incorrect, which we can explore in more depth once you reach in your studies how the vav-consecutive works in Hebrew narrative. The sun, moon and stars are distinct entities that are not created until the fourth day (1:14-19). Each is a luminary (Hebrew: מאור), an object that shines... the most radiant one is appointed to govern the already-existent daily period of light and the lesser one to govern that of darkness. There is no comprehension here on the author's part of a rotating planet in orbit around a star, which is the model you assume and then force onto the text to misinterpret it as the sun's light penetrating a cloud cover for the first time. The biblical text says nothing of the sort... the sun was made and placed in its current position all on the fourth day according to the author.

Kind regards,
Jonathan
 

Base12

Member
It is a riddle.

The word 'Light' means many things in the Bible. The trick is figuring out the context.

Long story short, God spoke. And there you have it. The Word of God was the Light...

Psalms 119:105 נ (NUN).
"Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path."


Easy peasy. :cool:
 

Base12

Member
Earlier in the narrative Genesis 1:2 tells us that at one time the earth was in a state of darkness and covered in deep water.
'Waters' is another riddle.

The so called 'Waters' referred to in Genesis 1:2 is not Earth's oceans. In fact, Earth was not even formed yet. The word 'Void' is similar to an infinite vacuum. In other words, our Universe had yet to be created.

Earth and its oceans were both created here...

Genesis 1:10
"And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good."


The 'Waters' in Genesis 1:2 is what we would call a 'Dimensional Plane'. Think Underworld, Abyss, and even 2D.

When God separated Waters Above (Fourth Dimension) from Waters Below (Second Dimension), what Scripture is teaching is that God created '3D Space' in between...

Genesis 1:7
"And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so."


We exist in the Firmament of Three Dimensional Reality.

Genesis teaches extremely advanced concepts that Science is just now coming to grips with. The problem is that researchers tend to 'dumb down' the teachings to some silly primitive way of thinking as if a caveman wrote it.
 

Base12

Member
BTW...

This verse is when the so called 'Big Bang' took place...

Genesis 3:6
"And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat."


What Science calls the Big Bang is what the Bible describes as 'The Fall of Man'.

The Fall was the collapse of the Wave Function into Particles. Spirit into Physical.

Genesis 1:1 through 3:6 should NOT be viewed through the lens of Modern Astronomy, Geology, etc. It was a very different reality.

It is like comparing a Video Game to Real Life. We are talking about two very different things here.
 

J regia

Well-known member
BTW...

This verse is when the so called 'Big Bang' took place...

Genesis 3:6
"And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat."


What Science calls the Big Bang is what the Bible describes as 'The Fall of Man'.

The Fall was the collapse of the Wave Function into Particles. Spirit into Physical.

Genesis 1:1 through 3:6 should NOT be viewed through the lens of Modern Astronomy, Geology, etc. It was a very different reality.

It is like comparing a Video Game to Real Life. We are talking about two very different things here.
IOW the Genesis creation stories are just imaginative fantasies, given that the universe is billions of years old since there are about two trillion visible galaxies a and the speed of light is ~300,000 km/sec.
 

inertia

Super Member
There are two different issues raised in your initial post and there is no necessary connection between them... that is, one could potentially answer your question in the manner you suggest while holding to any of the three interpretations concerning the relationship between Gen 1:1 and 1:2 that you outline.

The issues are intimately connected. By adopting a summary-only interpretation of Gen. 1:1, Gen. 1:2 necessarily initiates primary background conditions for the narrative of Genesis 1:3-31. It becomes a description of the initial physical conditions where God begins His work with coexisting matter. This concept contradicts other creation passages:

“All things were created by him, and apart from him not one thing was created that has been created.” (John 1:3)

“…for all things in heaven and on earth were created by him – all things, whether visible or invisible, whether thrones or dominions, whether principalities or powers – all things were created through him and for him.” (Colossians 1:16)


Genesis 1:2 by itself does not offer how the deep water-covered earth came into existence.

I will return to the question itself in the third section of my response, focusing in the remainder of this section on highlighting the governing assumptions you bring to analysis of the text and their implications. Within your hermeneutic, the text is viewed as a timeless and apparently correct account of the universe's origins and the earth's creation by a divine agent which therefore must harmonize with the contemporary body of scientific knowledge.

Unquestionably understanding the perspective of old-world cosmology helps us relate to the author’s intended original audience, but to conclude that the many authors of the bible never intended to offer an account of material origins no matter how fundamental or that the bible was not intended for future generations runs contrary to testable observations and in the directive to seek understanding:

“The beginning of wisdom is this: Get wisdom. Though it costs all you have, get understanding. Cherish her, and she will exalt you; embrace her, and he will honor you. She will give you a garland of grace to your head and present you with a glorious crown.” (Proverbs 4:7-9)

Unlike Walton’s assertion [1] that “Concordists believe the Bible must agree–be in concord with–all the findings of contemporary science”, the majority of the Christians that I know that are also scientists, including myself, employ a “soft” concordism that does not include a “must agree” or else attitude. Our understanding is based on models that change as new information becomes available. Even so, if there was a discovery that the universe did -not- have a beginning it would be disastrous to our understanding of the text.


[1] John Walton, The Lost World of Genesis One; Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate, Page 19, Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 2009
 

Base12

Member
IOW the Genesis creation stories are just imaginative fantasies...
The Bible is actually written in such a way as to sound like 'imaginative fantasies' on purpose. It is a type of defense mechanism to keep advanced information away from those that would seek to use it for nefarious purposes.

Now that we are so close to the End, it would appear that much of this advance knowledge no longer needs to be occulted. The veil is lifting so to speak.

For example:

We now know that the High Priest Breastplate is a picture of the Standard Model of Particle Physics.

The Four Living Creatures is a picture of the Four Forces of Nature. I.e...
  1. Ox = Strong Force
  2. Lion = Electromagnetism
  3. Eagle = Gravity
  4. Man = Weak Force
The Tabernacle in the Wilderness is a picture of a Biological Cell, or more specifically, a Zygote

The Godhead is a picture of the generic construct of an Atom. I.e...
  • Father = Neutron
  • Word = Proton
  • Holy Ghost = Electron
It is all one giant blueprint. It is being deciphered as we speak. We are way past 'imaginationland'... lol.
 

inertia

Super Member

Attempts to resolve the cognitive dissonance the juxtaposition of these two data sets inevitably creates leads you to distort the plain meaning of the biblical text.

No, by paying attention to the language, it’s evident that it would take a lot of contrived hermeneutics to disclaim the sequential events implemented in Genesis chapter one. The text plainly states that there was a beginning of everything physical including time. What’s real is that matter is required in order to have a water-covered earth.


My hermeneutic, on the other hand, is aimed at an interpretation of the text that is consistent with how its ancient author(s) intended it to be understood within its own historical and cultural context. If this conflicts with current scientific data, so be it... no harmonization can or should be attempted --- one or the other or both should be dismissed as presently incomplete in all the facts or erroneous.

Indeed, and this is how I expect a secular anthropologist to study the material. The anthropologist’s perspective is consistent with Walton’s theological model where ancient cosmic geography influences biblical content as interpreted primarily through the cultures of ancient Near Eastern people and their literature. Conceptually the authors merely reflect their contemporary’s cosmologies instead of receiving inspiration from the Holy Spirit. Nonetheless, the language in Genesis One doesn’t say “they said” or “according to our culture” for example. The text states unambiguously “then God said” and “And God said”. It’s my hope that Walton’s model doesn’t purposefully imply that God simply parrots human error.

As for the three interpretations of Gen 1:1-2, we can dispense with and discuss no further the second one... that is, neither of us think that 1:1 should be read as a subordinate clause --- we agree that it is an independent clause.

Yes - simply great

Our difference of interpretation hinges on whether 1:1 narrates an initial act of creation that 1:2 follows sequentially (your position) or whether it is a summary statement of the creation that follows beginning with 1:2 (my position). I am not aware that Waltke has withdrawn his support for the summary interpretation so if you could please provide the citation for where he offers this alleged self-refutation... thanks.

I don't believe it was a purposeful self-refutation. It was an implied observation based on his work in previous writing.

Vern Poythress, Interpreting Eden, A Guide to Faithfully Reading and Understanding Genesis 1-3, 2019, Appendix A, pages 317 and 321,Crossway publisher 1300 Crescent St. Wheaton, Illinois

As to the question presented, it takes for granted our contemporary astronomical knowledge and your proposed solution simply builds on this. None of that, however, is appropriate to properly understanding a text written in the ancient world that did not have this knowledge.

Still, there were authors that displayed remarkable knowledge for the time period. While Jeremiah was writing to the Jews in Babylon, for example, he stated:

“But I, the LORD, make the following promise: I have made a covenant governing the coming of day and night. I have established the fixed laws governing heaven and earth.” (Jer. 33:25)

The secular paradigm used to investigate this particular ancient text also conflicts with passages in Ecclesiastes and the book of Romans [2].

The concept of fixed laws instead of a number of deities governing heaven and earth was an inspired truth for the people of the period. Although a general statement, it conforms with present-day physics.


[2] Ecclesiastes 1:4-10, 3:11-15, Romans 8:19-22

The light of daytime (Hebrew: אור) was not, to the ancient Israelite observer, caused by the sun or the rotation of our planet, but called into existence as an entity in itself by the deity (1:3). Its presence began the cycle of nighttime followed by daytime by which the very days could be numbered, beginning in 1:5 --- your claim that night and day here coexist is incorrect, which we can explore in more depth once you reach in your studies how the vav-consecutive works in Hebrew narrative.

A planetary paradigm didn’t come about for a long time. In perspective, Galileo’s telescope observations became known in 1610. So, the translation of the 1611 King James Bible was complete after the moons of Jupiter were discovered orbiting the planet, but the translators had no time to consider the ramifications of this new understanding. It would not have been a primary concern - yet.

Much earlier in history in Genesis 1:2, we read that “darkness was over the surface of the watery deep”. The darkness that existed is in contrast to light implying a directional light source as the shadows of trees and buildings attest to ancient man. We read in Genesis 1:5 that the dark is named night (לָיְלָה) demonstrating a fundamental understanding for timekeeping and opportunities for the exploration of the stars. This is true even with an ancient model in mind. The simultaneous existence of light and shadow, light and dark, was known. Clearly, we disagree here. Not about a planetary perspective, but the meaningful fundamental physical content displayed in an ancient text.

Sidebar ----> I don’t have a reason to argue with Ziony Zevit in understanding the waw + noun – perfect verb construction as an “anterior construction”. It represents completed past events.


The sun, moon and stars are distinct entities that are not created until the fourth day (1:14-19). Each is a luminary (Hebrew: מאור), an object that shines... the most radiant one is appointed to govern the already-existent daily period of light and the lesser one to govern that of darkness. There is no comprehension here on the author's part of a rotating planet in orbit around a star, which is the model you assume and then force onto the text to misinterpret it as the sun's light penetrating a cloud cover for the first time. The biblical text says nothing of the sort... the sun was made and placed in its current position all on the fourth day according to the author.

Yes, a planetary view was not in mind. Our present understanding of the planet Earth very early in its formation is that there would have been a dense permanent cloud cover with deep oceans and no continents. The author of the book of Job, specifically Job 38:9, provides an understanding way beyond the thinking of ancient thought. It was an earth with thick storm clouds in darkness. This author was inspired.
 
Last edited:

inertia

Super Member
'Waters' is another riddle.

The so called 'Waters' referred to in Genesis 1:2 is not Earth's oceans. In fact, Earth was not even formed yet. The word 'Void' is similar to an infinite vacuum. In other words, our Universe had yet to be created.

Earth and its oceans were both created here...

Genesis 1:10
"And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good."


The 'Waters' in Genesis 1:2 is what we would call a 'Dimensional Plane'. Think Underworld, Abyss, and even 2D.

When God separated Waters Above (Fourth Dimension) from Waters Below (Second Dimension), what Scripture is teaching is that God created '3D Space' in between...

Genesis 1:7
"And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so."


We exist in the Firmament of Three Dimensional Reality.

Genesis teaches extremely advanced concepts that Science is just now coming to grips with. The problem is that researchers tend to 'dumb down' the teachings to some silly primitive way of thinking as if a caveman wrote it.

hmm...

There is a lot to discuss here.
 

inertia

Super Member
The Bible is actually written in such a way as to sound like 'imaginative fantasies' on purpose. It is a type of defense mechanism to keep advanced information away from those that would seek to use it for nefarious purposes.

Now that we are so close to the End, it would appear that much of this advance knowledge no longer needs to be occulted. The veil is lifting so to speak.

For example:

We now know that the High Priest Breastplate is a picture of the Standard Model of Particle Physics.

The Four Living Creatures is a picture of the Four Forces of Nature. I.e...
  1. Ox = Strong Force
  2. Lion = Electromagnetism
  3. Eagle = Gravity
  4. Man = Weak Force
The Tabernacle in the Wilderness is a picture of a Biological Cell, or more specifically, a Zygote

The Godhead is a picture of the generic construct of an Atom. I.e...
  • Father = Neutron
  • Word = Proton
  • Holy Ghost = Electron
It is all one giant blueprint. It is being deciphered as we speak. We are way past 'imaginationland'... lol.

Holy Smoke! Where are you getting your information?
 

En Hakkore

Well-known member
Genesis teaches extremely advanced concepts that Science is just now coming to grips with. The problem is that researchers tend to 'dumb down' the teachings to some silly primitive way of thinking as if a caveman wrote it.
No, the text of Genesis was not written by someone in the Paleolithic era, but rather by a well-read scribe of ancient Israel's kingdom period who undertook a sophisticated appropriation of the creation myths circulating at that time in Egypt and Mesopotamia. Of course, being well-educated in the Iron Age still makes one relatively ignorant in comparison to a similarly-educated person of the 21st century and there is no sense in pretending otherwise. Your posts are, if nothing else, an excellent example of the ludicrous extremes to which postmodern reader response criticism inevitably leads...

Kind regards,
Jonathan
 

En Hakkore

Well-known member
The issues are intimately connected.
No they are not. The comment to which you replied was my engagement with (1) your summary of three interpretations of the relationship between Gen 1:1-2 and (2) your question about how there could be light on the first day if the sun was not created until the fourth day. As I correctly pointed out, there is no necessary connection between these two issues. For example, one could hold to a summary interpretation and at the same time claim that the sun was created by the deity on the first day but its light did not pierce a global cloud cover until the fourth day.

By adopting a summary-only interpretation of Gen. 1:1, Gen. 1:2 necessarily initiates primary background conditions for the narrative of Genesis 1:3-31. It becomes a description of the initial physical conditions where God begins His work with coexisting matter.
I agree, but this has nothing to do with the two issues in your initiating post to which I addressed my comment (see above).

This concept contradicts other creation passages...
I agree, but the musings of first-century Christian authors are irrelevant to a proper understanding of Genesis 1, which was written many centuries earlier in a different historical and cultural context. You are advocating a canonical reading whereby later texts are permitted to influence the meaning of earlier texts so that the end result is a harmonious anthology... this unity is forced and superficial, allowing the exegete to evade all manner of tensions and distort the plain meaning of one or the other of two texts that are both ostensibly revered. This approach is thus rightly rejected by historical critics who are interested in what the original authors actually intended to convey, not supporting their own theological presuppositions.

Unquestionably understanding the perspective of old-world cosmology helps us relate to the author’s intended original audience, but to conclude that the many authors of the bible never intended to offer an account of material origins no matter how fundamental or that the bible was not intended for future generations runs contrary to testable observations and in the directive to seek understanding...
Further to my critique above, the author of Genesis 1 whose text is here under discussion did not share your particular interest in or ideas about so-called material origins, nor had he any idea that his account would one day become the initial text in an anthology known as 'the Bible'. It goes without saying that most authors intend their work to be read not only by their contemporaries but by future generations... that wish does not include, however, for future generations to reinterpret (read: misinterpret) their work, which is the result of the hermeneutic you espouse in which the text is subordinated to both contemporary scientific data and your particular interpretations of later texts within a diverse anthology that includes Genesis 1.

Unlike Walton’s assertion [1] that “Concordists believe the Bible must agree–be in concord with–all the findings of contemporary science”, the majority of the Christians that I know that are also scientists, including myself, employ a “soft” concordism that does not include a “must agree” or else attitude. Our understanding is based on models that change as new information becomes available. Even so, if there was a discovery that the universe did -not- have a beginning it would be disastrous to our understanding of the text.


[1] John Walton, The Lost World of Genesis One; Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate, Page 19, Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 2009
That you embrace any form of "concordism" is problematic. There is no scientific discovery that can or should make one's understanding of an ancient text "disastrous" if that interpretation is driven solely by a desire to understand its ancient author's intended meaning. That you feel the way you do is evidence of the driving assumptions I called out in the first paragraph of my previous response... you care little to nothing about what the author of Genesis 1 actually intended to convey, rather you care about making sure the text harmonizes to whatever degree you are comfortable -- call it "soft concordism" or whatever you like -- with current scientific knowledge and your theological commitment to creation ex nihilo. To achieve this you flagrantly disregard what the text actually says, for example, about the sun being made on the fourth day, claiming instead it was made prior to even the first creation day... this is a complete misreading of the text, as I previously pointed out.

Time permitting, I will respond to your other post tomorrow...

Kind regards,
Jonathan
 

Nouveau

Well-known member
The Bible is actually written in such a way as to sound like 'imaginative fantasies' on purpose. It is a type of defense mechanism to keep advanced information away from those that would seek to use it for nefarious purposes.

Now that we are so close to the End, it would appear that much of this advance knowledge no longer needs to be occulted. The veil is lifting so to speak.

For example:

We now know that the High Priest Breastplate is a picture of the Standard Model of Particle Physics.

The Four Living Creatures is a picture of the Four Forces of Nature. I.e...
  1. Ox = Strong Force
  2. Lion = Electromagnetism
  3. Eagle = Gravity
  4. Man = Weak Force
The Tabernacle in the Wilderness is a picture of a Biological Cell, or more specifically, a Zygote

The Godhead is a picture of the generic construct of an Atom. I.e...
  • Father = Neutron
  • Word = Proton
  • Holy Ghost = Electron
It is all one giant blueprint. It is being deciphered as we speak. We are way past 'imaginationland'... lol.
Lol, reminds me of a song...

 

inertia

Super Member
“How could there be light on day one when the sun is not created until day four?” [1]

Biblically, the first creation day was set in motion with God saying “Let there be light”. Here, the time between God’s command, and created light that propagates to the atmosphere is unstated. It may have gradually increased in radiance or it may have arrived at its maximum level of intensity. What remains is stated in verse five where night coexists with the day.

View attachment 1280
Day and night simultaneously

The answer to the question is clear. Our host star, the sun, was created in the heavens as outlined in Genesis 1:1. Its light did not penetrate the storm clouds until the fourth creation day.


"The heavens declare the glory of God; the sky displays his handiwork. Day after day it speaks out; night after night it reveals his greatness. There is no actual speech or word, nor is its voice literally heard." (Psalm 19:1-3)


LightMeUp.JPG

The phrase "to rule the night" in Genesis 1:16 is idiomatically expressing this nocturnal luminary.

From the Brown - Driver - Briggs Lexicon: מֶמְשָׁלָה is a feminine noun that means: rule, dominion, realm
 
Last edited:

Base12

Member
Holy Smoke! Where are you getting your information?
From the Bible. ;)

I use the KJV because it preserved the original 'Code' better.

I discovered a 'Key' many years ago. The Bible uses Human Anatomy (Microcosm) as well as the Macrocosm acting as Two Witnesses to 'error correct' interpretations.

For example:

The Twenty Four Elders surrounding the Throne in Revelation reflects the twenty four Ribs surrounding our Hearts.

If someone were to come along and say, "The Bible is wrong, it should be 32 Elders", we would know that their interpretation is in error because it does not agree with Human Anatomy.

I see folks already scoffing at the info in this thread. :rolleyes:

My research has been featured in all kinds of documentaries and news media over the years. If they wish to remain Dunces in the classroom, I really couldn't care less.

Anyhow, I have recently released two movies that cover some of the basics of this research.

For a Genesis Creation Analysis, this is the one to watch...


For Particle Physics in the Bible, watch this one...


I hope you find the research useful!
 

CrowCross

Well-known member
Genesis 1:1-3 – Is the passage a sequence of events or a summary?
_______________________________________________________________________

“How could there be light on day one when the sun is not created until day four?” [1]

Biblically, the first creation day was set in motion with God saying “Let there be light”. Here, the time between God’s command, and created light that propagates to the atmosphere is unstated. It may have gradually increased in radiance or it may have arrived at its maximum level of intensity. What remains is stated in verse five where night coexists with the day.

View attachment 1280
Day and night simultaneously

Nevertheless, the light from celestial objects was not introduced until the fourth creation day (Genesis 1:14), with God saying “Let there be lights in the vault of the sky…”. Here is where light from celestial objects finally provided the energy required to view night and day on the surface of the Earth. Earlier in the narrative Genesis 1:2 tells us that at one time the earth was in a state of darkness and covered in deep water. This is consistent with Job 38:9 that discusses the foundations of the earth, stating: “...when I made the storm clouds its garment, and thick darkness its swaddling band…” The deep-water description is also consistent with a relatively recent discovery in the Australian outback.

The answer to the question is clear. Our host star, the sun, was created in the heavens as outlined in Genesis 1:1. Its light did not penetrate the storm clouds until the fourth creation day.

While this conclusion relies on the traditional interpretation of Genesis as it relates to successive passages, two other mainline interpretations are commonly discussed [2]. The traditional interpretation appeals to a syntactic linkage between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 via the key term “the earth” linking backward to Genesis 1:1. The narrative structure of Genesis 1:1-2 also uses the Hebrew perfect tense referring to an antecedent event. Theologically, this interpretation contends for the absolute sovereignty of the monotheistic God. Namely, the true God that rules everything and contrasts itself with ancient Near Eastern narratives where gods are born and there are conflicts between deities.

Another interpretation assumes that Genesis 1:1 is simply a subordinate clause written as: “In the beginning, when God created the heaven and the earth, the earth was without form…” and this interpretation is fading after receiving many credible refutations [3]. A third mainstream interpretation is the summary view and it has a lot of support [4]. Here the expression “the heavens and the earth” describes an organized universe and does not view verse 1:2 as an unorganized state, and Genesis 1:1 is read as a summary statement describing the events of verses 2 through 31. The summary interpretation provides a sense of the expression ‘the heavens and the earth’ that includes the concept of an organization. Difficulties occur when trying to make the distinction between the sense of the expression from its referent. In Genesis 2:1 the expression “all the host of them”, for example, refers not only to celestial bodies but the birds, plants, and animals. Here the hosts are distinguished and include inhabitants, therefore, in this light, the context of the compound expression “the heavens and the earth” designates two spatial regions. If one specifies “organized” as a finished state, as the universe looks now, a tension is created with 2:1 because the passage states that the heavens and the earth were finished. This implies a process where the heavens and the earth were in flux. A once ardent supporter of the summary interpretation, Waltke, no longer supports the organized universe claim.



[1] John H. Walton, The Lost World of Genesis One; Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate, (Downers Grove, IL: (InterVarsity Press, 2009), P. 56
[2] Vern S.Poythress, Genesis 1:1 Is the first event, not a summary, WTJ 79 (2017): 97 -121, last accessed online on 6/5/2021
[3] Collins, Genesis 1–4, 50–52
[4] Waltke, “Part III.” Genesis, 58-59
Inertia, there are several theories. Personally I don't choose the cloud theory.
Rev 21 gives an answer...23 And the city has no need of sun or moon to shine on it, because the glory of God illuminates the city, and the Lamb is its lamp.

Could that be the same form or similiar light? This light was removed when the sun and moon were placed into the expanse of the sky?

Cobcerning the stars have we discussed Russ Humphreys Starlight and Time yet? You can see some of it on youtube....it's an older theory that has been modified over the years so I'd try to look for a more recent video.
 

En Hakkore

Well-known member
I don't believe it was a purposeful self-refutation. It was an implied observation based on his work in previous writing.
For the reason provided here I am snipping everything in your post except for the above regarding Waltke's position. Please cite Waltke rejecting his position on the summary position of Gen 1:1 or withdraw the claim that he has done so... thanks.

Kind regards,
Jonathan
 

inertia

Super Member
Inertia, there are several theories. Personally I don't choose the cloud theory.
Rev 21 gives an answer...23 And the city has no need of sun or moon to shine on it, because the glory of God illuminates the city, and the Lamb is its lamp.

Could that be the same form or similiar light? This light was removed when the sun and moon were placed into the expanse of the sky?

Cobcerning the stars have we discussed Russ Humphreys Starlight and Time yet? You can see some of it on youtube....it's an older theory that has been modified over the years so I'd try to look for a more recent video.

Revelation 21 describes the new heaven and earth as well as the new Jerusalem. ( It's beyond my imagination.) I look forward to exploring it when my time is over in this world.

I haven't been keeping up with Russ Humphreys after his initial book "Starlight and Time". There were too many errors in his modified version of General Relativity and no white holes have ever been found. Even so, he should continue to test it as many others are trying to do.

General Relativity stands even today after 100 years of tests. It is a very, very successful theory.

________
 
Last edited:

inertia

Super Member
From the Bible. ;)

I use the KJV because it preserved the original 'Code' better.

I discovered a 'Key' many years ago. The Bible uses Human Anatomy (Microcosm) as well as the Macrocosm acting as Two Witnesses to 'error correct' interpretations.

For example:

The Twenty Four Elders surrounding the Throne in Revelation reflects the twenty four Ribs surrounding our Hearts.

If someone were to come along and say, "The Bible is wrong, it should be 32 Elders", we would know that their interpretation is in error because it does not agree with Human Anatomy.

I see folks already scoffing at the info in this thread. :rolleyes:

My research has been featured in all kinds of documentaries and news media over the years. If they wish to remain Dunces in the classroom, I really couldn't care less.

Anyhow, I have recently released two movies that cover some of the basics of this research.

For a Genesis Creation Analysis, this is the one to watch...


For Particle Physics in the Bible, watch this one...


I hope you find the research useful!

This is too mystical for me.
---------
 
Top