Which came first, the Earth or the Sun?

[Christ Warrior]

According to science, the Sun created the Earth and other planets after it itself was created. Yet when one looks into the Bible, it states that the stars were created on the 4th day (Genesis 1:16). Also on the 4th day, it shows that God created what is obviously the Sun (Genesis 1:14-18). My question is if there is any way to interpret this scripture to read that the Sun was really created first, or is "prove" that the Sun was created after the Earth? On this website,http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/day-age.html, the author claims that the Sun was indeed created first, yet I would like to know the opinon of you guys.

Also, how can a "day" exist without the Sun?

[The Mighty Sword]

Which came first, the Earth or the Sun?

The Earth
In the Begining GOD created the Heavens and the Earth.

In Alaska they go 6 months without sun

Genesis 1

The Creation of the World

1In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. 2The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.
3And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. 4And God saw that the light was good. And God separated the light from the darkness. 5God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day.

[nzyr]

If the word of God says that the earth was created before the sun then that's what I believe. I know a lot of scientists don't believe this. But they've been wrong before.

[chisel]

According to science, the Sun created the Earth and other planets after it itself was created. Yet when one looks into the Bible, it states that the stars were created on the 4th day (Genesis 1:16). Also on the 4th day, it shows that God created what is obviously the Sun (Genesis 1:14-18). My question is if there is any way to interpret this scripture to read that the Sun was really created first, or is "prove" that the Sun was created after the Earth? On this website,http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/day-age.html, the author claims that the Sun was indeed created first, yet I would like to know the opinon of you guys.

Also, how can a "day" exist without the Sun?

Hi Christ Warrior,

You can see the fundamental error in the article you've posted right at the start. Look at his interpretation of Genesis 1:1 and what he says there:

Most people read the Genesis creation account without using the scientific method and, therefore, make assumptions that are not supported by the text.

It looks to me like he is saying that we can't just take the creation account as God revealed it, but that we should double check it with todays "science". And in saying that, the rest of the article attempts to reintepret Genesis to fit the various aspects of evolution.

So right at that very point, the writer admits to the following:
He doesn't read the text and draw from it, but instead he draws from evolutionary teaching and attempts to force the Bible to agree with it.

Furthermore, he then proceeds to attempt to explain why a literal Genesis account couldn't be viable (trees take years to bear fruit etc.).
In otherwords he's finding fault with the details of Genesis to justify using the details given to him by mainstream evolutionary teaching.

I believe creation took six days as the Bible says, for the following reasons:

1. The Bible says creation took six days. Now some people argue that the word "yom" can be interpreted as an age. That is true, and so can the English word "day", for instance we can say, "The day of the horse and cart are long gone". But, alternate meanings of the word don't invalidate the basic meaning of the word. When one goes to an art gallery, and one asks the painter how long such and such a painting took and he says, "six days". Do we then wonder if he means 6 ages or literally six days? No we don't, we nod and say "I see".

Then why the confusion in Genesis? Simple, one doesn't have any reason to doubt the painter. But the world wants people to doubt the bible.

The only reason there is confusion in the Genesis case is because the world has decided that evolution is our maker, and evolution is so slow (conveniently too slow to observe) that much time is needed for her to do her work. Many people have bought into this and are now searching for anything they can find to stretch the bible to match evolution.

2. The days in Genesis are specifically mentioned as day/night days.
What should Moses have said to make people believe that it was six, 24 hour days?

If Moses had specifically mentioned 24 hours, would people then say, "Yeah but are these literal hours or simbolic hours?"

But Moses, in writing Genesis specifically mentioned that each of these days consisted of a day and a night.

If creation really took 6 literal days, there isn't anything Moses could have added to make it more clear.

3. Mat 19:4 He answered, "Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female,
Why did Jesus say in Matthew 19:4 that God made Adam and Eve in the beginning of creation, when according to any old earth worldview He should have said, "toward the end, after billions of years"?

If a young earth creation is true, Jesus' statement makes sense. Creation takes 6 days and lasts until now. The first 6 days of a 4000 year period (until Jesus speaks those words) falls in the beginning of the 4000 year period.

If an old earth is true, 20 billion years (or whatever) elapse. then Adam and Eve emerges, then 4000 years until Jesus speaks those words. The last 4000 years of a 20 billion-year period can hardly be considered the beginning and then Jesus' statement doesn't make sense.

4. Adam was 130 years old when Seth was born. If Adam was 130 years old when Seth was born and Adam was created on the sixth day and Adam was the first man, then the sixth day couldn't have been a vast age.

5. The sabbath.
"Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor, and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, you, or your son, or your daughter, your male servant, or your female servant, or your livestock, or the sojourner who is within your gates. For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.
(Exo 20:8-11)

Israel's work week is based directly on God's creation week. The jews interpreted this work week as literal days. Notice that the Hebrew word 'yom' is used in these verses as well.

According to science, the Sun created the Earth and other planets after it itself was created.

You'll find much of what is called 'science' today is mere speculation. Many people think that there is a mountain of scientific evidence support an old earth, but this is in fact based on evolutionary assumptions and the philosophy that the present is the key to the past.

how can a "day" exist without the Sun?
People working in submarines work on a daily schedule. If we can grasp the concept of a day without needing sunlight, then God could certainly have determined what a day would be before He created that by which we measure a day. God plans and brings those plans to fruition according to His will. Did God plan beforehand and determine what a day would be, most certainly! God is a God of order, we see that throughout scripture.

If anything this orderliness by which God created defies and contradicts evolution, since evolution is a blind and messy creator relying on trial and error, death and chaos.

the author claims that the Sun was indeed created first, yet I would like to know the opinon of you guys.

Notice how the author goes about 'proving' this?

He says: "What does the text specifically say? The heavens (universe, solar system, sun, earth, etc.) were already created before the first "day" (Genesis 1:1, ~16 x 109 years ago)" [Emphasis added]

You'll find that the text does not specifically state that at all. Genesis 1:1 makes no mention whatsoever of the sun or solar system and certainly not billions of years.

For his explanation of day 4, he says, "Next the translucent cloud layer was removed so that the sun, moon and stars shown[sic] through."
Where does scripture mention this cloud layer? Nowhere! It is pure invention.

What does the text actually say? Genesis 1:16 And God made two great lights: the greater light to rule the day and the smaller light to rule the night, and the stars also.

According to scripture God didn't pull away a translucent cloud layer revealing the sun and moon, He made it.

The author of the article is telling an evolutionary fairytale, reworked to make it look (sorta) like he's simply paraphrasing Genesis.

The creation account actually follows a pattern. In the first 3 days realms are created and in the following 3 days those realms are populated.
Thus:

Day 1, The realm of light and darkness.
Day 4, The realm of light and darkness is populated, stars, sun, moon. etc. Stellar bodies that produce light.

Day 2, The realm of air and water
Day 5, Fish and birds that populate the sky and the seas

Day 3 Land
Day 6 Animals and man that populate the land.

[wenlock]

According to science, the Sun created the Earth and other planets after it itself was created. Yet when one looks into the Bible, it states that the stars were created on the 4th day (Genesis 1:16).

When one looks into the Bible, it states that God has nostrils and lives on a mountain, that Jesus is a gate, that Herod was a fox, that one should not throw pearls to pigs. And yet some really think that they can learn science from it. Or so it seems.

Also, how can a "day" exist without the Sun?

Quite. At times the Bible contradicts itself, if understood as a science textbook, yet these people carry on undaunted.

[chisel]

When one looks into the Bible, it states that God has nostrils and lives on a mountain, that Jesus is a gate, that Herod was a fox, that one should not throw pearls to pigs. And yet some really think that they can learn science from it. Or so it seems.

What you're doing here, is you're attempting to use the symbolic bits of the Bible (which has nothing to do with the Genesis creation account) to say that we cannot trust the details in bible. Particularly the details that you happen to disagree with.

It's dishonest and rather pathetic. Pardon my directness. Notice how similar this tactic is to what atheists do all the time. "The Bible contains 'contradictions' therefore I needn't submit to it".

The reason why we don't believe that Herod was a literal fox is because the intent of the text is quite clearly to indicate that Herod was devious. People don't generally have trouble distinguishing between symbolism and historical narrative, unless ofcourse, they have a versted interest in blurring the lines.

The intent of Genesis is to give an account of how God made the heavens and the earth. The simple fact is that is doesn't agree with what you have come to believe to be origin of the universe and as such you have to resort to sarcasm and hermeneutic fallacies to explain it away...

I know and you know that if the Bible had said millions of years, you would have been a so-called "literalist" yourself. The only reason you're playing the old "symbolism" card is because Genesis literally contradicts you.

Here's how I know that those opposed to so-called literalism are merely trying to explain the text away.

When a person encounters symbolism, they who have an earnest interest in scripture, study that text, they seek to know its meaning. When Jesus spoke in parables the disciples bothered Him asking what He meant. It was something that they had to know. People have pondered the symbols in Revelation, in fact there are many threads in this forum discussing that very topic. People seek to uncover that which is obscure. It's human nature.

Old earthers, progressive creationists, theistic evolutionists, big bangers etc. are quick to point out that Genesis is symbolism, but then they leave it at that, why?

They don't seem to care what the symbols actually mean or what Moses was trying to convey when he wrote evening and morning, or day and night. What is the greater light, the lesser light? what are the stars supposed to simbolise? It doesn't perplex them. They don't seek to know its meaning. Chances are they're happy to interpret them literally. The big issue isn't stars or suns or moons but the length of the days, not so?

The Genesis creation account is an obstacle to be crossed and nothing more. Something that needs to be trampled into the ground.
If there was no Genesis 1 and 2 it would have made their lives so much easier! Claiming it is simbolism is merely a cleaner way of rejecting the unwanted texts.

At times the Bible contradicts itself, if understood as a science textbook, yet these people carry on undaunted.

Have you read the article linked to in the opening post? Have you noticed how the writer was attempting to gel origins science with the Genesis account? Does it bother you aswell or only when YECs attempt to show how scripture is true in nature?

[wenlock]

What you're doing here, is you're attempting to use the symbolic bits of the Bible (which has nothing to do with the Genesis creation account)

Proof?




................

[chisel]

Proof?

I'm not sure what exactly you want proof of?

[wenlock]

I'm not sure what exactly you want proof of?

One needs proof that 'the Genesis creation account' is not a symbolic bit of the Bible.

[chisel]

One needs proof that 'the Genesis creation account' is not a symbolic bit of the Bible.

Do you ask for proof on every bit of text you read in the Bible or just the parts that you'd prefer to be simbolic?
Did Jesus really turn water into wine? What about the resurrection? Did that actually happen?

Have you read my first post on this thread? I have explained in detail why I believe that the six days of creation were six days.


Honestly though. Genesis starts with the words "In the beginning God..." Am I totally insane for thinking the text that follows would be a description of what God did in the beginning?

The creation account ends with, "Thus, the heavens and the earth were finished..." Am I mad for reading the preceding bits thinking that "thus" is how God....er...made the heavens and the earth?

As I said, the intent of Genesis is to offer and account for how God made everything. I believe it, and I believe most of orthodox judaism as well as Christian history interpreted in it's simple plain straightforward literal form.

The very fact that you're attempting to suggest we interpreted Genesis non-literally is an admission that Genesis literally contradicts you. You require Genesis to be simbolic and that's the bottomline.

And the thing that boggles my mind is why, since we as Christians don't need to accomodate evolution and it's philosophies of uniformitarianism and materialism. It isn't based on good observable science, so the whole exercise of desperately searching for time in Genesis, by contriving day-ages, and gap-theories are unecessary.

You have the finest keenest double-edged sword sheathed on your hip, eager to slay the foolish philosophies of this world. Why do you choose compromise instead? Are you intimidated by Darwin, Dawkins, Gould and Eugenie Scott?

[Athanasius]

Do you ask for proof on every bit of text you read in the Bible or just the parts that you'd prefer to be simbolic?
Did Jesus really turn water into wine? What about the resurrection? Did that actually happen?

Non-Christians tend to ask for proof, considering this is the Apologetics and Evangelism forum.

As for miracles and the resurrection, there are a whole host of influential people who think not. To name a few: John Dominic Crossan, Marcus Borg, Ben Witherington, Robert J. Miller, John Shelby Spong, Bart Ehrman. If someone were to ask me 'So-and-so doesn't believe in Jesus' miracles or the Resurrection, what is your view on what they have to say?' I'm not going to say, 'Read the text again and see what it plainly says, you must be blind!' No, I'm going to try to provide them some sort of proof to read Jesus' miracles and Resurrection as literal historical events, rather than take the view of the people mentioned above. Of course this requires, in part, showing that the accounts aren't metaphors or parabolic in nature.

[chisel]

Non-Christians tend to ask for proof, considering this is the Apologetics and Evangelism forum.

Yes, and I have provided that, however in this case you'll notice that Wenlock was the one asking for proof. I don't think he claims to be a non-believer.

[CoffeeCat]

Alright.

Everyone will notice that posts have been edited or removed -- which is unfortunate, when many of you spent so much time on them. What happened to this thread, guys?

1. The OP's question got TOTALLY derailed by personal comments and a debate on whether or not we take Genesis literally. Not acceptable. Furthermore, complaining about the A&E guidelines in this forum is not acceptable.

2. Who here hasn't had the chance to read our forum rules and guidelines? If you haven't, then read them now.

Take especial note of this: http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?t=182978

RETURNED Forum Focus: Please Read Before Posting - Summer 2009

Effective immediately, the leadership will enforce that this forum is to return the focus to Biblical Christian Apologetics and Evangelism.

Discussion of literal Biblical Creation Account is permitted only, not arguments against the literal Biblical Creation Account from Science, Philosophy, etc.

Please adjust your future posts accordingly or they will be deleted without further notification.

///

This is why posts were deleted. And they'll continue to be deleted if any focus other than the literal interpretation of the Biblical account is the focus here.

I am re-opening this thread. Focus on what you need to, folks: the OP's question. Use scripture in your answers. THAT'S what this forum is for.

Any questions, concerns, or complaints ought to go to Chat to Moderators -- so kindly bring them there for me, as needed.

Thanks.

[Philemon9]

Yes, and I have provided that

heh, I think I missed that part.

[chisel]

heh, I think I missed that part.

I have explained why I believe in a six day creation in my first post on this thread, as I've mentioned before, but, it is quite obvious that you'll dismiss any proof for a six day creation because it is against your evolutionary bias. 'Making' Genesis non-literal in servitude of extra-biblical philosophies (materialism, uniformitarianism) is called eisegesis.

The fact remains: all the scriptural data seems to indicate a 6 day creation of the evening/morning day/night kind.

Apart from misquoting 2Peter 3:8 you have absolutely no data supporting your evolutionary long age view.

Just because you don't like what the text says, doesn't automatically make it allegory or poetry or metaphor or whatever