Which came first: the Earth or the Sun?

[Reasonably Sane]

Genesis 1:




From the above, I understood that God made planet Earth on Day 3 and the sun on Day 4. Accordingly, from the biblical witness-time perspective, the earth appeared before the sun.

On the other hand, from the modern-day astronomy space-time perspective, the sun existed before the earth was formed.

I see them both as true, depending on the time perspective.

See How old is the earth?.

I don't see the bible as a science book. Just as I can't decide whether the rooster crowed once or twice, I think the point is not about roosters crowing. I'm one of those that believes the "earth" as discussed in both Genesis and all the end times prophesy is really discussing the surface of the earth. i.e. I don't see the earth as 6,000 years old, but I do see the current "age of man" as 6,000 years old. Scientific evidence shows a planet billions of years old, just as scientific evidence presents a globe that orbits the sun. That's why we no longer see the earth as the flat center of the physical universe.

 

[Reasonably Sane]

I appreciate you Bob, we agree on many things I think. Since God didn't see fit to give much but a cursory account of how exactly things were made and spent most of scripture on His relationship with His human creation and redemption, I don't care how it was done. Some things are interesting to contemplate and I do at times, yet I've seen relationships broken over arguments about this, His second coming details, and other issues.
2 Timothy 2:16 However, avoid pointless discussions. For people will become more and more ungodly.
7. Titus 3:9 But avoid foolish controversies, arguments about genealogies, quarrels, and fights about the Law. These things are useless and worthless.

To me it's more about knowing Christ and walking with Him. There is nothing else that makes sense.
Men search for the "God particle" and deny God exists.
God stands there asking them to turn.
Isaiah 65
“I revealed Myself to those who did not ask for Me;
I was found by those who did not seek Me.
To a nation that did not call My name,
I said, ‘Here I am! Here I am!’
All day long I have held out My hands
to an obstinate people
who walk in the wrong path,
who follow their own imaginations,
to a people who continually provoke Me to My face,

Romans 1:
Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.

The fool has said in his heart, there is no God.

While some atheists may have there eyes opened I tend to subscribe sometimes to this philosophy;
'Never argue with a fool, they will drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience.'

These debates over creation by a creator vs the smug delusional attitude of some self acclaimed intellectually superior fool have lost their appeal to me. There were times I had fun with them, but I don't believe anyone's mind was changed. Or more importantly, their heart. I don't think appealing to scripture impresses those who hold it in distain.

Go with God

I strongly agree. Also, I see looking in the bible for a scientific explanation of how the earth and mankind came to exist as akin to looking at a book on the Writings of Shakespeare for an explanation of Pythagoras's theory.

And to take it one step deeper, I see science as the pursuit of "how" and religion as the pursuit of "why". And the latter is the higher pursuit.

 

[AV1611VET]

No, the concept is not the same. Not even close.

Yes it is.

Both types deal with putting the truth down in writing.

Mechanical Inspiration, a.k.a. dictation, is word-for-word from the boss to the secretary.

Verbal Plenary Inspiration, is the writing down of Truth, using the words of the secretary.

So the method is different, but the concept is the same.

Truth being reduced to written form.

 

[trophy33]

Verbal Plenary Inspiration, is the writing down of Truth, using the words of the secretary.

Describe to me this process in the writing of the book of Ruth, for example.

 

[AV1611VET]

Describe to me this process in the writing of the book of Ruth, for example.

God inspired Ruth (or Boaz) to write the book of Ruth.

So he or she did some investigation and wrote the book of Ruth in his or her own words.

Later, an appendage was tacked on.

Ruth 4:18 Now these are the generations of Pharez: Pharez begat Hezron,
19 And Hezron begat Ram, and Ram begat Amminadab,
20 And Amminadab begat Nahshon, and Nahshon begat Salmon,
21 And Salmon begat Boaz, and Boaz begat Obed,
22 And Obed begat Jesse, and Jesse begat David.

 

[trophy33]

God inspired Ruth (or Boaz) to write the book of Ruth.

So he or she did some investigation and wrote the book of Ruth in his or her own words.

Later, an appendage was tacked on.

Ruth 4:18 Now these are the generations of Pharez: Pharez begat Hezron,
19 And Hezron begat Ram, and Ram begat Amminadab,
20 And Amminadab begat Nahshon, and Nahshon begat Salmon,
21 And Salmon begat Boaz, and Boaz begat Obed,
22 And Obed begat Jesse, and Jesse begat David.

You have no idea how it actually worked, do you? You just hold to some theological concept somebody has come up with much later.

In this example, the only inspiration you mentioned was just the idea to write the book, the rest is a purely human work.

 

[AV1611VET]

You have no idea how it actually worked, do you?

I do not.

I've never been selected by God to put His truths in writing.

All I know is:

2 Peter 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

These people were Spirit-filled writers.

You just hold to some theological concept somebody has come up with much later.

Correct.

That theological concept that "somebody has come up with much later" is called verbal plenary inspiration.

 

[trophy33]

I do not.

I've never been selected by God to put His truths in writing.

All I know is:

2 Peter 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

These people were Spirit-filled writers.



Correct.

That theological concept that "somebody has come up with" is called verbal plenary inspiration.

Great, you know how the human extra-biblical concept invented much later is called.

Because you have actually no idea how the biblical inspiration worked or even if it worked the same way all the time, there is not much to talk about, there is only some blind dogmatic proclamation left.

 

[AV1611VET]

Great, you know how the human extra-biblical concept invented much later is called.

Why do you call it "extra-biblical," when Peter described it?

All someone did was put a name to it.

Just like the word "Trinity."

 

[trophy33]

Why do you call it "extra-biblical," when Peter described it?

All someone did was put a name to it.

Just like the word "Trinity."

Peter described prophecy. The book of Ruth, for example, is not a prophecy. Also, the majority of the Bible is not a prophecy.

 

[AV1611VET]

Peter described prophecy. The book of Ruth, for example, is not a prophecy. Also, the majority of the Bible is not a prophecy.

Fair enough.

You believe one way, I believe another.

Rhetorical question:

Do you feel you are qualified to critique a major doctrine -- (verbal plenary inspiration) -- which is one of the [six] fundamentals of the Independent Fundamental Baptist's faith?

 

[trophy33]

Rhetorical question:

Do you feel you are qualified to critique a major doctrine -- (verbal plenary inspiration) -- which is one of the [six] fundamentals of the Independent Fundamental Baptist's faith?

Rhetorical answer - this is not about qualification, its just a dogma and one of many possible ones. Nobody really knows.

But it was not dictation or anything similar, for the majority of the Bible. This is untenable when the Bible is studied a bit or at least read carefully.

 

[tonychanyt]

I don't see the bible as a science book.

Me neither.

 

[AlexB23]

Sounds like you're saying God did a sloppy job, then left it to Mother Nature to clean it up.

Hello sir. I see that you do not support the Old-Earth Creationism, but appreciate your perspective, but I would like to clarify that my previous statement was based on scientific facts as we currently understand them in 2024. The Bible does not provide a detailed account of the formation of the Earth or the solar system, but it does affirm that God created the heavens and the Earth (Genesis 1:1).

The scientific theory of the clearing of the Earth's atmosphere is not a suggestion that God did a sloppy job. Rather, it is an explanation of natural processes that occurred over billions of years. The Bible also acknowledges the existence and complexity of natural phenomena (Psalm 19:1-6, Job 38-40).

Furthermore, the Bible encourages us to seek knowledge and understanding of the world around us (Proverbs 1:5, Colossians 2:3, Psalm 111:2). Therefore, I view scientific discoveries as a means to deepen our appreciation of God's creation and His wisdom.

But, I am not here to debate you. You can believe your account of Genesis, while I can believe what modern science says (OEC).

 

[AV1611VET]

Hello sir. I see that you do not support the Old-Earth Creationism, but appreciate your perspective, but I would like to clarify that my previous statement was based on scientific facts as we currently understand them in 2024.

Fair enough, my friend.

As long as your name is in the Lamb's Book of Life, that's good enough for me!

 

[AlexB23]

Fair enough, my friend.

As long as your name is in the Lamb's Book of Life, that's good enough for me!

Amen brother. I follow Christ, and trust in Him for everything.

 

[BeyondET]

-
​

No the text goes on to tell of God restoring the earth created in Genesis 1:1, but this time for humans. A sun, moon and stars are part of the earth God restored for humans. The sun, moon and stars were not part of the original creation in Genesis 1:1

The word Genesis is derived from verse 1 which was the title of Genesis 1 before the Bible was complete.

 

[Diamond7]

Nope, check the Bible.

That is exactly what I am doing.

It took me 20 years to figure this out. If you want to believe different, that is fine. Believe what you want. But I struggled with what we had to do to get the Bible to line up with the physical evidence that we find in God's creation. God wants us to know. He has preserved the evidence for us so we can know what He has done and how He did it.

 

[Diamond7]

Mechanical Inspiration, a.k.a. dictation, is word-for-word from the boss to the secretary.

Don't count on it. I dated an executive secretary once. The boss did nothing and she wrote the letter. All he did was sign it.

He hired her when he married the secretary before her. So the man takes the credit for what the women do.

 

[AV1611VET]

Don't count on it.

I do, actually.

I dated an executive secretary once.

My wife was a secretary in a Fortune 100 company.

The boss did nothing and she wrote the letter.

They were probably monthly form letters that simply required changing the dates and statistical information on them.

Kinda like our utility bills and such.

All he did was sign it.

Yup.

He hired her when he married the secretary before her.

Okay.

So the man takes the credit for what the women do.

In the case of the Scriptures, we call it "God's word," even though "holy men of God" wrote It.