A Question about Genesis and the creation of light?

[BlackAndy]

A question about the creation and Genesis chapter 1:

In the first day, God creates light and darkness, day and evening. BUT it is not until the fourth day that the sun and moon are formed.

Genesis 1:3 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 1:14 And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the expanse 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 expanse 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.


How do we interpret this?

 

[UBERROGO]

A question about the creation and Genesis chapter 1:

In the first day, God creates light and darkness, day and evening. BUT it is not until the fourth day that the sun and moon are formed.

Genesis 1:3 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 1:14 And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the expanse 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 expanse 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.


How do we interpret this?

The light in the first verse you gave didnt eminate from the sun. It came from an unmentioned source, unless it just 'was'.

 

[albertmc]

Without comment on whether the current physical theories on the early universe are correct, one might point out that in Big Bang Cosmology, the initial unravelling of space-time would have had all the energy that would eventually be the matter of the universe exploding in a burst that would have been brighter than anything anyone of us could ever imagine. This iniitial burst would have faded as matter formed until enough accumulated for nuclear fusion. I won't get into the pros and cons other than to point out that standard cosmological theories and Genesis both have the universe originating in light.

 

[Adoniram]

Check out the description of the New Jerusalem in Rev. 21:23

"The city had no need of the sun or of the moon to shine in it, for the glory of God illuminated it. The Lamb is its light."

Perhaps, in a similar manner, the glory of God provided the light.

 

[BlackAndy]

Without comment on whether the current physical theories on the early universe are correct, one might point out that in Big Bang Cosmology, the initial unravelling of space-time would have had all the energy that would eventually be the matter of the universe exploding in a burst that would have been brighter than anything anyone of us could ever imagine. This iniitial burst would have faded as matter formed until enough accumulated for nuclear fusion. I won't get into the pros and cons other than to point out that standard cosmological theories and Genesis both have the universe originating in light.

This wouldn't explain alternating betwwen day and night until the fourth day when the moon and sun were created.

 

[albertmc]

This wouldn't explain alternating betwwen day and night until the fourth day when the moon and sun were created.

True enough, but then again I'm not a young earth creationist so I generally don't feel myself compelled to make Genesis 1 work as a scientific treatise. I was merely pointing out that light doesn't need a material entity to those who might want to try.

By the way, there is another problem you didn't mention. The moon isn't a light at all in the same sense that the sun would be as a star. The moon is pretty much a big rock that only reflects sunlight and has no light of its own.

 

[KEPLER]

This wouldn't explain alternating betwwen day and night until the fourth day when the moon and sun were created.

BlackAndy,

You might want to take a look at this paper: http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/WTJ/WTJ58Kline.html

The author is a very conservative Presbyterian Seminary Prof named Meredith Kline. In short he suggests a topological (rather than chronological) reading of Genesis 1 & 2.

He expands the position much further in a book called The Genesis Debate (edited by J. Ligon Duncan), which is available on Amazon.

Cheers,

Kepler

 

[BlackAndy]

Thanks, Keplar. I'll take a serious look at those.

 

[Melethiel]

Moved to Origins Theology

 

[busterdog]

True enough, but then again I'm not a young earth creationist so I generally don't feel myself compelled to make Genesis 1 work as a scientific treatise. I was merely pointing out that light doesn't need a material entity to those who might want to try.

By the way, there is another problem you didn't mention. The moon isn't a light at all in the same sense that the sun would be as a star. The moon is pretty much a big rock that only reflects sunlight and has no light of its own.

Appreciate the note about BB parallels with Genesis 1. This is physicist Gerald Schroeder's observation that the original seperation of light from matter was not even conceived of by science until the mid-20th century. Yet, here is the Bible's rather sophisticated observation that lines up with BB theory.

That being said, I am still YEC. It would seem that Gen. 1 would be very primitive indeed if it was unable to have some consistency in its view of what a day was. I am trying to come to grip with that in http://www.christianforums.com/t4331707-need-help-what-is-a-day.html

If Gen. 1 is just myth or metaphor, what exactly is the purpose of even a metaphor that seems to be confused about what a day is when you compare Day One and Day Four?

The YEC view can make sense of it. In Day One, it is the same measure of dynamic time as in Day Four. Since Day Four seems to refer to a typical dynamic measure of time as measured by earth's revolutions, you can argue that Day One merely anticipated the measurement to be instituted in Day Four. Otherwise, the use of Yowm is very confusing, as the OP suggests.

What does TE do with an apparently explicit measurement of "yowm" in Day Four?

Appreciate the other note above that you don't need a sun for their to be day or light, as noted in Revelation 21.

So, of what benefit is myth or metaphor that uses these idioms? I just don't see what that would even teach. It just seems as ham handed as say, Apsu and Tiamat getting friendly.

 

[albertmc]

The YEC view can make sense of it. In Day One, it is the same measure of dynamic time as in Day Four. Since Day Four seems to refer to a typical dynamic measure of time as measured by earth's revolutions, you can argue that Day One merely anticipated the measurement to be instituted in Day Four. Otherwise, the use of Yowm is very confusing, as the OP suggests.

I have no doubt that the YEC can make sense of it. I just think the YEC idea has a lot more trouble making sense of galaxies and quasars and the like. For example, if astronomers view a star millions of light years away, you are seeing the light that left the star millions of years ago...a bit of an accomplishment for a universe less than 10 thousand years old. One might postulate that the light was created but then have the problem that we can view the remants of supernova. Are we to believe God would want us to see a star explode that never existed?

So, of what benefit is myth or metaphor that uses these idioms? I just don't see what that would even teach. It just seems as ham handed as say, Apsu and Tiamat getting friendly.

We know that before Moses, there were other creation stories in pagan mythologies of the region such as the Epic of Gilgamesh. These also had a day-by-day scenario that had things in common with Genesis 1 but the emphasis was on vengeful gods who seemed to take delight in tormenting the lives of men. The world was seen as chaotic and purposeless. One could argue that God took those accounts - with which the Israelites would have been very familiar - and turned them on their heads by asserting "No, I created it and it was good" at every stage of the story. It then becomes an assertion by God of His role and an assertion of His purpose. Genesis 2 then explains that the evil and death in the world was the result of our sinfullness and not His intent.

 

[busterdog]

I have no doubt that the YEC can make sense of it. I just think the YEC idea has a lot more trouble making sense of galaxies and quasars and the like. For example, if astronomers view a star millions of light years away, you are seeing the light that left the star millions of years ago...a bit of an accomplishment for a universe less than 10 thousand years old. One might postulate that the light was created but then have the problem that we can view the remants of supernova. Are we to believe God would want us to see a star explode that never existed?



We know that before Moses, there were other creation stories in pagan mythologies of the region such as the Epic of Gilgamesh. These also had a day-by-day scenario that had things in common with Genesis 1 but the emphasis was on vengeful gods who seemed to take delight in tormenting the lives of men. The world was seen as chaotic and purposeless. One could argue that God took those accounts - with which the Israelites would have been very familiar - and turned them on their heads by asserting "No, I created it and it was good" at every stage of the story. It then becomes an assertion by God of His role and an assertion of His purpose. Genesis 2 then explains that the evil and death in the world was the result of our sinfullness and not His intent.

If there is an ultimate repository of YEC reason, I am not it. However, my point was to suggest that it is not crazy and that it is worthy of discussion. It has some sound premises and good reason. If it also has problems, so be it. I recognize your concern in that respect.

There is currently raging a huge debate herein about the age of that light. You will see "Shift on Red Shift". That discussion has largely ended as far as I am concerned because of the use of words like "fraud" and "crank" lodged against the forum member and wife of the main writer on some of these issues.

There is also a much less active thread in the creation forum on red shift. Insults are not permitted there. Please consider that route for exploration.

As for Moses being a response to pagan religion. THat is an interesting point. I completely reject the idea that the OT evolved from older pagan myth. However, as a response to it? Well, one response was the flood. Moses was much later and even followed Abraham. That the OT was only written then supports your view. I can never quite figure out whether I am a dispensationalist at all, but it does seem that God's responses to man are often very particular responses to what is going on in the world.

 

[KerrMetric]

I am concerned because of the use of words like "fraud" and "crank" lodged against the forum member and wife of the main writer on some of these issues.

What term is applicable for a so called researcher (with no expertise I might add) who fudged his data in a deliberate manner? Honourable? I think not.

It's amazing, someone who throws a couple of buzzwords arround, as long as they are providing a message others want to hear, is treated as though they actually know what they are doing despite the fact the fraud was obvious and the analysis was not even worthy of a high school student. Absolutely amazing.

There is also a much less active thread in the creation forum on red shift. Insults are not permitted there. Please consider that route for exploration.

Of course, the fact that not a single piece of science fact has ever been posted in that forum and that not a single person with any science expertise actually posts there being a slight problem when it comes to "exploring" an issue.

 

[artybloke]

A question about the creation and Genesis chapter 1:

In the first day, God creates light and darkness, day and evening. BUT it is not until the fourth day that the sun and moon are formed.

Genesis 1:3 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 1:14 And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the expanse 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 expanse 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.


How do we interpret this?

It's a poem. The author used something known in literary circles as "poetic imagery". He also used something we poets refer to as a "refrain": a repeated phrase, sometimes subtly altered, that comes after the "verse" or "stanza."

There now, that was easy, wasn't it.

 

[shernren]

If Gen. 1 is just myth or metaphor, what exactly is the purpose of even a metaphor that seems to be confused about what a day is when you compare Day One and Day Four?

...

What does TE do with an apparently explicit measurement of "yowm" in Day Four?

Each day is an entirely mundane 24-hour day, within the context of a story that has little or no factual correlation, but complete theological correlation, to our world as we know and see it today.

 

[UBERROGO]

God created everything out of nothing. I wouldnt get hung up on the light from no sun thing..

 

[artybloke]

What does TE do with an apparently explicit measurement of "yowm" in Day Four?

Appreciate the other note above that you don't need a sun for their to be day or light, as noted in Revelation 21.

So, of what benefit is myth or metaphor that uses these idioms? I just don't see what that would even teach.

First of all, the use of explicit detail in a poem or story is one way of catching the listener's attention. I say listener deliberately because the whole of the Bible has to be seen in the context of a largely pre-literate society, where most of the people in that society could neither read nor write.

One of the things that's notable about Genesis 1 is its use of repetition, not only in the refrain but throughout it; and its use of relatively simple - but also slightly specialised - language. I don't hold with the idea that this came from a largely "oral" source - this is a highly literary piece of writing, which is why I call it a poem.

However, it is "aural" - it is intended to be heard, to be paid attention to by the ear, not to be pored over for every nuance in the privacy of one's desk or armchair.

Detail like that makes it lively, makes the hearer "suspend their disbelief" at least for as long as the poem is being told. There doesn't have to be a big theological meaning to every little bit of the story, or poem, in order for it to be there. I'm suggesting one possible aesthetic reason for it being there.

That's something I've often noticed about both sides in this debate. People argue about whether it's "literal" or "mythical" but nobody actually asks - actually, what kind of literature are we dealing with here? How is it constructed? What, in other words, are its "poetics?" ("Poetics" refers to more than just what is obviously poetry, by the way.) How does how it was constructed affect its meaning, or the type of literature it seems to be?

I call Genesis 1-2.1 a poem because it seems to me to be a very carefully-constructed piece of literature, using self-consciously poetic diction, a "refrain" structure, use of repeated phrases (something that gets lost in a lot of translation, by the way) and other poetic devices such as imagery (the picture of God "brooding" over creation, "speaking" the world into existence etc...)

Now poems are not meant to be literal historical or scientific accounts. Even "The Charge of the Light Brigade" is not intended to tell us history; it's meant to fire our imaginations. it seems to me that Protestant theology has often downgraded the imagination, even to the point of banishing it; and I think it's time we brought it back.

Notice I haven't used the word "myth" once in the above: while I think Gen 1 has mythical elements, I'd agree it's more of a poetic response to myth than a myth in itself. Genesis 2 has more of the structure of a myth. Genesis 1 is a poem, even maybe a Psalm: it's intended to convey awe, not simply to teach a lesson (in otherwords, it's not that over-simplified perversion of metaphor, an allegory.)

Do I think it has any scientific merit? No. Do I think it nevertheless has great artistic, spiritual and religious value? Most definitely yes.

 

[busterdog]

God created everything out of nothing. I wouldnt get hung up on the light from no sun thing..

Someone, maybe you, caught the parallel with the light of God and lack of need for a sun in Revelation.

This shows no inconsistency between day one and day four. It is ineed curious and hard to explain how this is in a literal/inerrant view, but it is not a problem with bad thinking.

No, we should not get hung up.

If one is to look at the end of things, there are many elements reflecting the beginning of things. If we allegorize eternal life, maybe it means that we just live on in other peoples memories. If we don't allegorize it at the end, we expect a glorified body. We shall be changed, in the twinkling of an eye.

What is the parallel? A fully mature man is made in toto on day six, perhaps, in the twinkling of the eye. There is no death here.

To accomodate that, and to be consistent, the first five days should be similarly represented in our thinking. Not that we know how and not that we have the right to feell superior in our thinking, since thinking it all through is not possible at this junction, it appears. (Nor is the Big Bang capable of being though through completely, since it begins with an unknowable event.)