Daylight before the creation of the sun

[Xaero]

I want come up with an old unsolved issue, so that a little action comes into this abandoned forum

The problem with evenings and mornings before the creation of the sun.

Something that i badly dismissed in my times as a YEC sympathizer. Just accepting that light somehow where already upon earth on day1.
But i should have looked closely at Gen1 to see that this view can not hold water.
Augustine of Hippo (354-430) rejected the literal view of the Genesis days because of day4 (while he believed in recent creation).


YECs argue that there was light created on day1. But what does this mean? It was radiating out of nothing to the earth?
Was the earth already orbiting this spot? Or did the light came from one side and later the earth starts orbiting the sun on day4?

How does that fit to Gen1:15, where it says:
"And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth"
God commanded sun and moon to give light upon the earth on day4. So why assume that there was daylight before?

Following interpretation would even make more sense: Light exists in the universe since day1 but not until day4 is there any light upon earth.

Now, some come up with Rev22:
"And there shall be no night there; and they need no candle, neither light of the sun; for the Lord God giveth them light: and they shall reign for ever and ever."
Rev21:23 says:
"And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb [is] the light thereof."The light is the Lord Christ who says: "I am the light of the world"

But Jesus didn't literally illuminate the world - this light is not electromagnetic radiation.
It is a symbol: in the light you see where you can go so you can stay on the path and do not stumble.
"Thy word [is] a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path." Psa 119:105
This is all symbolic, this light can't be misused to declare a "pre-solar" light shining upon earth on day1-3.

The writer of Gen1 couldn't meant real sundowns and sunrises so the evening/morning phrases must be poetic/symbolic.

No daylight before sunlight

In Christ

Xaero

 

[busterdog]

Lets add to the irony.

There were also 24 hour days before the earth was turning!

As for Rev 22, I do think that light is not an idiom, but real light.

If God made the billions of galaxies and this enormous expance of the universe, I don't see why there is much question about whether He can light up a city, or a planet.

 

[Hismessenger]

The light that came before the sun was the light of understanding. Cognizence. Without this "Light" the creation would have had no recognition that it even existed and to know who God was. Until that point, it was only inert matter. Let there be light.

hismessenger

 

[Assyrian]

Lets add to the irony.

There were also 24 hour days before the earth was turning!

As for Rev 22, I do think that light is not an idiom, but real light.

If God made the billions of galaxies and this enormous expance of the universe, I don't see why there is much question about whether He can light up a city, or a planet.

The problem is calling it morning when he switches the light on and evening when he switches it off again, and trying to claim that this show the normal literal use of these words.

I don't see anywhere in Xaero's post where he suggested God would not have been able to light up a planet. YECs can't seem to get past this strawman. I think someone mentioned to you recently that it wasn't the case the we did not believe God could create the world in six days, but that the scientific evidence said he didn't do it that way. Similarly Xaero was not saying God could not illuminate a planet every morning and switch the light off again in the evening, but that this does not seem to be what the language in Genesis is describing.

 

[Tinker Grey]

The light that came before the sun was the light of understanding. Cognizence. Without this "Light" the creation would have had no recognition that it even existed and to know who God was. Until that point, it was only inert matter. Let there be light.

hismessenger

Very poetic. Honestly, I really like this.

If, however, you meant more than the metaphor, how does a rock recognize its existence? How does anything non-sapient recognize anything? (Perhaps if you rewrote it such that the light is God revealing himself to the universe, then nitpickers such as myself wouldn't having anything to pick.)

Of course, if you were making a metaphor, feel free to disregard this post.

 

[Tinker Grey]

What follows is baseless speculation:

It wouldn't surprise me to learn that the ancients believed light was a substance like water: something to be contained or gathered. It is one thing to understand that light exists; it is another to understand that we perceive light because it radiates -- that is, our receptors are getting pummelled with photons/waves.

IOW, perhaps the ancients perceived light to be static stuff. Whereas, for moderns (at least me, IAC), we can't conceive of light or energy without conceiving of it going somewhere -- being transmitted.

I would guess that in John's attempt to describe the light of the city, he was paralleling the ancient perception of Genesis -- there is no need of the sun and moon; the stuff of light is all around.

Now, for those inclined to force John's words into physical reality -- we could justify his words by saying this: that there is no need for the sun since the light emanates from God himself.

IOW, that light comes from some where and cannot merely be is a modern idea.

Maybe ...

 

[juvenissun]

The writer of Gen1 couldn't meant real sundowns and sunrises so the evening/morning phrases must be poetic/symbolic.

No daylight before sunlight

A lot of people try to understand this question by assuming the current earth-sun relationship existed back then. This is very wrong.

So far, we do not know how did the earth come into exist. In fact, all the current models on the origin of the earth have many BIG BIG problems.

So, you may have your theory. But it is likely to be wrong. The description in Gen. 1 can not be disproved.

 

[busterdog]

So, you may have your theory. But it is likely to be wrong. The description in Gen. 1 can not be disproved.

Too often we take a position with some reason in it and just say it must be true. There is some reason in the OP, but like you, I find no license for it.

 

[Assyrian]

Like your interpretation of the geocentric passages?

 

[shernren]

So, you may have your theory. But it is likely to be wrong. The description in Gen. 1 can not be disproved.

Too often we take a position with some reason in it and just say it must be true. There is some reason in the OP, but like you, I find no license for it.

Normally it is good to have reasonable arguments, and bad to have unreasoned arguments. Why are creationists reversing this?

 

[gluadys]

A lot of people try to understand this question by assuming the current earth-sun relationship existed back then. This is very wrong.

So far, we do not know how did the earth come into exist. In fact, all the current models on the origin of the earth have many BIG BIG problems.

So, you may have your theory. But it is likely to be wrong. The description in Gen. 1 can not be disproved.

Models of planetary formation do have problems, but the notion that a planet would form apart from a solar system would seem to me much more problematical.

What we have to understand is that in ancient frames of reference the earth was not seen to be a planet at all.

In fact, the modern idea of what a planet is was not developed until the late 19th century. At least up until the Copernican revolution, planets were thought to be a kind of star.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

The description in Gen. 1 can not be disproved.

No.

But the fact that it hasn't got a single shred of supporting evidence makes it extremely unlikely to be the correct explanation

 

[BethelArsonist]

The light of the first day of creation must have been star and sun light. We find that it was when light was able to reach the surface of the (premordial soup?) water that creation actually began. This would imply there was atmospheric blockage of light until that time, which would be consistent with the heavenly body collisions/movement/formation that first positioned and formed the planet.

This celestial, interstellar, and solar light then became the active energy for the creation processes to come.

The cycles of change that ensued as the atmosphere began to develop are chronicled in scripture as "days," which are actually just that, cycles of change between major points of developmental creation. There is no need to dispute reasonable science that says these "days" were not 24 hour periods, and especially so since later scriptures would also make use of this term according to other measures of time, one of which is 1000 years.

Even in Genesis we find the length of a "day" is a relative measure, depending on how it is used. Adam was told he would die "the day" he ate of the forbidden fruit. And accordingly, he lived to be only 930 years old.

Although the creation of the stars is mentioned in the fourth day of creation, the actual time of that creation must have pre-existed that of Earth, obviously. Likewise, scripture does not say the sun and moon were created on the fourth day of creation, but that they gained their authority over earthlife then, probably as meaning they began to come into major play in the microbiology (photosynthesis and reproduction, respectively) of organic life systems then and soon after being created.

There is no need to throw out science in order to understand creation. But we also need to realize the Bible is a book of government and political revolution, with hidden meanings meant for times of political upheaval and war. In fact, modern man soon needs to learn and to realize that the very dichotomy in human thought and politics in the world that has been allowed to develop because of the creation-evolution debate is the true intended ends of the idiocy and fabrication of this and other such intellectual conflicts.

When this day comes, and the reasons for it are understood, it will again be as if a new moon were set in the sky. It will engender a new maternal condition in the social constructs of man (as the moon is associated with female reproduction), and a new world will begin to develop correcting this and the many other similarly fabricated ideals our fathers have created in attempts to steer the world away from it's ultimate and inevitable destiny in the celestial collision to come of man's world with Eternal Truth.

This coming moon, or lunation cycling, of world regeneration is described in scripture as a reddening of the previous moon and the appearance of another, which is associated with the house of David.

After this, there will be no more moon, because the world will then never again need to be regenerated - renewed.

 

[Hismessenger]

The same way the stars which he calls by name recognize Him. The same way that the rocks would cry out if we didn't praise Him. I'm for real Tinker because you place a limitation on your creator which you cannot do. With God All things are possible. One more thing to consider, why do the wind and the waves obey His will, it is because they know thier maker. If they didn't they would be like a child without understanding and continue doing what they are doing.

hismessenger

 

[Tinker Grey]

No. I don't limit God. I limit rocks.

 

[Hismessenger]

[QUOTE]
Rev 21:23 And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb [is] the light thereof.

Rev 22:5 And there shall be no night there; and they need no candle, neither light of the sun; for the Lord God giveth them light: and they shall reign for ever and ever.
[/quote]

This is the reality. God is the light with the Son. See Christ is also the light which was created to His purpose in Gen. 1:3. To give understanding to the world.

hismessenger

 

[juvenissun]

No. I don't limit God. I limit rocks.

Ha ha ha ... This won't work.

God's glory is fully manifested in rock. We do not understand rock, even to the one you may pick up in your backyard (if you could find one). No one could put a limit on it.

 

[Tinker Grey]

My response was to Hismessenger.

I asked how rocks recognize their existence.

He replied that I limit God.

Hence my response: I don't limit God; I limit rocks.

 

[Assyrian]

God's glory is fully manifested in rock.

 

[Hismessenger]

The rocks don't necessarily recognize their existence bur rather recognize their maker via the light of understanding.

hismessenger