Evidence for God from Science

I read Rich's page on it and it all added up accept for this part. His explanation of day 4 just didn't cut it and felt like he was resorting to word play and back flips to get around the text.


To me this is obviously saying he created the sun and moon. But if he created the sun and the moon the first day how can this be? It isn't like the text is used in a past tense to even assume that God is re accounting the 1st day of Genesis. This just seems like a HUGE contradiction.



* 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; (Genesis 1:14)
* and let them be for lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth"; and it was so. (Genesis 1:15)
* And 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. (Genesis 1:16)
* And God placed them in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth, (Genesis 1:17)
* and to govern the day and the night, and to separate the light from the darkness; and God saw that it was good. (Genesis 1:18)

The best way to view it is that the Sun and Moon was created on the "1st" day - although was only visible from earth on the "4th" day. The perspective of creation is down on earth because after God created the heavens and the earth his spirit was brooding over the waters - so the rest of creation is seen from an earthly perspective.

There was light on earth but the atmosphere was so dense with clouds that no sun or moon could be seen. As the atmosphere settled through photosynthesis the sun and the moon became visible - hence the 4th day - that is the way I see it. I do not see a contradiction here.

Hope that helps.

Silvertusk.

Swimmy wrote:To me this is obviously saying he created the sun and moon. But if he created the sun and the moon the first day how can this be? It isn't like the text is used in a past tense to even assume that God is re accounting the 1st day of Genesis. This just seems like a HUGE contradiction.

Silvertask gives an adequate response. To chime in with my own response...

Our reference point is Earth as given in Gen 1:2 - "the Spirit of God was hovering above the waters." If we are on Earth's surface then during day 1 it is entirely dark (as the atmosphere is impenetrable to light). But then the atmosphere becomes translucent, letting in some light, but like a very overcast day, we can't see the stars in the heaven.

Then land is appears and the water cycle and precipitation is set in motion (day 2). Then vegetation sprouts and matures producing fruit (day 3). The once opaque now translucent atmosphere begins becoming more translucent. Until finally we can see stars in the sky, constellations, etc (day 4).

If the sun and moon are created on day 4, then "let the be" is a strange way of talking of an act of creation. On the other hand, in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth (Gen 1:1). This says to me everything in the solar system is already create and in motion by day 1. Created to the point that Earth exists, making it possible for the Spirit of God to hover above the waters.

This is essentially the Day-Age interpretation. I hope it helps you to understand the position better.

I got all that. But doesn't god already say y on a earlier day that he already caused light to come down on the earth When he separated Light from Darkness.


..Maybe i missed it. But nothing there exactly says he "partially" parted the clouds then on day four completely removed the shroud.

The demotion of the status of the sun could actually be telling us that the author of Genesis is engaged in teaching us something besides what came first and what came next. Other than an historical account, we are faced with what might be termed "a rejection of the belief in the cosmic gods," a prevalent belief at the time. There are other clues which support this idea. I'm not entirely sure where I stand on the issue, but there is certainly no "contradiction" in the early Genesis account of creation. Do you think the author would have been that stupid to have left such a gaping error?

Recognize as well that we're attempting to place a document written about 1,400 BC from a non-scientific culture with a different worldview into a 21st century scientific world view.

The lower we get into the detail and attempt to corellate the verbiage in the Genesis account with our understandings now as to how we view this information, the greater possibility that we're asking questions that the original author and the original audience weren't asking and weren't necessarily trying to answer.

This goes to one's view of inspiration in part. If one leans toward a verbal dictation type understanding of inspiration to where the human authors of Scripture were just scribes channeling god's words with no will or input of their own then you might argue that the cultural, language, world-view type elements aren't as significant, although you would then need to answer why, if the scriptures are revelation equally valid for all peoples and cultures, we would imagine that our particular culture, time of existence and expectations of parallels would have been specifically aimed at answering those questions, to that depth in our context.

If one leans toward a verbal plenary type understanding where God moved through and guided the writers preserving them from error, but still with the full engagement of the human author with their vocabulary, idiosyncracies and experience incorporated into the message then that just elevates that much more our seeking to read the passage from the point of view of that human author and the intended recipients of the original message. To do that we have to take into account the limitations of the language of that day, as well as the framework of their perspective.

If we ask questions without thinking and factoring in those things, then we're at risk that we're making underlying assumptions about the passage that are not consistent with it and from it then drawing answers to questions that are more about the framework of understanding we're bringing to the text than that of the text itself.

This can be take too far of course and used as an excuse to assume that in this passage there was no understanding of these elements at all. That's the viewpoint of some who turn this into metaphor or spiritual images rather than tied to an actual creation event. Some (not all) OEC's can be accused of doing that.

The other extreme of course, is just reading the text as if it were written exactly to us here and now and not even questioning whether there are other issues at work here. That's what I tend to believe some (not all) YEC proponents do.

So in the context of this passage, you have to ask, is if God and the human author intended here (I hold to a verbal plenary view) to answer that question as either part of the primary purpose of the passage or in a secondary capacity. Or if there are other issues here and answering that type of question was not intended here, than one might conclude that attempting to answer that question based on this passage or text alone is appropriate. It might even be that that question is not answered in any particular area of scripture to that depth and if so then that it is outside the scope of God's special revelation.

Within the context of the options above, when you choose to put those assumptions into your framework, it means that one can still be treating the scripture as literal, and yet come to different conclusions. One may be right, both may be wrong, but both cannot be right.

Swimmy wrote:I got all that. But doesn't god already say y on a earlier day that he already caused light to come down on the earth When he separated Light from Darkness.


..Maybe i missed it. But nothing there exactly says he "partially" parted the clouds then on day four completely removed the shroud.

Everyone of any position brings their knowledge and presuppositions to Scripture.

That said, the Day-Age position sees nothing wrong with accepting God's natural revelation. As Psalm 19:1 says, "The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands." Or as Paul says in Romans 1:20: "For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse." Thus, God's natural revelation, properly interpreted, can assist us with understanding God's special revelation (Scripture), and vice-versa.

Moses may not have known the extent of truth in what he was writing, and how later generations might interpret what he penned. Who knows, perhaps since we believe he saw God, it doesn't seem far-fetched to believe God would have even revealed to him in a vision what his creation was like. In any case, what we know is Earth went through several stages with its atmosphere, starting out with a very thick atmosphere, an astronomical collision happening with Earth which blew off this thick atmosphere turning it translucent (like a constantly overcast day), and then finally photosynthesis eventually creating a transparent atmosphere.

To me, I find it very fulfilling that Scripture can be read in such a manner which accurately supports what we understand through God's natural revelation about Earth's early stages.

To be clear, my long rambling post before K's wasn't intended to be a statement on my part that there wasn't intent and understanding on the part of Moses or the nation of Israel which was in the desert experiencing much of what Exodus is about as to the specific times and means of creation. I was just trying to point out how easy it is to miss a lot of factors that we don't necessarily think about but should when addressing these issues. It should probably lead to a little less dogmatism on our part or at least a little more humility and willingness to at least hear out others who maybe understand it a little differently than we do.

Canuckster1127 wrote:To be clear, my long rambling post before K's wasn't intended to be a statement on my part that there wasn't intent and understanding on the part of Moses or the nation of Israel which was in the desert experiencing much of what Exodus is about as to the specific times and means of creation. I was just trying to point out how easy it is to miss a lot of factors that we don't necessarily think about but should when addressing these issues. It should probably lead to a little less dogmatism on our part or at least a little more humility and willingness to at least hear out others who maybe understand it a little differently than we do.

It was not a long, rambling post; it was quite clear, and seemed to me to be a humble approach to the question. I'm still finding my way on this question, and found it quite helpful

Glad it helped Danny.

I find the more I learn on this and several other areas, the more I realize there's usually far more at work than I recognize. Some people seem to become more sure and less tolerant of other views the more they think they know. I've done that too. It's usually better however to back off from time to time and remind yourself of what your limitations are before someone else does it for you.

I have never found the vapor canopy explanation satisfactory. To me it seems as if this is just trying to explain away a difficulty in an arbitrary way. It is plausible, but I can't find Scriptural justification for it that satisfies me.

There are two alternatives to the vapor canopy explanation:

1. Light and darkness on day one does not refer to physical characteristics at all, but to the separation of good and evil. "Good" is referred to as "light" throughout the Bible, as "darkness" is equated with "evil". We also know that at some point prior to the fall, Lucifer and his followers were cast out of heaven. Since there is nothing created here, and it talks of the establishment of light (goodness, or God's redemptive plan laid out from the beginning) and a separation of that light from the evil that was the rebellious Satan, this may hold as one plausible explanation, leaving the celestial bodies to be created on Day 4.

2. The second alternative relates to the whole narrative found in Genesis 1. With this alternative one can consider that the whole of creation is finished in Gen 1:1, and that the subsequent narrative through the end of Gen 1 is how God organized the universe to become His temple. This is in line with ancient Near-East culture, and in line with how the people of the time would have understood this. Isaiah 66:1-2 also offers some confirmation that this may be the case, as does a comparison of Gen 1 with contemporary Near-East literature. The implication is then that all of the universe existed from Gen 1:1, including all the celestial bodies, and that God was essentially just moving things into place over the creation period to make His temple. The fact that the temple of Israel was constructed in such a way as to reflect the cosmos adds further credibility to this hypothesis, since the temple was considered the place where God's "home" on earth was.

Hope this helps to demonstrate that there are other plausible explanations as well.

August wrote:I have never found the vapor canopy explanation satisfactory. To me it seems as if this is just trying to explain away a difficulty in an arbitrary way. It is plausible, but I can't find Scriptural justification for it that satisfies me.

Hmm... I never saw it as a difficulty that was being explained away. I saw it as just an interpretation of Scripture that fits nicely with what we know about Earth's early history.

I guess how a person feel depends on their expectation when examining Scripture. If a person finds concordialism suspect or too good to be true, then I can see how they might see difficulties with an interpretation that happens to "just fit". On the other hand, if you already have a strong expectation that God's special and natural revelation should both align and be compatible with each other, than you would expect something of the sort like the Day-Age interpretation.

To clarify what I mean by finding "concordialism suspect or too good to be true", I do not necessarily mean one does not believe Scripture and natural revelation can both align. More that it seems surreal. To provide an example, I had who became a Christian probably about 15 years ago now. At around the same time he became a Christian I had found a resemblence between a prophecy in Daniel and and Alexander the Great. Unexpectedly surprised by this, I purchased a commentary on Daniel and found out more about prophecies in Daniel fulfilled with Christ. I mentioned about the fulfillment of prophecies to my friend, and while he was a Christian, he chuckled with disbelief questioning whether I was sure I wasn't reading too much into it. Perhaps it is the saturation of secularism in our culture, but even for Christians some things can seem too good to be true when their beliefs are supported. My most recent personal encounter with this "too good to be true" feeling was with the Star of Bethlehem DVD which Gman created a thread on not too long ago. My mind is still in awe and finds it hard to comprehend.

Coming back to the Day-Age interpretation, when I initially read it, I just expected a correct interpretation of Scripture and nature to both align with each other. So I never felt it was explaining away difficulties, but rather the fittings between both went a long way to convincing me that the Day-Age is a more coherent and likely interpretation.

Canuckster1127 wrote:Glad it helped Danny.

I find the more I learn on this and several other areas, the more I realize there's usually far more at work than I recognize. Some people seem to become more sure and less tolerant of other views the more they think they know. I've done that too. It's usually better however to back off from time to time and remind yourself of what your limitations are before someone else does it for you.

Bart, This is very true. I came onto this board thinking I had this figured out and that figured out. Hmm, if I remember correctly (and excrutiatingly!), I was a bit like a pit-bull in a china shop. I found out that there was much that I thought I "knew" where in fact I "knew" very little. When I began reading through the history of many subjects on here I gulped, took a big reality check and realised that, erm, I have much to learn. Keeping one's options open is one such lesson

Thanks K. The whole creation narrative is something I have struggled with for years, and while I do not believe in a young earth, I also feel that some alternative explanations don't line up with what is written in Scripture either. The vapor canopy is one of those things. I cannot in good conscience read Gen 1 and come to that conclusion. (That may be the reason for my struggles)

The original point of contention was if there were no celestial bodies, as a cursory reading of Gen 1 shows, until the 4th day, there could not have been day and night. I have heard many explanations for this, including that the earth was illuminated in a supernatural way until day 4, the vapor canopy hypothesis etc. I don't doubt for a second that many find those interpretations acceptable and reasonable, and like I said above, they are all plausible. For me, there is no Scriptural confirmation that any celestial bodies were created on Day 1, nor that Day 4 was merely those bodies becoming visible.

I don't wish to denigrate those who believe in the vapor canopy, or supernatural light explanation. I wanted to point out that I personally understand the OP's problem, since it is something that I also struggle with, and that apart from the interpretations already offered, there are also others.

Swimmy,

As a YEC, I don't have that much of a problem with Rich's interpretation here. Gen 1:1 says that God created the heavens and the earth--which is a way of saying the entire universe. That certainly could include the sun, moon, and stars.

Of course, there is no reason that God couldn't have created the sun, moon, and stars on the fourth day specifically, but I don't think the text demands it. The bigger issue for both YEC and OEC advocates to wrestle with, and I don't think either side has done this much very yet, is what Moses' purpose was in placing the celestial bodies on the fourth day. I suspect it had something to do with "demoting" the sun and moon's place in religious worship. Bear in mind that the Egyptian main God was the sun-god, and Sin, the main god of the Arabians--and highly regarded by the Canaanites, was the mood-god. If, then, God can provide light to the earth before the creation of the sun and moon--if, in fact, the earth precedes their existence--then there is no reason to worship them!

So whether or not God actually created the stars on the fourth day or whether or not they just became visible, I don't think the text really says one way or another. While I think the text implies the former, I absolutely, fully concede that such a reading is not required and could, in fact, be challenged by the text of Gen 1 itself, as noted by the words found in 1:1.

Just some thoughts for you.

God bless