Evidence for God from Science

One thing about the ancient Hebrew language and culture that often is neglected is the use of symbols, signs, and cycles. In the Genesis chapter one account of creation the symbolism for light is often overshadow by simplistic western literalism.

Light's symbolism is defined by the context which it is found in the text. The basic symbolism for light denotes intelligence, wisdom, knowledge, that adheres to truth. It denotes soundness, wholeness, a perfecting plan based on the exercise of intelligence, wisdom, knowledge, that adheres to truth to reach a final goal with righteousness, mercy, and equity truthfully exposed.

Now read Genesis 1:1-5, In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 The earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters. 3 Then God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light day, and the darkness He called night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day. NASB

Likewise darkness has symbolism as well to meaning the opposite of light as shown as an absence of exercise of intelligence, wisdom, knowledge that adheres to truth needed to reach a final goal which is attained by the exercise of righteousness, mercy and equity truthfully allowed to bloom. Also in other contexts, darkness represents ignorance, sin, death, rebellion, hopelessness, lovelessness, and faithlessness.

In Genesis chapter one, darkness has more to do with the context of creation before rebellion, therefore, it is in reference to an absence of exercise of intelligence, wisdom, knowledge, that adheres to truth needed to reach a final goal attained by the exercise of righteousness, mercy, and equity truthfully allowed to bloom. It is simple absence of anything existing outside of God's own existence. God created Ex Nihilo, period, is simply established in the first five verses.

Therefore, Light in verse three is in reference to exercise of intelligence, wisdom, knowledge, that adheres to truth. Now in John 1:1-4 Jesus is identified as the Logos of God. Logos in Greek means the expression of intelligence, wisdom, and knowledge. Col 1:16,17; Heb 1:2,3, Heb 1:10,11,12 all express that Jesus - the Logos of God created. Jesus also mentioned that he is the light of the world. Jesus is the expression of God's wisdom that created as Proverbs 3:19,20 reveals the Trinity of the Godhead involved in creation: Son founded creation with wisdom, the Holy Spirit established it, through the fathers' intimate vast knowledge of all things.

There is plenty of evidence that Light mentioned in Gen 1:3 is not a physical light but rather God's expression intelligence, wisdom, knowledge, that adheres to truth to reach a final goal which is attained by the exercise of righteousness, mercy and equity truthfully allowed to bloom. Even Gen 1:31 alludes to this symbolism of light.

Now notice Gen 1:5-25 progression of creation by keeping this symbolism in mind and what do you see? I see God creating order out of an expanse of nothingness, which separates order out from the dark night of nothingness - no love, no hope, no faith, no intelligence or wisdom expressed just nothingness... outside of God... for lack of a better human way to wrap your mind around this. God self sufficient within himself is bursting forth a creation and order by which he expresses himself (note Rev 4:11 KJV).

Now comes Genesis 1:14 where you actually have physical light made to separate psychical darkness and the beginning of the 24 hour day as we know it began. The days mentioned in creation can mean an indefinite period of time. There is no way we can really know the length of the Days of creation created in the timelessness of eternity. Moses was expressing symbolism in the creation account so future generations would seek and find their creator and the purpose God has for them actualized. Moses met the preincarnate Jesus and these words he used are expression of Gods' wisdom to us concerning creation as it only pertains to us according to God's timetable of intelligence, wisdom, knowledge that adheres to truth needed to reach His final goal which is attained by the exercise of His righteousness, mercy and equity truthfully allowed to bloom. Now read Rev 21:1.

Often we human beings can be so literal that we miss hearing the truth the Holy Spirit teaches from the bible and get stuck on stupid. How long will it take for intelligence, wisdom, knowledge, righteousness, mercy and equity to be truthfully allowed to bloom in the human mind?

Copyright 2015 material
B W Melvin
-
-
-

B.W., I agree with the many possibilities within what you've written, within how SCRIPTURE is written. The problem is when someone wants to get exceptionally dogmatic about this issue and so they simply slam the door on the wider range of reasonable possibilities the text presents. And, FAR worse, when some would assert that only those holding to the literalist point of view are sincerely trying to take Scripture seriously/that it is God given, and that those taking a more symbolic, day/age or some hybrid of these are refusing to accept God's word is true and perfectly clear regarding this issue. That's just not true! Far too many evangelical scholars have read this in differing ways. As Norman Geisler has said, he's been studying this issue for over 50 years and the definitive understanding (young or old) remains elusive to him. I can guarantee people like Norm Geisler take Scripture exceptionally seriously. He's basically agnostic on the issue but leans toward an old earth view. One reason is that he takes science, not as simply a man-made endeavor, but understandings and abilities that are God-given and that are unique to the only creatures created in His image. Combining what he sees as God given with the OTHER important witness of God (The Creation) that is natural to apply our God-given abilities to ponder, Geisler takes all of these things very seriously.

B.W., I tend to believe there a multiple layers to Scripture.

Possibly, it comes from the particular Christian upbringing and environment I was raised within where the Bible was often treating as the living Word of God, with an emphasis on the text being alive. It is interesting how many people who become Christian report prior to their conversion the Bible was so dead, stagnant and boring and then after coming to Christ it became so alive and meanings previously missed so easily seen.

So I am personally quite open to deeper theological reflections. You get this in theology journals tool; new and interesting insights into Scripture that a surface level would never produce, but do in fact start to sound quite convincing once a case is made. Perhaps this is to a degree the Holy Spirit inspiring new and meaningful insights for people, to those who also see them, to be be encouraged and nourished by.

Your theological reflection here, at first made me pause. Then, as you fleshed it out, it's like, "yeah, I can see how you'd arrive at that insight." Obviously, lots of support for the idea. And you know, God in his infinite wisdom, why can't there be these types of insights into what I've come to accept as not just Scripture but the living word of God which people until this day are still uncovering meaning from.

That said, there is much to be said for "single meaning" and perhaps what you'd associate as being "western literalism." I don't believe we'd be honest if we fully discarded a main central reading of Scripture and then the last thing we want is to throw Scripture into some relativistic post-modern heap that is devoid of any true meaning or content. There are some atrocious "readings" or "insights" out there that are just plain wrong.

So, for me, I see there a main trunk growing up which to me represents a "single meaning" and what you might say is an over literalisation of the text. This forms the central core of Scripture is could be like the Day-Age interpretation and YEC interpretations. And then, there are additional insights. For example, I'm fond of some ideas found in the Framework hypothesis. I don't mind your insight here. And then the Sabbatical insights that I draw out in my own interpretation -- I don't know if you read it, but I'm starting to think it's not so much a position but more of a framework if you will that literalists can flesh out details on.

Now around this "trunk" you have all these different vibrant strands like glowing vines that are deeper insights jammed pack full of meaning. You know, some people might expect a book inspired and authored by God to glow and have some magical aura. I don't see the glow in the literal physical book, but rather in the words and deeper meanings that can be drawn out, and continue to be drawn out. It's like an infinite book of wisdom. And that to me, resonates with me as radiating divine authenticity.

What if Moses was on the north pole and saw the sun rise and set after a six month period, does that change anything? No joking, I am serious as to how it plays in both scenarios, both your's and Jac's.

K and Phil,

There is an interesting quip mentioned in Rev 1:19 that sort of explain a way to explore biblical truths...

1-What we first see - perceive as narrative

2-Things that are - the layered meanings

3-Things to take place after - connections to facts and perception that are cyclic provable ( i.e. by repeating patterns Eccl 3:15), by the actions and in the case of Revelation - future actions that tie back to number 1 and 2.

These articles maybe helpful to grasp the the ancient Hebrew thought was to look at a narrative, then look into the layer sense of meanings, and focus on action.

http://www.hebrew4christians.com/Articl ... enism.html

http://www.godward.org/hebrew%20roots/h ... n_mind.htm

Even though Revelation 1:19 refers to the end times, the statement made in the verse is Hebraic in thought.

The linear way of western thought focus is on narrative, methods, steps, etc and often misses the layered meanings. It is like looking from the outside into a building to figure out the building. While the Hebrew is looking from both inside and outside of the building in order to make other buildings better or worse whatever the case maybe.

There are layered meanings in the bible and symbols, numbers, colors, letters help uncover the layers. Here is food for thought to help the readers gain a sense into this. Look at Genesis 1:31.

What is the significance of the number 6?

what does 6 mean in the bible?

What Hebrew letter that denotes 6 and what does it look like (represent) in its pictograph form?

What happened on the 6th day of creation?

In Genesis chapter 2 and 3 what and whom did Adam nail/peg/join/fasten himself too?

Next, Genesis 2:1

What is the significance of the number 7?

What does 7 mean in the bible?

What Hebrew letter that denotes 7 and what does it look like (represent) in its pictograph form?

How does, according to the context of Genesis chapters 1-3 do the numbers 6 and 7 tie into each other in regards to the tree of Knowledge and the test posed to humanity's first parents? Results of this?

Let me know and we can continue...
-
-
-

RickD wrote:

Nicki wrote:I'm getting you now, Jac. There wasn't 'a source of light', there was just 'light'. I was a bit bewildered though when you talked about the sun still not being the source of light, that it just rises because it's morning and sets because it's evening, and about the sun's light being added to the original light. Do you think there's still natural light around that doesn't come from the sun and stars?

I'm unconvinced however that 'made' referring to the sun and other heavenly bodies on day 4 could be interpreted as 'had made'. Rick, do you think that plants could have grown for a long period of time on earth without any direct sunlight, if the sun was hidden by clouds until 'day 4'?

Hi Nicki,

This article from the home site, talks about "had made", and addresses your question about the earth's atmosphere being a translucent, cloudy atmosphere before the sun, moon, stars, etc. we're visible from the earth's surface on day 4.

The article itself, is a response to an article by Terry Mortenson, a young earth creationist.

Let me know if you have any questions.

Thanks - I think the 'had made' thing is a bit of a stretch though. Of course it was in the past tense because it's all in the past; it wouldn't have said 'God makes' or 'God is making'. It's the same wording as for all the other acts of creation so why would it have meant 'had made' this time rather than just 'made'? I can see though the if the sky got gradually clearer over the ages it could have become more conducive to plant growth.

You don't actually need "had", because it means the same without had. That God made the sun sometime in the past.

So, I don't think it really makes a difference either way.

RickD wrote:You don't actually need "had", because it means the same without had. That God made the sun sometime in the past.

So, I don't think it really makes a difference either way.

It seems to be saying though that it was on the fourth day in particular that the sun was made - like the other things made on other particular days.

Been pre-occupied, but have another post coming soon Jac for the rest of your post (if you care to know).

@Nicki, compare Day 4 with Day 1 side-by-side.

Jac3510 wrote:Besides that, ask the question, why frame the story that way? Because I hate to tell it to you, it wasn't Moses was of winking at his audience to tell them, "By the way, the word yom here means long age!" Don't be silly. Do some real exegesis. Why put the creation of the sun on the fourth day?

Aww.

Jac3510 wrote:There are two reasons. First is the paneling issue of the first three days being focused on creating space or realms and the next three days focusing on filling that space or realms. The second is that the Hebrews were used to the Egyptian myths, and as you know, the sun was considered a god--God, in fact. Everything in Egypt revolved around the sun--which is why, by the way, that it is the ninth plague in a series of plagues that get worse and worse showing God's true power over all Egypt and its "gods", superseded only by an assault on Pharaoh himself. But I digress. The point is that the Genesis account purposefully downgrades the nature and role of the sun, indeed all the heavenly bodies, in the life of Israel. And for final proof of that, look only at the text itself:

• 14 And God said, “Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night. And let them be for signs and for seasons, and for days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light upon the earth.” And it was so. 16 And God made the two great lights—the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night—and the stars. 17 And God set them in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth, 18 to rule over the day and over the night, and to separate the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening and there was morning, the fourth day.

Notice what the sun is to do. It is to be A SIGN. Look at that very carefully. The SIGN does not create the reality. It signifies the reality.

Sorry, I'm missing where the role of the Sun is downgraded.

• v.14a the lights in the expanse of the heavens separate the day from the night (hmm, didn't God do this on Day 1? )
  v.14b, they're not just for signs, but interestingly also for days and years.
  v.16b what light rules the day? The greater light -- Ra, err, I mean the Sun.
  v.18 what again rules over the day?

All subjective feelings aside about the Day 4 passage, I'd like to here respond to your two stated reasons for placing the Sun on Day 4:

1) Two-triad Framework: "the first three days being focused on creating space or realms and the next three days focusing on filling that space or realms."

2) Egyptian mythology: "the sun was considered a god--God, in fact... in separating the light from the sun, Moses is teaching that it is God, not the sun, that is the source of light and that it is God, therefore, not the sun, who is their provider."


Regarding (1), I see you've taken a liking to the Framework hypothesis. While setting up of the kingdoms can be seen in the first three days, It's not entirely accurate though that there is no filling. Take plants which sprout on day 3.

Secondly, more importantly, there is nothing to prevent the Sun being created in the beginning as part of God's preparation for the earthly realm, i.e., Earth. In case it's not obvious to you, let me show you a different spin of creation that still complies your point #1:

Establishing the Sun in verse 1 with "the heavens and the earth" (the Hebrew phrase of which you would know represents it all, that is, the universe at large including obviously Earth), can easily be interpreted as the establishment of heavens (i.e., the cosmos) including a bare Earth.

To talk more on this, the phrase hashamayim we ha'erets ("heavens and earth") carries a distinct meaning that YECs also concede. It consistently refers to the totality of the universe. This means in Genesis 1, all the materials of the universe (i.e., matter, energy and whatever else it contains) were created. Verse 1 quickly continues into verse 2 where we are given a reference point—Earth is formless and empty—so we can assume everything prior to Earth being formless and empty was in place being included the hashamayim we ha'erets of verse 1. So our galaxy, the Sun, and other required conditions for a primitive Earth to be existent, were in place at verses 1-2.

The establishing of the heavens and earth together, can be seen as part of preparing and setting up the earthly realm -- Earth. The Sun here isn't filling anything as you suggest, but it is just apart of the heavens. Earth sits within, or "under" the heavens (if we consider Moses did not have any understanding of the cosmos). The Sun receives very little important at all but is captured in hashamayim we ha'erets. The author's focus seems to be establishing everything to get to Earth itself which is in a primitive empty state (v.2).

So to repeat a different way, the Sun is actually a part of creating the the heavenly realm for Earth. It isn't something given any special priority in and of itself, but that doesn't mean it wasn't created in the heavens. It's just a part of the heavens.
So some irony on your point #2 is that Moses actually seems to be giving the finger to Ra by just fading the Sun into with everything else in hashamayim ve'et ha'arets (the heavens and the earth).


Regarding (2), with Moses wanting to ensure God is seen as supreme, rather than some Sun god like Ra on Day 1;
there is quite a bit I have to say here I'm not sure how to start. Let me state plainly four issues I see:

a) Eisegesis (allowing Egyptian ideas to wrongly colour your interpretation)
b) Oral tradition (beliefs didn't necessarily begin with Moses, even if Moses was responsible for their inscription)
c) Liberal/secular theology seeping in
d) Matter of subjective opinion anyway that Sun on Day 4 avoids association of Sun being considered god.

So let's start with (a) Eisegesis.

It's no secret that you have a strong dislike of any scientific understanding being brought to the text.
I get you, I understand why. Such can cloud our interpretation of the text and getting at what the author intended.
We should look to the text alone as much as possible to avoid reading into it other knowledge that the author may not have been aware to, unless of course, there are signs in the text itself that such may have been known.

Anyway, reading into the text something not there (eisegesis) can happen with ideas also.
This is the #1 issue Waltke warned about the Historical-Grammatical method that we need to protect against when the ICBI were formulating their statements. Right?

Now, you say that when preaching that you make a point of noting that Moses wanted to make sure the Sun has no prominence:

Jac wrote:Moses' point is that the light of the day does not necessarily come from the sun. I REALLY need you to see how important this is. It's central when I preach this in church. God made the light FIRST. Why? Because He didn't want the Israelites thinking that the sun gave them their source of power. HE DID. He wanted them to avoid the obvious error of worshiping the sun (and its modern counterpart in ultraenvironmentalism).

And you write further on...

Jac wrote:Why put the creation of the sun on the fourth day?

It's actually not that hard to figure out. There are two reasons. First is the paneling issue of the first three days being focused on creating space or realms and the next three days focusing on filling that space or realms. The second is that the Hebrews were used to the Egyptian myths, and as you know, the sun was considered a god--God, in fact. Everything in Egypt revolved around the sun--which is why, by the way, that it is the ninth plague in a series of plagues that get worse and worse showing God's true power over all Egypt and its "gods", superseded only by an assault on Pharaoh himself. But I digress. The point is that the Genesis account purposefully downgrades the nature and role of the sun, indeed all the heavenly bodies, in the life of Israel. (bold emphasis mine)

Some irony here is that you are now interpreting Scripture through the lens of pagan (Egyptian) theology. While not modern science, you are introducing Egyptian religious beliefs to the text where there is really no hint that Moses is concerned by such.

So why do you introduce it? Well, because they came from Egypt and it makes logical sense he'd want to make a statement about Ra not being God or something such... and in your mind to have the Sun included in the hashamayim ve'et ha'arets (the heavens and the earth) and an intermediate source of light on Day 1 would somehow make the Sun look all-powerful.... and this, would be an endorsement of Sun worship, or again something such....

Well, I just disagree. I don't believe Moses would have been at all concerned. And we see no such concern in the text. I simply think you are heavily over-analysing like many historical-critics do when it comes to identifying apparently "obvious" redactions under JPED.

As a side point, if Moses was avoiding mentioning the Sun, well now those who believe the Sun was apart of the heavens and the earth in verse 1 have a reason why God did not just say the Sun beamed down light. Consider this...
If the Sun really was created in the beginning, but Moses wanted to avoid mentioning it because he wanted God to be understood as the ultimate source of light, well then how would Scripture read? Something like what we've got anyway?

In any case, I just do not see Moses being at all threatened or concerned over other nations beliefs re: the Sun.

This brings me to (b) Oral Tradition.
In all this we are here forgetting about the heavy oral tradition which played a strong part in the Hebrews religious beliefs.

While in Egypt, did Israel worship the Egyptian Sun god, Ra -- or maybe have ideas of their own God? As a nation they worshiped the God of Abraham! Back in those times, orators played a crucial role in preserving the beliefs of their people as passed down from one generation to the next. Indeed, Moses most probably wasn't just writing everything down himself, but organising teachings already thick in a Hebrew oral tradition. Teachings about Noah, teachings about Abrahamic covenant, about Jacob and Joseph, and indeed even teachings about the Creation.

Genesis is not Moses' response to the Egyptians' Ra. I just do not see that in the text anywhere! Such is basically basing Moses' Genesis creation on top of Egypt's, assuming there wasn't already prior beliefs re: God's creation prior to Moses authoring Genesis 1. Moses didn't have to avoid writing about the Sun being afraid such might be worshiped, because Israel already had their beliefs while in Egypt. Indeed if anything, the Hebrew's story of creation is the authentic story, and if we could see time unfold, I'm sure the Egyptian's creation beliefs and any others came later.

(c) Liberal/secular theology.
In all this, I detect an undercurrent of a secular liberal theology influence that has seeped into your thinking re: Moses concerned about representing the Sun as God, or God as Ra, or something the like.

Is Genesis simply the latest story stacked on top of other religious polytheistic beliefs around the place in ancient times that worshiped the Sun? I reject that entirely! While I definitely know you'd not consciously embrace such liberal ideas, but they can often seep into the cracks unknown. It is just wrong, plainly wrong in my opinion, to say that Egyptian theology coloured Genesis in any shape or form. That is largely a faith statement on my part, but if anything, Genesis rings a hell of a lot more legit than many polytheistic religions, or Ra birthing earth, air or what-have-you.

If Genesis is authentic, then I'd expect the creation beliefs within to be central from Abraham with whom a covenant was made, right down to Moses. Again, central parts of the Genesis Creation story may not have even originated from Moses -- but a strong oral tradition already in existence with his people. So to me, if anything, Egyptian beliefs are a rip off of traditional Abrahamic beliefs until the time Moses jot down what was already being spoken of in stories and passed on.

I haven't said enough about the liberal theology. If you want to embrace the Sun being created on Day 4 based upon some believe the Hebrews (Moses) evolved their beliefs in response to others around them who worshiped the Sun and a bunch of other deities. Liberal theology will tell us that a nomadic group of Canaanites banded together, and this is what we identify as the Hebrews (Israel). They evolved a belief in monotheistic God from polytheism. Heck, my lecturers taught some of this in my theology classes.

No! I prefer to believe, and believe, that Abraham has the right beliefs. That the true beliefs were had first by Israel via oral tradition that extended back to early tribes, back to Abraham. Then Egyptians set up and others made their own gods, their main god being Ra.

In other words, fakes come from the legitimate story, a legitimate creation story isn't forged from (in response to) fakes. I believe the first, but it seems to me that you must believe the second.

Finally, (d) your subjective opinion that Sun on Day 4 avoids association of Sun being considered god.

I've already mentioned earlier how having the Sun created alongside everything else in "the heavens and the earth" already gives the Sun little to no importance. Indeed the Sun was likely created here, and Moses simply avoids mentioning the Sun altogether if he isn't jotting down beliefs already held amongst his people and is sensitive to the Egyptian Sun-God Ra.

But, let's assume Moses wants to disassociate from any belief that the Sun was "God".

Fast-forward to Day 3. I'm sure Moses et al. would have known all about the requirements of the Sun to grow their plants. That doesn't take a scientist but good agriculturist, which the people in those days evidently were. So for the people of the time to think that plants and such could just sprout without the Sun (or some replacement or divine source of heat and sun-rays as we don't want Israel worshiping the Sun), well people at the time would have just thought an ingredient to help plants grow is the Sun. They weren't aware of UV, so one can't say Moses would believe God was the UV light also.

But, how does this feed into Egyptian theology?
Well, the Sun (Ra) represented light, warmth, and growth. Egyptians evidently understood the Sun was an ingredient for growth! I'm damn sure Moses as an adopted Egyptian prince and his people who slaved over the grounds would have too!

Further, Ra isn't the "Sun god" but was considered to be the Sun itself. Ra is said to be creator of all. So, in Genesis 1, what a statement to say God created the heavens and the earth (the entire universe and earth). What? Israel's God created our Sun? Then God said, let their be light, and there was light. God of Israel is controlling Ra's light? This God of Israel must be powerful!

Now Ra was considered "the God" of all. So from the get go in Genesis 1, if the Sun as Ra is in view on Day 1 as the source of light, and yet the Sun has no power until God speaks "let there be light", then this speaks volumes of God's power over the Sun. That the Sun can't do anything unless God commands it.

And again, with plants being made to sprout and grow on Day 3, given everyone knew their crops needed the Sun to sprout and grow. And yet, the Sun had no power to make them grow until Israel's God spoke!

So rather than think Moses intentionally placed the Sun on Day 4 to not give it prominence, I think having the Sun being created in the beginning and God commanding it's every function makes a better case for your argument (2).

So that just about wraps up my reply.

Nicki wrote:

RickD wrote:You don't actually need "had", because it means the same without had. That God made the sun sometime in the past.

So, I don't think it really makes a difference either way.

It seems to be saying though that it was on the fourth day in particular that the sun was made - like the other things made on other particular days.

Nicki,

I will refer you to this from the home site:
http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth ... ation.html

Day Four: Sun, Moon, and Stars
The narrative of the fourth creation day states:
Then God said, “Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night, and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years, and let them be for lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth,”’ and it was so. God made the two great lights, the greater light to govern the day, and the lesser light to govern the night; He made the stars also. (Gen. 1:14-19)

Young-Earth View

Young-earth creationists claim God created the Sun, Moon, and stars in an instant.

Old-Earth View

Old-earth creationists contend the Sun, Moon, and stars were created “in the beginning” as part of the “heavens and the earth” (Gen. 1:1). On the fourth day, God caused the atmosphere to clear so these heavenly bodies became visible for the first time from the surface of the Earth to mark signs, seasons, days and years.

Exegetical Support

While English translations can make it sound as though God created the Sun, Moon and stars that instant, the Hebrew text indicates otherwise. First, the text states God “made” (‛āśāh) the lights, not that He “created” (bārā’) them. Asah expresses the idea of producing something from pre-existing material, not the idea of bringing something into existence that did not exist before (bārā’).60 Also, the verb asah does not specify when God created the heavenly bodies, only that he completed the action. Second, the Hebrew “Let there be...” does not imply the creation of the heavenly bodies in the sense of their coming into existence.61 “Let there be” is completed with the purpose clause “to separate.” Thus, the narrative focuses on the function of the lights rather than their origin.62 Third, the Hebrew “and it was so” denotes a completed action–that the sun and moon had performed the functions God commanded, serving as signs for years, seasons and days. This could not be accomplished in a 24-hour period. All of these things argue against an instantaneous creation of the Sun, Moon and stars.

It is also important to remember that the Hebrew phrase “the heavens and the earth” (hashamayim we ha ‘erets) in Genesis 1:1 encompasses everything in the physical universe. As previously discussed, this interpretation is supported by the Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament,63 Vine64 and Grudem.65 Bruce Waltke also confirms that hashamayim we ha ‘erets refers to the totality of the physical universe, all matter and energy and whatever else it contains.66 Thus, the Hebrew text clearly states the Sun, Moon and stars were created “in the beginning” and not on the fourth day.

For these reasons, many Bible scholars believe Genesis 1:16 is more accurately interpreted as meaning God had made the heavenly bodies prior to the fourth day. Gleason Archer states: “The Hebrew verb wayya`as’ in verse 16 should better be rendered ‘Now [God] had made the two great luminaries...”67 Wayne Grudem states: “[had made] can be taken as perfects indicating what God had done before... This view would imply that God had made the sun, moon, and stars earlier... or allowed them to be seen from the earth on Day 4.”68 Harris, Archer, and Waltke state: “Verse 16 should not be understood as indicating the creation of the heavenly bodies for the first time on the fourth creative day; rather it informs us that the sun, moon, and stars were created on Day 1.”69 And, James Montgomery Boice states: “It is not said that these [sun, moon, and stars] were created on the fourth day; they were created in the initial creative work of God referred to in Genesis 1:1.”70

And please,

Anyone who can show me how I've misrepresented Jac's position on this, please show me. I really don't want to misrepresent what anyone believes.

Someone show me what I'm missing.

So as not to derail this thread by my comments, these are being explained more fully of a new section of the Forum Here:

http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... 40&t=40379

Blessings
-
-
-

Kurieuo wrote:Been pre-occupied, but have another post coming soon Jac for the rest of your post (if you care to know).

@Nicki, compare Day 4 with Day 1 side-by-side.

Thanks (to Rick as well for the article above) - I still think that idea is stretching the Scriptures a bit. It's possible but I'm still undecided

It's alright to be undecided Nicki.

Having read Day 1 and Day 4 side by side, try answering these questions:
1) What is called "day" and "night"?
2) What divides the light from darkness?

Day 1
3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

Day 4
14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

Also, note where the Spirit of God is located (v.2) before God creates light.