Dr. Jobe Martin lays out literal Genesis creation

[LiveInSpirit]

Yes, now show me where light was on earth? You're simply telling me that there was indeed light. You also tell me there was now separation of light and darkness. I know this. I am asking were does it ever say that light was on earth before verses 14-19?

It doesn't. Only until God creates the stars does he give light to earth.

"and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth.” And it was so" (Genesis 1:15Click to view Genesis 1:15 (NASB))

So what are you proposing light and darkness is as described in 3-4?

 

[jarrettcpr]

So what are you proposing light and darkness is as described in 3-4?

As one Bible comments...

Clarke
Gen 1:4
"God divided the light from the darkness - This does not imply that light and darkness are two distinct substances, seeing darkness is only the privation of light; but the words simply refer us by anticipation to the rotation of the earth round its own axis once in twenty-three hours, fifty-six minutes, and four seconds, which is the cause of the distinction between day and night, by bringing the different parts of the surface of the earth successively into and from under the solar rays; and it was probably at this moment that God gave this rotation to the earth, to produce this merciful provision of day and night. For the manner in which light is supposed to be produced, see Gen_1:16, under the word sun."

JFB
Gen 1:4
"divided the light from darkness — refers to the alternation or succession of the one to the other, produced by the daily revolution of the earth round its axis."

I haven't really studied what the separation really means. Just from looking at Scripture IMO it's obvious that light did not actually make contact with earth until the fourth day.

 

[LiveInSpirit]

As one Bible commnets

Clarke
Gen 1:4
"God divided the light from the darkness - This does not imply that light and darkness are two distinct substances,

What? How does it not imply that light and darkness are two dinstinct substances? This Clarke gentleman should join Rob Bell and emerge.

Division means separation into two or more things. That commentary is absurd and you know it.

I haven't really studied what the saperation really means. Just from looking at Scripture IMO it's obvious that light did not actual make contact with earth until the fourth day.

So what does Gen. 1:3 mean to you? "Let there be light" and there was light.

 

[jarrettcpr]

What? How does it not imply that light and darkness are two dinstinct substances? This Clarke gentleman should join Rob Bell and emerge.

Division means the separation of two or more things. That commentary is absurd and you know it.

So what does Gen. 1:3 mean to you? "Let there be light" and there was light.

Before you quoted my post I added the JFB bible commentary, which says the same thing. That the separation of light and dark is the earth rotating on its axis. There are other Bible commentary I can use. I have e-sword application with all types of commentary. If you want I can quote them.

Still as I said in my last post I haven't really studied what the separation really means. Just from looking at Scripture IMO it's obvious that light was not given to earth until the fourth day.

"and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth.” And it was so"

 

[LiveInSpirit]

Still as I said in my last post I haven't really studied what the separation really means.

Well if you haven't studied what verse 3 means then how can you go on to verse 14 and make assumptions?

May I suggest you step away from your commentaries and read the first 4 verses until you have "studied what the separation of light and darkness really means."

I'll give you a clue to what it means.....there was light on earth when God said "Let there be light".

 

[jarrettcpr]

Well if you haven't studied what verse 3 means then how can you go on to verse 14 and make assumptions?

May I suggest you step away from your commentaries and read the first 4 verses until you have "studied what the separation of light and darkness really means."

I'll give you a clue to what it means.....there was light on earth when God said "Let there be light".

It's not an assumption to know that light was not given until the fourth day. The reason it's not an assumption is b/c I have scripture that plainly says that. It is you who is making the assumption that there is light given to earth before verse v. 15.

That last post was the only time I looked or brought up a commentary, since you asked me about something I wasn't sure of. I've been reading others and as you know there is a whole array of interpretations, but seems that a good few are saying the verse you're asking me about is talking about the beginning of the rotation of the earth.

I don't know.

 

[brinny]

It's not an assumption to know that light was not given until the fourth day. The reason it's not an assumption is b/c I have scripture that plainly says that. It is you who is making the assumption that there is light given to earth before verse v. 15.

That last post was the only time I looked or brought up a commentary, since you asked me about something I wasn't sure of. I've been reading others and as you know there is a whole array of interpretations, but seems that a good few are saying the verse you're asking me about is talking about the beginning of the rotation of the earth.

I don't know.

Commentary is commentary, and commentary from man is as trustworthy and stable as a dustball blowin' in the wind.

The minutia of details are absent in His Word, the Bible. It just possibly is deliberate on our Creator's part to exercise our faith. We either believe He is Who He says He is or we do not. We either believe He did what He says He did or we do not.

NONE of us can KNOW the details. WE can merely guess. Some "guesses" are more grandiose than others and wrapped up in the subtle, but successful ploy of the enemy, that germination of insidious rebellion, that man can be as God. Man's Achille's Heel is pride. Man inherited this trait from the father of lies, the one who rose against God Himself. It was so in a garden, long long ago, and it is so to this day.

 

[the particular baptist]

Actually, I'm very conservative and libertarian. Both politically and biblically. If you read this thread I actually made sure to write down that biblically that I'm indeed orthodox.

Being a theistic evolutionist and orthodox in interpretation of Scriptures is an oxymoron.

 

[1whirlwind]

Genesis 1:1-2 In the (a) beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was (became) without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep.

Satan rebelled in the previous age...we know this as he was already in his fallen state when we are introduced to him in the garden...in this age. He is the darkness.

​

1:2-5 And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, "Let there be light:" and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. And God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day (day one).

1:14-16 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 season, and for days, and years: And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth:" and it was so. 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. And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth. 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.


Consider what Light and Darkness are...His Word tells us:

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (5) And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not. (9) That was the true Light, Which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.

The Word is Christ and the Word was with God in the beginning as was the light. The Word is the Light, the true Light is Christ.
​

John 8:12 Then spake Jesus again unto them, saying, "I am the light of the world; he that followeth Me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life."

John 12:36 While ye have light, believe in the light, that ye may be the children of light." These things spake Jesus, and departed, and did hide Himself from them.

1 Thessalonians 5:5 Ye are all the children of light, and the children of the day: we are not of the night, nor of darkness.

Revelation 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.


What of darkness?

Colossians 1:13 Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of His dear Son;

Ephesians 5:11 And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them.

6:12 (666) For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.

 

[LiveInSpirit]

Genesis 1:1-2Click to view Genesis 1:1-2 (NASB) In the (a) beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was (became) without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep.

Satan rebelled in the previous age...we know this as he was already in his fallen state when we are introduced to him in the garden...in this age. He is the darkness.

​

So you are saying that Satan is being call "night" and God is calling himself "day"?

How do you support this with your concordance?

 

[1whirlwind]

So you are saying that Satan is being call "night" and God is calling himself "day"?

How do you support this with your concordance?

I don't try to support it with my concordance.

He Himself tells us who Light and Darkness are in many verses. The concordance gives us the letter of the Word...not the spirit.

John 4:23-24 But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him. God is a Spirit: and they that worship Him must worship Him in spirit and in truth.

14:17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth Him: but ye know Him; for He dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.

15:26 But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, He shall testify of me:

16:13 Howbeit when He, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.
​

 

[LiveInSpirit]

I don't try to support it with my concordance.

He Himself tells us who Light and Darkness are in many verses. The concordance gives us the letter of the Word...not the spirit.

John 4:23-24Click to view John 4:23-24 (NASB) But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him. God is a Spirit: and they that worship Him must worship Him in spirit and in truth.

14:17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth Him: but ye know Him; for He dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.

15:26 But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, He shall testify of me:

16:13 Howbeit when He, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.
​

You are dodging my question friend. I asked you to explain the use of "day" and "night" not "light" and "darkness".

 

[1whirlwind]

You are dodging my question friend. I asked you to explain the use of "day" and "night" not "light" and "darkness".

Pardon me, I didn't mean to dodge. I thought your question was about the concordance.

To answer you I go back to the same verses previously quoted....it appears He calls Light - Day and Darkness - Night.

Genesis 1:2-5 And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, "Let there be light:" and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. And God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day (day one).

1:14-16 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 season, and for days, and years: And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth:" and it was so. 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. And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth. 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.


1 Thessalonians 5:5 Ye are all the children of light, and the children of the day: we are not of the night, nor of darkness.

​

We are children of the day, of the Light and He rules us. Satan/darkness rules his children. Christ gives the True Light to the world while Satan, represented by the lesser light gives reflected light....he has none of his own.

 

[LiveInSpirit]

Pardon me, I didn't mean to dodge. I thought your question was about the concordance.

To answer you I go back to the same verses previously quoted....it appears He calls Light - Day and Darkness - Night.

Yes, that's true. But let's understand this.

1. There is literal light and literal darkness
2. There is spiritual light (good) and spiritual darkness (evil)

If you are saying verses 2-5 are being presented as "spiritual darkness" then you have a problem. Because verse 2 states:

The earth was formless and void, and darkness (evil) was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God (good) was moving over the surface of the waters.

If this is the interpretation, how then does one explain verse 3:

Then God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light.

Verse 3 states there was no light (good) until he created it. But we already know from verse 2 that the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters and was present on earth before the creation of "light".

It is obvious that the use of "light" and "darkness" is meant to describe LITERAL light and darkness NOT spiritual light and darkness as used elsewhere in scripture.

If you don't believe that there can be light without the sun and moon then look at

Revelation 21:23 And the city has no need of the sun or of the moon to shine on it, for the glory of God has illumined it, and its lamp is the Lamb.

And if you prescribe to a spiritual light and darkness in verse 2 how do you reconcile verse 31:

God saw all that He had made, and behold, it was very good.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

The liberal rooms can be found elsewhere on this massive site. People who read the bible and believe it should not be browbeaten by liberals in the Baptist room.

I am a Baptist, and I have been one for a long time; indeed, I am a conservative, evangelical Baptist who knows that the moderate and liberal Baptists, who number in the millions in the United States alone, are not wrong in believing interpretations of the Bible that are academically sound, and rejecting interpretations of the Bible that are not academically sound. I and they both believe the Bible, but we do not believe interpretations of the Bible that are in conflict with massive amounts of scientific, historical and literary data that God has been so gracious as to allow us to have in order to improve the quality of our lives during our earthly stay.

 

[1whirlwind]

Yes, that's true. But let's understand this.

1. There is literal light and literal darkness
2. There is spiritual light (good) and spiritual darkness (evil)

If you are saying verses 2-5 are being presented as "spiritual darkness" then you have a problem. Because verse 2 states:

The earth was formless and void, and darkness (evil) was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God (good) was moving over the surface of the waters.

If this is the interpretation, how then does one explain verse 3:

Then God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light.

Verse 3 states there was no light (good) until he created it. But we already know from verse 2 that the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters and was present on earth before the creation of "light".

It is obvious that the use of "light" and "darkness" is meant to describe LITERAL light and darkness NOT spiritual light and darkness as used elsewhere in scripture.

I must disagree for I see it as spiritual.

If you don't believe that there can be light without the sun and moon then look at

Revelation 21:23 And the city has no need of the sun or of the moon to shine on it, for the glory of God has illumined it, and its lamp is the Lamb.

Again...The Lamb is the Light. It is spiritual.

And if you prescribe to a spiritual light and darkness in verse 2 how do you reconcile verse 31:

God saw all that He had made, and behold, it was very good.

Everything He has created or formed is "very good." It all serves His purpose to bring about His great plan.

Romans 9:20-23 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? "Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it 'Why hast thou made me thus?' " Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? What if God, willing to shew His wrath, and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: And that He might make known the riches of His gory on the vessels of mercy, which He had afore prepared unto glory,
​

 

[jarrettcpr]

Being a theistic evolutionist and orthodox in interpretation of Scriptures is an oxymoron.

If anything in this thread I'm showing just how orthodox I am by using Scripture to support my claim.

I am the one actually being sola scriptura here. I will ask you where does it say in Genesis before Gen 1:15 that light was given to earth? I'm sure any other answer than it doesn't will be a grasping at straws and only assumptions. I am the one using Scripture that PLAINLY says it wasn't until Gen. 1:15 and the fourth day that light was given to earth.

BTW do you think William Lane Craig and Keith Ward are not orthodox? I think they are indeed orthodox, yet they believe in theistic evolution (WLC said he could either believe in TE or Progressive Creationism either way WLC believes the universe is 13.5 billion years old, so he's not a Young Earth Creationist).

Oh Yeah what about Alvin Plantinga who is a Calvinist minister and theologian, are you saying he's not orthodox and a liberal? I'm sorry you have to say to someone who believes in theistic evolution is a liberal.

Also, I proved that Dr. Martin was wrong when he said that the word Yom with a number around it always means normal day. You can look up the Strong concordance (for the word Yom it is H3117) and read 2 Chronicles 21:19 or Amos 4:4. You'll see that Yom is used to mean a process of time and years in that one verse alone in 2 Chronicles 21:19 and the word Yom means years in Amos 4:4.

If beating someone with Scripture is liberal than please call me liberal.

 

[joshua41]

All knowledge and wisdom we have is revealed to us by God alone. Who are we to speculate on the correctness of science or the correctness of a viewpoint of the Bible if there are clearly pieces to the puzzle missing?

 

[MatthewDiscipleofGod]

Believing in a creation about 6,000 years ago is theologically and scientifically sound. The clear reading tells us that animals give birth to like animals. Evolution is not true. There is no scientific sound mechanism that would allow changes over time to take a "simple" cell organism and change it into a human given enough time. Many scientists would also mock theistic evolutionists because they would say we must believe life came from non life because you can't bring a god(s) into the picture. Yet, we have known for centuries that life can not come from non life. It is time we but our trust in the Bible and not in fallible man.

I am a Baptist, and I have been one for a long time; indeed, I am a conservative, evangelical Baptist who knows that the moderate and liberal Baptists, who number in the millions in the United States alone, are not wrong in believing interpretations of the Bible that are academically sound, and rejecting interpretations of the Bible that are not academically sound. I and they both believe the Bible, but we do not believe interpretations of the Bible that are in conflict with massive amounts of scientific, historical and literary data that God has been so gracious as to allow us to have in order to improve the quality of our lives during our earthly stay.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

Believing in a creation about 6,000 years ago is theologically and scientifically sound. The clear reading tells us that animals give birth to like animals. Evolution is not true. There is no scientific sound mechanism that would allow changes over time to take a "simple" cell organism and change it into a human given enough time. Many scientists would also mock theistic evolutionists because they would say we must believe life came from non life because you can't bring a god(s) into the picture. Yet, we have known for centuries that life can not come from non life. It is time we but our trust in the Bible and not in fallible man.

Believing that God created the earth, the plants, the animals, and man about 6,000 year ago is neither theologically nor scientifically sound. After submitting the Book of Genesis to 200 years of intense analysis through literary, form, and redaction criticism by some of the best educated men on the face of this planet, it has been concluded by the very large majority of Old Testament scholars that the creation stories in Gen. 1-2 were penned by two different writers writing centuries apart from each other and that, if taken literally, contradict each other and are therefore, not accurate accounts of historical events.

In order for any interpretation of the Bible to be correct, it MUST be in harmony with all of the relevant data, and any theology based upon an interpretation that is known for certain to be incorrect is NOT sound theology. Based upon indescribably massive amounts of data, we know today for a certainty that the earth is much older than 6,000 years, and even most of the young-earth creationists now concede that the earth is at least 10,000 years old.

Before my career change, I was an evolutionary biologist and I can say from an exceptionally well informed point of view that the statements made in the above quoted post regarding evolution are absolutely false. Over 99.9% of scientists who have earned at least a Ph.D. in the life or earth sciences from an accredited college or university firmly believe in the theory of evolution, and of the less than .1% the scientists who disagree, not a single one of them is an evolutionary biologist nor do any of them have even a reasonably good knowledge of the mechanisms that allow for and control evolution. They base their beliefs about science upon their unsound theology and a few anomalous pieces of data that they falsely claim prove their beliefs to be correct. That is not science; that is Christian apologetics based upon a system of theology that has been proven to be incorrect.