PDA

View Full Version : IMPORTANT Which did God create first? The Sun or a man?



ewq1938
Oct 22nd 2013, 03:19 AM
This may appear to be a simple question but it isn't.

For those that voted, how can you prove what you voted for? Scriptures and sound logic is accepted, thanks!

Walls
Oct 22nd 2013, 04:02 AM
I voted that the Sun was first. The proofs are as follows;

In Genesis 1;1 the word is "create". The Hebrew word implies "making out of nothing." In verse 16, when the "greater light" is introduced, the word is "make", a different Hebrew word implying "made of existing materials". Only God can "create" out of nothing, but a carpenter can "make" a table out of (existing) wood. That means that the sun was already there in verse 16.
The sun is part of the heavens that was created "in the beginning" (Deut.4:19, 17:3 etc. etc.)
In Job 38:4-7 the earth was the last thing to be created. The angels were already there to rejoice at its grandeur. Heaven is the abode of angels, so the order of creation must have been (1) heaven (for God and angels), (ii) angels, (iii) earth, and (iv) men. The sun would have preceded both angels, the earth and men.

That the sun was barred from shining on the earth in the first part of Genesis 1 will happen again in Revelation 6:12 and 8:12. That is, it is there but not allowed by the Creator to shine on earth in His judgement.

ewq1938
Oct 22nd 2013, 04:11 AM
That the sun was barred from shining on the earth in the first part of Genesis 1 will happen again in Revelation 6:12 and 8:12. That is, it is there but not allowed by the Creator to shine on earth in His judgement.

Cool, I appreciate the thorough answer, although in 8:12 only a third of the sun is darkened....just an FYI :)

Balabusha
Oct 22nd 2013, 05:17 AM
I voted that the Sun was first. The proofs are as follows;
[LIST=1]
In Genesis 1;1 the word is "create". The Hebrew word implies "making out of nothing." In verse 16, when the "greater light" is introduced, the word is "make", a different Hebrew word implying "made of existing materials". Only God can "create" out of nothing, but a carpenter can "make" a table out of (existing) wood. That means that the sun was already there in verse 16.

-So you are saying that these are 2 different words "create" and "make"? One is "bara" and the other is "asah"
-Read carefully because it is just a few passages later that these 2 words undermine your usage in your theory

exitludos
Oct 22nd 2013, 06:44 AM
This may appear to be a simple question but it isn't.

For those that voted, how can you prove what you voted for? Scriptures and sound logic is accepted, thanks!
Scripture has been provided, though I don't think any of them were ever intended by God to be understood as universal, absolute descriptions of the 'literal' act of his creating the universe.

From logic, and scientific data, the origin of the sun necessarily preceded the origin of humans (indeed, all earthly creatures).

Walls
Oct 22nd 2013, 08:00 AM
-So you are saying that these are 2 different words "create" and "make"? One is "bara" and the other is "asah"
-Read carefully because it is just a few passages later that these 2 words undermine your usage in your theory

Yes, "bara" and "asah" mean different constructions. There is a third used when God "formed" man from dust. It is "yatsar" implying something formed like a potter forms a pot from clay.

I am always open to learn, so if I have missed something please correct me. Could you indicate the passage? If it is the creation of man, then my answer is this.

Man was "formed" from dust (yatsar) as the dust was already available - that is his body
Man received his spirit from God's breath and was "made" (asah) as God's breath was already available - his spirit
Man "became" (indicating a new creation that was not before) a living soul - his soul was "created" out of nothing

This is confirmed in Isaiah 43:7. "Even every one that is called by my name: for I have created him for my glory, I have formed him; yea, I have made him."

Again in Isaiah 45:18 this process concerns the earth. "For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is none else." Here we see that the earth is both "created" (out of nothing), but God worked on it (on the existing materials) after some time to give it the shape and form it has today (or at least for Adam's day).

Walls
Oct 22nd 2013, 08:02 AM
Cool, I appreciate the thorough answer, although in 8:12 only a third of the sun is darkened....just an FYI :)

I like that. Accuracy is the crux of understanding scripture. Good of you to keep me honest.

sooninzion
Oct 22nd 2013, 11:26 AM
There is more to it...

Genesis 1:3. And God said "Let there be light" and there was light.

This light is not the light from the Sun. This light is the eternal light.. the Glory of God (John 17:5 and 24).. The First Words of God.. The Light of the World (of John 9:5).. The Alpha (of Rev 1:8).. The Light (of Rev 21:23).

God created 'the Sun', the Moon and the stars on the fourth day. Genesis 1:14 onwards.

The Lord created 'MAN' on the sixth day. The duration of these days is certainly not 24 hours. It could be as long as '1000 calendar years' 2 Peter 3:8.

Walls
Oct 22nd 2013, 11:46 AM
There is more to it...

Genesis 1:3. And God said "Let there be light" and there was light.

This light is not the light from the Sun. This light is the eternal light.. the Glory of God (John 17:5 and 24).. The First Words of God.. The Light of the World (of John 9:5).. The Alpha (of Rev 1:8).. The Light (of Rev 21:23).

God created 'the Sun', the Moon and the stars on the fourth day. Genesis 1:14 onwards.

The Lord created 'MAN' on the sixth day. The duration of these days is certainly not 24 hours. It could be as long as '1000 calendar years' 2 Peter 3:8.

I think this is the reason for the start of the thread. There are going to be some who disagree. Let's see how it turns out.

jayne
Oct 22nd 2013, 01:29 PM
There is more to it...

Genesis 1:3. And God said "Let there be light" and there was light.

This light is not the light from the Sun. This light is the eternal light.. the Glory of God (John 17:5 and 24).. The First Words of God.. The Light of the World (of John 9:5).. The Alpha (of Rev 1:8).. The Light (of Rev 21:23).

God created 'the Sun', the Moon and the stars on the fourth day. Genesis 1:14 onwards.

The Lord created 'MAN' on the sixth day.

This is all true.


The duration of these days is certainly not 24 hours.

While I won't say it "certainly" is not, what you say is quite possible. I've always been open-minded enough to accept that while God could have done everything in 6 days (or 6 nanoseconds), for Adam, the sixth day could have included more than he (Adam) could have accomplished and/or witnessed. I'll say it's possible that the days are not literal 24-hours.


It could be as long as '1000 calendar years' 2 Peter 3:8.

Here's where I'm going to have to part company with you. Peter is quoting Moses from Psalm 90:3-6. That's why Peter began with "don't forget".


"You return mankind to the dust, saying, “Return, descendants of Adam.” For in Your sight a thousand years are like yesterday that passes by, like a few hours of the night. You end their lives; they sleep. They are like grass that grows in the morning—in the morning it sprouts and grows; by evening it withers and dries up."

When Peter reiterated that God's "sight" views 1000 years "like" a day and a day "like" 1000 years, the context is in a teaching about the second coming of Jesus and it is metaphorical. He says that scoffers say, "Where is He?" Peter reminds us that God's timing is not our timing and that God is not slack. Neither Peter nor Moses were giving a formula. Nor were they referencing creation.

However, I do agree with you that it's quite possible the days weren't days.

Redeemed by Grace
Oct 22nd 2013, 02:13 PM
Not sure I see the point?

Jade99
Oct 22nd 2013, 02:34 PM
God created the sun first.

14 And God said, “Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years,
15 and let them be lights in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth.” And it was so.
16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars.
17 God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth,
18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good.
19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.

He may not have outright called the light that separates the morning from evening the sun and the moon, but these verses are a clear indication that this is where the sun and the moon was created.

This question is actually not that complicated.

Balabusha
Oct 22nd 2013, 10:59 PM
oops wrong thread wrong poster

Aviyah
Oct 22nd 2013, 11:02 PM
Genesis 1:3. And God said "Let there be light" and there was light.

This light is not the light from the Sun. This light is the eternal light..

If God said "Let there be light," then there was a time when there was not light - so it cannot be the eternal Light of God. Also, I do not believe God's light is physical, but spiritual and allegorical for truth and purity. So this wouldn't fit with verse 3 IMO.

Balabusha
Oct 23rd 2013, 03:38 AM
This is a problem, we have star-light before there was star-light, we have plants created before there was light or heat-this is a huge clue.

Walls
Oct 23rd 2013, 03:49 AM
This might make sense at first blush, but upon learning the Hebrew language it does not stand on itss own
This would not stand alone just on account of reading lucifers flood between verses one and two-i believe that this is the riun-restoration Gap.
This theory fails on one account-the necessity of Bara and asah being seperate and not interchangeable, and have seperate distinct meanings.

1 Exodus 20:11 says "for in 6 days the Lord MADE (asah) the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them.
-this would contradict the "bara" of the heavens and the earth being created.
-the word bara is used in Gen 1;1 and asah is used in Exodus 20:11 to descibe the heavens and the earth being created-both verbs are used, for the same creative action.
2. Exodus 31;17 is again used for the same creative action of the heavens and the earth.
3 Nehemiah again showws the heavens and the earth being made with all of of creation.
4. Job 9:9. Psalms 95:5 Psalms 100:3
-these all show that asah fits into the creation of the hesavens and earth.
-they show the interchangeality of asah and bara.
5. The interchangeabilty of bara and asah is again used in Genesis 1:26-27
-you tried to get around this by saying the body was made, and the spirit was created.
-while this is true, the passage of verses 26-27 are not making this claim.
A: is the image of man in verse 26 limited to thephysical makeup?
B: is the male and female creation in verse 27 only limited by the spiritual?
-the problem is that verses 26 and 27 do not allow a strict seperate meaning between bara and asah.
6. Genesis 2:2-3 is another nail in the coffin for the gap theory
"And by the seventh day completed His work which He had done(asah) and he rested on the seventh day from all the work which He has done(asah) then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested from all His work which God had created (bara) and made (asah).
-this can't be interpreted as seperate acts of creation distorting asah and bara with a gap.
7. See also Gen 2:4. Isaiah 41:20. Isaiah 43:7 Isaiah 45:7. You did supply some of these passages, but. Did not exhaust the list.
I can go further on this-we can go to the Qal stem and get deeper in the Hebrew on the 2 verbs.
We can also go to waw conjunctions and disjunctives-which is the error of the Daniel gap theory also.
We can go to the hayetah function-but in reality the usage of the bara and asah verbs would stop me in my tracks-but we can go on

You have a strange way of addressing my post. You did not address a single sentence to show it wrong. Then you introduce a new concept as if it were mine, and proceed at length to refute it. Amazing!

Balabusha
Oct 23rd 2013, 04:06 AM
Ya, sorry walls, I got chsasing my toddler around,the other one is sick, one napping, one causing chaos, so I was in and out of this site for a long while..so- I quoted not just the wrong poster, but the wrong thread-LOL.
From what you write you are not even a gap guy. This was meant for the gap guys.
Sorry again.

Walls
Oct 23rd 2013, 06:10 AM
Ya, sorry walls, I got chsasing my toddler around,the other one is sick, one napping, one causing chaos, so I was in and out of this site for a long while..so- I quoted not just the wrong poster, but the wrong thread-LOL.
From what you write you are not even a gap guy. This was meant for the gap guys.
Sorry again.

I'm with you. Had three of my own and as we shared duties when I was home I not only watched my wife do the same, but joined in. Full-time job heh!? If you want to discuss the gap theory I'll give you some very compelling arguments, but it would not honor the original poster of this one. I think that despite our different approaches to these Hebrew words, you agree with my arguments (as you have until now only discussed the words and not my proofs). For instance, if the Holy Spirit, without exception, declares the sun, moon and stars to be part of the heavenly host, and the heavens were created first, then the original poster is answered adequately.... or no?

By the way, I appreciate your knowledge of matters scriptural and enjoy your documented postings. You must be a great asset in your Assembly.