Was the Sun, Moon, and Stars actually created on the fourth day of Creation...

[Armchair Apologist]

... or did they simply become visible from "Planet Earth?"

I am inclined to believe that God created the entire cosmos in Gen 1:1 and the rest of Gen 1 is specific to Planet Earth with the sun, moon, and stars becoming visible to the observer on the fourth day.

And no, I am NOT an "Old-Earth Creationist" although such an interpretation may leave such as a possibility. I really am trying to maintain a strict 7-Day "Young-Earth Creationist" position here!

I am thinking either atmospheric conditions, setting of the firmament, or perhaps the first three days were severely "overcast?" This makes logical sense to me as God seemed to establish a 24-hour day with the creation of the light, separating light from darkness, and so forth. I would therefore say that the "First Day" of creation goes from Gen 1:1 to 1:4

In some respects, I was borrowing somewhat from the "gap theorists" although I am not one myself but checking my "Dispensational Truth" book, even Clarence Larkin does not believe that any light from the sun (or other celestial bodies) was visible until the fourth day. He was saying that the light was "Electric light" similar to the "Aurora Borealis" which, to me seems really a stretch!

It seems that such would really be the "Minority View" here as even a "sanity check" search on Logos has me thinking I may be a little batty here!

So, If you concur with me, tell me so and put me at ease somewhat!

If you disagree, please be kind here but let me know how you would explain the light on the first day and how this is understood to be the measurement of a 24-hour day!

 

[Aaron]

Just as the earth and the waters brought forth mature beasts and plant "life", the stars were made and seen on the fourth day.

 

[Aaron]

If you disagree, please be kind here but let me know how you would explain the light on the first day and how this is understood to be the measurement of a 24-hour day!

There are things about Creation that are inexplicable, and I'm not so sure Einstein was right about everything. In fact, I believe the special theory to be false.

I believe the narrative in Genesis 1 desribes the creation of a spherical universe with an edge and center, and I believe the earth to be in or very near the center. The 3-D space in which the earth and stars hang is part of that creation. I do not believe in an infinite 3-D void beyond the edge of creation.

On the first day, the Deep was brought into existence. It's out of those waters that the heavens and the earth were formed. I can't explain the Spirit of God moving upon the waters, and I can't describe the source of the light that appeared on the first day, or in what way it was divided from the darkness. I'm only told it was there. It was probably just there like gravity.

 

[Armchair Apologist]

There are things about Creation that are inexplicable, and I'm not so sure Einstein was right about everything. In fact, I believe the special theory to be false.

I believe the narrative in Genesis 1 desribes the creation of a spherical universe with an edge and center, and I believe the earth to be in or very near the center. The 3-D space in which the earth and stars hang is part of that creation. I do not believe in an infinite 3-D void beyond the edge of creation.

On the first day, the Deep was brought into existence. It's out of those waters that the heavens and the earth were formed. I can't explain the Spirit of God moving upon the waters, and I can't describe the source of the light that appeared on the first day, or in what way it was divided from the darkness. I'm only told it was there. It was probably just there like gravity.

Many modern astrophysicists describe the universe as being spherical as you have described except that they believe the "Big Bang" to be at the center rather than "Planet Earth." And yes, I can see how the "Geocentrists" would get such a view as you are speaking of here. The earth may very well be at the center of the universe while simultaneously spinning and revolving around the sun which in turn is making its circuit around the Milky Way Galaxy which is traveling who knows where? Seems like the Webb telescope has generated more questions than answers causing many to rethink a number of things regarding their preconceived theories!

I like what Hugh Ross has said about the universe being uniquely and specifically designed for our planet's existence as we know it. I disagree with his "Old Earth" position but the order he is speaking of is intriguing. I would just take his conclusions and say that no amount of time could create the order we are observing and why speak of such processes when we can simply believe that God spoke everything into existence simultaneously? Of course this (among other things) is the same basis upon which we would reject "theistic evolution."

However, if the "Day" as defined in vs. 3-5 is not directly linked to the rotation of the earth with respect to the sun, how can we be dogmatic about this day being an actual 24-hour day? Does this not open up interpretation for a "Day-Age" theory?

 

[Scarlett O.]

If you disagree, please be kind here but let me know how you would explain the light on the first day and how this is understood to be the measurement of a 24-hour day!

Your answer from Genesis is answered in Revelation.

Speaking of the new Jerusalem; Revelation 21:23 = "And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof."

When God said in Genesis, "Let there be light", this was his divine presence inhabiting his creation, making order out of the void.

 

[Armchair Apologist]

Your answer from Genesis is answered in Revelation.

Speaking of the new Jerusalem; Revelation 21:23 = "And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof."

When God said in Genesis, "Let there be light", this was his divine presence inhabiting his creation, making order out of the void.

I can appreciate this but it says there is "no need," not that they are not there. But this does not answer how you measure a 24-hour day without the earth's rotation with respect to the sun. Does this mean that perhaps the seven days of creation may not have been seven actual 24-hour periods? I believe God's comment in the decalogue regarding the week of creation implies seven days as we know it but is this conclusive or will it remain a source of greuling theological barfights for ages to come?

I like simple answers but if all the answers were so simple, what fun is there in this and why would we need to pursue a Seminary education in the first place? Don't answer that! I can already hear you typing that "Seminary grads unnecessarily complicate things" and I wouldn't be able to disagree with you!

Actually, I was looking for a more simplistic explanation with the hypothesis I had proposed but it seems not to be nearly as simple as I had thought. Does our theological understanding always have to align with our scientific understanding (yes, I know this is a "slippery slope")?

EDIT: You also need to take note of the passage you are citing. In verse 25, it says there shall be "NO NIGHT THERE" so to me, this somewhat throws a wrench into everything bringing us right back to where we started! There is a definite "Day and Night" going on in Gen 1:3-5. If this light was the Shekinah "Glory of God" or whatever, then does the night imply the absence of God's presence? I think we need to think this matter through just a little more!

You did make me look though so there is that!

I am beginning a study of Genesis with our Church tonight so we are going to have a really interesting conversation about this! What I have learned though is that I cannot take a dogmatic position here aside from what the scriptures say in 1:1 - From there, I will just throw out the various hypotheses and allow our people to study the matter out for themselves.

 

[Ben1445]

But this does not answer how you measure a 24-hour day without the earth's rotation with respect to the sun. Does this mean that perhaps the seven days of creation may not have been seven actual 24-hour periods?

Light and darkness are considered one day. They existed before the sun and moon.
Also, there were no people around before day four to be confused by the lack of sun and moon.

IMO, it is like looking at a car on the assembly line and complaining that the radio was installed without a battery. How on earth is it supposed to be used without a battery?
In the grand scheme of things, it doesn’t matter as much when you recognize the purpose of everything when it is completed.

(Added) This post is not intended to be a conversation killer. Just a bit of perspective.

 

[Armchair Apologist]

Light and darkness are considered one day. They existed before the sun and moon.
Also, there were no people around before day four to be confused by the lack of sun and moon.

I guess we could look at it from the perspective of Isaiah 45:7:

I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

But should we?

I can appreciate the fact that there are no "People" around before "day four" but the entire narrative of Genesis was written from an anthropomorphic perspective and understanding. Perhaps we are to understand a 24-hour day based on what follows; especially the additional information we receive on day four and in Ex 20? Kinda talking to myself and thinking aloud here.

IMO, it is like looking at a car on the assembly line and complaining that the radio was installed without a battery. How on earth is it supposed to be used without a battery?
In the grand scheme of things, it doesn’t matter as much when you recognize the purpose of everything when it is completed.

Now you got me thinking of Slartibartfast from Douglas Adam's "Hitchhiker's Guide" series! But yes, we can understand things better as we examine the working of progressive revelation throughout the scriptures. I believe we may all be quite dogmatic regarding the end result; that in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.

(Added) This post is not intended to be a conversation killer. Just a bit of perspective.

I appreciate your input. I didn't put this out here as an argument but to try and think this matter through. I am beginning a study through Genesis with my Church this evening so I do find such interaction to be of value. Hope it continues whether people agree or not!

 

[Ben1445]

There is no reason IMO to adapt new definitions of evening and morning as being 24 hour days. I think sometimes we forget that they were already defined as evening and morning. And if you are a flat earther, the significance changes with your perspective, but if it is not a 24 hour cycle, the other side of the earth is going to get cold while the side under the sun, when it arrives, and in the light will get warm.
But the evening and the morning are the first day, etc. Not evenings and mornings were the first days.
I don’t think any words are accidental. And I believe in a literal creation. How much time elapsed between the finished creation and the fall? There is no given record or term.
How long was creation? One week of evening and morning days including the day of rest.