Our Sun is part of a Binary Star System: Fascinating to see what ancient religions understood

Halbhh · Dec 18, 2018

Gxg (G²) said:
You'd still have to leave out half the text to try arguing that and it would be out of order. As said before, Afolks try at any point to talk on dealing with all the verses and ignore what was noted in verse 14 of Genesis ("And God said, "Let there be lights in the dome of the sky to separate the day from the night; and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years, and let the be the lights in the DOME of the sky to give light upon the earth." And it was so. God made the two great lights - the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night - and the stars. God set them in the dome of the sky to give light upon the earth, to rule ove day and night, and to separate light from darkness.")

You can't jump from talking on morning/evening with the light meant rotation since that isn't in the full text itself. This is why folks have noted light could exist outside of darkness - without any of it meaning day and night had to happen immediately.

Like I said before, at the end of the day, I don't care to over-emphasize or minimize folks that prefer a Big Bang theory - I think multiverse theory has always made far more sense anyhow, as existence occurred way before Genesis which notes THIS one world where there was darkness and God brought light. There were always multiple dimensions and they have always intersected, which is why I tend to be skeptical when folks assume things happened ALL at once - and folks center entirely on Genesis instead of seeing what the worldview was in the Near-Eastern world as they explained more fully over time how God created things.

Sorry, my fault, but I was still trying to edit and write more clearly.

So I didn't finish until just now, if you'd look again. Sorry about that!

As you'll see, it's especially literal and precise to the actual wording of Genesis.

I don't add extra assumptions to the first 5 verses, but read the text as it is, and that's how I notice (by real listening) that God is saying all this creation is for us, for our sakes, to make us a very good home.

And as you can see if you read it now, it all fits together perfectly with also the 4th day of creation too, of course.

Gxg (G²) · Dec 18, 2018

Halbhh said:
Sorry, my fault, but I was still trying to edit and write more clearly.

So I didn't finish until just now, if you'd look again. Sorry about that!

As you'll see, it's espeically literal and precise to the actual wording of Genesis.

You're fine, although I saw the response - and again, as asked before, what Near-Eastern culture agrees with your sentiment when they in that culture did not have a scientific worldview on the issue? THat's the root of the issue and conjecture - this is what was said before when it was noted that trying to argue "Well the plain meaning of the text shows light in verse 3 is the sun" is still out of order.

I don't add extra assumptions to the first 5 verses, but read the text as it is, and that's how I notice (by real listening) that God is saying all this creation is for us, for our sakes, to make us a very good home.

And as you can see if you read it now, it all fits together perfectly with also the 4th day of creation too, of course.

But that's a separate event from the 'light' onto Earth in particular being referred to on the first special day of creation for Earth. That light (verse 3, 4) created a morning and evening -- which means a source of light shining onto the Earth from one side.

So in verse 1 we see the creation of the Universe (thus any big bang of course), and then later in verse 3 we see the first light onto the forming Earth (not only dim star light, but a brighter light) which makes sense to be from the sun beginning the day/night cycle (clouds hide the heavens from the surface of Earth point of view though early on), but these details aren't the point of the text, which is instead the reality that God created all that is, our home here also, and "it was very good" for us as our home.

Source of light shining on the Earth isn't the same as light GOVERNING on the world when God specifically said "LET THERE BE LIGHTS in the sky to separate day from the night"( verse 14).

So it's not a good argument nor are you dealing with the entire text trying to read more into Genesis 1:3 and ignoring the rest of the text/further in Biblical literature.

This is what was said before when I said MOST people I run into actually say they don't take Christians seriously if/when there's a wholesale attempt to say "Well this is in the text" when the authors were NOT speaking from a scientific perspective at all.

The message includes centrally that all that is is "very good" for us. God could have made an Earth in an empty void of space, with only a diffuse constant light all the time, for example. But that was not what He did we can see in the text, but instead He made a light that caused morning, day, evening, and night, as we read.

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.

This is why you need to read the ENTIRE text because stopping at verse 5 isn't reading the text of Genesis, which noted further that separate lights entirely happened. This is again implied in Job 38:19 that the sun was a separate existence from light itself - you have to deal with what Biblical authors meant in THEIR era and worldview.

Psalm 136:7-9 New International Version (NIV)
7 who made the great lights)"
His love endures forever.
8 the sun to govern the day,
His love endures forever.
9 the moon and stars to govern the night;
His love endures forever.

Genesis 1:14-18 New International Version (NIV)
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 the day and the lesser light to govern the night 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.

The sun was made to govern the existing light that already was present - it was never the sun itself that was the light in Genesis (and starts aren't the only source of light in the universe anyhow so that entire theory holds no weight). The sun was made WAY after light, no way around that if reading the full text and not trying to make a view from the first 4 verses alone since Biblical authors didn't say "We meant everything to be understood in the first verses." That's not honest.

We also know there's No Sun In The Future

As another noted best:

-"We must also note that the Bible says there will be light without the sun in the future New Jerusalem.

And there shall be no night there: They shall need no lamp nor light of the sun, for the Lord God gives them light. And they shall reign for ever and ever (Revelation 22:5)."

The sun shall no longer be your light by day, nor for brightness the moon shall give light to you; but the Lord will be your everlasting light (Isaiah 60:19).

Since there will be no need for the sun as a light source in the future, it is certainly possible that there was no need for the sun as a light source in the beginning.

Scientifically, there's zero reason assuming past the text that the sun AND light have to be the same thing. Light in the creation of the universe didn't always look like a single star - that's a basic. So have particles or mass bright that a dark earth revolves around is easily morning and evening - and consistent with the REST of Genesis, later the creation of the Sun and the moon make a difference.

Genesis+1%3A1-5%3A32-+Creation+Stories.jpg

I've started to think this kind of debate though kills faith for those seeking God who have not yet found Him. Because it makes it falsely appear as if Genesis is disproven by science, since people give versions of creation using assumptions not in the text about Genesis that are not like what we've discovered in the sciences.

So to the seekers not yet knowing God, many creationists unknowingly disprove God exists to these seekers by preaching their assumption based versions of Genesis 1.

Bible wise, there are way too many saying what bothers them is when folks take a text that is figurative on many levels and spiritual and trying to make a rule - that's why I said I don't on my sword for it and ignore the history of discussion in Christendom.

Folks don't walk away from Christ when seeing humble Christians that want to have discussion and not be so passionate their view HAS to be taken as what GOD is saying to all others. Like really? There are multiple scientific debates on Genesis - and it's application as well as other creation myths. The reality is that folks talking or disagreeing isn't new - so there needs to be humility.

Seekers of God finding God don't mean folks that turn to your view or others. And talking to plenty who came to God/noted what made them believe in the Creator, debates over the sun were the furthest thing from their mind.

So again, I'd rather deal with folks discussing science on a basic level and being honest with the background of Near Eastern culture.

Halbhh · Dec 18, 2018

Gxg (G²) said:
You're fine, although I saw the response - and again, as asked before, what Near-Eastern culture agrees with your sentiment when they in that culture did not have a scientific worldview on the issue?

Do you mean what were some of the cosmological viewpoints of some people at various times?

A variety I assume. I know for example that several centuries before Christ came, the greeks figured out the Earth was a spherical shape, and even the rough diameter of Earth (all just geometry using the angle of shadows during a certain time of day at two widely separated cities.)

But how are the various cosmological ideas of various people having anything to do with how we should understand Genesis chapter 1? In a vision, the meaning is profound, the message profound. It's profound things, not trivial stuff about geometry or how many years between A and B, of course, we are learning in Genesis.

I feel it's not practical and won't work for us to try to discuss 4 or 5 things at once. Perhaps pick one thing that seems most key, and I'm happy to discuss it with a fellow believer, who believes God created all that exists, as I do (or if you do not, I'm still willing to discuss, but if you don't believe that, please tell me.)

Gxg (G²) · Dec 18, 2018

Halbhh said:
Do you mean what were some of the cosmological viewpoints of some people at various times?

A variety I assume. I know for example that several centuries before Christ came, the greeks figured out the Earth was a spherical shape, and even the rough diameter of Earth (all just geometry using the angle of shadows during a certain time of day at two widely separated cities.

But how are the various cosmological ideas of various people having anything to do with how we should understand Genesis chapter 1? In a vision, the meaning is profound, the message profound. It's profound things, not trivial stuff about geometry or how many years between A and B, of course, we are learning in Genesis.

Seeing that folks FROM that culture have said over the centuries that their culture never assumed you needed the sun to be seen as the source of all light in the universe, it's problematic - and always will be - reading past the way a culture reads their own text. Bottom line.

This is why it will always be a problem if we don't deal with texts on the terms of the culture they come from. As said before, reading in Genesis only 5 verses and ignoring the 15th-18th verse where God said "Let us make LIGHTS IN THE SKY - one for the day and one for the night" and the Psalmists noted the SUN/MOON were those lights made separate - you don't skip past that. The same goes for the bottom line fact that an Eastern worldview had several understandings of physics and the Heavens - including noting that light doesn't come from stars alone, just as it'll be in the end:

And there shall be no night there: They shall need no lamp nor light of the sun, for the Lord God gives them light. And they shall reign for ever and ever (Revelation 22:5)."

The sun shall no longer be your light by day, nor for brightness the moon shall give light to you; but the Lord will be your everlasting light (Isaiah 60:19).

Since there will be no need for the sun as a light source in the future, it is certainly possible that there was no need for the sun as a light source in the beginning. And this is something they noted when noting that light as a concept was never just a PHYSICAL thing limited to a start. On day one he created light, on day four, he created the lights that become the means by which light is transmitted and we see He attaches the light to stellar bodies.

Folks already knew the Sun and Moon were made separate - on later days - from Light AS A concept:

Psalm 136:7-9 New International Version (NIV)
7 who made the great lights)"
His love endures forever.
8 the sun to govern the day,
His love endures forever.
9 the moon and stars to govern the night;
His love endures forever.

Genesis 1:14-18 New International Version (NIV)
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 the day and the lesser light to govern the night 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.

Talking about how folks in their culture understood THEIR text has everything to do with it, as to avoid that would be like someone saying God making man to have dominion over the birds of the sky HAS to mean mankind had wings once/evolved - you can't read backwards.

It's a Near Eastern worldview the text of Genesis was written from. They determine what the Cosmology means and its limitations.

In a vision, the meaning is profound, the message profound. It's profound things, not trivial stuff about geometry or how many years between A and B, of course, we are learning in Genesis.

Talking on visions has limits, especially considering how many times the authors had repeatedly said we learn things from the WHOLE of God's Word and ALL of the prophets - not one or two.

Moses was not the only one we learn from on Biblical Cosmology.

I feel it's not practical and won't work for us to try to discuss 4 or 5 things at once...

Perhaps pick one thing that seems most key, and

No one was discussing four or five things, as the focus of the OP was Binary Star Systems (which I as the author of a thread am about to bring the topic back into focus again). And what was discussed was GENESIS - the ENTIRE chapter with the CREATION account and what the Biblical prophets/teachers said in consistency, from the Psalms to the writings and so forth - basic. It's not practical making a worldview from one verse and then trying to say it's a lot when there's one focus.

So there's no need for a false argument as if several things were discussed at once when the focus was on Cosmology itself, Biblical Genres with Genesis and seeing how stars/sources of light itself are developed. As the argument you made entirely centered on trying to say the SUN is where all sources of light in Genesis came from, scientifically I challenged that since that's not science to say the sun is the only source of light.

You haven't discussed verses 16-18 of Genesis (saying separate lights were made at THAT point - sun and the moon) or the rest of what the Biblical prophets said to remphasize that - so no, you're not dealing with Genesis. And as said before, I'm not going to fall on my sword over a view not established in the NEar Eastern culture and it will never be discussion if/when there's no consistency shown with the culture a text comes from.

As it is, the original discussion was on Binary Star Systems - I'm happy to discuss that but discussion (if wanting to debate Genesis and the sun/light) was already occurring. I am focusing on what the authors of that culture Genesis came from are saying.

I'm happy to discuss it with a fellow believer, who believes God created all that exists, as I do (or if you do not, I'm still willing to discuss, but if you don't believe that, please tell me.)

As I already have said I believe in Christ and the Creator, it's a bit presumptious if assuming the entire discussion that others disagreeing with you HAVEN'T encountered Christ or don't believe in God - and that needs to stop. What I said as stated before is that there have always been debates on Genesis with how a cosmological text from Near Eastern culture would apply to science - been that way for centuries - and those believing the universe had a Creator don't all see the same assumptions.

Bottom line: If you are insistent your view IS the text of Genesis, then one must deal with Genesis 14-18 and other Psalmist in the scriptures - not just 2-3 verses in the beginning. And read through. Otherwise, you're jumping - and that's not gonna do.

Halbhh · Dec 18, 2018

Gxg (G²) said:
As said before, reading in Genesis only 5 verses and ignoring the 15th-18th verse

The 4th day, when the Sun and Moon and Stars appear, is a central part of what this answer is about below.

It will help to know I don't even ignore 1 verse.

But rely on every verse, and all the words, all.

I'm so sorry I didn't have post #59 fully finished the right way the first time! Really.

This answer is especially focused on putting together the time before day 1 on Earth, and day 1 on Earth, and especially day 4, where God tells us the Sun, Moon and Stars are good for us, pleasant for our use.

How do they fit together? Answer: perfectly and simply.

"In the beginning God created the heavens (the Universe) and the Earth" meaning of course all the Universe and the baby Earth.

The just made Earth was in darkness at first (as the text tells us). Verse 2. (see scripture verses below)

Then light comes that isn't the big bang certainly (because the big bang was the creation of the Unverse, which has already occured before verse 3.

What about that 'light' onto Earth in particular being referred to on the first special day of creation for Earth?

That light (verse 3, 4) created a morning and evening -- which means a source of light shining onto the Earth from one side, with the rotating Earth then causing a night and day cycle. This is simply the simplest way to suppose these unstated aspects about the light.

So in verse 1 we see the creation of the Universe (thus any big bang of course), and then later in verse 3 we see the first light onto the forming Earth (not only dim star light, but a brighter light) which makes sense to be from the sun beginning the day/night cycle (clouds hide the heavens from the surface of Earth point of view though early on), but these kinds of mere geometry and physics details aren't the key message of the text, which is instead the reality that God created all that is, our home here also, and "it was very good" for us as our home. The message includes centrally that all that is is "very good" for us.

God could have made an Earth in an empty void of space, with only a diffuse constant light all the time, for example. But that was not what He did we can see in the text, but instead He made a light that caused morning, day, evening, and night, as we read.

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.

So this view is simply in keeping with the text, understanding that in the vision given Moses, the heavens were not at first visible at first, so we can presume they are obscured by cloudiness from the point of view which is from the surface of Earth, even though the day/night cycle has fully started, perfectly, meaning the sun is shining onto Earth, which is rotating, as it always has.

I've started to think this kind of debate though kills faith for those seeking God who have not yet found Him.

Because most people that post on it have a specific view based on some assumptions not in Genesis, which also contradict what people feel are known facts.

So, most people are explaining it in a way that makes it appear as if Genesis contradicts known stuff in science.

What's the gain in that?

Answer: for those seeking to find God, gain faith -- no gain at all.

They need the gospel message instead.

Gxg (G²) · Dec 18, 2018

Halbhh said:
The 4th day, when the Sun and Moon and Stars appear, is a central part of what this answer is about below.

It will help to know I don't even ignore 1 verse.

But rely on every verse, and all the words, all.

I'm so sorry I didn't have post #59 fully finished the right way the first time! Really.

This answer is especially focused on putting together the time before day 1 on Earth, and day 1 on Earth, and especially day 4, where God tells us the Sun, Moon and Stars are good for us, pleasant for our use.

How do they fit together? Answer: perfectly and simply.

"In the beginning God created the heavens (the Universe) and the Earth" meaning of course all the Universe and the baby Earth.

The just made Earth was in darkness at first (as the text tells us). Verse 2. (see scripture verses below)

Then light comes that isn't the big bang certainly (because the big bang was the creation of the Unverse, which has already occured before verse 3.

What about that 'light' onto Earth in particular being referred to on the first special day of creation for Earth?

That light (verse 3, 4) created a morning and evening -- which means a source of light shining onto the Earth from one side, with the rotating Earth then causing a night and day cycle. This is simply the simplest way to suppose these unstated aspects about the light.

So in verse 1 we see the creation of the Universe (thus any big bang of course), and then later in verse 3 we see the first light onto the forming Earth (not only dim star light, but a brighter light) which makes sense to be from the sun beginning the day/night cycle (clouds hide the heavens from the surface of Earth point of view though early on), but these kinds of mere geometry and physics details aren't the key message of the text, which is instead the reality that God created all that is, our home here also, and "it was very good" for us as our home. The message includes centrally that all that is is "very good" for us.

God could have made an Earth in an empty void of space, with only a diffuse constant light all the time, for example. But that was not what He did we can see in the text, but instead He made a light that caused morning, day, evening, and night, as we read.

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.

So this view is simply in keeping with the text, understanding that in the vision given Moses, the heavens were not at first visible at first, so we can presume they are obscured by cloudiness from the point of view which is from the surface of Earth, even though the day/night cycle has fully started, perfectly, meaning the sun is shining onto Earth, which is rotating, as it always has.

I've started to think this kind of debate though kills faith for those seeking God who have not yet found Him.

Because most people that post on it have a specific view based on some assumptions not in Genesis, which also contradict what people feel are known facts.

So, most people are explaining it in a way that makes it appear as if Genesis contradicts known stuff in science.

What's the gain in that?

Answer: for those seeking to find God, gain faith -- no gain at all.

They need the gospel message instead.

Again - jumping around the text isn't dealing with the text, nor does it deal with the simple reality that NO ONE in the system of Judaism Genesis was written from has ever said the Sun WAS what was made in FIRST FIVE verses.

Again, talking about the sun having to be the first light in Genesis 1:3 ISN'T in Genesis 1:3 and conjecture entirely. This is something also not noted by anyone in Judaic culture or Near-Eastern culture - you deal with the text/its culture on its own term so that the author of a text is understood in terms the people understood in that era.

Psalm 136:7-9 New International Version (NIV)
7 who made the great lights)"
His love endures forever.
8 the sun to govern the day,
His love endures forever.
9 the moon and stars to govern the night;
His love endures forever.

Genesis 1:14-18 New International Version (NIV)
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 the day and the lesser light to govern the night 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.

As said before, a Biblical worldview sees what a people in a culture have felt across time - and at no point have you addressed where the folks have said in that culture the sun and light aren't the same. Period.

And God said, "Let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters." And God made the expanse and separated the waters that were under the expanse from the waters that were above the expanse. And it was so. And God called the expanse Heaven.[c] And there was evening and there was morning, the second day.
Genesis 1:6-8 ESV

And 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, and let them be lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light upon the earth." And it was so. And God made the two great lights—the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night—and the stars. And God set them in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth, to rule over the day and over the night, and to separate the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good. And there was evening and there was morning, the fourth day. Genesis 1:14-19 ESV

The same goes for the bottom line fact that an Eastern worldview had several understandings of physics and the Heavens - including noting that light doesn't come from stars alone, just as it'll be in the end:

And there shall be no night there: They shall need no lamp nor light of the sun, for the Lord God gives them light. And they shall reign for ever and ever (Revelation 22:5)."

The sun shall no longer be your light by day, nor for brightness the moon shall give light to you; but the Lord will be your everlasting light (Isaiah 60:19).

Since there will be no need for the sun as a light source in the future, it is certainly possible that there was no need for the sun as a light source in the beginning. And this is something they noted when noting that light as a concept was never just a PHYSICAL thing limited to a start. On day one he created light, on day four, he created the lights that become the means by which light is transmitted and we see He attaches the light to stellar bodies.

o this view is simply in keeping with the text, understanding that in the vision given Moses, the heavens were not at first visible at first, so we can presume they are obscured by cloudiness from the point of view which is from the surface of Earth, even though the day/night cycle has fully started, perfectly, meaning the sun is shining onto Earth, which is rotating, as it always has.

Asserting "vision given by Moses" again argues past what was understood in that cultures with visions being COLLECTIVE - and being centered on the community of the PROPHETS and ALL OTHER BIBLICAL writers.

This is why it does violence to the text a culture makes when talking on something they never said: It was never said MOSES alone was the one who understood how creation occurred. This is why the nation of ISrael continued to BUILD upon ideas and noted the sun was separate from LIGHT itself.

For a good review:

Historical-Critical Approach:
Separating between Daylight and Sunlight

The key to any critical explanation of the text is that the author of Gen 1 is trying to explain the world as he sees it. It is often difficult for modern readers, familiar with contemporary scientific notions, to put these aside and enter the mind of an ancient cosmologist, but once we do the answer is, quite literally, as clear as the blue sky.[8]

The Bright Blue Sky: The Tyndall effect
Why is the sky blue during the daytime? The scientific answer is that molecules of air in the atmosphere scatter blue light from the sun. At night, when the earth is facing away from the sun, there is no light to scatter and the sky is black. The scattering of light by the atmosphere is called the Tyndall effect, named after the scientist John Tyndall who first suggested this mechanism in 1859.

But the ancient cosmologist was living in a different world than Tyndall. In his conception, the earth is the center of the universe, and the sun, moon and stars travel above it, in the firmament. When this ancient cosmologist asked himself why the day-time sky is blue, his answer was because there is light in the heavenly water above the firmament. As he would have seen from earth, water is blue and thus when the light enters the water, the sky looks blue. When the light leaves the water and darkness creeps in, it is black.

The light and darkness in this conception should be pictured as diffuse physical substances that permeate the waters of the heavens. The sun, in this conception, is a totally separate light. Richard Elliott Friedman, in his gloss on v. 15, describes this view in the following manner:

Note that daylight is not understood here to derive from the sun. The text understands the light that surrounds us in the daytime to be an independent creation of God, which has already taken place on the first day. The sun, moon, and stars are understood here to be light sources—like a lamp or torch, only stronger. Their purpose is also to be markers of time: days, years, appointed occasions.[9]

Moshe Weinfeld (1925-2009), in his commentary on Genesis (1:3), offers the same overall reading:

האור בלתי תלוי במאורות שנבראו ביום רביעי, בהתאם להשקפה הרווחת בימים ההם, כי האור כחשך יש להם קיום עצמאי במקומות נסתרים המקצים להם (איוב לח, יט-כ).
The light is not dependent on the lights created on the fourth day, in accordance with the viewpoint popular during that period that light and darkness are independent entities that exist in hidden places [of the heavens] dedicated to them (Job 39:19-20).[10]
The text to which Weinfeld calls the readers’ attention is God’s speech to Job:

איוב לח:יב הְמִיָּמֶיךָ צִוִּיתָ בֹּקֶר (ידעתה שחר) [יִדַּעְתָּ הַשַּׁחַר] מְקֹמוֹ… לח:יחהִתְבֹּנַנְתָּ עַד רַחֲבֵי אָרֶץ הַגֵּד אִם יָדַעְתָּ כֻלָּהּ. לח:יט אֵי זֶה הַדֶּרֶךְ יִשְׁכָּן אוֹר וְחֹשֶׁךְ אֵי זֶה מְקֹמוֹ. לח:כ כִּי תִקָּחֶנּוּ אֶל גְּבוּלוֹ וְכִי תָבִין נְתִיבוֹת בֵּיתוֹ.
Job 38:12 Have you ever commanded the day to break, assigned the dawn its place…38:18 Have you surveyed the expanses of the earth? If you know of these — tell Me. 38:19Which path leads to where light dwells, and where is the place of darkness, 38:20 That you may take it to its domain and know the way to its home?
God here asks Job whether he knows where light and darkness are stored, implying that these two substances are discrete entities in and of themselves. When one is spread out in the heavens, the other is sitting in its appointed spot awaiting its turn.

A Sumerian Creation Story with Glowing Heavens

The view of light and darkness as physical entities that cause day and night can be found in at least one ANE text as well. In a fragmentary Sumerian tablet (NBC 11108) from Nippur during the Ur III period (21st cent. BCE), we find the following:

When Anu, the lord, made heaven shine, made earth dark… Heaven and earth he held together as one… Day did not shine; in night, heaven stretched forth. Earth, bringing forth plant life did not glow on its own…[11]

The text describes the Sumerian high god Anu’s creation of the world. When Anu separates heaven and earth, the heavens shine but the earth does not. In other words, when the heavens and earth were combined in the primordial mush, there was perpetual night. By separating the heavens from the earth, Anu also separates light from darkness.

Wayne Horowitz notes the parallel with Genesis:

In NBC 11108:8, as in Genesis, where day exists before the creation of the sun, moon, and stars, the heavens are conceived to have had their own glow, irrespective of the presence of luminaries. [12]

The Function of the Sun, Moon, and Stars
According to Genesis 1

If day and night are controlled by the entry and exit of the primordial light and darkness into the watery heavens, what is the sun for? The Torah lists three functions.

1. Light

The text equates the function of the sun with that of the moon and stars. These latter do provide some light during the night but they certainly do not light up the sky. The same is true of the sun, in the Torah’s conception. The sun adds light (and warmth) to the already independently existing daylight, but even without the sun, the sky would be blue and the daytime light.

2. Ruling the Day and Night

We think of stars and planets as inanimate objects, but the ancients thought of them as sentient beings—they move in consistent patterns so how could they not be?—and generally worshiped them as gods. By describing the sun, moon, and stars as created objects, the Torah denies their divinity, but this does not mean that the author of Genesis one did not share the idea that they were alive and powerful beings, perhaps part of God’s heavenly court. Thus, the Torah seems to mean what it says when it writes that the sun and moon were created to dominate or rule (מ.ש.ל) the day and the night.

3. Divide between Light and Darkness

Finally, the celestial lights divide between day and night in a symbolic way. Their existence does not help divide between light and dark in a physical way; both are lights. Rather, the Torah intends to say that the bigger luminary, the sun, symbolizes the daytime, over which it rules, and the moon symbolizes the night, over which it rules.

I've started to think this kind of debate though kills faith for those seeking God who have not yet found Him.

Because most people that post on it have a specific view based on some assumptions not in Genesis, which also contradict what people feel are known facts.

So, most people are explaining it in a way that makes it appear as if Genesis contradicts known stuff in science.

What's the gain in that?

Answer: for those seeking to find God, gain faith -- no gain at all.

They need the gospel message instead.

And as said before, seeing the amount of folks who do follow Christ and are followers of God, disagreeing doesn't mean folks aren't following God - that's a lot of assumptions on your part.

That's also a reflection of assuming anyone disagreeing with you isn't following Genesis and that's not the testimony of many who came to find Christ - to know God exists - and appreciate the text even as they disagree. Thus, do not be dramatic please - the fact of the matter is that you've not referenced science on several points, so disagreeing with you as many have doesn't mean that folks believe Genesis does not support science.

What it means is folks disagree with your assertions, based on what they've seen and understood scientifically.

And trying to argue past that is trying to spiritualize disagreement as if folks don't trust God - false argument and false scenario.

If you want to talk on the Gospel, you point to Christ (and you've not done that, thus leading to one asking what EXACTLY do you believe about the Gospel of Christ?) - this has been noted by the Early Church for ages as well as by Christians for centuries.

Disagreeing with you about your view or sentiments on Genesis is NOT the same as not believing the Gospel OR not believing there's a Creator - that's what cults do and others not interacting with others across the Body of Christ.

Gxg (G²) · Dec 18, 2018

Gxg (G²) said:
Again - jumping around the text isn't dealing with the text, nor does it deal with the simple reality that NO ONE in the system of Judaism Genesis was written from has ever said the Sun WAS what was made in FIRST FIVE verses.

You're jumping.

Psalm 136:7-9 New International Version (NIV)
7 who made the great lights)"
His love endures forever.
8 the sun to govern the day,
His love endures forever.
9 the moon and stars to govern the night;
His love endures forever.

Genesis 1:14-18 New International Version (NIV)
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 the day and the lesser light to govern the night 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.

As said before, a Biblical worldview sees what a people in a culture have felt across time - and at no point have you addressed where the folks have said in that culture the sun and light aren't the same. Period.

The same goes for the bottom line fact that an Eastern worldview had several understandings of physics and the Heavens - including noting that light doesn't come from stars alone, just as it'll be in the end:

And there shall be no night there: They shall need no lamp nor light of the sun, for the Lord God gives them light. And they shall reign for ever and ever (Revelation 22:5)."

The sun shall no longer be your light by day, nor for brightness the moon shall give light to you; but the Lord will be your everlasting light (Isaiah 60:19).

Since there will be no need for the sun as a light source in the future, it is certainly possible that there was no need for the sun as a light source in the beginning. And this is something they noted when noting that light as a concept was never just a PHYSICAL thing limited to a start. On day one he created light, on day four, he created the lights that become the means by which light is transmitted and we see He attaches the light to stellar bodies.

Light has always come from MULTIPLE SOURCES in the universe - not just stars - and that's a basic in science. It is also what folks in Judaism and Near-Eastern culture have always understood.

This is a basic. Even Black Holes produce light. As a reference:

A black hole itself does not give off any light. That is why it is called black. However, matter that is near a black hole can give off light in response to the black hole's gravity.

A black hole is a region of space where gravity is so strong that nothing can escape, not even light. It might be surprising to you to hear that gravity can affect light even though light has no mass. If gravity obeyed Newton's law of universal gravitation, then gravity would indeed have no effect on light. However, gravity obeys a more modern set of laws known as Einstein's general theory of relativity. According to general relativity, gravity is actually caused by a curving of space and time. Since light travels in a straight line through straight spacetime, the curving of spacetime causes light to follow a curved path. The gravitational curvature of light's path is a weak enough effect that we don't notice it much on earth. However, when gravity is very strong, the bending of light's path becomes significant. A black hole is a region where spacetime is so curved that every possible path which light could take eventually curves and leads back inside the black hole. As a result, once a ray of light enters a black hole, it can never exit. For this reason, a black hole is truly black and never emits light.

However, this restriction only applies to points inside the black hole. Light that is near a black hole, but not actually inside it, can certainly escape away to the rest of the universe. This effect is in fact what enables us to indirectly "see" black holes. For instance, there is a supermassive black hole at the center of our galaxy. If you point a high-power telescope exactly at the center of our galaxy and zoom way in, you don't see anything. A black hole by itself is truly black. However, the black hole's gravity is so strong that it causes several nearby stars to orbit the black hole. Since these stars are actually outside of the black hole, the light from these stars can reach earth just fine. When scientists pointed a high-power telescope at the center of our galaxy for several years, what they saw was several bright stars orbiting around the same blank spot. This result indicated that the spot is the location of a supermassive black hole.

Halbhh · Dec 18, 2018

Gxg (G²) said:
Again - jumping around the text isn't dealing with the text, nor does it deal with the simple reality that NO ONE in the system of Judaism Genesis was written from has ever said the Sun WAS what was made in FIRST FIVE verses.

Again, talking about the sun having to be the first light in Genesis 1:3 ISN'T in Genesis 1:3 and conjecture entirely. This is something also not noted by anyone in Judaic culture or Near-Eastern culture - you deal with the text/its culture on its own term so that the author of a text is understood in terms the people understood in that era.

Psalm 136:7-9 New International Version (NIV)
7 who made the great lights)"
His love endures forever.
8 the sun to govern the day,
His love endures forever.
9 the moon and stars to govern the night;
His love endures forever.

Genesis 1:14-18 New International Version (NIV)
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 the day and the lesser light to govern the night 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.

As said before, a Biblical worldview sees what a people in a culture have felt across time - and at no point have you addressed where the folks have said in that culture the sun and light aren't the same. Period.

And God said, "Let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters." And God made the expanse and separated the waters that were under the expanse from the waters that were above the expanse. And it was so. And God called the expanse Heaven.[c] And there was evening and there was morning, the second day.
Genesis 1:6-8 ESV

And 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, and let them be lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light upon the earth." And it was so. And God made the two great lights—the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night—and the stars. And God set them in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth, to rule over the day and over the night, and to separate the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good. And there was evening and there was morning, the fourth day. Genesis 1:14-19 ESV

The same goes for the bottom line fact that an Eastern worldview had several understandings of physics and the Heavens - including noting that light doesn't come from stars alone, just as it'll be in the end:

And there shall be no night there: They shall need no lamp nor light of the sun, for the Lord God gives them light. And they shall reign for ever and ever (Revelation 22:5)."

The sun shall no longer be your light by day, nor for brightness the moon shall give light to you; but the Lord will be your everlasting light (Isaiah 60:19).

Since there will be no need for the sun as a light source in the future, it is certainly possible that there was no need for the sun as a light source in the beginning. And this is something they noted when noting that light as a concept was never just a PHYSICAL thing limited to a start. On day one he created light, on day four, he created the lights that become the means by which light is transmitted and we see He attaches the light to stellar bodies.

Asserting "vision given by Moses" again argues past what was understood in that cultures with visions being COLLECTIVE - and being centered on the community of the PROPHETS and ALL OTHER BIBLICAL writers.

This is why it does violence to the text a culture makes when talking on something they never said: It was never said MOSES alone was the one who understood how creation occurred. This is why the nation of ISrael continued to BUILD upon ideas and noted the sun was separate from LIGHT itself.

For a good review:

Historical-Critical Approach:
Separating between Daylight and Sunlight

The key to any critical explanation of the text is that the author of Gen 1 is trying to explain the world as he sees it. It is often difficult for modern readers, familiar with contemporary scientific notions, to put these aside and enter the mind of an ancient cosmologist, but once we do the answer is, quite literally, as clear as the blue sky.[8]

The Bright Blue Sky: The Tyndall effect
Why is the sky blue during the daytime? The scientific answer is that molecules of air in the atmosphere scatter blue light from the sun. At night, when the earth is facing away from the sun, there is no light to scatter and the sky is black. The scattering of light by the atmosphere is called the Tyndall effect, named after the scientist John Tyndall who first suggested this mechanism in 1859.

But the ancient cosmologist was living in a different world than Tyndall. In his conception, the earth is the center of the universe, and the sun, moon and stars travel above it, in the firmament. When this ancient cosmologist asked himself why the day-time sky is blue, his answer was because there is light in the heavenly water above the firmament. As he would have seen from earth, water is blue and thus when the light enters the water, the sky looks blue. When the light leaves the water and darkness creeps in, it is black.

The light and darkness in this conception should be pictured as diffuse physical substances that permeate the waters of the heavens. The sun, in this conception, is a totally separate light. Richard Elliott Friedman, in his gloss on v. 15, describes this view in the following manner:

Note that daylight is not understood here to derive from the sun. The text understands the light that surrounds us in the daytime to be an independent creation of God, which has already taken place on the first day. The sun, moon, and stars are understood here to be light sources—like a lamp or torch, only stronger. Their purpose is also to be markers of time: days, years, appointed occasions.[9]

Moshe Weinfeld (1925-2009), in his commentary on Genesis (1:3), offers the same overall reading:

האור בלתי תלוי במאורות שנבראו ביום רביעי, בהתאם להשקפה הרווחת בימים ההם, כי האור כחשך יש להם קיום עצמאי במקומות נסתרים המקצים להם (איוב לח, יט-כ).
The light is not dependent on the lights created on the fourth day, in accordance with the viewpoint popular during that period that light and darkness are independent entities that exist in hidden places [of the heavens] dedicated to them (Job 39:19-20).[10]
The text to which Weinfeld calls the readers’ attention is God’s speech to Job:

איוב לח:יב הְמִיָּמֶיךָ צִוִּיתָ בֹּקֶר (ידעתה שחר) [יִדַּעְתָּ הַשַּׁחַר] מְקֹמוֹ… לח:יחהִתְבֹּנַנְתָּ עַד רַחֲבֵי אָרֶץ הַגֵּד אִם יָדַעְתָּ כֻלָּהּ. לח:יט אֵי זֶה הַדֶּרֶךְ יִשְׁכָּן אוֹר וְחֹשֶׁךְ אֵי זֶה מְקֹמוֹ. לח:כ כִּי תִקָּחֶנּוּ אֶל גְּבוּלוֹ וְכִי תָבִין נְתִיבוֹת בֵּיתוֹ.
Job 38:12 Have you ever commanded the day to break, assigned the dawn its place…38:18 Have you surveyed the expanses of the earth? If you know of these — tell Me. 38:19Which path leads to where light dwells, and where is the place of darkness, 38:20 That you may take it to its domain and know the way to its home?
God here asks Job whether he knows where light and darkness are stored, implying that these two substances are discrete entities in and of themselves. When one is spread out in the heavens, the other is sitting in its appointed spot awaiting its turn.

A Sumerian Creation Story with Glowing Heavens

The view of light and darkness as physical entities that cause day and night can be found in at least one ANE text as well. In a fragmentary Sumerian tablet (NBC 11108) from Nippur during the Ur III period (21st cent. BCE), we find the following:

When Anu, the lord, made heaven shine, made earth dark… Heaven and earth he held together as one… Day did not shine; in night, heaven stretched forth. Earth, bringing forth plant life did not glow on its own…[11]

The text describes the Sumerian high god Anu’s creation of the world. When Anu separates heaven and earth, the heavens shine but the earth does not. In other words, when the heavens and earth were combined in the primordial mush, there was perpetual night. By separating the heavens from the earth, Anu also separates light from darkness.

Wayne Horowitz notes the parallel with Genesis:

In NBC 11108:8, as in Genesis, where day exists before the creation of the sun, moon, and stars, the heavens are conceived to have had their own glow, irrespective of the presence of luminaries. [12]

The Function of the Sun, Moon, and Stars
According to Genesis 1

If day and night are controlled by the entry and exit of the primordial light and darkness into the watery heavens, what is the sun for? The Torah lists three functions.

1. Light

The text equates the function of the sun with that of the moon and stars. These latter do provide some light during the night but they certainly do not light up the sky. The same is true of the sun, in the Torah’s conception. The sun adds light (and warmth) to the already independently existing daylight, but even without the sun, the sky would be blue and the daytime light.

2. Ruling the Day and Night

We think of stars and planets as inanimate objects, but the ancients thought of them as sentient beings—they move in consistent patterns so how could they not be?—and generally worshiped them as gods. By describing the sun, moon, and stars as created objects, the Torah denies their divinity, but this does not mean that the author of Genesis one did not share the idea that they were alive and powerful beings, perhaps part of God’s heavenly court. Thus, the Torah seems to mean what it says when it writes that the sun and moon were created to dominate or rule (מ.ש.ל) the day and the night.

3. Divide between Light and Darkness

Finally, the celestial lights divide between day and night in a symbolic way. Their existence does not help divide between light and dark in a physical way; both are lights. Rather, the Torah intends to say that the bigger luminary, the sun, symbolizes the daytime, over which it rules, and the moon symbolizes the night, over which it rules.

And as said before, seeing the amount of folks who do follow Christ and are followers of God, disagreeing doesn't mean folks aren't following God - that's a lot of assumptions on your part.

That's also a reflection of assuming anyone disagreeing with you isn't following Genesis and that's not the testimony of many who came to find Christ - to know God exists - and appreciate the text even as they disagree. Thus, do not be dramatic please - the fact of the matter is that you've not referenced science on several points, so disagreeing with you as many have doesn't mean that folks believe Genesis does not support science.

What it means is folks disagree with your assertions, based on what they've seen and understood scientifically.

And trying to argue past that is trying to spiritualize disagreement as if folks don't trust God - false argument and false scenario.

If you want to talk on the Gospel, you point to Christ (and you've not done that, thus leading to one asking what EXACTLY do you believe about the Gospel of Christ?) - this has been noted by the Early Church for ages as well as by Christians for centuries.

Disagreeing with you about your view or sentiments on Genesis is NOT the same as not believing the Gospel OR not believing there's a Creator - that's what cults do and others not interacting with others across the Body of Christ.

I possibly have more faith than you are accustomed to. I believe God created all that is, and Christ came and died for our sins, and rose again, literally, and is alive right now, and only through faith in Him, alone, can we be forgiven all our sins as we repent and rely on Him.

Gxg (G²) · Dec 18, 2018

Halbhh said:
I possibly have more faith than you are accustomed to.

BEING accustomed isn't a concern of mine, having followed Christ - seen miracles/healings and God opening doors and working with believers across multiple groups (be it Orthodox or Catholic, as I grew up as, or Pentecostal/Charismatic and so forth) - that has never been hidden so any kind of attempt in ASSUMING someone doesn't know Christ/not accustomed to faith because they don't follow or agree with all you say is off.

It'd be like talking to Orthodox Christians (as you have) or Pentecostals and assuming they don't have faith because they don't agree with you - OR making it out as if others who came to know Christ/believe in God aren't real due to disagreement with you, despite their testimonies when they studied Genesis...saw the consistency of it...and still disagreed with differing views while falling in love with the Creator.

No one is superior here, so please do not try to even argue such. That's dramatic for no reason, IMHO.

If discussing science and light in Genesis, one can deal with science which notes that light has MULTIPLE sources and has never simply been the sun or stars that make them - light comes from types of radiation, BLACK Holes and so forth - and your argument from Genesis (which you claim disagreeing with means not believing the Gospel) is lacking when trying to argue an assumption you've yet to prove true scientifically. Others who do follow God and used to be atheists have called that out before when saying they read the Bible, as scientists, and it wasn't a leap noting that the Sun and LIGHT itself as a concept are not the same.

I believe God created all that is, and Christ came and died for our sins, and rose again, literally, and is alive right now, and only through faith in Him, alone, can we be forgiven all our sins as we repent and rely on Him.

Amen - and none of that has anything to do with why others don't follow God when they see Genesis, AS there were always debates in the Early Church on the issues - and disagreement on the Cosmology of events had little to do with whether you believed in the Gospel of Christ.

This is something we've discussed in the Orthodox forum before and many other places when speaking on science.

Halbhh · Dec 18, 2018

It seems you agree with me a lot more than you realize -- you are perfectly stating some of my realities. I've had several miracles in my life, a couple of them just jaw dropping. Some of my most close Christian friends online include the Orthodox and the Penecostal. (but don't stop at just 2 groups for me)

But you write long posts, and I cannot productively discuss 7 or 10 different things at once, but just 1 or 2 at once, friend!

Halbhh · Dec 18, 2018

Gxg (G²) said:
BEING accustomed isn't a concern of mine, having followed Christ - seen miracles/healings and God opening doors and working with believers across multiple groups (be it Orthodox or Catholic, as I grew up as, or Pentecostal/Charismatic and so forth) - that has never been hidden so any kind of attempt in ASSUMING someone doesn't know Christ/not accustomed to faith because they don't follow or agree with all you say is off.

It'd be like talking to Orthodox Christians (as you have) or Pentecostals and assuming they don't have faith because they don't agree with you - OR making it out as if others who came to know Christ/believe in God aren't real due to disagreement with you, despite their testimonies when they studied Genesis...saw the consistency of it...and still disagreed with differing views while falling in love with the Creator.

No one is superior here, so please do not try to even argue such. That's dramatic for no reason, IMHO.

If discussing science and light in Genesis, one can deal with science which notes that light has MULTIPLE sources and has never simply been the sun or stars that make them - light comes from types of radiation, BLACK Holes and so forth - and your argument from Genesis (which you claim disagreeing with means not believing the Gospel) is lacking when trying to argue an assumption you've yet to prove true scientifically. Others who do follow God and used to be atheists have called that out before when saying they read the Bible, as scientists, and it wasn't a leap noting that the Sun and LIGHT itself as a concept are not the same.

Amen - and none of that has anything to do with why others don't follow God when they see Genesis, AS there were always debates in the Early Church on the issues - and disagreement on the Cosmology of events had little to do with whether you believed in the Gospel of Christ.

This is something we've discussed in the Orthodox forum before and many other places when speaking on science.

Friend (if you are a believer then you are my brother, and I accept you in total acceptance with love, as a believer), I can better talk about 1 or 2 things at a time. For us, perhaps best exactly 1 thing alone at a time, and no more. For instance, if you wish to ask what I understand about day 4 in Genesis 1, I'll be happy to discuss that by itself. In a very one-step-at-a-time way.

Gxg (G²) · Dec 18, 2018

Halbhh said:
It seems you agree with me a lot more than you realize -- you are perfectly stating some of my realities. I've had several miracles in my life, a couple of them just jaw dropping. Some of my most close Christian friends online include the Orthodox and the Penecostal. (but don't stop at just 2 groups for me)

None of that has anything to do with what was stated when making a false scenario claiming that others who follow Christ and believe in a BIG Bang concept (with verse 3) cause others to not follow God, seeing how many I've seen up close who were scientists noting the same or saying "The sun is not the source of light God made at the beginning" - I don't tell folks they don't believe the Gospel if they believe in Big Bang or so forth.

But you write long posts

When/if you make a standard, it's inconsiderate trying to appear in ANY way as if you were different.

You already wrote several (and have done so on several occasions that others took time to process) as seen here ( Our Sun is part of a Binary Star System: Fascinating to see what ancient religions understood ) and here ( Our Sun is part of a Binary Star System: Fascinating to see what ancient religions understood
) and elsewhere. Plenty of others - folks who are quick processors can handle it and it took me a minute to read/re-read what you said.

So I'd respectfully appreciate it if you'd leave arguments of ridicule aside snd inconsistency when others disagree with you. You didn't deal with Genesis 1:16-18 or Psalm 136:7-9 or Revelation 22:5 or Isaiah 60:19 ( all of which discuss the SUN and Stars being separate from LIGHT itself as a concept in the universe) - and you didn't address at any point what folks in Judaism and Near-Eastern culture see on Genesis, which is not small since Near Eastern cultures by NATURE addressed several things at once in the same issue - they never just talked on Genesis (if asking about what birds are like) and focused on the one verse in Genesis to make an idea while ignoring what their Prophets and leaders said over the centuries afterward in the Tanak.

Thus, you're not dealing with the Biblical text on its own terms - and need to focus. Near Eastern cultures/worldviews are part of my background with study - so that is going to come into discussion when referencing the culture/text as we do with Biblical Studies. TO avoid that...It's not productive nor helpful. If we're going to talk on the text, one can do so - and to be clear, you brought up the subject earlier in the thread when I talked on Binary Solar Systems. It has been a side topic I've allowed for a minute - but if you're not going to discuss the OP, please understand why I am not going to respond to someone saying "Maybe we should pick one thing" when you didn't focus on the OP to begin with.

Halbhh · Dec 18, 2018

Gxg (G²) said:
Genesis 1:16-18

I especially have been focused a lot on day 4 -- every verse -- every word -- all -- but it would be hard to get that without careful reading I think.

My fault for not being a better writer. I'm sorry about that!

Anyway, I believe it all literally, and I'm ok if others agree with me about something and disagree about something else, and don't worry about that.

See, I'm happy to discuss any one thing at a time with you if you'd like.

But please don't feel you have to, and please don't assume anything about what I think or believe unless I say it explicitly.

Gxg (G²) · Dec 18, 2018

Halbhh said:
Friend (if you are a believer then you are my brother, and I accept you in total acceptance with love, as a believer)

Love/Respect include dealing with the topic - that is not happening, so that needs to be addressed practically. And as said before, being a believer has little to do with the central topic in THIS thread just as it'd be with others.

, I can better talk about 1 or 2 things at a time.

You already talked on several and I've taken time to respond to them when seeing multiple ideas - you may be unaware of it.

For us, perhaps best exactly 1 thing alone at a time, and no more. For instance, if you wish to ask what I understand about day 4 in Genesis 1, I'll be happy to discuss that by itself. In a very one-step-at-a-time way.

We're talking Biblical Cosmology and understanding what Genesis said - I will deal with it as we do with other cultures who said "Honor Our Text and see the WHOLE of what we said" - you're not dealing with them in the way they deal with their own text when referencing more than 5 verses and that's on you. This is why folks in Judaism have a comprehensive worldview and see what's said overall in the Tanak (and my background of study is in the area as well with Jewish/Eastern culture). Thus, you need to discuss on their terms if the text is taken seriously.

If you don't want to do that and keep referencing 5 verses of Genesis, it's jumping around and not dealing with it in any credible way that folks from those cultures understand. This is basic.

Halbhh · Dec 18, 2018

Again, it's those who don't already have Christ I'm concerned about, just exactly as I said before.

Those who are lost, without Christ, and don't yet have Him.

I'm not worried about the already-saved who are following Christ by doing as He said (Matthew 7:24-27).

Gxg (G²) · Dec 18, 2018

Halbhh said:
I especially have been focused a lot on day 4 -- every verse -- every word -- all --

You inserted several times already saying "The Sun is what LIGHT was in Genesis 1:3"

No one in Near Eastern culture (where Genesis originated in) has ever said that - and nowhere has it been said in Science. You deal with the whole council of Scripture and that's part of the problem you're not facing when trying to make the text say something it has never said. Repeatedly.

IT is what it is

Gxg (G²) · Dec 18, 2018

Halbhh said:
Again, it's those who don't already have Christ I'm concerned about, just exactly as I said before.

Those who are lost, without Christ, and don't yet have Him.

Not those who alread have Christ -- I'm not worried about the already-saved who are following Christ by doing as He said (Matthew 7:24-27).

And again, for those who were not Christians and came to Christ, those are the ones who were in focus when it has been said that they ALL DISAGREE WITH YOU -and have noted plainly/forcefully as scientists that there's NOTHING in science saying LIGHT only comes from the Sun...nor was it a requirement for them to believe in your view for them to have the Gospel.

That is you. That's a problem. Folks who were atheists read Genesis, believed in God/Christ AND noted that the text did not support saying things you're saying - so you're reading past others who come from places where they know how folks think and have argued past the OP on another topic for sometime. It's not about Jesus if others disagree with your view when they study the Biblical Cosmology and have already disagreed - and insisting they have that to win non-believers to Christ is equally problematic when those same non-believers have also called out YOUR view for lacking basic scientific understanding and addressing worldviews as a whole - it's dishonoring to a Hebraic worldview trying to make Scripture fit what you understand and not taking the culture on its own terms.

Anyway, I believe it all literally,

So do others - that's what has
and I'm ok if others agree with me about something and disagree about something else, and don't worry about that.

See, I'm happy to discuss any one thing at a time with you if you'd like.

But please don't feel you have to, and please don't assume anything about what I think or believe unless I say it explicitly.

As the author of the thread, the discussion was the Binary Solar Systems - I've already told you @Halbhh what the topci was and what is being discussed. And you've discussed several things already I've had to respond to - point for point - I'll discuss with you based on what you share on as it concerns the topic. Please respect the OP.

As I said at the beginning of the thread when responding to another:

Gxg (G²) said:
Genesis never laid out all the specifics for how our solar system worked (i.e. Astroid belt, differing comets, etc.) - so there's already a lot of problems when reading how God made lights to govern the day and night (without talking on the other things to impact those lights, be it gravity or other factors).

The Christian understanding is based on Christ - not on seeing the Scriptures as a scientific textbook.

Your response to my comment to another poster is what led to this entire SIDE DISCUSSION (and not on topic):

Halbhh said:
day 1 starts in verse 3, after something on the order of 9 billion years it appears. The light in verse 3 is the sun, but it is not visible from the perspective of the planet surface. The days are likely given in a vision, as seen from the surface (it would just be odd to have a space based camera view, eh?). The early Earth had constant and unbroken cloud cover due to warmth, so you get the night/day cycle started with the sun lighting but no visibility through the clouds. Day 4 is the first 'day' when there is visibility, a break in the clouds. etc. It's not at all hard to see alignment to modern planetary formation theories if you know those theories. Reading in astrophysics/astronomy/cosmology is a hobby interest of mine, over 35 years now.

If you did not want to discuss the OP topic on Earth once having TWO SUNS, then you started off topic - and have no room discussing. Respect please since I already told you what the topic was. Enough.

Halbhh · Dec 18, 2018

Sorry I can't read lengthy posts today. I can discuss individual things, relying on full reading of all the words, in many different translations, to get the full meaning of the entire whole of all the chapter.

When you read it, at some point in life it should change you, so that you are no longer the same person. This is the effect of the words on us, as we truly listen -- we become altered.

Hieronymus · Dec 18, 2018

Binary star system is pseudo science nonsense for the gullible controversy-endorphin addicts.

Gxg (G²) · Dec 18, 2018

Halbhh said:
Sorry I can't read lengthy posts today. I can discuss individual things, relying on full reading of all the words, in many different translations, to get the full meaning of the entire whole of all the chapter.

Sorry, I don't have time for false arguments/inconsistency on your part - and You've already made several, so please quote being obtuse and address the original topic (Binary Star Systems) since it's rude making several long postings I had to respond to - and then avoiding scripture not fitting your limited addressing of scripture that no one in Judaism or Near Eastern culture supports.

Period.

Don't make a claim you've done repeatedly since it's disrespectful, on top of being off topic from the OP - focus or get off the thread please. You're not discussing individual things (nor have you ever) - and I don't have time for games. So either deal with things as you've been bringing out the same style - or quit wasting folks time - Genesis 1 has a context. You address it if you're serious - and the same with science.

Our Sun is part of a Binary Star System: Fascinating to see what ancient religions understood

Everything You say is Life to me

Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7)

Everything You say is Life to me

Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7)

Everything You say is Life to me

Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7)

Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7)

Everything You say is Life to me

Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7)

Everything You say is Life to me

Everything You say is Life to me

Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7)

Everything You say is Life to me

Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7)

Everything You say is Life to me

Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7)

Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7)

Everything You say is Life to me

Well-Known Member

Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7)

Similar threads