A Literal Reading: Genesis 1

[elopez]

Oh, and believe you me, a day is nothing without the sun. There can be no days without the sun.

 

[Hentenza]

Oh, and believe you me, a day is nothing without the sun. There can be no days without the sun.

For the first 3 days of creation God was the sun.

 

[Hentenza]

Day Agers like Hugh Ross do a pretty good job reconciling the Day Age with the geological record.

Only by assumption. Hugh Ross basically canonizes a 67th book called "science" so he interprets Gen. 1 through the fallibility of science not through scriptures.

 

[LinuxUser]

For the first 3 days of creation God was the sun.

How easily many forget that

 

[Sum1sGruj]

Originally Posted by Sum1sGruj

You are asking the same question, just in different ways.
God put the sun and moon in place for us to mark days and nights. That does not mean a day was anything more or less without them. The context is consistent with days/nights and mornings/evenings before and after the sun and moon were created, so it is actually fits more then whatever it is you are trying to prescribe.​

I'm asking the same question because it was not and has not been answered.

But it has. You are quoting the answer and saying it has not been answered.
How does it not avail you?

 

[cubinity]

Only by assumption. Hugh Ross basically canonizes a 67th book called "science" so he interprets Gen. 1 through the fallibility of science not through scriptures.

If there are Scriptures that explain the things being discussed here about Genesis 1 that a scientific approach leads some to miss, please share them. I'd like to put them in my catalogue for later use.

 

[Assyrian]

Only by assumption. Hugh Ross basically canonizes a 67th book called "science" so he interprets Gen. 1 through the fallibility of science not through scriptures.

Same as creationists interpret the Joshua sun standing still miracle through fallibile Copernican science, the point is Ross can reconcile them.

 

[elopez]

For the first 3 days of creation God was the sun.

Where in Genesis does it say that? I don't recall...

 

[elopez]

But it has. You are quoting the answer and saying it has not been answered.
How does it not avail you?

No, it has not. You haven't at all explained the inconsistency of the definition of yom and the sun not being present for the first three days. The real question is how the logical conclusion avails you.

 

[LinuxUser]

Light came from the Son until He decided the Sun would light our path

 

[Sum1sGruj]

No, it has not. You haven't at all explained the inconsistency of the definition of yom and the sun not being present for the first three days. The real question is how the logical conclusion avails you.

No. You just fail miserably at seeing it for what it is.

Even if the Creation story was just a myth Jews told to one another and had no bearing on how God created the universe literally, it is still consistent with those that told it.
Your semantics are starving here.

 

[elopez]

No. You just fail miserably at seeing it for what it is.

Even if the Creation story was just a myth Jews told to one another and had no bearing on how God created the universe literally, it is still consistent with those that told it.
Your semantics are starving here.

I see Genesis for what it is, and that is pure poetry as taking it literally requires all sorts of unreasonable excuses as the ones you have given.

 

[Sum1sGruj]

I see Genesis for what it is, and that is pure poetry as taking it literally requires all sorts of unreasonable excuses as the ones you have given.

And taking metaphorically bears no rationale either. Try it and you'll see.
I don't know why evolutionists stick with that punchline. It's a plain logical fallacy to any who know the contexts well.

 

[elopez]

And taking metaphorically bears no rationale either. Try it and you'll see.
I don't know why evolutionists stick with that punchline. It's a plain logical fallacy to any who know the contexts well.

Taking Genesis metaphorically at least does not contradict itself from the get go as taking it literally would, and how that makes a metaphorical interpretation equally as less rationale is beyond me. What is plain and simple is the fallacy yecs spout about the whole sun issue I've brought up.

I honestly think it would be better if you guys would just comprise with yourselves and say, "hey, we don't know how it's possible so we're not going to attempt to explain it," because any explanation that goes into advocating the sun not being present yet days transpiring is no explanation at all. It raises more questions than it does answer anything, and it's the real indicator that a literal interpretation concedes in any coherence.

 

[Hentenza]

Where in Genesis does it say that? I don't recall...

Verse 3 during the first day. Luminaries were created in the 4th day.

 

[Hentenza]

Same as creationists interpret the Joshua sun standing still miracle through fallibile Copernican science, the point is Ross can reconcile them.

Copernican science can not explain a miracle. Ross can not reconcile them with scripture.

 

[Hentenza]

If there are Scriptures that explain the things being discussed here about Genesis 1 that a scientific approach leads some to miss, please share them. I'd like to put them in my catalogue for later use.

TBH, I am still trying to figure out your OP. In one breath you are saying that yom must be a literal day but on another you are claiming that it is not. You use the Spirit of God as moving over the waters as part of your hypothesis that the reference from Earth would not be fixed but the Spirit was moving over the waters prior to God creating "light" and God separating the light between night and day (vs. 4 and 5). The perspective is God's perspective not man's perspective since nothing existed yet other than the void Earth.

 

[Jase]

For the first 3 days of creation God was the sun.

So God stood in the middle of the solar system while the Earth revolved around him? Oh wait, the Bible says the sun revolves around the Earth, so that would mean God revolved around the Earth?

Sorry Hentenza, nothing in the Bible says God was the sun. You're just applying your beliefs onto the text to deny the evidence.

 

[Papias]

Ra! Ra! Ra!!

 

[Hentenza]

So God stood in the middle of the solar system while the Earth revolved around him? Oh wait, the Bible says the sun revolves around the Earth, so that would mean God revolved around the Earth?

Sorry Hentenza, nothing in the Bible says God was the sun. You're just applying your beliefs onto the text to deny the evidence.

Gen 1, read literally, is clear that God put forth light prior to creating the luminaries. We see the same light in the New Jerusalem at the end of Rev. Both are bookends.

But then, you probably discard both books anyway.