What was Created First: the Earth or the Stars?

[BridgeBuilder]

I have been reading the Bible again, and I was very quickly reminded of why I decided at 16 years of age that it couldn't be 100% inerrant. I'm sincerely seeking an honest answer to this question...

I couldn't get past the first handful of verses in Genesis. The stumbling block for me was Genesis 1:14-18 (from the King James version):

14And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: 15And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
16And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
17And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
18And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.

If the Bible is 100% inerrant, then why does it state the stars were created AFTER the earth. This is in direct contradiction to very concrete scientific evidence that the stars are MUCH older than the earth. It is also very naive, arrogant and "earth-centric" to believe that everything in the universe was created for the earth's benefit.

Now that I reread these verses, they are STILL a stumbling block. Please explain to me how you are able to reconcile these verses with scientific evidence.

Peace and Love,
BridgeBuilder

 

[FrAnthony]

I couldn't get past the first handful of verses in Genesis. The stumbling block for me was Genesis 1:14-18 (from the King James version):

Please explain to me how you are able to reconcile these verses with scientific evidence.

I was taught to not view the book of Genesis in terms of time as we understand it. Time is only used as a way to communicate something in a way that humans can understand it. Just like I don't think everything was made in six days. Your question is similar to the age old debate about how did Adam and Eve's son go to a "village" of people if they were the first created and the Bible doesn't say villages of people were created.

What I get from this passage is that God is the creator of heaven and earth, and of all things seen and unseen. If you spend too much time trying to figure out which came first, the chicken or the egg, then you'll miss the larger picture of what the Bible is teaching you. The devil is in the details.

 

[Calminian]

Oh boy! This one oughta be fun.

I have been reading the Bible again, and I was very quickly reminded of why I decided at 16 years of age that it couldn't be 100% inerrant. I'm sincerely seeking an honest answer to this question...

I couldn't get past the first handful of verses in Genesis. The stumbling block for me was Genesis 1:14-18 (from the King James version):

14And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: 15And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
16And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
17And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
18And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.

If the Bible is 100% inerrant, then why does it state the stars were created AFTER the earth. This is in direct contradiction to very concrete scientific evidence that the stars are MUCH older than the earth. It is also very naive, arrogant and "earth-centric" to believe that everything in the universe was created for the earth's benefit.

Now that I reread these verses, they are STILL a stumbling block. Please explain to me how you are able to reconcile these verses with scientific evidence.

Peace and Love,
BridgeBuilder

Whenever scripture contradicts science, I question the science. One thing to keep in mind is God is not bound to the laws of science. Jesus, our Creator incarnate, violated scientific laws every day of his ministry on earth. Indeed the Resurrection, the foundational event of christianity, was scientifically impossible.

The thing I find interesting about the Genesis creation account, is that it conveys creation as a miracle (or series of miracles), not a natural process. Miracles by definition are violations, or more accurately, additions to natural processes. This will cause all kinds of trouble for those attempting to understand them scientifically. Science has a very necessary naturalistic presupposition.

It's important to distinguish between logic and science. They are not synonymous. What is scientifically impossible is not necessarily logically impossible. God works within the limits of logic and therefore we can understand Him theo-logically. But He often works outside of science and cannot always be understood theo-scientifically. Thus science is never a good reason to doubt clear passages of scripture, especially those testifying of miracles (direct acts of God). Indeed the earth preceded the stars...as did the plants. Creation was a miracle! That's not a problem for our God.

Ex. 20:9 Six days you shall labor and do all your work, ....11 For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them...

 

[Rafael]

God stands outside of time altogether, and scientists are discovering that mathematically, the universe must have been made and is made from at least 10 dimensions in order for a unifying theory to exist.
Reality is, everything we see or perceive is made of the unseen, and time is just another one of the dimensions that make up our reality.
Time is relative to God and His will - not that of man.
There is a good article at Institute for Creation Research by Russell Humphreys, Ph.D. called, "Seven years of light and Time", dealing with the Genesis - speculating, as science often does with theory, how time might be relative to the great mass of the universe just before the "big bang" according to the theories we have on relativity and quantum mechanics. It is possible that millions of years passed in one single day, realtive to God's position when He created the heavens and the earth just because of the mass envolved, racing at the speed of light in expansion. Really, it was not so long ago they discovered it is actually accelerating in that expansion, and now they think the universe is much younger than ever thought before?? Just how much, can they or any man really tell?
Face it. We, as a race of beings, do not know squat or we would be creating life and universes for ourselves. Scientists still have an embarrassing time even explaining fully why there is mass at all.
God may just plan to share that knowledge with His family someday (if there is a day in eternity where only now exists), and we will possibly be privy to helping make the new heavens and the new universe....till then we do not have such power or knowledge of even the most basic and elemental powers of the dimensions it takes to do such creation....

 

[ebia]

I have been reading the Bible again, and I was very quickly reminded of why I decided at 16 years of age that it couldn't be 100% inerrant. I'm sincerely seeking an honest answer to this question...

I couldn't get past the first handful of verses in Genesis. The stumbling block for me was Genesis 1:14-18 (from the King James version):

14And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: 15And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
16And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
17And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
18And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.

If the Bible is 100% inerrant, then why does it state the stars were created AFTER the earth. This is in direct contradiction to very concrete scientific evidence that the stars are MUCH older than the earth. It is also very naive, arrogant and "earth-centric" to believe that everything in the universe was created for the earth's benefit.

Now that I reread these verses, they are STILL a stumbling block. Please explain to me how you are able to reconcile these verses with scientific evidence.

Peace and Love,
BridgeBuilder

Genesis isn't a scientific textbook - it's literature designed to tell us stuff about God, Creation, Us, and the relationships between those.

To treat it as scientifically and historically accurate is a gross abuse of what it is; it's no more valid that treating it as a cookery book and complaining because you don't get a tasty cake at the end.

 

[Calminian]

Any atheist can read the book of Genesis and clearly see it is meant as an historical narrative. Of course it's not a science book, but it is a history book. Metaphorical genealogies? I don't think so! Creation is an historical event just as the Resurrection of Christ is. Some believe it. Some don't. That's just the way it is.

 

[BridgeBuilder]

Thanks for such thoughtful responses. I will emphasize that I am NOT an atheist by a long shot and happen to believe the universe was indeed created by God.

But I have been talking with a lot of Christians lately who say the Bible is word-for-word 100% literal and inerrant. And when I read things like this, I question that. That doesn't mean I'm going to throw my Bible away, but I do read it in a very thoughtful manner.

I agree that "time" as we know it does not exist for God (I really liked the thoughtfulness of that response), but I would have felt better if the Bible had somehow said that. And I learned long ago that a "day" for God is not the same as a day for us, and I'm fine with that. But there does appear to be a literal sequence of events in Genesis, presuming linear time, and that's why my question arose.

As for the comment that we should just dismiss science, I believe one can believe in God and still not dismiss science. It's pretty fundamental stuff that the earth was created after the stars. There are galaxies and quasars out there which are much, much older than even our entire galaxy. I would not be naive enough to dismiss that altogether. Does that mean I don't believe in miracles? Of course not. I DO believe in miracles. I believe the entire universe is a miracle (and scientists are saying now there may even be multiple universes, which is even a BIGGER miracle). I believe my very own existence is a miracle. I actually see little miracles every day.

But as I begin going to church once again and read the Bible (I went to church for the first time in years last Sunday), I do question the 100% literal inerrancy of the Bible. Does that mean I will abandon my quest for Christianity? Absolutely not.

God Bless You,
BridgeBuilder

 

[Rafael]

Thanks for such thoughtful responses. I will emphasize that I am NOT an atheist by a long shot and happen to believe the universe was indeed created by God.

But I have been talking with a lot of Christians lately who say the Bible is word-for-word 100% literal and inerrant. And when I read things like this, I question that. That doesn't mean I'm going to throw my Bible away, but I do read it in a very thoughtful manner.

I agree that "time" as we know it does not exist for God (I really liked the thoughtfulness of that response), but I would have felt better if the Bible had somehow said that. And I learned long ago that a "day" for God is not the same as a day for us, and I'm fine with that. But there does appear to be a literal sequence of events in Genesis, presuming linear time, and that's why my question arose.

As for the comment that we should just dismiss science, I believe one can believe in God and still not dismiss science. It's pretty fundamental stuff that the earth was created after the stars. There are galaxies and quasars out there which are much, much older than even our entire galaxy. I would not be naive enough to dismiss that altogether. Does that mean I don't believe in miracles? Of course not. I DO believe in miracles. I believe the entire universe is a miracle (and scientists are saying now there may even be multiple universes, which is even a BIGGER miracle). I believe my very own existence is a miracle. I actually see little miracles every day.

But as I begin going to church once again and read the Bible (I went to church for the first time in years last Sunday), I do question the 100% literal inerrancy of the Bible. Does that mean I will abandon my quest for Christianity? Absolutely not.

God Bless You,
BridgeBuilder

Personally, I believe that the scriptures will be found very reliable when it is all said and done. I believe God has the power to keep His word and that the only misunderstanding or lack of knowledge is on our part.
God supplies us enough of His word to give us a framework on things not essential to those things He would have us grow in - like hope, faith, and love - the eternal things. The knowledge is hinted and hidden throughout the scriptures that will be revealed to us all someday when we will "know as we are known". It was only recently within the last few years I noticed the verse in Hebrews 11:3 where it tells us that all things are made of the unseen. Time and eternity are hinted at in John 5:25 when it tells us that time is coming and is "now", in eternity. If we narrow our vision enough, we can cut God right out of the picture with our "theories", but I am finding science all the time that supports the scriptures with as good a theory and fact as any given to go against it....
God bless you on your journey...

Hebrews 11:3 By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible.

John 5:25 "Most assuredly, I say to you, the hour is coming, and now is, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God; and those who hear will live.

1Co 13:12 For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part, but then I shall know just as I also am known.

 

[Calminian]

Thanks for such thoughtful responses. I will emphasize that I am NOT an atheist by a long shot and happen to believe the universe was indeed created by God.

But I have been talking with a lot of Christians lately who say the Bible is word-for-word 100% literal and inerrant. And when I read things like this, I question that. That doesn't mean I'm going to throw my Bible away, but I do read it in a very thoughtful manner.

Actually there aren't any christians that believe scripture is 100% literal. I know what they mean, but it's a little imprecise. No one believes Jesus is a loaf of bread (John 6:35) for instance. I think what they are saying is, the Bible must be interpreted exegetically—that is, the Bible itself must dictate what is to be understood literally and what is not. Nothing outside of the author, like modern scientific theories, should play a role. In essence, I agree with them, but wanted to clarify that. There is figurative language all throughout the Bible including in Genesis, but the creation account is meant to be read as historical narrative and the time frame is meant to be literal. Moses made this clear when he used the jewish work week as a frame of reference (Ex. 20:9-11).

But there does appear to be a literal sequence of events in Genesis, presuming linear time, and that's why my question arose.

You are correct. If there was any other way to read it, I certainly would consider it.

As for the comment that we should just dismiss science, I believe one can believe in God and still not dismiss science.

We should never dismiss science we just need to understand its presuppositions and limitations. In the area of miracles it becomes very limited. Do you believe the Resurrection can be understood scientifically? We have numerous tests showing that men never rise after being dead three days. Does this disprove the resurrection? Science in of of itself can never disprove a miracle.

It's pretty fundamental stuff that the earth was created after the stars.

It may be a reasonable scientific assessment, but not necessarily a logical one. The fact that you believe the stars were created contradicts science already. If you believe creation to be a direct act of God, this would be a miracle by definition. Science cannot draw supernatural conclusions. No matter what, if you are a creationist, you have to eventually part with science.

There are galaxies and quasars out there which are much, much older than even our entire galaxy. I would not be naive enough to dismiss that altogether. Does that mean I don't believe in miracles? Of course not. I DO believe in miracles. I believe the entire universe is a miracle (and scientists are saying now there may even be multiple universes, which is even a BIGGER miracle). I believe my very own existence is a miracle. I actually see little miracles every day.

If you believe in miracles you are half way to understanding the Bible correctly. But you first need to gain some understanding of the relationship between science and miracles. There's an article by an atheist I really like. He doesn't believe in miracles but did a very good job in explaining the necessity of presupposing their nonexistence while doing science. Here's the article if you want to check it out.

Science and Miracles
Theodore M. Drange

There's also an article by John C. Whitcomb about the Methods of the Creator that might be helpful. Jesus was the actual Creator of the universe and when we look at the miracles He performed on earth we can see the difficulty they might have caused those with scientific presuppositions.

Also keep in mind that most young earth creationists believe in an ancient universe. Russell Humphreys' work may be of interest to you. Here's another article that may be of interest. A new cosmology: solution to the starlight travel time problem

But as I begin going to church once again and read the Bible (I went to church for the first time in years last Sunday), I do question the 100% literal inerrancy of the Bible. Does that mean I will abandon my quest for Christianity? Absolutely not.

If you can't believe some of the Bible you can't believe any of it. The Bible is full of stories that contradict science. I would seriously consider what it says about our origin and start looking more skeptically at the naturalistic theories of our day. Sounds like you've come across a good church. Keep going. Bring these concerns to their attention as well.

 

[FrAnthony]

But as I begin going to church once again and read the Bible (I went to church for the first time in years last Sunday), I do question the 100% literal inerrancy of the Bible. Does that mean I will abandon my quest for Christianity? Absolutely not.

God Bless You,
BridgeBuilder

You question was good. In fact, the debate over how, when and where to interpret different parts of the Bible literally or alllegorically has been going on nearly 2,000 years. In Orthodoxy, we turn to the early Church fathers and other writings of the Saints and Apostles to do our best to understand Holy Scripture.

It's good to read that you have decided to go back to church. May the blessings of God, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, be with you as you pick up where you left off on your journey back to Christ.

 

[FallingWaters]

I have been reading the Bible again, and I was very quickly reminded of why I decided at 16 years of age that it couldn't be 100% inerrant. I'm sincerely seeking an honest answer to this question...

I couldn't get past the first handful of verses in Genesis. The stumbling block for me was Genesis 1:14-18 (from the King James version):

14And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: 15And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
16And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
17And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
18And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.

If the Bible is 100% inerrant, then why does it state the stars were created AFTER the earth. This is in direct contradiction to very concrete scientific evidence that the stars are MUCH older than the earth. It is also very naive, arrogant and "earth-centric" to believe that everything in the universe was created for the earth's benefit.

Now that I reread these verses, they are STILL a stumbling block. Please explain to me how you are able to reconcile these verses with scientific evidence.

Peace and Love,
BridgeBuilder

It's not really "concrete" evidence. It is only assumed to be so by the people who believe it.

Either you humble yourself before the revelation of Almighty God or you don't.

 

[FallingWaters]

Thanks for such thoughtful responses. I will emphasize that I am NOT an atheist by a long shot and happen to believe the universe was indeed created by God.

But I have been talking with a lot of Christians lately who say the Bible is word-for-word 100% literal and inerrant. And when I read things like this, I question that. That doesn't mean I'm going to throw my Bible away, but I do read it in a very thoughtful manner.

I agree that "time" as we know it does not exist for God (I really liked the thoughtfulness of that response), but I would have felt better if the Bible had somehow said that. And I learned long ago that a "day" for God is not the same as a day for us, and I'm fine with that. But there does appear to be a literal sequence of events in Genesis, presuming linear time, and that's why my question arose.

As for the comment that we should just dismiss science, I believe one can believe in God and still not dismiss science. It's pretty fundamental stuff that the earth was created after the stars. There are galaxies and quasars out there which are much, much older than even our entire galaxy. I would not be naive enough to dismiss that altogether. Does that mean I don't believe in miracles? Of course not. I DO believe in miracles. I believe the entire universe is a miracle (and scientists are saying now there may even be multiple universes, which is even a BIGGER miracle). I believe my very own existence is a miracle. I actually see little miracles every day.

But as I begin going to church once again and read the Bible (I went to church for the first time in years last Sunday), I do question the 100% literal inerrancy of the Bible. Does that mean I will abandon my quest for Christianity? Absolutely not.

God Bless You,
BridgeBuilder

You should probably find a couple of good Christian articles (not wiki) that explain exactly what the doctrine if inerrancy is- and what it isn't. That might help a little.

 

[FallingWaters]

I started reading the Bible a couple of times... starting at Genesis. This is normal behavior because from the outside, the Bible looks like a book. Actually though, the Bible is a collection of many different books, and it's not always best to read it from front to back the way one would do with a novel.

Just from my own personal experience and from what others have said, I would like to recommend that perhaps you might like to start reading the New Testament first. What I love about it is all the first-hand accounts of people who knew Jesus personally! That is just so cool!

Mark is full of healings.
Luke has a detailed Nativity account.
John was a very touchy-feely disciple who loved Jesus dearly.
Matthew explained how Jesus fulfilled the scriptures.
Peter- isn't it neat that we have Peter's writings?! He talked about holiness a lot- how appropriate.

Jesus said if you love me you will obey my commands- most of those are contained in Matthew 5, 6, & 7.

Just a suggestion.

 

[Calminian]

You question was good. In fact, the debate over how, when and where to interpret different parts of the Bible literally or alllegorically has been going on nearly 2,000 years. In Orthodoxy, we turn to the early Church fathers and other writings of the Saints and Apostles to do our best to understand Holy Scripture.

It's good to read that you have decided to go back to church. May the blessings of God, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, be with you as you pick up where you left off on your journey back to Christ.

Hi FrAnthony. Curious, are you familiar with the works of Fr Seraphim Rose? He's an American Eastern Orthodox monk (1934–1982). Recently his works have been compiled into a volume called "A review of Genesis, Creation and Early Man." He makes a very good case for a young earth creationism from the early church fathers. Lately I’ve been presently surprised by the contributions of Orthodox thinkers in this area. I think you’ll find that old earth understandings of Genesis are strictly a recent phenomenon. Many have tried to use the early fathers to support their old earth interpretations, but these efforts have been widely exposed. The Fathers were virtually all young earthers. They all took Genesis to be historical narrative and all believed in a global flood. There were some the allegorized the days of creation, but most did not, and those that did, usually held to an instantaneous creation (Augustine for example).

I just thought the above book might be of interest to you. In the meantime, Terry Mortenson from Answers in Genesis wrote a great review of the book. Here’s the link.

Orthodoxy and Genesis: What the fathers really taught
A review of Genesis, Creation and Early Man
Fr Seraphim Rose
Saint Herman of Alaska
Brotherhood, Platina, CA, 2000

 

[BelindaP]

Your question is interesting to me, because I recently started a study of Genesis in the original language. I have tried to leave any of my preconceived notions (either religious or scientific) behind as I have done so.

It may be of interest to you to know that a better translation (with parenthetical definitions) of Genesis 1:1-2 would be:

In the beginning, God created the heavens (the entire visible universe) and the earth. And the earth became a wasteland, and darkness was upon the face of the deep (the oceans).

This indicates to me that God created the entire universe, including the earth at some point in the past, before the time interval described in the Bible. Because of some disaster, the earth was rendered an virtual wasteland. [Many believe this was a result of the battle between Satan and God, where 1/3 of the angels were thrown out of heaven. I have not reached any conclusion on that part yet.]

The creation account, therefore, is a description of the restoration of the earth from this disaster. Based on the words used in the later verses, it is clear (to me) that the stars, sun, and moon already existed. They were not visible in the first days of creation (or restoration) because of a thick mist of waters that was present on the face of the earth.

What I am currently wrestling with is whether the seven days were literal earth days or whether they were God's days. [I am a Bible literalist and a scientist, so the two parts of me are at war over this one. I'm trying very hard to avoid either scientific or religious bias.] Right now it seems clear to me that the seven days were literal earth days, based on the verbiage used. I must do some more study before deciding for sure.]

Anyway, the answer your question, I believe that the sun and stars were created before the earth, in the initial creation by God.

With my interpretation, how God initially formed the universe is not given in the Bible. Therefore, science could very well be right about the Big Bang and other theories. The restoration of the earth appears to be a miracle wrought by God over a short period of time. I don't think that science has considered this possibility, and has therefore not looked for the signs of a more recent desolation followed by a restoration.

The only two discoveries I can think of that might support this would be that 1) all humans presently on this earth have been discovered to be descended from one man, who lived about 5000-8000 years ago and 2) the population of humans has been shown genetically to have been greatly diminished to a very small number about 10000 years ago before spreading out over the earth again.

 

[BridgeBuilder]

Wow, what a very thoughtful response regarding Genesis! Thank you. That really helps a lot.

I think I will take some of the advice given here and skip the Old Testament for now and head for the New Testament...I also have a whole stack of books to read - "Mere Christianity" by C.S. Lewis and "The Case for Christ" by Lee Stroebel among them. Maybe they will help shed some light on things.

Today I got a note in the mail from a minister at the church I visited last Sunday. He is going to call me since I requested that on the visitor form. When he calls, I'm going to be very honest with him regarding my questions. I really don't want to play games with these people and pretend I'm someone I'm currently not (and I don't think they would want that either). I will be going to church again on Sunday. I actually really enjoyed church last week. It was as if parts of the service were tailored by God just for me. And I'm sure attending church during the Christmas season will be nice too.

Funny, I attended church for years as a child, but I never really enjoyed it. It was more of a chore. I stopped attending at the age of 16. Even 6 years ago, I attended for a while due to the need for comfort during a health crisis, but I never really felt like I belonged.

This time, things are very different. I do have a questioning mind, I think you all can see that, but it is also an open mind. I will also be honest with you, I have issues with whether I really need to be saved from anything since I have problems with the concept of hell. I also believe in personal empowerment due to my New Age background, which is the opposite of what evangelical Christians appear to believe. But I truly want to learn more about who Jesus is. And I'm not sure I ever felt that way before in the past. So I will continue this journey.

Peace and Love,
BridgeBuilder

 

[Letalis]

Mod hat on

Just a reminder, please keep the debate to a minimum. We allow some room for this, but generally debates of opposing points of view should be taken to the Debate forums.

Thanks.

Mod hat off
​

 

[BridgeBuilder]

Thank you for that reminder. I'm new here and don't necessarily remember all the rules, even though I did read the agreement when I signed up. I think the debate is pretty much over on this topic. We'll try to keep future discussions to the question/answer format here.

BridgeBuilder

 

[heron]

Bridgebuilder,
Turn your observations a little to the side, and consider that some of what disturbs you is the errancy of people.

We get into our ruts, and fight for things more vehemently than we have backing for. People have opinions based on what they know, what they want to believe, and what they don't want to experience again. If you put yourself into a circle of Christians, you will hear a discussion that covers many angles, many passions, and doesn't necessarily fit neatly together.

My point is, that when you enter a fellowship, prepare yourself for imperfections. When you talk to the pastor, remember that he might not have all the answers. The Holy Spirit can give you a sense of what is true and what isn't. I think that's part of what you're experiencing now... a clash between the Holy Spirit and religiosity.

You can also explore more on how the Bible was compiled, and understand its history... do a search on canonization.