Light before the Sun

[rmwilliamsll]

provoked by:
There's no basis for such a claim. Our "day" is based on the earth's rotation, not the sun. The sun is only the reference. You'd have to demonstrate that either God didn't know how long 24 hours was without a sun, or that the absence of a sun means the earth rotated at a different speed.

i went back 10 pages of discourse here without seeing a topic on this, nor does search functions bring up a thread to add to, rather than starting a new one.....




Gen 1 is written from the viewpoint of a flat earth, consisting of the Near East, roughly Egypt to Mesopotamian. A solid firmament with lights in it, the sun and moon as light bearers, like the other "planets" (wanderers) that move against the background of fixed stars.

what is interesting is to look at Gen 1 carefully and ask a few questions.

when it was dark, nighttime, did the original readers think that the whole universe was dark? look at the great motif of light vs darkness. it is expressed as a universal, not a local phenomena. like the flood global=universe in our terms, light as daytime and dark as night time are treated as universal uniform events.


did the ancients visualize their world as a globe? of course not, the idea is roughly 600BC not 1500BC.

did they visual the moon as a source of light or a reflector? obviously as a source of it's own light, not as a reflector.

did they realize that the sun is a star? no indication of it.

did they understand that the earth revolves around the sun? of course not, that idea dates from the 16thC, 3000 years after Genesis1 is written down.

but you object, God knows all these scientific facts and lots more that we don't currently know, so why didn't He share them with the Hebrews? because that is not the point of the Scriptures, to present those facts.


but the big first issue, appears to be if Gen 1 shows that the ancient Hebrews thought that the light in the entire universe was out when it was dark in Israel>>>>

sort of, how goes Israel goes the whole universe. day=universal light, night=universal darkness.

 

[shernren]

When I look through Genesis 1 particularly comparing between day 1 and day 4 the thought that strikes me is that the Jews seemed to consider Day and Night as cosmological phenomena (whereas to us it is attached to a planetary paradigm) while the sun and stars were physical objects which did not seem to have significance to the existence of Day and Night.

The viewpoint doesn't make sense to us because to our thinking, day happens when our side of earth faces sun and night happens when our side of earth is facing away, therefore it is strange for God to create Day without creating the sun at the same time. Hence modernist interpretations such as appearance - day 1 light was diffuse over the whole planet obscured by clouds vs day 4 the clouds cleared up and the sun and stars and moon were clearly visible, or day 1 was universal in extent while day 4 is somehow more limited.

But I wonder how Sun and Day were connected to the Jews, it doesn't seem to be a simple causal relationship like we have today since one could be created without the other.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

cosmological phenomena (whereas to us it is attached to a planetary paradigm)


it is this i'd like to look further at.

did the ANE cosmology believe that when they experienced nighttime that the entire universe was dark? that is that the light of the sun went out rather than hidden from them for a time?

i can't find anything online talking about it...

 

[shernren]

I really wonder about the cosmology of the Jews, and since you raised it, how they perceived night and day. Note that they are the first things God created in Genesis 1. As if the night-day relationship is foundational to their created order. I think that is something we may not be able to appreciate, statements like "Work while there is light for soon the night comes" (paraphrased) lose their impact when we can easily extend our time of work by turning on an electric light.

In their cosmology what is the relationship between day and sun? I can't believe that they wouldn't have seen a causal relationship (sun rise -> day starts) and yet the Bible has God creating Day before God creates Sun. In any culture no matter how prescientific people recognize the link between Sun and Day. Even up to today the phrase for solar eclipse in Chinese literally means "the sun is devoured" (ri shi).

Within ANE cosmology where did the sun go in the night, and where did the moon go in the day? And what of the stars? Did they notice equinoxal precession and how did this affect their cosmogony?

So many questions, and none to which the indicative interpretive framework has any answers.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

I really wonder about the cosmology of the Jews, and since you raised it, how they perceived night and day. Note that they are the first things God created in Genesis 1. As if the night-day relationship is foundational to their created order. I think that is something we may not be able to appreciate, statements like "Work while there is light for soon the night comes" (paraphrased) lose their impact when we can easily extend our time of work by turning on an electric light.

In their cosmology what is the relationship between day and sun? I can't believe that they wouldn't have seen a causal relationship (sun rise -> day starts) and yet the Bible has God creating Day before God creates Sun. In any culture no matter how prescientific people recognize the link between Sun and Day. Even up to today the phrase for solar eclipse in Chinese literally means "the sun is devoured" (ri shi).

Within ANE cosmology where did the sun go in the night, and where did the moon go in the day? And what of the stars? Did they notice equinoxal precession and how did this affect their cosmogony?

So many questions, and none to which the indicative interpretive framework has any answers.

that is exactly the level of questions i want to ask.

where did the Sun go at night?
glaudys pointed to a Christian defending a flat Babylonian cosmology using the term "storehouse", for where the sun went.

when it was dark in Israel was the whole universe dark? this question leads into the big one. which is the great motif of the battle of light and darkness, chaos and order (as you have pointed out before) that dominates the ANE and is best seen in Zoroasterism and later Manicheanism. but that is where i want to head, after getting the text understood.

the precession of the equinoxes was probably understood in Mesopotamian and might have lead to the cult of Mithras. see:
The Origins of the Mithraic Mysteries : Cosmology and Salvation in the Ancient World by David Ulansey


at this point we need to recognize two ways the separation of light and dark could be understood in the ANE context.

spatial: light and darkness both exist at the same time in different places. this is what we believe. i know for example that it is light here and shrenren is in darkness.

in time: the day and night rotate in time (unfortunate choice of words, there is no globe in ANE, only a flat earth). The more reading i find the more i believe that this is what the Hebrews believed. That when it was dark in Jerusalem the entire earth was dark. the light had departed.

 

[gluadys]

cosmological phenomena (whereas to us it is attached to a planetary paradigm)


it is this i'd like to look further at.

did the ANE cosmology believe that when they experienced nighttime that the entire universe was dark? that is that the light of the sun went out rather than hidden from them for a time?

i can't find anything online talking about it...

I really have no idea what they thought. Everything I can find refers to the sun and moon, not to light and dark, day and night, apart from the sun and moon.

This of course assumes that the sun produces daylight--as scientifically it does. But that takes us back to the question of where the light of days one-three came from. How could there be days and nights before sun and moon?

I can remember my naive childish interpretation. I thought of light and dark existing side-by-side like the facing pages of a book. I did not think of the sun as producing light, but as being placed in the light, as the ruler of the day. To my 5-year old mind, the sun did not bring the day; the day brought the sun.

I also remember being extremely puzzled when I learned that sometimes the moon appears in the day sky. What was it doing there when God had put it into the night?

 

[Willtor]

. . .

I also remember being extremely puzzled when I learned that sometimes the moon appears in the day sky. What was it doing there when God had put it into the night?

I also remember thinking this. I remember thinking that my Mom's answer, "sometimes the moon comes up during the daytime," was insufficient.

As for Hebraic cosmology (not day and night, unfortunately), I think one could pull a little something out of Clement of Rome's Epistle to the Corinthians:

"For the Creator and Lord of all Himself rejoices in His works. For by His infinitely great power He established the heavens, and by His incomprehensible wisdom He adorned them. He also divided the earth from the water which surrounds it, and fixed it upon the immoveable foundation of His own will. The animals also which are upon it He commanded by His own word into existence. So likewise, when He had formed the sea, and the living creatures which are in it, He enclosed them [within their proper bounds] by His own power."

Of course, by this time, it was known that the Earth is round, but how widely this was known is another question. Clement's cosmology indicates (possibly?) that he thought that the Earth was in the midst of waters. Earth, in this sense, is not what we think of it (inclusive of oceans and seas), but is understood as land, exclusively. If, indeed, water can be seen as a symbol of chaos, it would certainly provide quite an interesting picture of the order in the midst of the chaos, and the chaos as being held back by God by the force of His will.

Again, this doesn't really say anything as to the topic of the thread, per se, but it does say something about the importance of understanding the society and culture of the authors, and the ways in which they perceived the natural world.

 

[shernren]

Hmm let's focus.

1. Precession of the equinoxes: what I'm curious is how the ancient civilizations detected it.

2. Relationship between sun and day, between moon and night: I was doing a Bible search (using ESV on E-sword, keywords "sun night") and came across this:

Thus says the LORD, who gives the sun for light by day and the fixed order of the moon and the stars for light by night, who stirs up the sea so that its waves roar-- the LORD of hosts is his name:
(Jeremiah 31:35 ESV)

In our modern paradigm it seems like the sun determines the day. The reason daylight is in the sky 12 hours a day is because the sun is in the sky for 12 hours. But it seems that there is a reversal in the ANE paradigm: the sun doesn't determine the day but is determined by the day which in turn is a divine construct. Could it be that to them the day was 12 hours and that was why the sun was in the sky 12 hours?

3. Land and sea: did they think in terms of one continent surrounded by infinite seas? I would think they did.

To my 5-year old mind, the sun did not bring the day; the day brought the sun.

I think that's pretty close to the ANE paradigm. The sun is a servant not a master of the day.

 

[gluadys]

Hmm let's focus.

1. Precession of the equinoxes: what I'm curious is how the ancient civilizations detected it.

As you know, all ancient astronomy was also astrology, since the astronomers believed the celestial bodies were actually gods. So their movements were very carefully observed and recorded and the records kept for long periods of time.

Once you have established the solar year, the solstices and the equinoxes, precession is easy to observe as long as you observe for a sufficiently long time. It takes about 2,000 years for the equinoxes to traverse one zodiacal constellation completely. But the fact that the position of the equinox was changing would be obvious long before that.

From an astrological perspective, it is a matter of great significance when the equinox changes from one constellation to another. Hence the hype about the Age of Aquarius when the equinox began occuring in the constellation of Aquarius.

 

[shernren]

As far as I know, the Jews were not significantly sea-faring people, so I don't think the sphericity of the earth would have been very significant in their daily experience. Hence the flat-earth cosmogony. What I am curious about right now would be whether they believed the earth to have an indefinite, infinite size or otherwise. I mean, when we today think of the flat earth we think in terms of a thin disc of dirt and rock and sea orbiting in the midst of outer space and therefore the idea is ridiculous to us. But we must remember that outer space itself is probably a construct also of the modern mind not available to pre-scientific cultures.

Did the Jews ever think the earth had an edge? Did they ever expect to meet it?
I don't think they ever fully explored even Asia, so how did this affect their cosmogony?
What words did the Hebrews use to describe "the whole world" and do those words have other implications? E.g. our "global" refers not just to the world, but also to any other round thing such as globular proteins.

This has serious implications, for example to the question of the global flood, if in the context of their cosmogony "all land under heaven" only refered to the Middle East geography they personally encountered instead of the global sense of it we have today.

 

[nolidad]

gluadys writes:

As you know, all ancient astronomy was also astrology, since the astronomers believed the celestial bodies were actually gods. So their movements were very carefully observed and recorded and the records kept for long periods of time.

With the exception of the prehebraic beleivers. They did not involve themselves in astrology except when backslidden.


shernren writes:

This has serious implications, for example to the question of the global flood, if in the context of their cosmogony "all land under heaven" only refered to the Middle East geography they personally encountered instead of the global sense of it we have today.

All available evidence suggests that the "righteous" believed in a globe or spherical earth. Outside of Scripture we have little or no writing for the patriarchs and pre patriarchal beleivers history until the birth of Ezra and the scribal movement.

willtor writes:

For the Creator and Lord of all Himself rejoices in His works. For by His infinitely great power He established the heavens, and by His incomprehensible wisdom He adorned them. He also divided the earth from the water which surrounds it, and fixed it upon the immoveable foundation of His own will. The animals also which are upon it He commanded by His own word into existence. So likewise, when He had formed the sea, and the living creatures which are in it, He enclosed them [within their proper bounds] by His own power."

I don't know how you can pull Hebraic cosmology out of this. First Clement was of the church age and also Clement was a gentile and not a Jew and would have littel to no experience with the OT as well as knowledge of Hebrew teachings

 

[gluadys]

With the exception of the prehebraic beleivers. They did not involve themselves in astrology except when backslidden.


All available evidence suggests that the "righteous" believed in a globe or spherical earth. Outside of Scripture we have little or no writing for the patriarchs and pre patriarchal beleivers history until the birth of Ezra and the scribal movement.

I don't know how you can pull Hebraic cosmology out of this. First Clement was of the church age and also Clement was a gentile and not a Jew and would have littel to no experience with the OT as well as knowledge of Hebrew teachings

Are these your opinions or do you have supporting evidence for these statements? What evidence shows awareness of a global/spherical earth among the "righteous" prior to the Greek natural philosophers deduction of the sphericity of the earth? How was this knowledge confined to the "righteous"?

What makes you think the Hebrews never practiced astrology? One doesn't need to believe in a pagan pantheon to believe that the sun, moon and stars signify times and seasons in human affairs as well as agriculture. This was a more or less respectable belief into the early modern era.

And what makes you think that Clement was not knowledgeable in the OT scriptures? The passage quoted by Willtor clearly refers to both Genesis and Psalms at least. Clement of Rome was a disciple of Peter himself. Do you think Peter neglected to pass on to him the teaching of the OT?

 

[shernren]

All available evidence suggests that the "righteous" believed in a globe or spherical earth.

You claim it, you'll have to prove it.

 

[jereth]

Did the Jews ever think the earth had an edge? Did they ever expect to meet it?

How about the places in the Bible which talk about "the ends of the earth"?

Eg. Job 28:24
for he views the ends of the earth and sees everything under the heavens.

Would anyone from a culture who believed in a infinitely large earth (not to mention a spherical one) use such language, even poetically? Moderns would say "he views the earth from all sides" or something similar.

Perhaps Psalm 103 is instructive:
11 For as high as the heavens are above the earth,
so great is his love for those who fear him;
12 as far as the east is from the west,
so far has he removed our transgressions from us.

How high are the heavens above the earth? In ancient cosmology, the answer would probably have been: "a definite distance, yet one so large that to all practical intents and purposes it may as well be infinite".

How far is the east from the west? The same answer?

 

[shernren]

Would anyone from a culture who believed in a infinitely large earth (not to mention a spherical one) use such language, even poetically?

Hillsong United. But even if "To The Ends of The Earth" doesn't prove that they believed in a flat earth, it does prove that somebody a long time ago who coined the expression did.

 

[Jadis40]

I've puzzled over the "problem" of light being created before Genesis 1:14 indicates that the sun and moon along with the stars were mentioned, and I remember in high school CP Biology thinking the same thing.

I've never doubted that God created the Universe, it's too far complex to have formed purely on random chance occurences. I don't read Genesis 1 or 2 as a literal discussion of the creation of the earth. Instead, I believe that science can serve as a tool to further delve into the wonder of God's creative powers. I personally think that the Sun was formed first, and then the other planets, and this lines up with any scientific model of the formation/creation whatever of the solar system we live in. I firmly believe that science and faith can go hand in hand, and I don't see the two in conflict. Sometimes we need to realize that science is a tool that helps reveal the wonder of the creation to us, and to me, further deepens my appreciation for the world that God has created.

Anyway, just for the record, I'm Old Earth Creationist.

 

[nolidad]

What makes you think the Hebrews never practiced astrology? One doesn't need to believe in a pagan pantheon to believe that the sun, moon and stars signify times and seasons in human affairs as well as agriculture. This was a more or less respectable belief into the early modern era.

Well it all depends in how widely you wish to cast teh definition of astrology. Teh early beleivers anf the Jews had the Mazzaroth but that what vastly different than the pagan beleifs. They did not beleive that teh stars guided their destinies nor that they were representatives of the gods. This is the ancient astrology I am referring to.

[Are these your opinions or do you have supporting evidence for these statements? What evidence shows awareness of a global/spherical earth among the "righteous" prior to the Greek natural philosophers deduction of the sphericity of the earth? How was this knowledge confined to the "righteous"? /QUOTE]

Well we are debatin ghtat now on the evo thread we are botrh on so I will save writing time here.

And what makes you think that Clement was not knowledgeable in the OT scriptures? The passage quoted by Willtor clearly refers to both Genesis and Psalms at least. Clement of Rome was a disciple of Peter himself. Do you think Peter neglected to pass on to him the teaching of the OT?

Think back to the times you are referring to. Clement was Bishop of Rome towards teh end of the first century. He was a gentile therefore a pagan before his conversion to Christianity. He may have known of Jews as Rome did have a large Jewish population but if he was a typical gentile inthe gentile world
He would have had little or no dealings with the OT.

He was converted by Peter and discipled by Peter. But Peter did not carry around an OT with him. When He discipled Clement it was on Christ and not the OT though he most assuredly have used passages from the OT. Eventhe most elevated gentiles inthe church in the first century would have had little knowledge of the OT for it was a Jewish book. Not even all synagogues had a full ot in them as the cost of the writings and the time to produce them was very prohibitive.

shernren writes:

But even if "To The Ends of The Earth" doesn't prove that they believed in a flat earth, it does prove that somebody a long time ago who coined the expression did.

so does that mean that when we say its raining cats and dogs--someone actually did know of it raining cats and dogs??????

 

[shernren]

so does that mean that when we say its raining cats and dogs--someone actually did know of it raining cats and dogs??????

You're right. "Raining cats and dogs" is what I would call a hyperbolic idiom. Nobody logically believes that it can rain cats and dogs.

And yet there is another kind of idiom, based on ancient paradigms persisting into modern literature. So someone can be "full of spleen", as rmswilliams pointed out, or "humorous" (which came from the concept of humours in the body).

The question is, to which belongs the expression "to the ends of the earth"?
If it is a hyperbole, what is it a hyperbole of? I'm sure you've experienced extremely heavy rain and can identify with whoever coined "raining cats and dogs". But how is "to the ends of the earth" a hyperbole of a round-earth model?

 

[philN]

Keep in mind the first creation account is written in a poetic form. A common element of Hebrew poetry is parallelism. With this in mind, if you look at the order of creation, the first three days are actually paralleled with the second three days: On the first day, night is seperated from day and on the fourth day night receives the moon and day receives the sun. Likewise, the second day is echoed by the fifth: the sea-water and rain waters of day two get appropriate inhabitantson the fifth day, sea-life for the sea waters and rain-life, the birds, for the rain waters. Similarly, vegetable-life for land in day three gets its counterpart in day six -- "crawling things and wild beasts". This first creation story is not meant to tell the actual scientific order that God created the world, it is a poetic account that uses Hebrew parallel structure to tell a tale about creation. Notice in the second creation account of Genesis 2 that the events happen out of sequence from the first account -- for example, animals do not enter the picture until after humans in the later account.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Keep in mind the first creation account is written in a poetic form. A common element of Hebrew poetry is parallelism. With this in mind, if you look at the order of creation, the first three days are actually paralleled with the second three days: On the first day, night is seperated from day and on the fourth day night receives the moon and day receives the sun. Likewise, the second day is echoed by the fifth: the sea-water and rain waters of day two get appropriate inhabitantson the fifth day, sea-life for the sea waters and rain-life, the birds, for the rain waters. Similarly, vegetable-life for land in day three gets its counterpart in day six -- "crawling things and wild beasts". This first creation story is not meant to tell the actual scientific order that God created the world, it is a poetic account that uses Hebrew parallel structure to tell a tale about creation. Notice in the second creation account of Genesis 2 that the events happen out of sequence from the first account -- for example, animals do not enter the picture until after humans in the later account.

this is the fundamental insight that leads to framework interpretation.