1. They must "assume" God only has the capacity to know of 'one source of light' and so failing to create the sun first he is simply "mistaken" in his recollection of what He did. That is not a logical position .. as if the only source of light known to God is fusion from the sun.
I think you are misrepresenting the confliction. if we are to take a literal account on day one light is spoken into being and this light is separated from the darkness and is called day and the darkness night, the first day. We know the account but I fail to see where the source of the light is mentioned. Light is emitted from a source, it doesn't exist disembodied but goes to a fixed focal point, at this fixed point is the source of light and would be some sort of luminary and this luminary would need to be created. But day 1 is not about creating a luminary it is about creating light, its source is only from God since he speaks it into being but God does not exist at a fixed focal point nor does he turn off and on, even the mention of days/night is not from the vantage point of God it is from the vantage point of a rotating planet looking up since we know there really is no such thing as night and the sun is always shining. The problem created in the text is where does the light come from because nothing else but light is spoken on day 1.
You speak of logic but Hebrew logic is not like Western step logic. it exists in blocks of information and each block builds a goal and the details within the block are used to support the goal, and those details can be fluid because the most important thing is to build the goal. Blocks are next to each other but they do not have to agree with each other, and may infact present conflicting information. this is what we see in the creation account and each day is a sub-block of information and the whole account is the main block. each block is next to each other but it doesn't matter that the days conflict they are position in a way to serve a purpose and build toward a goal. What is most important is the goal and once we determine the goal we can understand the role of the details and the blocks and why they are placed in the order they are placed.
The days of creation are laid out with days 1-3 paralleling days 4-6. 1 is paired with 4, 2 is paired with 5 and 3 is paired with 6. The pairing is obvious from the themse of the days but the language is also important to show this as days 1-3 "create" is not actually used but rather the focus is God separating and organizing this primordial chaos and darkness in the text. Days 4-6 he "creates" but the word create is a unique word and in Hebrew has a concrete meaning of actually "fattening" but better put "filling up" or a "forming" like stuffing a pillowcase. Day 1-3 acts as a frame (it's the pillowcase) where Days 4-6 are the stuffing.
For example, day 4 the day/night luminaries fill the sky where day 1 light and darkness are separated and day and night are defined, day 6 the fish and birds fill the air and ocean that was separated and defined in day 2 and in day 6 the animals and humans fill the land that was separated and defined in day 3. God first organizes and builds a framework, then he fills it up. This is a pattern within the creation and it doesn't have to describe a literal passing of 6 consecutive days and although Western Step logic demands this Hebraic block logic doesn't.
We need to read the text based on who it was written for and be careful not to superimpose our way of thinking over it. Am I saying that it wasn't 7 days? that God didn't create in an exact way described? No, I'm saying when we demand this we miss the point of the text. What's the point? well that's for you to discover but all the information in the account proclaims it so it is what we should be looking at.
Upvote
0