I have a creationist book that makes pretty much exactly that claim. Granted, it doesn’t propose a literal six day creation, either. I think the literalness requirement makes a lot of these explanations seem too wishy-washy to argue.
The book argued that, when God said “Let there be light,” that was when the Big Bang happened. That the reason everything was “without form and void” was because it had yet to be separated out of the nothingness. And that when God “gathered the light and separated it from the darkness,” that refers to matter itself forming, as opposed to empty space.
Obviously, this doesn’t fix all the problems, but it’s a start. If you want a theory that tries to fix everything, you have to get into the the gap theory of multiple creations. In brief, there are two creations, one happening in verse one that is mentioned as being corrupted in verse two after an extremely long gap. Thus the sun already existed–day 4 is just when God cleared the firmament enough that it could be seen.
And then there’s one that I know a lot of literalist charismatics believe: that God’s presence was literally lighting the world up until the sun was created. These people also believe that God’s presence to this day is sometimes visible in that form, that of a warm light coming from nowhere. With many claiming to have seen it.
Sorry if I went too far. As a former creationist, I’m not sure how far to go in these threads. And I don’t get to talk about this stuff much anymore, as the only ones who seem interested in it are the believers who I risk offending.
Ok, fine, the collected superstitions and legends of a group of ancient nomads was written down by city dwelling priests 2700 years ago. Does that work for you? Mine was shorter and still conveys the same idea.
Clearly the world’s first retconning. The classic example is excusing the seven days of creation by referring to the quote that for God a thousand years is a day. They never mention that 7,000 years ago isn’t enough time either, the time required for each day is way different, and that the Hebrew says the evening and the morning, the nth day. It would all be terribly amusing if these people didn’t actually believe it.
And explain away - I’m fascinated by the thought processes that creationists use to justify their beliefs in the light of evidence, and your insight is appreciated.
I always wondered why believers didn’t just say God created the Big Bang and leave it at that. I guess someone beat me to writing the book. You could also say God created evolution. He’s so smart that he did it by defining the physical world in such a way that he knew it would result in life/evolution/humans. If you believe God created everything, it would be so much easier to accept scientific discoveries as evidence of his work than to argue against them.
Wave/particle theory is a product of modern science. Why bother to embrace this single aspect while ignoring everything else science is based on?
I have scant expectation of a response, though.
That’s theistic evolution. The deists think exactly this (about evolution, anyhow.) So do the Catholics, though I don’t know if they allow god to meddle invisibly during the process as opposed to setting it up to give the right answer.
An attempt to grab onto science’s coattails; to grab some of the respect science has earned for itself and apply it to an unscientific belief. Pretty common behavior actually.
Geez, how did god create light? simple. he just bent over to grab a drink, the sun shined out of his arse and he thought, “hey, that looks better. I can see stuff now”
So he let one rip, the sun came flying out and went into orbit round the earth.
As this zombie is obviously unaffected by exposure to sunlight… Wait that’s vampires (non-sparkly).
I saw a post recently that pointed out that the biblical order, light before sun, is how a person experiences a sunrise. First it’s dark, then the sky lightens, then the sun rises.
Really, we should have licenses required to discuss physics.
There’s a lot of goofy stuff in the bible. God made mankind twice for starters. (1)
(1) Genesis I 26-27, God makes mankind.
26 Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals,and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”
So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.
Genesis II 5 & 18-19 God makes Man, then Woman.
5 Now no shrub had yet appeared on the earth[a] and no plant had yet sprung up, for the Lord God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no one to work the ground, 6 but streams came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground. 7 Then the Lord God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.
18 The Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.”
19 Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the wild animals and all the birds in the sky. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. 20 So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds in the sky and all the wild animals.
But for Adam no suitable helper was found. 21 So the Lord God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man’s ribs and then closed up the place with flesh. 22 Then the Lord God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.
I suppose it is a valid point to discuss whether the ancient writers of this narrative believed in its literality, or whether, instead, it was merely a folk tale. Did the Dakota elders of the day believe this?
ETA: We live in a very different mental landscape than our ancestors did. We are shaped by our modern culture. I do not know what they thought. I genuinely do not. But, the stories are figurative and evocative. Illogical and yet somehow compelling in the way they are written. No, they make no sense, and it is, indeed, senseless to adhere to a literal translation of such tales. But, like Aesop and the Grimm brothers, they are windows into the past.
This is well known, the early hebrews believed that the world was a flat disk floating in water and the the “sky” was the “firmament” or a hard dome and the sun, moon and stars were embedded in it or some variation of that.
Catholics and protestant (strait from Calvin) admit this and have no issue with it, only the bible literalists have would have an issue with this but most tend to make an exception.
If you are going to argue against the literalist reading why even wait for light? Genesis 1:1 talks about how god built the floating flat earth and the “dome” that is the heavens.
Cite fore my Calvin claim above. (bolding is mine)
He admits that the story was written down by the holy people who were ignorant. They were probably not “city” dwellers as Voyage claimed above…although they were by the 1st century when places like jerusalem grew well past the half million people mark.
There is a spiritual dimension and a physical dimension.
In the spiritual dimension the light is unconditional love very bright
but don’t hurt the eyes.
God was creating the physical dimension within the spiritual so the light came
first, actually it was always there.
