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.

 

[Scarlett O.]

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.

I knew you were going to ask me about "no night there" when I hit enter. LOL!!

No monkey wrench for me. Here's my thoughts as to why. We know the Bible says that God and the Lamb will be the light there, so to me, before the sun, moon, and stars, which have created purposes that were very specific, - God and the Lamb must have been the light on the newly created earth.

God can do anything. Why could he not made his "light" - divine in nature - fixed and directional until his will of creating the sun, moon, and stars come to pass? That would imply the earth was rotating from the beginning.

The sun, moon, and stars, having extra puposes, were created according to verse 14 for "signs and seasons, days and years". And for "giving" (shining and reflecting) the light to the earth and "separating" the light from darkness (rotation).

The light was already there! The sun, moon, and stars are just the bearers of the light and they herald the signs and seasons that God commands them to.

 

[Deacon]

Day 1: No material substance is specified. The separation of light and darkness introduces TIME as the first element that separates order from disorder.

The description of each day describes when God gave them a purpose, before which they were still a part of the disorder (tôhû wābôhû)

So when on Day 4:
God assigned purpose to the sun, moon and stars…
“Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night. And let them be for signs and for seasons, and for days and years, and let them be lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light upon the earth.” (Genesis 1:14–15, ESV)

They may, or may not, have been in the skies earlier, but when God gave them purpose, he “made” them to fulfill his purpose.

…with the provision of God’s designed purpose, they were separated from their precious disorder

Rob

 

[Jerome]

The days of Genesis 1-2 can be understood as just a seven-day vision of the evolution that took place over millions of years, according to a presentation given by 9Mark Dever and his mentor Roy Clements to the Cambridge Inter-Collegiate Christian Union:

(right click, save link as, for direct download of audio file) CICCU • Dever and Clements on Christians and Science

38:30-39:55
CLEMENTS: "In fact if you think about it, Genesis chapter One does portray an evolutionary model. It would have been very easy for the ancient author, knowing nothing at all about evolution, to have simply said the whole of the universe suddenly sprang into being by a single divine fiat, with no progress, no development at all, but no, he spreads it out over seven days, and he says that material things emerged first: light, and the earth, and the heavens, and then plants before animals, and marine animals come before land animals, and the human race comes only at the very end.
In an astonishing way, he anticipates the general sort of evolutionary scheme, without any of the evolutionary details. So I don't have any great difficulty in accepting that if evolution was the way it happened, that God might have used such a mechanism for the production of the variety of species that we see, and I don't find any great difficulty harmonising that with Genesis One. But there are some Christians who feel that the seven days have to be taken with a greater degree of literalness than I feel is necessary, and they must look for another solution to the problem."

1:12:00-1:13:20
DEVER "The word Yom there in the Hebrew is used very similarly to the way we use the word Day, and it means many different things. I'm not sure I want to say exactly what Roy said on that, but I think, as a Christian who certainly believes in the truth of scripture there's nothing he's said that's inconsistent with that."
CLEMENTS: "If it were a twenty four hour day, I favour the view that it was a twenty four hours of revelation, maybe the prophet saw the vision over the space of seven days, but I don't think the prophet could possibly have been given an actual time scale to set against the things he was seeing happen. They had to have taken place in a time-collapsed way. He couldn't possibly have seen them, in my view, across the spectrum of the time the took, if they took millions of years, as science would say. He would have to have seen it in a time-collapsed way."
DEVER - "And I would say of course He could have done it in that way, and of course the prophet could have seen it that way, but the point is the word doesn't necessitate, the word Yom, doesn't necessitate you or me or Roy looking at it any one of those —"
CLEMENTS - "There are a whole host of ways of harmonising Genesis One with scientific accounts of origins. Some are seven-day Creationists, Young Earth view, I respect that view, but I don't hold it myself."

 

[robycop3]

I believe God RE-ARRANGED the earth in the first week. After all, by fossilized remains, some 99 % of all life forms that have ever existed on earth are now extinct. After all, "the deep" already existed, and it had to have a planet to exist on. And there's no denying the former existence of dinosaurs, etc.