ICR: Sunlight Before the Sun

[keyarch]

This is a commentary of an article in the January 2008 issue of ‘Acts & Facts’ published by the Institute for Creation Research.

ICR Quote:
"According to Scripture, God “created the heaven and the earth” on Day One of Creation Week (Genesis 1:1)."

Response:
Scripture says “In the beginning, (first fruits) God created the heaven and the earth”. So the question is: When was the beginning, and was it the same as day one? I say that the “beginning” was well before the events of the creation week. AFTER God created the upper heavens and the planet earth, we are brought to focus on the condition of the earth prior to the first day – a planet covered in waters, and darkness was on the face of the deep.

Take this Bible Quote:
Proverbs 8:22-23 The LORD possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old. I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was.

ICR Quote:
“Initially all was dark, until God said, “Let there be light”.”

Response:
Scripture ONLY says there was darkness on the face of the deep. It does NOT say that “all” was dark. To illustrate this, let us first look at what is meant by “waters”.

• We know there is a “deep” which we can assume is the sea.
• We know that in verse 1:6 God is dividing the “waters from the waters”.
• So is it possible that there was another kind of water besides the “deep”? I say yes. And that would be a thick cloud layer of some kind per the following reference: Job 38:9 “When I made the cloud the garment thereof, and thick darkness a swaddlingband for it,”

So we can know that there was a thick darkness that was tightly wrapped around the sea, and that the cloud layer was the final garment. I go back to where we are only told that there was darkness on the face of the deep, not that there was no light on the upper clouds from the upper heavens. When God proclaimed “Let there be light” it was still in reference to the darkness that was on the deep. We can assume at this point, that the light was from God as there is no reference to the sun yet OR any thinning of the clouds for some outside source to shine in. No atmosphere had been made yet.

ICR Quote:
“It was on Day Four that God created the sun, moon, and stars,”

Response:
First of all, Scripture says God “made” which is like worked on or fashioned, not created from nothing on this day, and then He “set” them into their place in the upper heaven. Scripture does not say that he did anything to the stars here (Genesis 1:16). In the correct context and using the original language, it merely conveys that the stars were visible as a backdrop to the moon ruling the night.

Genesis 1:16 “And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night (with also) stars.”

ICR Quote:
“According to the best stellar creation theory now available, light from stars created anywhere in the universe on Day Four would reach earth in two earth days” – “(see Dr.RussellHumphrey’s cosmology)”

Response:
There is absolutely no reason to box ourselves into this type of “theory” when Scripture does not proclaim that the stellar heavens are of a young creation, nor does the best scientific evidence support anything of the kind. This dogmatic interpretation of Scripture is really the Achilles’ Heal of the Young Earth Creation model. If YEC could just get past this crucial point and realize that an old universe and core planet is actually what Scripture describes, and that it takes nothing away from a young formation of a habitable planet and the creation of all biology on earth during that 6 literal day period some 6,000 years ago, they’d be on a better foundation with Creation arguments. There would be no need to explain it as follows:

ICR Quote:
"Keep in mind that the Creation Week was a uniquely miraculous time, and we are justified in speculating that miraculous events may have been taking place outside of today’s natural laws.”

And finally, I can fully agree with the following comment:

ICR Quote:
“How much better and more satisfying it is to accept Scripture as it stands.”

 

[FallingWaters]

Hey! Nice to see you back!

I guess your theory is plausible.
Have you heard Setterfield's proposal?
Is it possible that the "deep" as you understand it could be the plasma as Setterfield understands it?



By the way, since you haven't been around lately, the mods want us to report any non-creationists who come in here and argue with us, or basically post anything that's not a "fellowship" post.

 

[MatthewDiscipleofGod]

I will have to diagree once again with keyarch, but I always do when this topic is brought up. The words used for God creating the sun on day 4 are the same that are used for God creating the other things on the other days. You can't change the terms when it comes to day 4 just so it will fit your ideology of how creation took place. Also I would say it is a stretch to try to say the deep was something other then the entire earth that was covered in water on day 1.

By the way the entire ICR article can be read here. Acts & Facts comes out monthly and you can subscribe to receive it by e-mail. It is often a good read.

 

[busterdog]

Also I would say it is a stretch to try to say the deep was something other then the entire earth that was covered i

Deu 33:13 And of Joseph 03130 he said 0559 , Blessed 01288 of the LORD 03068 [be] his land 0776, for the precious things 04022 of heaven 08064, for the dew 02919, and for the deep 08415 that coucheth beneath 07257 , Job 28:14 The depth 08415 saith 0559 , It [is] not in me: and the sea 03220 saith 0559 , [It is] not with me. Job 38:16 Hast thou entered 0935 into the springs 05033 of the sea 03220? or hast thou walked 01980 in the search 02714 of the depth 08415? Job 38:30 The waters 04325 are hid 02244 as [with] a stone 068, and the face 06440 of the deep 08415 is frozen 03920 . Job 41:32 He maketh a path 05410 to shine 0215 after 0310 him; [one] would think 02803 the deep 08415 [to be] hoary 07872. Psa 33:7 He gathereth 03664 the waters 04325 of the sea 03220 together as an heap 05067: he layeth up 05414 the depth 08415 in storehouses 0214. Psa 36:6 Thy righteousness 06666 [is] like the great 0410 mountains 02042; thy judgments 04941 [are] a great 07227 deep 08415: O LORD 03068, thou preservest 03467 man 0120 and beast 0929.
Lots of stretching seems to go on with these terms. "Deep" has a lot of different uses. Very curious word.

 

[keyarch]

I will have to diagree once again with keyarch, but I always do when this topic is brought up.

I understand, because when ICR or AiG bring it up and publish it to thousands and make claims about what Scripture is saying (as I've illustrated) I feel like making corrections based on my evaluation.

The words used for God creating the sun on day 4 are the same that are used for God creating the other things on the other days. You can't change the terms when it comes to day 4 just so it will fit your ideology of how creation took place.

I don't believe I am, but it would make little difference regarding the sun and moon. I think where we disagree is about stars, and when they were created. Of course, I guess that's at the root of this whole issue.

Also I would say it is a stretch to try to say the deep was something other then the entire earth that was covered in water on day 1.

I think you are misunderstanding me. I agree with you here. I'm just saying that Scripture is talking about both the deep waters, and the waters immediately above it (be it gases or clouds of some kind, but waters).

 

[keyarch]

I guess your theory is plausible.
Have you heard Setterfield's proposal?
Is it possible that the "deep" as you understand it could be the plasma as Setterfield understands it?

Thanks for the accolade!
I've read some of Setterfield's stuff, but I don't think we need all those science minds (like Humphrey's too) to understand Scripture and what it says. It's all right there in print if we look hard enough. Actually, at times I think it's really simple and we're trying to over analyze it.

 

[HypnoToad]

The OP mentions the question of v.1 being the same day as "the first day" of v.5.

Doesn't Ex.20:11 say that it was? It says that "in six days God created the heavens and the earth and the sea and all that was in them."

If we let Scripture simply say what it says, as suggested in the previous post, it shows the WHOLE thing being done in six days, not eons for one part then a week for the rest of it.

 

[FallingWaters]

The OP mentions the question of v.1 being the same day as "the first day" of v.5.

Doesn't Ex.20:11 say that it was? It says that "in six days God created the heavens and the earth and the sea and all that was in them."

If we let Scripture simply say what it says, as suggested in the previous post, it shows the WHOLE thing being done in six days, not eons for one part then a week for the rest of it.

That is a VERY good point!

 

[keyarch]

The OP mentions the question of v.1 being the same day as "the first day" of v.5.

Doesn't Ex.20:11 say that it was? It says that "in six days God created the heavens and the earth and the sea and all that was in them."

If we let Scripture simply say what it says, as suggested in the previous post, it shows the WHOLE thing being done in six days, not eons for one part then a week for the rest of it.

I agree - we should let Scripture say what it says. In that spirit, let's see if it says what you've quoted.

By NOT inserting the word "in" and using the definition for "aasaah", we are given the sentence:
"For six days the Lord (did, fashioned, worked, labored) the heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them.."

In the context of the passages, it is all in reference to an example for man to work six days and rest one.

So how does the sentence relate to the Genesis account? Well, during the six days in question, the Lord did affect the boundaries of heaven when He created our atmosphere, and He did set the sun and moon (the two lights) and he did work on the earth to fashion it and create life on the planet. So all that is directly related.

What Exodus doesn't say, is that within a six day period He created from nothing everything in the universe. He did created everything, but I'm saying that the universe was created prior to day one of the six day period (Gen. 1:1)

 

[busterdog]

Have you heard Setterfield's proposal?
Is it possible that the "deep" as you understand it could be the plasma as Setterfield understands it?

Have you ever emailed Barry & Helen Settefield? They just sent me an email I am using in a homeschool project for my kid.

Halton Arp also has been kind enough to email on some of this stuff. (He does not agree with Barry, though Barry uses some of his work.)

 

[HypnoToad]

I agree - we should let Scripture say what it says. In that spirit, let's see if it says what you've quoted.

By NOT inserting the word "in" and using the definition for "aasaah", we are given the sentence:
"For six days the Lord (did, fashioned, worked, labored) the heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them.."

In the context of the passages, it is all in reference to an example for man to work six days and rest one.

So how does the sentence relate to the Genesis account? Well, during the six days in question, the Lord did affect the boundaries of heaven when He created our atmosphere, and He did set the sun and moon (the two lights) and he did work on the earth to fashion it and create life on the planet. So all that is directly related.

What Exodus doesn't say, is that within a six day period He created from nothing everything in the universe. He did created everything, but I'm saying that the universe was created prior to day one of the six day period (Gen. 1:1)

It still says all the work was done in six days, on everything.

If all the universe except for earth was forming and aging during that time - that's still God "fashioning" or "working on", or whatever term you want to use - and that passage says that was all done in six days.

You're using the same mental gymnastics you suggested we try to avoid.

 

[keyarch]

It still says all the work was done in six days, on everything.

If all the universe except for earth was forming and aging during that time - that's still God "fashioning" or "working on", or whatever term you want to use - and that passage says that was all done in six days.

You're using the same mental gymnastics you suggested we try to avoid.

No. At this point it warrants further study of the original language to discern the last part of the sentence dealing with "all in them" because that could be taken as all that He did (during that six days). We can't just look at a translation and build a doctrine around it. Also, it warrants looking at historical commentary on the passage. You are still saying "For in six days" rather than "For six days". I'm just trying to expose what the passage actually says and not add things to it. If it did say "For within six days God created the whole universe" I would accept and believe that, and it would be the end of the subject.

 

[mark kennedy]

keyarch,

Your interpretation, while valid, has some difficulties. I think you are right that this has to be decided based on the original language. The key word is ‛âśâh ( עשׂה )

I looked it up in Vines, the word is used in a broad number of ways. Only when there is a direct connection to bârâ' can it be considered creation from nothing. From Vines:

The most instructive occurrences of ‛âśâh are in the early chapters of Genesis. Gen. 1:1 uses the verb bârâ' to introduce the Creation account, and Gen. 1:7 speaks of its detailed execution: “And God made [‛âśâh] the firmament.…” Whether or not the firmament was made of existing material cannot be determined, since the passage uses only ‛âśâh. But it is clear that the verb expresses creation, since it is used in that context and follows the technical word bârâ'. The same can be said of other verses in Genesis: 1:16 (the lights of heaven); 1:25, 3:1 (the animals); 1:31; 2:2 (all his work); and 6:6 (man). In Gen. 1:26-27, however, ‛âśâh must mean creation from nothing, since it is used as a synonym for bârâ'. The text reads, “Let us make [‛âśâh] man in our image, after our likeness.… So God created [bârâ'] man in his own image.…” Similarly, Gen. 2:4 states: “These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created [bârâ'], in the day that the Lord God made [‛âśâh] the earth and the heavens.” Finally, Gen. 5:1 equates the two as follows: “In the day that God created [bârâ'] man, in the likeness of God made [‛âśâh] he him.” The unusual juxtaposition of bârâ' and ‛âśâh in Gen. 2:3 refers to the totality of creation, which God had “created” by “making.”​

It's a little awkward trying to reconcile a creation of the heavens and earth without a sun, moon and stars. I think the subtlety of the text makes your interpretation permissible but certainly not necessary for a sound exposition.

I'm still convinced that the narrative is from the perspective of 'from the surface of the earth'. It's not that I disagree really, just that I see the passage differently. The key word used is a little ambiguise but certainly does not exclude that particular interpretation.

Great seeing you again Denise. I'll come back when I have some time to deal with this topic in a little more depth.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[MatthewDiscipleofGod]

If you read Exodus 20:11 in the Greek version of the Old Testament which was written by Jews before Jesus was here on earth you will see it clearly states it was in 6 days. I don't know Hebrew as well as I do Greek but this tells me the Jews who wrote the LXX believed it meant in six days.

[FONT=Palatino Linotype,Code2000,Gentium][SIZE=+1]20:11 ἐν γὰρ ἓξ ἡμέραις ἐποίησεν κύριος τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ τὴν γῆν καὶ τὴν θάλασσαν καὶ πάντα τὰ ἐν αὐτοῖς καὶ κατέπαυσεν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τῇ ἑβδόμῃ διὰ τοῦτο εὐλόγησεν κύριος τὴν ἡμέραν τὴν ἑβδόμην καὶ ἡγίασεν αὐτήν[/SIZE][/FONT]

 

[HypnoToad]

No. At this point it warrants further study of the original language to discern the last part of the sentence dealing with "all in them" because that could be taken as all that He did (during that six days). We can't just look at a translation and build a doctrine around it. Also, it warrants looking at historical commentary on the passage. You are still saying "For in six days" rather than "For six days". I'm just trying to expose what the passage actually says and not add things to it. If it did say "For within six days God created the whole universe" I would accept and believe that, and it would be the end of the subject.

Yeah, I know it doesn't say "IN", but the passage really reads the same with it or not. Now, you add all these things things to consider, we have to look at this, we have to look at that, but unless you actually DO that, it seems like now you're just grasping at straws.

 

[HypnoToad]

In Gen. 1:26-27, however, ‛âśâh must mean creation from nothing, since it is used as a synonym for bârâ'.​

​

Are you saying, then, that you believe there were others besides Adam & Eve? Because, Adam was formed out of the ground, and Eve was taken from part of him - that's not "creation from nothing", which, according to this, is how the people referred to in Gen.1 were made.

 

[keyarch]

If you read Exodus 20:11 in the Greek version of the Old Testament which was written by Jews before Jesus was here on earth you will see it clearly states it was in 6 days. I don't know Hebrew as well as I do Greek but this tells me the Jews who wrote the LXX believed it meant in six days.
[FONT=Palatino Linotype,Code2000,Gentium][SIZE=+1]ἐν [/SIZE][/FONT]

You may have a good point here, but I'm not sure how the "preposition" was used or interpreted in the Greek. It's interesting though, that in the NKJV and others they have italicized the word "in" as something added. I'm interested in some resources that give some insight as to how the Jews and the early Church Fathers viewed this passage. All the commentary I've been able to locate only talk about it in light of the ten commandments (working and rest) and not something that holds such a weight as a prooftext for the whole of creation (including the heavens of heaven) taking place WITHIN six days.

BTW, I think that the way this thread has been going is the way we intended for the Creationism sub-forum. I'm very encouraged by it.

 

[busterdog]

[/indent]Are you saying, then, that you believe there were others besides Adam & Eve? Because, Adam was formed out of the ground, and Eve was taken from part of him - that's not "creation from nothing", which, according to this, is how the people referred to in Gen.1 were made.

Isn't that interesting? Why didn't God simply form Eve from the dust.

Sort of makes you wonder about two things: 1. why humans can be "one flesh" and animals perhaps can't be; 2. how we are the bride of Christ and essentially "one flesh" with God in Revelation; 3. how this fits in redemptive history as modeled by Ruth as the betroathed to Boaz.

 

[HypnoToad]

Isn't that interesting? Why didn't God simply form Eve from the dust.

Sort of makes you wonder about two things: 1. why humans can be "one flesh" and animals perhaps can't be; 2. how we are the bride of Christ and essentially "one flesh" with God in Revelation; 3. how this fits in redemptive history as modeled by Ruth as the betroathed to Boaz.

Oh yeah, I saw Eve's symbolism long ago.

 

[MatthewDiscipleofGod]

You may have a good point here, but I'm not sure how the "preposition" was used or interpreted in the Greek. It's interesting though, that in the NKJV and others they have italicized the word "in" as something added.

This is true. The NKJV, like most translations, translates the Old Testament from the Hebrew. As you pointed out technically the word "in" is not in the Hebrew, no pun intended. One reason the NKJV is my favorite translation is because it puts words that are not in the original language in italics. Many other translations don't do that.

I'm interested in some resources that give some insight as to how the Jews and the early Church Fathers viewed this passage. All the commentary I've been able to locate only talk about it in light of the ten commandments (working and rest) and not something that holds such a weight as a prooftext for the whole of creation (including the heavens of heaven) taking place WITHIN six days.

BTW, I think that the way this thread has been going is the way we intended for the Creationism sub-forum. I'm very encouraged by it.

I'm glad we are keeping this thread civilized and I think most of us are learning something new. I don't know of any quotes from church fathers regarding this verse specifically but if anyone know of any please give them with sources listed.