Genesis 1:5 / 1:16 - The sun was not made until day 4, what allowed evening and morning; what allowed days to happen?
Theory 1: Scientific Theory - A Different Perspective
Now a very interesting theory which was paraphrased on a website. The theory comes from Hugh Ross (c)1979 "Genesis 1: a Scientific Perspective". (Only 15 pages! here) Essentially the first point is that the account is simplified to convey to people 3500 years ago to now truths of creation, which makes a lot of sense. Why would Moses write about microbes and atoms and an expanding universe when there was no way to view it at the time? Secondly that in response to my question and much about the first 6 days the perspective of the account as described in verse 2, that the account is that of the earth already partially formed and God's Spirit hovering over the waters, is pointed out; it focuses primarily on the account of Earth's creation. It continues, and although it is written in 1979 it is consistent, as far as I can tell, with the continued development of science. It uses physics, math, molecular biology, cosmology, and more in its discussion. I enjoyed it. Basically the summary that I had read before in support of my question is the following:
- Day 0 -- Formless void
As the Earth condensed out of the primordial disk, it appeared just as the Genesis writer says, "formless and void." - Day 1 -- Light
The atmosphere of the Earth thinned and changed to the point that light from the sun could penetrate, and be visible from the surface of the Earth--although the atmosphere was not yet thin enough (transparent) for the sun to be seen directly. - Day 2 -- Separation of water
As the atmosphere continued to condense, water gathered "above" (clouds) and "below" (sea), leaving a "vault" (of air) between them. - Day 3 -- Dry land and first plant life.
As the planet continued to take shape, masses of dry land began to appear as distinct from the oceans. At this point it finally becomes possible for basic plant life to exist, distinct land vegetation, as well as water vegetation - Day 4 -- Sun, moon, stars
Finally, as the atmosphere continued to develop and thin, heavenly bodies--the sun, moon and stars--became visible.
Essentially the idea I am getting from this theory in relation to my question is that the sun and stars were actually made already (in verse 1) but not fully and from the earth we couldn't see it distinctly until day 4. Ross claims that the account in Genesis actually very well aligns with scientific discovery and takes the stance that a 'day' has multiple meanings and can mean many many years as a 'day' to a larger rotating body (a galaxy for example) would still fit on of the definitions and actually lines up well with the scientific dates related to each of the larger events.
I am largely satisfied with this answer, probably mostly because it agrees with the things I already think of science and my stance on a 'day' in Genesis 1. It's also highly biblical in the fact that the source of the position is from the second verse. However, this stance largely rides on the idea of simplification of message and scientific evidence.
Cited: http://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/1177/how-can-the-sun-be-created-after-day-and-night
Theory 2: Daily Creation - Literally 6 Days
The alternate view boils down to the discussion of Genesis 1 as poetry or as history, and the words being used literally or figuratively. And this is a huge discussion. I was going to save it for my next question, and will probably discuss it further at that point. For now I will highlight some arguments.
1. "day" yôm is used to denote 24 hours throughout the Bible. Especially when combined again and again with 'evening' and 'morning'. Psalm 90:4 (A thousand years in your sight are like a day that has just gone by, or like a watch in the night) and 2Peter [both I use often in this scenario] are similes explaining how God is not constrained by time limits as we are. There are many other ways of saying a time longer than a day in Hebrew, and none are used.
2. Exodus 20:8-11. God speaks through Moses and says "six days" was how long creation took.
3. Jesus and Paul speak of creation accounts as fact and truth: as history.
4. Speaking directly to the above theory the word "made" used throughout isn't "appeared" or "revealed" as explained in the 'creation' of the stars and moon.
5. Would God have intentionally confused His people for thousands of years?
But more to the issue of how is there a day and no sun?
Typically the answer is 'you don't need a sun to have light'. And I agree. Whether this is 'God is light' (1John1:5) or just 'light' in general which was created on day 1 doesn't matter too much to me. And that God had chosen that 24 hours was a day and made it clear by establishing the sun and moon on day 4.
One conclusion is that the 'light' created on day 1 was temporary and fixed in relation to the earth and somewhat 'replaced' by the sun.
Another argument for literal days is 'how could the plants survive ages without sun?' which is explained in the first theory.
Cited:
http://www.icr.org/article/meaning-day-genesis/
http://creation.com/how-long-were-the-days-of-genesis-1
http://creation.com/how-could-the-days-of-genesis-1-be-literal-if-the-sun-wasnt-created-until-the-fourth-day
http://www.icr.org/article/sunlight-before-sun/
https://www.christiancourier.com/articles/882-what-was-that-light-before-the-sun-genesis-1-3
Ok. I just read something that blew my mind, so I shall end here for the day. I still don't know what the official answer is. I tend to prefer the first, it seems more logical, however God's ways are above ours and Science can't prove history. Ultimately, whether with a vast amount of evidence or small it will rest on us trusting one theory or another, placing our faith in a theory, until the day we see Him face to face.
Hebrews 11:3: By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God's command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible
Ttyl.
D.Fa
No comments:
Post a Comment