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?

[DurbanDude]

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?

If you look into the Hebrew, you will see that the words for "heaven" and "earth", can often more easily be translated as "sky" and "land".

Thus Genesis 1 can read as follows:

1:1 In the beginning God created the sky and the land.

I personally believe the universe, the sun, and the earth had already existed, but there was no sky and no land because the sea covered the earth and the sky was filled with clouds and mist that was so thick that it appeared to blend into the sea.

I believe the whole of Genesis 1 is an easy read if seen from the visible perspective of the Spirit of God hovering on the surface of earth:

1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

From this perspective we see the mists lifting, so that at first some light filters through,and yet nothing else is visible, night and day exist because the light filters though (like on a very cloudy day, night and day exist even though the sun is not visible):

1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
1:4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

The the sea recedes so that land appears and also the mists lift more so that an expanse between the sea and the clouds becomes visible:
1:6 And God said, Let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
1:7 And God made the expanse, and divided the waters which were under the expanse from the waters which were above the expanse: and it was so.
1:8 And God called the expanse "sky". And the evening and the morning were the second day.
1:9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
1:10 And God called the dry ground "land"; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.

As the clouds and mist clear more, the stars and the moon and the sun become visible, not just as light shining through the clouds (as on a very cloudy day), but they can actually be seen:
1:14 And God said, Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
1:15 And let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
1:16 And God appointed two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he appointed the stars also.
1:17 And God appointed them in the expanse of the sky to give light upon the earth,
1:18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.

So its all about the mists lifting, and reading Genesis 1 from the perspective of the surface of the earth.

[timmyb]

why does this remind me of the age old question, Which came first the chicken or the egg?

[chisel]

It's not really that puzzling or complex at all.

The dividing line here is whether one needs the sun to be around earlier than scripture says it was made (on day 4) or not. It's eisegesis versus exegesis.

[Beckrl]

If you look into the Hebrew, you will see that the words for "heaven" and "earth", can often more easily be translated as "sky" and "land".

Thus Genesis 1 can read as follows:

1:1 In the beginning God created the sky and the land.

I personally believe the universe, the sun, and the earth had already existed, but there was no sky and no land because the sea covered the earth and the sky was filled with clouds and mist that was so thick that it appeared to blend into the sea.

I believe the whole of Genesis 1 is an easy read if seen from the visible perspective of the Spirit of God hovering on the surface of earth:

1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

From this perspective we see the mists lifting, so that at first some light filters through,and yet nothing else is visible, night and day exist because the light filters though (like on a very cloudy day, night and day exist even though the sun is not visible):

1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
1:4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

The the sea recedes so that land appears and also the mists lift more so that an expanse between the sea and the clouds becomes visible:
1:6 And God said, Let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
1:7 And God made the expanse, and divided the waters which were under the expanse from the waters which were above the expanse: and it was so.
1:8 And God called the expanse "sky". And the evening and the morning were the second day.
1:9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
1:10 And God called the dry ground "land"; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.

As the clouds and mist clear more, the stars and the moon and the sun become visible, not just as light shining through the clouds (as on a very cloudy day), but they can actually be seen:
1:14 And God said, Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
1:15 And let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
1:16 And God appointed two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he appointed the stars also.
1:17 And God appointed them in the expanse of the sky to give light upon the earth,
1:18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.

So its all about the mists lifting, and reading Genesis 1 from the perspective of the surface of the earth.

Excellent post, Although I would add too.

1:2 And the earth was(became) without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep(flood). And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

That Peter gives reference to the world(kosmos,social order) that then was, being overflowed with water, perished. A reference before creation found in Genesis1:1,2

2 Peter 3
4And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.

5For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:
6Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: 7But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men

[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]

Excellent post, Although I would add too.

1:2 And the earth was(became) without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep(flood). And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

Hi there Beckrl,

The translation of "was" to "became" simply isn't grammatically correct.

I believe it's a hermeneutical fallacy called: unwarranted expansion of the symantic field.

Basically what that means is that one can't just mix and match the various Hebrew definitions of the word without taking into consideration the context. It's basically the same fallacy that day-age theorists commit when reinterpreting "yom".

In the context of Genesis 1:1 the correct meaning is as the various Bible translations have it "was" and not "became". The idea of the earth 'becoming' formless and void is rejected by pretty much all Hebrew scholars.

[DurbanDude]

Excellent post, Although I would add too.

1:2 And the earth was(became) without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep(flood). And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

That Peter gives reference to the world(kosmos,social order) that then was, being overflowed with water, perished. A reference before creation found in Genesis1:1,2

2 Peter 3
4And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.

5For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:
6Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: 7But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men

I have no biblical objection to previous creations on earth, but personally believe that 2 Peter 3 is referring to the flood.

Some say that dinosaurs existed before the age of man, but I personally believe they were part of the 7 days of creation, about 6000 years ago, and see no evidence to the contrary.

[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.