If the sun was created on the fourth day how could plants have lived on the third day

[yeshuasavedme]

Isaiah 18:4 says the sun gives off heat. Science says the sun gives off heat. That pretty much settles it...

Isaiah 18:4, in the original Hebrew, says the dazzling hot sun is the abode/dwelling place of YHWH.
Psalm 19:4 [original literal wording, without interpretation]: [He] set [His] tabernacle [in the] sun.
Psalm 18:5 Douay Rheims translation: He set His tabernacle in the sun
-a line in Isaiah 18:4 so YHWH said I will take my rest , I will scan intently/ponder [from My]dwelling place [the] dazzling hot sun

Also, in the DSS manuscript collection, we read the psalms for singing when the "light comes forth from His dwelling", at dawn.

From the Dead Sea Scrolls translated to English, published in 1994, translated by Wilfred G.E. Watson, I found this in the hymns on page 355,
Col XX (=XII + frags. 54 + 60)
line 4
[For the Instruc]tor, praises and prayers to bow down and entreat always,
from period to period:
when the light comes from His residence;
in the positions of the day, according to the regulation,
in accordance to the laws of the great luminary;
at the return of the evening, at the departure of light,
when the realm of the shades begins; at the appointed moment of the night, in their stations;
at the return of dawn, at the moment when it withdraws to its quarters before the light;
at the departure of night when day enters; continually.

 

[laconicstudent]

(Nevermind. Deleted. I just realized I was taking what you said the wrong way)

 

[Hismessenger]

Yeshuasavedme

[God knows and God told us: an evening and a morning of light and dark, just like we have it now. And there was no heaven until day 2, after the light was made./QUOTE]


But it doesn't tell us or give us a specific time nor light orientation. That is purely your assumption of light and dark for there was light and dark but not in the natural sense of thought as you are presuming. It simply states the morning and the evening were the first day. You can not substantiate anything else other than by assumption or presumption. Not one scripture to back it up.

hismessenger

 

[yeshuasavedme]

Yeshuasavedme

[God knows and God told us: an evening and a morning of light and dark, just like we have it now. And there was no heaven until day 2, after the light was made./QUOTE]


But it doesn't tell us or give us a specific time nor light orientation. That is purely your assumption of light and dark for there was light and dark but not in the natural sense of thought as you are presuming. It simply states the morning and the evening were the first day. You can not substantiate anything else other than by assumption or presumption. Not one scripture to back it up.

hismessenger

I am using only the Scripture.
God made the heavens and the earth in the beginning.
a brief synopsis follows, in Genesis 1.
The earth was a globe of water, first. There was no heaven, no light.

God said "Let there be light", and the evening and the morning were one day =day one =first day.

On the first day, there was no heaven, no sun, no stars, no moon, only a globe of water in darkness; then light.
The evening and the morning were one complete day of one evening and one morning.
There is no interpretation needed in that passage. It just states plainly what God did do in the order and time frame He did it in.

There was no heaven at all on day 1. The light was brought into being before the heavens were stretched out between the divided waters.

That is a simple, easily understood reading of the Word of God.

 

[gluadys]

Yeshuasavedme



I am using only the Scripture.
God made the heavens and the earth in the beginning.
a brief synopsis follows, in Genesis 1.
The earth was a globe of water, first. There was no heaven, no light.

You are not using only the Scripture. You have added the idea of "globe". Scripture does not say "globe". So how do you know it was a globe of water?

 

[Assyrian]

Isaiah 18:4, in the original Hebrew, says the dazzling hot sun is the abode/dwelling place of YHWH.
Psalm 19:4 [original literal wording, without interpretation]: [He] set [His] tabernacle [in the] sun.
Psalm 18:5 Douay Rheims translation: He set His tabernacle in the sun

You brought this up about a year ago in the The flat Earth parallel and other miscellaneous quotes thread. If you remember I pointed out to you that this translation come from the Greek Septuagint, while the Hebrew text itself says tabernacle for the sun. I you just look at a translation with Strong's links, they miss out on a lot of propositions which are attached as prefixes to the Hebrew noun.
בכל־הארץ יצא קום ובקצה תבל מליהם לשׁמשׁ שׂם־אהל בהם׃ Psalm 19:4
שׁמשׁ is shemesh H8121 the sun, but Psalm 19 actually says
לשׁמשׁ it has the preposition ל meaning to or for. It is a tabernacle l'shemesh, for the sun.

-a line in Isaiah 18:4 so YHWH said I will take my rest , I will scan intently/ponder [from My]dwelling place [the] dazzling hot sun

On a side note, according to your link, the main meaning of the Hebrew owr is light, not sun. But the big problem is that you are missing the prepositions again. The Hebrew says as the dazzling heat in sunshine.

 

[Hismessenger]

Zec 14:6

And it shall come to pass in that day, [that] the light shall not be clear, [nor] dark:

Zec 14:7 But it shall be one day which shall be known to
the LORD, not day, nor night: but it shall come to pass, [that] at evening time it shall be light.

The end shall be as the beginning, A time with light and no time frame given. Confirmed by Rev 21;

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.

hismessenger

 

[yeshuasavedme]

You are not using only the Scripture. You have added the idea of "globe". Scripture does not say "globe". So how do you know it was a globe of water?

Because the Hebrew word for "world"/tebel means globe.

 

[yeshuasavedme]

You brought this up about a year ago in the The flat Earth parallel and other miscellaneous quotes thread. If you remember I pointed out to you that this translation come from the Greek Septuagint, while the Hebrew text itself says tabernacle for the sun. I you just look at a translation with Strong's links, they miss out on a lot of propositions which are attached as prefixes to the Hebrew noun.
בכל־הארץ יצא קום ובקצה תבל מליהם לשׁמשׁ שׂם־אהל בהם׃ Psalm 19:4
שׁמשׁ is shemesh H8121 the sun, but Psalm 19 actually says
לשׁמשׁ it has the preposition ל meaning to or for. It is a tabernacle l'shemesh, for the sun.

On a side note, according to your link, the main meaning of the Hebrew owr is light, not sun. But the big problem is that you are missing the prepositions again. The Hebrew says as the dazzling heat in sunshine.

So you are claiming that the Israelite translators of the Greek Septuagint and the English translators of the English Douay- Rheims were not linguists and that they were wrong in translating the Hebrew as "He hath set His tabernacle in the sun?".
Because there are ancient commentaries on the same passage stating that "in the sun hath He set His tabernacle", and those commentaries do not claim that the translation is in error, I think that your own understanding is biased and faulty. Esp in light that the Jews at Qumran also had hymns for worshiping YHWH in all the stations of the day, beginning at dawn; "when the light comes forth from His residence".

There is much evidence in the Bible that God indeed has a created tabernacle of His personal dwelling set in the created sun, and a throne of Glory there. I only touched on a few of them, here.

 

[yeshuasavedme]

The end shall be as the beginning, A time with light and no time frame given. Confirmed by Rev 21;



hismessenger

The beginning was in total darkness, with no created light, so you are not making sense. Also, the Scriptures are clear that the sun and moon will endure forever in the regeneration, but that the City of God will outshine the sun -being seven times brighter- and that in that city there will never be night at all. But there will be night and day cycles for the earth, forever and forever, states the LORD/YHWH, in his word.

 

[gluadys]

Because the Hebrew word for "world"/tebel means globe.

Citation, please.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

LLOJ subscribes

 

[Assyrian]

So you are claiming that the Israelite translators of the Greek Septuagint and the English translators of the English Douay- Rheims were not linguists and that they were wrong in translating the Hebrew as "He hath set His tabernacle in the sun?".
Because there are ancient commentaries on the same passage stating that "in the sun hath He set His tabernacle", and those commentaries do not claim that the translation is in error, I think that your own understanding is biased and faulty. Esp in light that the Jews at Qumran also had hymns for worshiping YHWH in all the stations of the day, beginning at dawn; "when the light comes forth from His residence".

There is much evidence in the Bible that God indeed has a created tabernacle of His personal dwelling set in the created sun, and a throne of Glory there. I only touched on a few of them, here.

The translators of the Septuagint had their own agendas and didn't always stick to the literal meaning of the Hebrew. The Hebrew itself is quite clear, as I have pointed out. Appealing to the Douay Rheims or ancient commentators is pretty meaningless. Apart from Jerome most commentators relied on the Septuagint or the Latin Vulgate which was translated from the Septuagint. Of course what they say will be based on the Septuagints version. The Douay Rheims is a translation of the Vulgate. They are all based on the same source, not confirmation the source is correct. Did Qumran share the same idea about God living in the sun as the translators of the LXX? It is quite possible, although you may be reading too much into the text. But whatever strange ideas the Qumran people had, it says nothing about how Psalm 19 should be translated. You should deal with the Hebrew and stop trying to ignore the existence of Hebrew prepositions.

 

[Znex]

Obviously Genesis isn't historically accurate.

Some Christian you are.

 

[super animator]

Some Christian you are.

Because he didn't take Genesis literally?

 

[Hismessenger]

The beginning was THE ONE TRUE LIGHT GOD! darkness was a byproduct of the creation of the earth which is not talking about a literal darkness but a lack of understanding of who it was who created. The earth is going right back into that darkness as witnessed by Isaiah 60.

Isa 60:2 For, behold, the darkness shall cover the earth, and gross darkness the people: but the LORD shall arise upon thee, and his glory shall be seen upon thee.
Isa 60:3 And the Gentiles shall come to thy light, and kings to the brightness of thy rising

The word goes so much deeper than a carnal understanding. This darkness spoken of in these verses speaks of the lack of understanding as it was in the beginning and the subsequent bringing of the light to remove the darkness once and for all in the end time.

The word also says there will be no need of sun nor moon so show us a scripture which says that they remain in the new heaven and earth

hismessenger

 

[itisdeliciouscake]

they got their light from the same place we'll get our light in the New Jerusalem from

 

[laconicstudent]

Some Christian you are.

Excuse me? Maybe you should think before hurling snide insults. It isn't a question of whether Genesis is a literal historical record, it has been demonstrated not to be. It is the job of Christians to explain that, not stick our heads in the sand and ignore reality.

Wiley InterScience :: Session Cookies


"Soils and soil sediments at Göbekli Tepe, southeastern Turkey: A preliminary report" Konstantin Pustovoytov. Institut für Bodenkunde und Standortslehre, Stuttgart, Germany. Geoarchaelogy. Volume 21, Issue 7. Pages 699 - 719. September 6, 2006.

Abstract

A pedological investigation at Göbekli Tepe, a Pre-Pottery Neolithic (PPN) site in the northern Fertile Crescent (southeastern Turkey), was undertaken to gain a better understanding of its chronology and paleoenvironments. A catena at the southern slope of the central mound suggests that complex pedosedimentary processes took place at the surface of the mound after the abandonment of the site. Soil formation resulted in a markedly dark Ah horizon and a Bk horizon with secondary carbonate accumulations; both hold promise as sources of chronological and paleoecological information. Three fossil Ah horizons from the PPN period were found within the fill. One of them provided a 14C age of 8880 ± 60 yr B.P. (on humic acids) that may approximate the time of abandonment. 14C dating of the oldest microlamina of pedogenic carbonate gave two new dates: 7450 ± 80 yr B.P. for a PPNB context and 6405 ± 70 yr B.P. for a post-PPNB context. These dates have to be considered as well-estimated minimum ages of the contexts.

I'm sorry. But it looks like humans were beginning organized religion several millennium before Genesis has Adam existing. So there might be some slight issues with the historical accuracy of Genesis. You may want to consider apologizing now.

 

[PlanBible]

Plants easily live 24 hours without the sun. All plants start in the darkness of a seed in the soil without sun. There is no problem for a full grown plant to last 24 hours without sunlight.

 

[miamited]

Hi ETC,

You asked:
If the sun was created on the fourth day how could plants have lived on the third day
Aw, that's an easy one. Here's one for you. How did a girl who never had sexual relations with a man or ever have sperm introduced into her womb become pregnant?

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted