One thing which has changed a lot in relatively recent times (the last 2-3 centuries) is how we deal with sources in our scientific/research literature; this influences how we deal with sources in general. Our ideas about accuracy have changed a lot, and not just because of Swiss watches. Those of us who have any kind of scientific training want to know what part of what someone says is a hypothesis, what part is facts, what part is educated guess, and what comes out of somebody’s elbow. This doesn’t require a degree in the sciences, but it does require an understanding of the difference between hypothesis (not verified, but verifiable), fact (verified) and guess (if anybody comes up with a way to verify it, let us know).
It used to be that most authors didn’t differentiate between those concepts, either much or at all. Aristotelian anatomy anybody? Dude guessed left, right and sideways, yet his guesses were treated as known, solid facts for centuries; one of the accusations against Miguel Servet was that he was daring question Aristoteles (there’s some 1800 years between both). Scholars cited their sources when those sources were themselves considered authoritative enough; things they got out of their left elbow were said as if, well, as if the writer had read them in Moses’ stone tablets. The Bible was written by people with that mindset; when reading it, it’s important to keep in mind that even when they are doing their best to be exact they will be fuzzy (the Book of Numbers being a possible exception but only until you remember how much goats move).
This is largely a matter of Hebraic poetical convention. The ancient scriptural writers used parallelism instead of rhyme to create emphasis.
So, first in the cosmology, the heavens are created, then the seas, then the land.
And after that, the denizens of the heavens (stars, sun, moon) are created, then the creatures of the sea, then the creatures of the land. Man is created last.
The important burden of the passage is that God created everything, and had a plan to do it.
I think the OP was saying that the lighting system, that is the Sun (and, to a lesser extent, the moon) wasn’t created until the 4th day, so where are these day and nights coming from?
A simple reading of the text is that in the first day God separated the “light” (that had just been created) from the “darkness”, that is, the lighting system where there are “days” and “nights” is mentioned in the first day.
The fourth day introduces heavenly bodies to distinguish day from night and enable people to tell time, also to illuminate the earth (which, you will note, was already flourishing with abundant plant life by then).
In short, the “lighting system” (but not the Sun and Moon!) is mentioned right at the beginning, in the third sentence, as cmkeller explains. Beyond that, including the validity of identifying a strict chronological order here, refer to the Algerian theologian mentioned above.
Drawing from my faulty memory of Moody Bible Institute’s Dr. Harry Rimmer, he argues that light could be created, but not yet “released” where it could be seen. He claims that the wording in the later verses suggests a release; the earlier suggests a creation.
It’s a tortuous logic, to be sure, but it permits Rimmer to claim that the Bible is scientifically accurate.
This resurrection stuff will only happen during the “end times”, right? So (excepting, of course, the entire theological implication) it is irrelevant to the physical world until such time; and after the “end”, well, science will be somewhat less important than it is now.
Ah, I wondered how that one might be twisted to fit a literalistic interpretation. The fact that there are two completely different and disagreeing creation stories right at the beginning of the Bible is a tough way for a literalist to start the day.
I know that, but as has already been adressed ITT, “morning” and “evening” only make sense from an Earth-centric perspective that includes at least the Sun (the Moon is optional). It’s not like every star out there goes off when it’s time to hit the pillow.
I can grok cmkeller’s assertion that those words are meant to provide the target audience with some form of relatable “some time passed” metaphor (it might even be true !) ; but the metaphor itself makes no coherent cosmological sense.
Well, when you put it that way, why couldn’t time be being tracked according to the rotational cycles of some other planet? Something tidily extra-universal, where God keeps his bungalow?
I just find it … interesting? odd? that things have polarized so much since he wrote that. I (an atheist) feel like I have (in terms of religion) more in common with Augustine than with some of my fundamentalist neighbours.
In the beginning, God caused the light to shine. Later, he made the sun and moon so that light would shine from them. The original light was not star dependent, it was just God’s power…
I think the question is the same type of question I’ve been asked so many times at movies - “Why is he doing that?” - where the only sane answers are “Shut up, you’re ruining the show” or “You’re not supposed to know yet, keep watching”.
