My reponse here is in relation to
your first reply to me in this thread, and I will work my way to your second reply. I want to make sure I cover all your point adequately, so think it's best and easiest to just go in order. This response may still cover to a degree your later reply also.
Jac3510 wrote:"Ordinary days" don't require a sun. Ordinarily, of course, the position of the sun is exactly part of the equation, so to speak. But the correspondence of the the two (the movement of the sun, the progression of the day) under ordinary circumstances doesn't create a necessary causal connection.
There's some evidence for this throughout Scripture. In the first place, I think you're whole argument begs the question, because Genesis 1, read normally, certainly does disprove your connection. I'd expect that no one would even come up with such a notion if [brace yourself for old argument] there wasn't an attempt to read old earth science back into the text. Just good old fashioned eisogesis.
But let that pass (not really, but in the sense of I wouldn't press the point). I'd simply point you to Exodus 10:21-23. No sun. Pure darkness. For three days. And consider while you are pondering that the fact that John explicitly says that there will be no sun in the new creation. Does that mean there will be no "ordinary days"? Perhaps, but I don't think that's the point he's trying to make at all, and before you object to using later texts, I'd suggest you to that probably understood Moses' intentions in writing Genesis 1 better than all of us do. I mean, ignore the whole inspired writer thing. I take it a variety of reasons should be clear as to why John would be less confused about this passage that we are given his historical setting. Add to that the fact that he's clearly spent some time reflecting on Genesis 1 (consider John 1), and I think that tells us something about what Jews in general and Moses in particular would have thought about the nature of an ordinary day and the supposed necessity of the sun.
In any case, you might object that at least the example of the plague that sun existed. And that's fine, but irrelevant. The important point is that the days and nights were there whether their markers could be observed or not. That is, the nature/length of a day is not dependent on the position/presence of the sun
You're right in your last paragraph there, that I'd say the Sun still exists. As I've mentioned since, there could be a solar eclipse, maybe for some reason the sky is completely blackened (maybe a large volcanic eruption,
thick overcast/stormy day or something the like). Nonetheless, we still have an ordinary day and understand what we expect such to be if the skies were clear.
Exodus 10:21-23 does illustrate that the "substance" of an ordinary day remains unaffected if one of its "properties" is removed. For example, take a dog. It has four legs, a tail, head, two ears, snout and is covered in fur. Chop off a hind leg. Do we still have a dog? I'm sure you'll agree with me that we do. Is the hind leg the dog, or the bigger portion? Well, I'm sure we'd agree again, the bigger living portion is the dog.
So what you've proven is that removing a part doesn't affect the whole, and likewise if we assume something of the whole then we can't say that is true of each of its parts. Otherwise we have a
composition or division fallacy.
You're reading me wrong if you think I'm arguing that an "ordinary day" just needs a light source. I am saying in times of ancient Israel, going back to Moses, even back to Abraham and unto Adam and Even, the Sun, sun rising, going through the sky in a cycle before setting -- the whole enchilada -- would be seen as a day irrespective of whether or not the Sun or its light is seen (or some other property removed).
This also why I see AiG are in error if they think that they can just add a light
source to mimic this whole process. It's not just one part of the process (light), but the whole process that surrounds what we all take to be an "ordinary day". I mean, you reject AiG's position because you see them basing it upon science of an Earth rotating. But, the fallacy I see with AiG's interpretation is that they're just taking one property of an "ordinary day", creating a replacement for that property, and touting victory for their interpretation that it takes ordinary days seriously.
AiG are clearly committing a division/composition fallacy.
And this is why I also reject "24 hours" as an ordinary day. Because, an Earth day is presently also given an approximate time of 24 hours. That too, is
a property of an ordinary Earth day, like a hind leg is a property of a dog. But, on it's own, it doesn't make up
the substance of ordinary day just like a dog's hind leg isn't a dog. You can remove one or perhaps several
properties and still have an ordinary day, but you can't take a property (light or 24 hour period of time) and call such an ordinary day.
Moving on... what of your own position regarding light without a source?
Genesis does say God called the light "Day" and darkness "Night". It doesn't seem to reference a light
source, so I kind of get what you're trying to say especially in your follow-up post to me. You're on good ground. But, still
an ordinary day is not light (with or without a source). Be careful here with what Genesis says: the light is called Day, and the darkness is called Night. This doesn't mean Day is light, nor Night is dark -- consider that God is love, but love is not God!
And then the Genesis passage arrives at the "evening and morning" refrain - the first day. And so the reader is pushed back into what everyone more fully accepts an "ordinary day" to encompass which is some cycle of morning to evening to morning.
BUT before you push back on these points, also consider this...
During Day 1, God's creative act is separating the light from darkness. A natural reading of the text leads one to conclude that before evening, the light God divides from darkness is Day and the darkness Night. Hold that thought!
Before the day ends, we have light separated from darkness -- Day and Night. The puzzling question to answer is how did God separate the light from darkness, creating Day and Night,
before the first night arrived (evening and morning)?
Day and Night are divided, which means they're separated into distinct areas. If we divide an apple in two, then we have
this half and
that half. It seems there needs to be a location where darkness (night) exists on the Earth, and a location where light exists on the Earth
at the same time. Not to read modern science into the text, but something akin to Earth where the Sun is beaming down and hitting one side of it while the other side is covered in darkness, well, it really seems to fit the bill!
Call Moses et al. scientifically ignorant, but God... isn't. Perhaps there is some principal-ism, or similar rule, that can rescue and advocate such a scenario without resorting to science? Let's drop the mechanism, like you did with the Sun being the source. So Moses may not have known our Earth was round and the darkness was on the opposite side to the light God created, but nonetheless he likely knew there was some division of the two here and there. I find such precision even with the scientific explanation removed deeply fascinating and intriguing. The light is separated from the darkness during God's first creation day,
and then
there was evening and morning -- the first day.
Finally, I'll draw to an end. You quoted Exodus 10:21-23 to show removing a property of a day (the Sun penetrating through to Earth's surface), still allows for a day. Let me quote and raise you Joshua's long day. Please pay specific attention to what made this day long.
- Joshua 10:12-14
12On the day the Lord gave the Amorites over to Israel, Joshua said to the Lord in the presence of Israel:
“Sun, stand still over Gibeon,
and you, moon, over the Valley of Aijalon.”
13So the sun stood still,
and the moon stopped,
till the nation avenged itself on its enemies,
as it is written in the Book of Jashar.
The sun stopped in the middle of the sky and delayed going down about a full day. 14There has never been a day like it before or since, a day when the Lord listened to a human being. Surely the Lord was fighting for Israel!
I was actually wanting to get to your two reasons for placing the Sun on Day 4, but that will have to now wait.
