I hope this makes sense. I've been pondering this for a while...let me
know what you think.
---
Doesn't everybody use some level of scientific fact/information to assist in bible interpretation? It seems so to me.
For example, in Genesis 1..on Day 1 God creates Light and calls it Day. There is morning and evening.
On Day 4 God creates the Sun to rule over the day. Notice, the sun doesn't
replace the Day-Light created on Day 1, but rules over it. It does say
the sun provides light on the earth, but it doesn't say the Sun-light is a replacement to the day-light created on day 1. Taking a very strict literal view it seems to me that what we know as day-light was created on Day 1.
If the Sun was removed, this would still exist, along with morning and evening.
(Like it seems on a cloudy day..you have morning/evening but you don't see the sun).
However, all the creationists I've read take the view that the Sun replaced the Day-Light created on Day 1. Apparently nobody even knows what the light was that was created on Day 1 (I've heard it was the Spirit hovering on the Day side shining light, some atomic fission or fusion, the center of the galaxy shining..etc.).
Now, my question is..why don't creationists take this literally and say what we know as "day-light" was created on Day 1, and the Sun on Day 4. The day-light created on Day 1 is what sustains plant life which was created on Day 3 (ie. not the sun). And so on and so forth.
It seems like Scientific Facts assist in interpreting these verses. We know day-light comes from the Sun. We know plants are sustained to some degree by the Sun. We know if the Sun was taken away, day-light and morning and evening as we know it would cease.
Doesn't scientific understanding drive the creationist to the view that the day-light created on Day 1 was replaced by the Sun on Day 4?
I'd be interested in hearing what you have to say. I've been a YEC for 15 years, but am reexaming stuff now. If you don't feel comfortable responding directly you can always PM me.
regards,
o/r
know what you think.
---
Doesn't everybody use some level of scientific fact/information to assist in bible interpretation? It seems so to me.
For example, in Genesis 1..on Day 1 God creates Light and calls it Day. There is morning and evening.
On Day 4 God creates the Sun to rule over the day. Notice, the sun doesn't
replace the Day-Light created on Day 1, but rules over it. It does say
the sun provides light on the earth, but it doesn't say the Sun-light is a replacement to the day-light created on day 1. Taking a very strict literal view it seems to me that what we know as day-light was created on Day 1.
If the Sun was removed, this would still exist, along with morning and evening.
(Like it seems on a cloudy day..you have morning/evening but you don't see the sun).
However, all the creationists I've read take the view that the Sun replaced the Day-Light created on Day 1. Apparently nobody even knows what the light was that was created on Day 1 (I've heard it was the Spirit hovering on the Day side shining light, some atomic fission or fusion, the center of the galaxy shining..etc.).
Now, my question is..why don't creationists take this literally and say what we know as "day-light" was created on Day 1, and the Sun on Day 4. The day-light created on Day 1 is what sustains plant life which was created on Day 3 (ie. not the sun). And so on and so forth.
It seems like Scientific Facts assist in interpreting these verses. We know day-light comes from the Sun. We know plants are sustained to some degree by the Sun. We know if the Sun was taken away, day-light and morning and evening as we know it would cease.
Doesn't scientific understanding drive the creationist to the view that the day-light created on Day 1 was replaced by the Sun on Day 4?
I'd be interested in hearing what you have to say. I've been a YEC for 15 years, but am reexaming stuff now. If you don't feel comfortable responding directly you can always PM me.
regards,
o/r