A christian perspective

[Believer69]

When reading genesis you read: Then God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.” And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day. 14 And God said, “Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth.” And it was so. 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.



But this recount is simply incorrect. You cannot have plants without the sun.They need the sun so that they can photosynthesise. I wanted a christian viewpoint on this and to see if christians believe this to be true or not.

 

[drich0150]

When reading genesis you read: Then God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.” And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day. 14 And God said, “Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth.” And it was so. 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.



But this recount is simply incorrect. You cannot have plants without the sun.They need the sun so that they can photosynthesise. I wanted a christian viewpoint on this and to see if christians believe this to be true or not.

Perhaps that is your problem. Maybe you should have taken a Jewish account first. Then you might have understood that the "numbers" denoting Chapter and verse do not signify a chronology. It is a simple way a cataloging the message. In fact it is common practice even today in that society, that when an account is given an over view of the whole story is first outlined and then the story teller comes back to fill in the details.

Just like what has been done in the Genesis account.

 

[Believer69]

Perhaps that is your problem. Maybe you should have taken a Jewish account first. Then you might have understood that the "numbers" denoting Chapter and verse do not signify a chronology. It is a simple way a cataloging the message. In fact it is common practice even today in that society, that when an account is given an over view of the whole story is first outlined and then the story teller comes back to fill in the details.

Just like what has been done in the Genesis account.

They have no cronoloy so he created humans first without the earth? If we are using this without a cronology Cant we start anywhere? I dont understand your point. Is it that genesis 1:3 doesnt mean it is before lets say genesis 1:7 (random numbers) or is that when it says the third day it doesnt mean the third day?

 

[drich0150]

They have no chronology so he created humans first without the earth? If we are using this without a chronology Cant we start anywhere? I dont understand your point.

Then please take the time slow down and re read what I originally wrote. read what was written in an effort to learn rather than looking for ways to win an argument.

The first chapter of Genesis records the Whole of creation as an outline. Most of the second fills in the details. So for example what happens in Genesis 1:31 does not precede what genesis 2:18 records.

Remember the Chapters and verses were added much much later almost in an arbitrarily efforts to catalog and find material. Chapter and verse denotations were not meant for the general public when first used. (it was argued that it was too confusing and complicated for the uneducated to understand.)

 

[Believer69]

Then please take the time slow down and re read what I originally wrote. read what was written in an effort to learn rather than looking for ways to win an argument.

The first chapter of Genesis records the Whole of creation as an outline. Most of the second fills in the details. So for example what happens in Genesis 1:31 does not precede what genesis 2:18 records.

Remember the Chapters and verses were added much much later almost in an arbitrarily efforts to catalog and find material. Chapter and verse denotations were not meant for the general public when first used. (it was argued that it was too confusing and complicated for the uneducated to understand.)

Ok but genisis 1 and 2 have different sequences. Even if genisis 2 fills in genesis 1 why does it give a different order. And how does this answer my question of that on day 3 plants were made, on day 4 the sun was made. Or does genesis 2 correct this?

 

[drich0150]

Ok but genisis 1 and 2 have different sequences. Even if genisis 2 fills in genesis 1 why does it give a different order. And how does this answer my question of that on day 3 plants were made, on day 4 the sun was made. Or does genesis 2 correct this?

What happens on Day one?

 

[Believer69]

What happens on Day one?

Genesis 1:
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. 3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he 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—the first day.



Genesis 2: no clear days
This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, when the LORD God made the earth and the heavens.
5 Now no shrub had yet appeared on the earth[a] and no plant had yet sprung up, for the LORD God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no one to work the ground, 6 but streams[b] came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground. 7 Then the LORD God formed a man[c] from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

but it says now god created man before the plants contradicting genesis 1. And man lived without any plants or animals on dense dead rock full of water. Then he created a garden.

 

[drich0150]

One issue at a time.

Genesis 1:
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. 3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he 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—the first day.

Plants need light not the sun, or are you not familiar with Hydroponics?

 

[Believer69]

One issue at a time.



Plants need light not the sun, or are you not familiar with Hydroponics?

Ok so when god created the plants he used the light before not the light of the sun? So why do they use the suns light now? And it isnt just any light lin Hydroponics, it has to be on similar to the sun. But if there was no sun how wud this previous light be the light for the plant. But god is all powerful so he wud know wot light to use. so in short god used his light to make the plants survive untill he created the sun. Im not gnna say how rediculous this is but of course you believe this. But i asked for the christian response and i guess i got what i asked for. Thankyou.

 

[drich0150]

Ok so when god created the plants he used the light before not the light of the sun?

Yes

So why do they use the suns light now?

Because on the 4th day He decided to hand the light giving over to the Sun during the day.

And it isn't just any light lin Hydroponics, it has to be on similar to the sun.

It depends on what you are growing light from different ends of the spectrum yield different results..

But if there was no sun how wud this previous light be the light for the plant.

Do you know what light is?

But god is all powerful so he wud know wot light to use. so in short god used his light to make the plants survive until he created the sun.

Or perhaps plants have grown to adapt themselves to the light of the sun. (The sun is not the "standard" you assume it to be.) It is just a substitute.

I'm not gnna say how rediculous this is but of course you believe this. But i asked for the christian response and i guess i got what i asked for. Thankyou.

What is ridiculous is how much the "atheist" does not know about the science surrounding light waves. Plants grow better in hydroponic light rather than the suns light why? Or did you not know this?

Perhaps you should take the time and do a little research before drawing foolish conclusions that point to a small mind who is trying to convince others he is indeed Not trolling.

Was you last paragraph the pay off you were looking for? or do you still have questions?

 

[GrayAngel]

There was light before the sun existed. Scientists call it the Big Bang.

It's really not all the farfetched to say that God can't sustain light without a big ball of gas to help Him, anyway. In Heaven, there is no sun, but God's light fills every gap, just like the first day.

 

[Believer69]

There was light before the sun existed. Scientists call it the Big Bang.

It's really not all the farfetched to say that God can't sustain light without a big ball of gas to help Him, anyway. In Heaven, there is no sun, but God's light fills every gap, just like the first day.

Good point. I think ive got the christian perspective. Instead of seeing the glaring falseness to the story, you just think god is all powerful so he must of done that.

 

[hedrick]

Good point. I think ive got the christian perspective. Instead of seeing the glaring falseness to the story, you just think god is all powerful so he must of done that.

That's a reasonable assessment of some Christians. We don't all take the same approach on this. There are basically two approaches to the Bible. The great majority of Christians see it as coming from God in such a way that it is 100% accurate on all details. A few of us (of which I'm one) think that the authors had experience with God, but described it in their own terms, and thus that there are human limitations to Scripture. I don't think the Old Testament is historically accurate before about the book of Judges, though there are surely some things in earlier books that represent real events.

Even within the first approach there are variations. Many (I'd guess most) are willing to adjust their interpretations of Scripture where there is clear external evidence. However willingness to do this varies. I've seen Christians say that external evidence can't be used at all to guide interpretation. But i think that's rare. There are many Christians who accept an old earth. I think at this point it may even be a slight majority. This normally involved non-obvious interpretations of Genesis 1. At times it also involve rejecting portions of the scientific evidence. E.g. it's probably more common to accept an old earth than evolution.

I don't have time now, but if no one else answers, I'll take a look later today and point you to one of the ways of dealing with your question through interpretation. I'm pretty sure there are approaches that haven't come up here yet.

 

[Believer69]

That's a reasonable assessment of some Christians. We don't all take the same approach on this. There are basically two approaches to the Bible. The great majority of Christians see it as coming from God in such a way that it is 100% accurate on all details. A few of us (of which I'm one) think that the authors had experience with God, but described it in their own terms, and thus that there are human limitations to Scripture. I don't think the Old Testament is historically accurate before about the book of Judges, though there are surely some things in earlier books that represent real events.

Even within the first approach there are variations. Many (I'd guess most) are willing to adjust their interpretations of Scripture where there is clear external evidence. However willingness to do this varies. I've seen Christians say that external evidence can't be used at all to guide interpretation. But i think that's rare. There are many Christians who accept an old earth. I think at this point it may even be a slight majority. This normally involved non-obvious interpretations of Genesis 1. At times it also involve rejecting portions of the scientific evidence. E.g. it's probably more common to accept an old earth than evolution.

I don't have time now, but if no one else answers, I'll take a look later today and point you to one of the ways of dealing with your question through interpretation. I'm pretty sure there are approaches that haven't come up here yet.

Cheers man .

 

[hedrick]

I don't have time now, but if no one else answers, I'll take a look later today and point you to one of the ways of dealing with your question through interpretation. I'm pretty sure there are approaches that haven't come up here yet.

Answersincreation.org, which is an old-earth creationist site, says that the sun was created before day 4. What happened on day 4 is that the atmosphere cleared so that the sun and moon could be seen. The early plants were simple algae. As the atmosphere cleared, more complex plants that need more light could be created. This is however a compromise view, which attempts to reconcile Genesis with at least some science.

Answersingenesis.org is a hard-core young earth creationist site. They reject this type of compromise. They don't give a specific explanation (that I've been able to find), but say simply that there was light before the sun, since light was created on day 1. This site spends a fair amount of time looking at the various schemes for reconciling Genesis 1 with science. They believe all of them result in an unnatural reading of Genesis, and thus reject them all. They make little attempt at accommodating science.

Remember that neither of these is my view. I don't consider Genesis literal history at all.

My sense is that most Christians are not quite as hard-core as Answers in Genesis, and try to make some accommodation between Genesis and science, although the amount of such accommodation they are willing to make varies. The idea of accommodation is taught as far back as Calvin in the 16th Cent. He responded to the new astronomy using the explanation that the Bible often describes things as they would seem to an observer, since its purpose is not to teach science. Hence e.g. the Bible speaks of the sun as rising even though we know that this isn't quite what happens. He believed that God was responsible for the content of the Bible, but said that God accommodated the wording to the understanding of people at the time, in areas such as science where the purpose of the Bible wasn't to teach that.

 

[ebia]

When reading genesis you read: Then God said, "Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds." And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morning--the third day. 14 And God said, "Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth." And it was so. 16 God made two great lights--the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning--the fourth day.

But this recount is simply incorrect. You cannot have plants without the sun.They need the sun so that they can photosynthesise. I wanted a christian viewpoint on this and to see if christians believe this to be true or not.

Genesis one is liturgical poety. It's purpose is to revel in a creator God who brings order from chaos, who has a good divine purpose for humanity, etc, and to subvert surrounding myths, for example by making the sun and moon minor acts of creation, not gods themselves.

It's purpose is not to transmit some para-scientific facts.

Note that in the ancient world the sun was not necessarily thought to be the source of all light - after all the sky is bright even when the sun is hidden.

 

[GrayAngel]

Good point. I think ive got the christian perspective. Instead of seeing the glaring falseness to the story, you just think god is all powerful so he must of done that.

I'm actually on the fence concerning the literalism of the creation story. It really doesn't matter much to me how it happened. I really don't think it was meant to be a scientific account of how the universe was formed. I'm currently of the opinion that it was written in response to pagan religion, which claims a different god over every area of nature. Genesis 1 tells us that God is the creator and sustainer of everything from the sea to the stars.

However, considering this is the same God who can raise the dead to life, walk on water, and create everything that exists, I don't think it's all that unbelievable to think that creation could have happened in the order that Genesis says.

 

[lesliedellow]

You misunderstand the purpose of Genesis. It is there to give a theological account of creation; it wants to say that God is the creator of all that is. It wasn't a physical account of creation, in the modern sense, because such an idea wouldn't even have entered into the author's mental universe.

 

[ViaCrucis]

When reading genesis you read: Then God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.” And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day. 14 And God said, “Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth.” And it was so. 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.



But this recount is simply incorrect. You cannot have plants without the sun.They need the sun so that they can photosynthesise. I wanted a christian viewpoint on this and to see if christians believe this to be true or not.

Genesis 1 isn't intended to be read as a literal-historical account. Genesis 1 is a mytho-poetic account of creation with several theological motifs going on simultaneously.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[GrayAngel]

Christians believe that the serpent was Satan. If that part could be symbolic, why not the rest? Unless, of course, Satan literally took the form of a snake.