Daylight before the creation of the sun

[Assyrian]

The rocks... recognize their maker

 

[shernren]

The rocks don't necessarily recognize their existence bur rather recognize their maker via the light of understanding.

... what do you mean, "not that kind of rock"??

 

[Assyrian]

Sentient rock, very bridge needs one.

 

[MtSugarloaf]

I want come up with an old unsolved issue, so that a little action comes into this abandoned forum

The problem with evenings and mornings before the creation of the sun.

Something that i badly dismissed in my times as a YEC sympathizer. Just accepting that light somehow where already upon earth on day1.
But i should have looked closely at Gen1 to see that this view can not hold water.
Augustine of Hippo (354-430) rejected the literal view of the Genesis days because of day4 (while he believed in recent creation).


YECs argue that there was light created on day1. But what does this mean? It was radiating out of nothing to the earth?
Was the earth already orbiting this spot? Or did the light came from one side and later the earth starts orbiting the sun on day4?

How does that fit to Gen1:15, where it says:
"And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth"
God commanded sun and moon to give light upon the earth on day4. So why assume that there was daylight before?

Following interpretation would even make more sense: Light exists in the universe since day1 but not until day4 is there any light upon earth.

Now, some come up with Rev22:
"And there shall be no night there; and they need no candle, neither light of the sun; for the Lord God giveth them light: and they shall reign for ever and ever."
Rev21:23 says:
"And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb [is] the light thereof."The light is the Lord Christ who says: "I am the light of the world"

But Jesus didn't literally illuminate the world - this light is not electromagnetic radiation.
It is a symbol: in the light you see where you can go so you can stay on the path and do not stumble.
"Thy word [is] a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path." Psa 119:105
This is all symbolic, this light can't be misused to declare a "pre-solar" light shining upon earth on day1-3.

The writer of Gen1 couldn't meant real sundowns and sunrises so the evening/morning phrases must be poetic/symbolic.

No daylight before sunlight

In Christ

Xaero

It's quite simple really; the sun is not needed for day and night. What is needed is light and a rotating Earth. On the first day, God made light. The phrase 'evening and morning' certainly implies a rotating Earth ... as the first three days are written exactly the same way as the next three. Hence, if you have light coming from a singular direction and a spinning Earth, there can be day and night.

However, God does not choose to tell us where this light came from or its nature. The Bible is clear that it was a supernaturally created light to provide day and night until God made the sun on day four.

It has been suggested that one reason why God created in this order is to illustrate that the sun did not have the priority in the creation that people have tended to give it. Many cultures worship the sun and even evolutionary theory ultimately gives the sun credit for the birth to the Earth and all life on it.

I like what the early church father Theophilus said:
"On the fourth day the luminaries came into existence. Sine God has foreknowledge, He understood the nonsense of the foolish philosophers who were going to say that the things produced on Earth came from the stars, so that they might set God aside. In order therefore that the truth might be demonstrated, plants and seeds came into existence before stars. For what comes into existence later cannot cause what is prior to it."

What great and God-given insight and wisdom.

This isn't an issue for any creationist. If you can believe Genesis 1:1, "In the beginning God," then believing that He can supernaturally create a light-source for a few days to give light upon the Earth is hardly a stretch.

 

[juvenissun]

Just accepting that light somehow where already upon earth on day1.

This is not correct. If you read carefully on Gen 1:1 to Gen 1:5, which is the creation on the first "day", there were no sun, neither earth. There was just light and dark.

What is wrong with that? I think it fits modern scientific understanding perfectly. What a great and wonderful description. I will believe in the Bible just by these few verses.

 

[shernren]

And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness. God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning--the first day.
(Genesis 1:3-5 NIV)

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, and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth." And it was so. 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. God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth, to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. And there was evening, and there was morning--the fourth day.
(Genesis 1:14-19 NIV)

(emphases added)

Interesting, to say the least.

Why should the Israelites consider the primeval light synonymous with "day", and the primeval darkness synonymous with "night", if they didn't live in a geocentric universe? Every time I look at these verses I remember rmwilliamsll's interesting (if highly academic and inscrutable) question of: in the Israelite cosmology, when it was day in Israel, was there light throughout the entire universe?

 

[Smidlee]

In Genesis chapter one you have light before the sun and stars and in Abiogenesis chapter one you have life before DNA.

 

[zeke37]

His Word is the light to the world.....

and we all know who the Word is right???


So, in the first few lines of the Bible, we see the Three that bear witness in Heaven...stated....The Creator, The Spirit, and the Light of the World which is the Word of God (Messiah).......

in His service
c

 

[Xaero]

As for Rev 22, I do think that light is not an idiom, but real light.

No it's surely not: Rev 21:23 And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb [is] the light thereof.
The lamb .. the light, these are just symbols (for Christ in this case).
Do you also believe we will live in a literal borgcube-like city with roads made out of glassy gold?
Revelations is full of symbols which describe spiritual things.

I like what the early church father Theophilus said:
"On the fourth day the luminaries came into existence. Sine God has foreknowledge, He understood the nonsense of the foolish philosophers who were going to say that the things produced on Earth came from the stars, so that they might set God aside. In order therefore that the truth might be demonstrated, plants and seeds came into existence before stars. For what comes into existence later cannot cause what is prior to it."

But today we see that the stars are a source for nearly all elements. We see that those elements get blown into space forming dust clouds, planets, stars etc. Why did god create this? I believe that God wanted to give us a hint how he worked: "[..] the firmament sheweth his handywork." Psa 19:1.

In Genesis chapter one you have light before the sun and stars and in Abiogenesis chapter one you have life before DNA.

Before DNA was RNA

 

[Smidlee]

Before DNA was RNA

The same with you got light before the sun. In our present world DNA and RNA are very much linked as the sunlight is with the sun.

 

[Xaero]

The same with you got light before the sun.

I don't have problems with light before sun, just with day and night on planet earth before sun.

In our world DNA and RNA are very much linked as the sunlight is with the sun.

Erm what?

There is speculation about PNA as a possible precursor of RNA.

 

[HuntingMan]

I want come up with an old unsolved issue, so that a little action comes into this abandoned forum

The problem with evenings and mornings before the creation of the sun.

Something that i badly dismissed in my times as a YEC sympathizer. Just accepting that light somehow where already upon earth on day1.
But i should have looked closely at Gen1 to see that this view can not hold water.
Augustine of Hippo (354-430) rejected the literal view of the Genesis days because of day4 (while he believed in recent creation).


YECs argue that there was light created on day1. But what does this mean? It was radiating out of nothing to the earth?
Was the earth already orbiting this spot? Or did the light came from one side and later the earth starts orbiting the sun on day4?

How does that fit to Gen1:15, where it says:
"And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth"
God commanded sun and moon to give light upon the earth on day4. So why assume that there was daylight before?

Following interpretation would even make more sense: Light exists in the universe since day1 but not until day4 is there any light upon earth.

Now, some come up with Rev22:
"And there shall be no night there; and they need no candle, neither light of the sun; for the Lord God giveth them light: and they shall reign for ever and ever."
Rev21:23 says:
"And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb [is] the light thereof."The light is the Lord Christ who says: "I am the light of the world"

But Jesus didn't literally illuminate the world - this light is not electromagnetic radiation.
It is a symbol: in the light you see where you can go so you can stay on the path and do not stumble.
"Thy word [is] a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path." Psa 119:105
This is all symbolic, this light can't be misused to declare a "pre-solar" light shining upon earth on day1-3.

The writer of Gen1 couldn't meant real sundowns and sunrises so the evening/morning phrases must be poetic/symbolic.

No daylight before sunlight

In Christ

Xaero

I see that you have tried to dismiss the evidence against your presumptions.
Sorry to disappoint you, chap, but you dont get to define what kind of light was created when God said 'let there be light' before the creation of the sun.

The revelation passage clearly shows that there is NO NEED of any sun after the curtain falls on this existance and that is quite enough for any christian to know that God, the One who CREATED the sun, can certainly be a sufficient source of light to cause 'day and night' in this pinhead of a planet.

That was a very nice try tho, at trying to get rid of the refutation before it was offered....but again YOU werent there and to make this claim...

But Jesus didn't literally illuminate the world - this light is not electromagnetic radiation.

..is just dishonest, plain and simple.
Youre a scientific sort....how did you 'test' your theory on the matter?
What scientific experiments did you do to show that this light was not what you say it wasnt ?

For all we know the true nature of God Almighty might be an energy so great that it could obliterate the universe as we believe it to be.
I hardly think lighting up some speck of dirt would be any trouble for One able to create so much...

 

[HuntingMan]

I don't have problems with light before sun, just with day and night on planet earth before sun.

WHy?
Why do you have problems with it?
ALL that is needed for 'day and night' is a lightsource and a rotating planet.
God said 'let there be light'...and there was light.
This was BEFORE the sun is shown as being put into the heavens.
This is answered quite clearly in Revelation where it is shown that there will be no NEED of the sun but HE will illuminate instead.

is your problem with a sunless day and night got anything to do with trying to dismiss the literal creatoin week?

 

[Assyrian]

I see that you have tried to dismiss the evidence against your presumptions.
Sorry to disappoint you, chap, but you dont get to define what kind of light was created when God said 'let there be light' before the creation of the sun.

And you do?

 

[JAL]

Do you also believe we will live in a literal borgcube-like city with roads made out of glassy gold?

Yes. Certainly i so believe.

In my view any discipline including theology properly conceerns itself with the humanly intelligible, because any theory which is humanly unintelligible results in a gibberish-discussion.

The notion of unembodied existence is humanly unintelligible. You cannot conceive of an existence in which you have no shape and size, an existence where you cannot even see or feel SOME kind of a body to call your own, an existence without some kind of self-as-a-presence-at-hand.

Perhaps this is, in part, why Lewis Sperry Chafer, president and founder of Dallas Theological Seminary, argued that angels as depicted in Scripture are clearly physical beings.

So if you try to suggest to me that heaven is not a city, I will only reply that you are speaking gibberish, and until you have something humanly intelligible to say, I'm simply not going to pay much attention....

 

[Assyrian]

You think heaven is really like a Borg cube...
and accuse Xaero of speaking gibberish?

 

[busterdog]

Yes. Certainly i so believe.

In my view any discipline including theology properly conceerns itself with the humanly intelligible, because any theory which is humanly unintelligible results in a gibberish-discussion.

The notion of unembodied existence is humanly unintelligible. You cannot conceive of an existence in which you have no shape and size, an existence where you cannot even see or feel SOME kind of a body to call your own, an existence without some kind of self-as-a-presence-at-hand.

Perhaps this is, in part, why Lewis Sperry Chafer, president and founder of Dallas Theological Seminary, argued that angels as depicted in Scripture are clearly physical beings.

So if you try to suggest to me that heaven is not a city, I will only reply that you are speaking gibberish, and until you have something humanly intelligible to say, I'm simply not going to pay much attention....

Good point.

Since there is nothing better to offer that the square city, what is the point of discussing anything else?

Is there a suggestion than a metaphorical reading offers something more intelligible? Granted, the square city is difficult to conceive. None of pretends to have a really good handle on it, other than that its a square city.

Here we see the danger of evolution. It is the danger of a theology that has no real, intelligible hope, but just vague imaginations about what the future might be like.

 

[Assyrian]

Um, not square, not just square, cubic.

And why ever does the golden city, which I hope comes with airlocks because it is 1,500 miles high, have to be literal to give us a real hope? I much prefer the promise of wonder and love held out to us in the title the bride of Christ, vastly superior than any literal fulfillment of a golden cubic city, or even being a literal bride.

And why does the hope have to be intelligible? Wasn't it enough for the Corinthians that Paul could write 1Cor 2:9 But, as it is written, "What no eye has seen, nor ear heard, nor the heart of man imagined, what God has prepared for those who love him". Do we tear out that verse now, John has seen it, it is a big yellow city.

You take paradise and put up a yellow block...Shoo-bop-bop-bop-bop

Nah I will stick with the promise of the figurative holding something much more wonderful far beyond our ability to imagine or comprehend.

 

[Smidlee]

Erm what?

There is speculation about PNA as a possible precursor of RNA.

from your article

PNA is not known to occur naturally in existing life on Earth but is artificially synthesized and used in some biological research and medical treatments.

 

[JAL]

Um, not square, not just square, cubic.

And why ever does the golden city, which I hope comes with airlocks because it is 1,500 miles high, have to be literal to give us a real hope? I much prefer the promise of wonder and love held out to us in the title the bride of Christ, vastly superior than any literal fulfillment of a golden cubic city, or even being a literal bride.

And why does the hope have to be intelligible? Wasn't it enough for the Corinthians that Paul could write 1Cor 2:9 But, as it is written, "What no eye has seen, nor ear heard, nor the heart of man imagined, what God has prepared for those who love him". Do we tear out that verse now, John has seen it, it is a big yellow city.

You take paradise and put up a yellow block...Shoo-bop-bop-bop-bop

Nah I will stick with the promise of the figurative holding something much more wonderful far beyond our ability to imagine or comprehend.

Rather interesting that you omitted the other half of that verse from 1Cor 2.