We read about God's creation of the heavens and the earth in Genesis 1.
Genesis 1:9-10 (The Third Day)
Then God said, "Let the waters below the heavens be gathered into one place, and let the dry land appear"; and it was so. God called the dry land earth, and the gathering of the waters He called seas; and God saw that it was good.
Genesis 1:16-18 (The Fourth Day)
God made the two great lights, the greater light to govern the day, and the lesser light to govern the night; He made the stars also. God placed them in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth, and to govern the day and the night, and to separate the light from the darkness; and God saw that it was good.
There's nothing logically incoherent about the earth existing before the sun. However, many people believe that the sun is older than the earth, and we generally speak of the earth's position in space as being in orbit around the sun.
If, as many people believe, the sun is older than the earth, then the sun has existed longer than the earth, and if the Bible says it has not, then the Bible would be wrong.
Also, if the earth's location in space has always been properly defined by its relationship to the sun, but the Bible says there was a time when there was an earth but no sun, then the Bible must be wrong.
It's my guess that these inconsistencies are what the question is referring to. But again, keep in mind that there is nothing illogical or logically incoherent about the earth existing prior to the sun. It's just something that lots of people don't believe to be true.
But why should the random and changing whimsical opinions of lost and confused humanity be permitted to be the ultimate judge of reality? If it's all we have to go on, then sure, why not, but when we have the authoritative word of God spelling things out for us, there is no reason to put our blind faith in people's personal opinions.
What are the reasons so many people have decided that the sun came before the earth?
I honestly don't know all of the reasons (and maybe not any of them), but I feel perfectly comfortable hazarding some ignorantly vague guesses.
1. We've tested the mineral content of various rocks and compared the numbers with observed radioactive decomposition rates, thereby determining when the rocks were formed, ie, the age of the earth.
2. We've analyzed the light spectrum coming from the sun to determine its chemical composition and compared that also with radioactive decay rates that have been observed, thereby determining the age of the sun.
3. We've proceeded from numerous theories about the formulation of solar systems and galaxies, the big bang, etc, checking vector paths based on current trajectories and so on and so forth, to determine when our sun would have come into being.
I dunno... probably a bunch of stuff along those lines. In other words, we have not drawn our conclusions about the length of time the earth and the sun have been around based upon first-hand witness -- rather, we have drawn our conclusions based on observations of existing phenomena.
This is kind of like trying to deduce how old a person is based on how tall they are, or the color of their hair, or the length of their fingernails, or how many teeth they have, rather than by witnessing their birth and counting each day and year thereafter.
While this kind of guesswork can often produce amazingly accurate results, sometimes it fails miserably, and I'm sure we all have anecdotes that we could share to prove it.
Now imagine that God actually created Adam as a full grown man, as the Bible seems to suggest.
If we were to look at Adam three seconds after he was created, we may guess, based on his height, his teeth, his hair, etc, that he had been around for 20 or 30 years. Of course, we would be wrong, and God Himself has clearly told us as much in the Bible.
The Bible suggests that God created Adam fully mature, that God created the animals fully mature, and that God created the plants fully mature. We see a pattern developing here. Why would we not also conclude that God created the universe fully mature?
We have a mature sun and a mature earth -- not because they are old, but rather because God created them fully mature, quite possibly so that they would immediately be capable of sustaining life.
This in no way, shape, or form contradicts any of the evidence available -- it only contradicts certain individuals' interpretations of the evidence.
God bless.
Comments
Obviously being a christian you have the presupposition that God is the first-hand witness, but I'm not going to debate that.
My question is how you deal with the evidence from reliable dating methods. Is that God testing us/being deceptive? Or are the people who study this kind of stuff, including other christians, just "stupid"?
These are the questions that haunt me.
If I call 100 random people and ask them all one question, and 99 say "yes" with only 1 saying "no", and I then draw the conclusion that 99% of the nation's population will say "yes", only to discover later that only 99 people in the entire country actually say "yes" (namely the very 99 that I called), is that God deceiving me?
When we draw conclusions based on premises that we know may not be accurate (premises like geologic uniformitarianism), those conclusions may often be helpful. Police officers and private investigators guess people's ages based on generalized assumptions all the time. People taking surveys do the same thing. The conclusions may be helpful, but to claim inerrancy is simply foolish.
1) Genesis says after each day of creation "And there was evening, and there was morning" referring to the day and night. The Bible says the creation of the Universe happened in six 24-hour periods, which science says is not the case. Science says it happened somewhere between 15-17 billion years, not six 24-hour days. Secondly, even if you don't agree with this, (even though it's a fact) then there is a simple piece of logic that disturbs the reader: how is there a day and night a "morning and evening" if the earth was created on the third day and the sun was created on the fourth? There is a morning and evening mentioned for the first day (two days before creation of earth and three before the sun) the second, the third(the day the earth was created but still no sun
2) "Let there be light" was said on the first day. And yet light's sources: the stars and the great lights (sun and moon) were created on the fourth day. So how did light exist before light's source did?
Also TWO?? great lights? The sun does give light, but the moon surely doesn't, and yet this is what the bible says in Genesis: "and let them be lights in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth." The moon does not "give" light it reflects it
"Science says it happened somewhere between 15-17 billion years, not six 24-hour days."
You actually HEARD science say this? What did science sound like? Did it have a deep voice like James Earl Jones? Or more computerized like Hawking's voice synthesizer?
My point is that science does NOT say when the earth was created. Science doesn't speak at all.
It is true that various individual people have made these kinds of guesses about the age of the earth, but such guesses have nothing to do with the scientific method, which is what I think you want people to assume you meant when you referred authoritatively to "science". The scientific method involves repeated experimentation and observation... how many times have you repeated the creation of the universe and observed it?
Human application of the scientific method says nothing whatsoever about when God created the universe. But God Himself does.
God bless.
In the process of routine database management a number of comments from several threads on this website were deleted. Many of them were subsequently restored, but some were permanently lost. The 9 comments that were deleted from this thread have now been restored below.
Thanks for your understanding.
Neither of your analogies are relevant. The conclusions reached from the scientific method have been tested in other areas that reliably fit the data. No one claims inerrancy but you.
"The scientific method involves repeated experimentation and observation... how many times have you repeated the creation of the universe and observed it?"
You can send up satellites to measure the CMB all you want; you can measure the dating methods as often as you want (and confirm it with events you are more certain of, say, a specific date when you plated a tree); you can test the decay of elements as often as you want. To claim that we cannot use well-tested ideas to draw conclusions (which you don't like) is absurd.
Just a question, what kind of evidence would you look for if the big bang were true, the earth/universe were old, etc.? What would convince you to change your opinions?
Starting with the former possibility, to be convinced of this, I would need God to provide me with a thorough explanation of what the Bible really meant in the areas in which I misunderstood it, and why it cannot mean what I thought it meant. That would convince me of my error. He could certainly do this through natural means, such as a wise human counselor or a well-written exposition on the scriptures.
With regard to the second possibility, were it true, then knowledge of any kind would be impossible as the Laws of Logic would no longer be valid. In other words, to assert the second possibility is to claim that its negation may also be true.
http://www.godcontention.org/index.php?qid=4
As to your second point, you are correct that the Bible is incorrect, but, and I can't believe I'm arguing this, that doesn't mean the Christian God doesn't exist, therefore making your objection moot. Even if you were to say that if the Bible were wrong that therefore the Christian God doesn't exist, you've never shown, even after reading your link, or even logically explained, how the only way that logic can exist is if the Christian God exists. Simply saying it doesn't make it so.
Regarding "to assert the second possibility is to claim that its negation may also be true." Negation of what? The Big Bang? Logic? Christianity? You lost me on this part.
My point is that science does NOT say when the earth was created. Science doesn't speak at all...
how many times have you repeated the creation of the universe and observed it?...
Human application of the scientific method says nothing whatsoever about when God created the universe. But God Himself does"
Not one of your arguments in any of your answers to questions or these posts make a shred of logical, cosmological, or ontological sense. How do you refute the scientific contradictions with YOUR religious book, not the existence of God. I too am theistic.
That is the question I want you to answer. And you being (I should hope) familiar with the English language, should be able to realize a figure of speech, shouldn't you Doctor? And not ridicule a high schooler when you can no longer debate with the arguments he has brought up?
In any case, I guess I cannot blame you, for my arguments can never be refuted by the Christian worldview without having to disagree with the Bible. I did have some hope since you were selected as the Christian representative worldview to defend your religion on this site, you may have some luck.
Science, by the way, is a miraculous tool given to us by God, so that we may advance ourselves, and appreciate his creation more and with that the creator's design. Science and religion are not irreconcilable, rather they go hand in hand which have only become separated as they have because of some people taking certain views from either one and running with that.
Here are your arguments as I understand them, followed by my responses:
A1) Certain people claim that the universe took 15-17 billion years to be made, but the Bible says it only took six days. Therefore the Bible is wrong.
My response: The certain people contradicting the Bible are wrong. There is absolutely no deductive reason whatsoever to believe that the universe has been around for billions of years. This claim is nothing more than circumstantial conjecture that can only be stated seriously by ignoring the most authoritative evidence, namely, God's eyewitness testimony.
A2) The earth was created on the third day and the sun on the fourth, yet there were a morning and an evening on the first day. Morning and evening necessitate the existence of the sun and the earth, therefore the Bible is wrong.
My response: Morning and evening as described in Genesis neither necessitate the earth nor the sun, simply light and dark.
[Continued]
My response: The Bible says there was light. What exactly do plants need from the sun that they cannot get from the light?
A4) There can be no light if it does not come from the sun or moon, yet the Bible says there can be, therefore the Bible is wrong.
My response: Ever lit a candle, scraped flint with steel, or flipped one of those switches on your wall? Walla -- light that does not come from the sun or moon! Check out Revelation 21:23, 22:5.
A5) The moon does not "give" light, it reflects it. But the Bible says otherwise, so the Bible is wrong.
My response: The Genesis narrative never suggests that the moon is the first cause of the rays of light that come from it. To read that into the narrative is to misread the narrative.
In other words, you haven't even pointed out one single error in the Bible.
[Continued]
If you genuinely want your questions to be responded to, it may be a good idea to not approach the person you are asking with such blatant malicious intent.
God bless you, Michael.
If that light was sufficient, then why create the Sun at all? Further, the other stars in the sky provide 'light', but obviously not enough for plants to survive.
"The Genesis narrative never suggests that the moon is the first cause of the rays of light that come from it. To read that into the narrative is to misread the narrative."
The moon is not a light, it is not a 'lesser light'.
To suggest it is, is to suggest that the mirror I use to shave is a light. In other places the bible suggests the Sun will darken and the moon will turn red (as blood), but if the Sun is dark, how will the moon show any color?
Also, the Bible states at several places that the moon gives *her* light - but obviously this is incorrect - it's not the moon's light at all.
I don't get it though - why not simply presuppose that the moon really does produce light?
"If that light was sufficient, then why create the Sun at all?"
God Himself is sufficient. Yet it pleased Him to create.
"Why not simply presuppose that the moon really does produce light?"
Why should we, given that the Bible doesn't even suggest this?
"The Bible states at several places that the moon gives *her* light - but obviously this is incorrect - it's not the moon's light at all." (Ezekiel 32:7)
The fact that the immediate source of the light is the moon makes it *her* light. The ultimate source of the light is God (Gen 1:3; John 1:3; Col 1:16), so using your argument it isn't the sun's light either. But clearly, according to scripture, the immediate source can own the product in some sense.
[continued]
"The moon is not a light, it is not a 'lesser light'."
The Hebrew word does not necessitate "generator of light rays". Rather, it carries a nuanced meaning more along the lines of "illuminator". Indeed, it can also be accurately translated "luminary". The fact that it does not "create" light is not relevant in the slightest: it is a straw-man argument.
http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H3974&t=NASB
To point out the obvious, the English word "light" doesn't even necessitate "generator of light rays":
http://www.google.com/search?q=by+the+light+of+the+moon
Take up your argument with Dean Koontz, Elizabeth Allen, and Los Lobos; or drop it against Moses.
So did God turn off the initial light then?
"Why should we, given that the Bible doesn't even suggest this?"
I think the Bible does suggest this by stating that it's the moon's light ('her own light').
"The fact that the immediate source of the light is the moon makes it *her* light. The ultimate source of the light is God (Gen 1:3; John 1:3; Col 1:16), so using your argument it isn't the sun's light either. But clearly, according to scripture, the immediate source can own the product in some sense."
The moon isn't the source though, it reflects light - further in other verses, the Bible says the moon will turn as blood, while the sun darkens. I think this supports the view that the Bible writers viewed the moon as generating it's own light.
Your view seems ad hoc. Do you have any biblical support for this? Any other places in the bible where this sort of attributing 'ownership' to reflections?
This seems extremely strained - your link shows the usage in the Bible and all the various usages of the term seem to back *my* reading, not yours. I see no indication in your link that the ancients used the term as you are attempting to use it. Where else in the Bible is light used this way? Anywhere?
"Take up your argument with Dean Koontz, Elizabeth Allen, and Los Lobos; or drop it against Moses."
I'm sorry, I wasn't aware that these people were up on the vernacular of the ancient Hebrews. That's what you are suggesting here, that the ancient people would have had a modern understanding of the term.So why should we think that the ancients understood light in the same way Koontz does?
"I think the Bible does suggest this by stating that it's the moon's light ('her own light')."
Proverbs 15:30 talks about the light of the eyes. Did the authors believe that eyes generate their own light?
[continued]
"...the Sun will darken and the moon will turn red (as blood), but if the Sun is dark, how will the moon show any color?" (Joel 2:31; Acts 2:20; Revelation 6:12)
Certainly, the God of scripture can cause the moon to reflect a different light or even to generate light with no difficulty. This may be what is in view here. On the other hand, simply because the sun is hidden from our view, this does not mean that the sun is hidden from the moon, allowing the moon to reflect the light of something that we cannot see directly. But more importantly, Bible prophecy is frequently indisputably figurative and thus comparing these passages to a historical narrative is like comparing apples to oranges. Some Christian scholars take such passages to be a reference to the collapse of Israel in 70 AD, having Joseph's dream from Genesis 37:9 in view.
[continued]
"'...the immediate source can own the product in some sense.' Do you have any biblical support for this?"
Certainly. Apart from the passages in view here about the moon which support this, we also have God causing Satan to cause David to take a census. All three own the product in some sense (2 Samuel 24:1; 1 Chronicles 21:1). In Job 1 we have God causing Satan to cause the Chaldeans and Sabeans to take away Job's possessions and family. Again, according to scripture, all of these parties own the removal of Job's family and possessions in some sense. There are so many examples of this in scripture I couldn't possibly list them all.
[continued]
"That's what you are suggesting here, that the ancient people would have had a modern understanding of the term."
Actually, I was suggesting that if you are right in YOUR assertion that the ancient Hebrew writers had a modern understanding of the term (instead of the ancient Hebrew understanding as I pointed out in the Lexicon) then they would still be correct in their usage of it.
God bless.
The translation you linked to says 'bright eyes'.
"Certainly, the God of scripture can cause the moon to reflect a different light or even to generate light with no difficulty. This may be what is in view here. On the other hand, simply because the sun is hidden from our view, this does not mean that the sun is hidden from the moon, allowing the moon to reflect the light of something that we cannot see directly. But more importantly, Bible prophecy is frequently indisputably figurative and thus comparing these passages to a historical narrative is like comparing apples to oranges. Some Christian scholars take such passages to be a reference to the collapse of Israel in 70 AD, having Joseph's dream from Genesis 37:9 in view."
So, in this case, the moon would generate it's own light.
These verses do not say the Sun will be 'hidden', it says it will turned darkened.
The passages in view here do not support your interpretation.
"All three own the product in some sense (2 Samuel 24:1; 1 Chronicles 21:1). In Job 1 we have God causing Satan to cause the Chaldeans and Sabeans to take away Job's possessions and family. Again, according to scripture, all of these parties own the removal of Job's family and possessions in some sense. There are so many examples of this in scripture I couldn't possibly list them all."
While I appreciate your effort, to apply these to the verses about the moon seems extremely strained.You seem to be arguing for a possibility of the passage being interpreted differently - instead of a reasonable interpretation.
Sure, it's possible that it means a whole bunch of things; but I see no reason to interpret it the way you are. the only reason you are doing so is to avoid absurdity.
Nonsense - the lexicon didn't support your version of events. You strained at the text and in the end you could not find any other place where light is used in this fashion. Instead you had to come up with justification using angels to do his bidding.
In the end you are hanging on a possibility, not a probability. I say, fine, but admit it.
Is 24 hours not the time it take’s the sun to revolve around its own axis to face the sun every 24hours?
Or for the flat earth geocentric society that believe that the earth is the center of the solar system and/or the galaxy and or the universe.
Is 24 hours not the time it takes the sun to rise in the east, go down in the west and then come up in the east as well?
BTW. There are many flat earth’s groups still here with us on this; “round as a table” and “not round as an apple earth”. Are their scripture interpretations correct or not? It is based on the same Bible.
How about a real debate Mr. Ken Ham?
Then read http://sunearthday.nasa.gov/2007/locations/ttt_solarenergy.php
Did Bishop Usher in his day still thought that the earth was flat?
Did he know of the many discrepancies of the Linage (ages) of Jesus forefathers?
Did you know that the Bible tells us that Joseph (the husband of Mary) has two different fathers depending on which Gospel we read.
Joseph was the son of?
Jacob - Mathew 1:16
Heli – Luke 3:23
Did you know that the Bible tells us that Joseph descended from two different sons from King David?
Did you know that the Bible give two different numbers of generations between King David and Joseph?
Number of Generations?
Matthew 1:6-16 mentions 27 Generations
Luke 3 21-31 mentions 42 generations
Which age is correct?
Which linage did Bishop Usher use in his calculations to get to 6,000 years? Lightfoot Autumn 3929 BC or Bishop Ussher more commonly accepted date of October 23 4004 BC and man on Friday at 09h00?
Did you know that Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 differs in order of creation?
Did you know that the Bible tells us that Joseph descended from two different sons from King David?
Which son of King David must we trace the linage to Joseph?
King Solomon Son of David? Matthew 1 :6-7
Nathan Son of David ? Luke 3 :31
It is generally accepted that Matthew follows the lineage of Joseph, and Luke that of Mary. See Matthew Henry's commentary for more information:
http://www.blueletterbible.org/commentaries/comm_view.cfm?AuthorID=4&contentID=1644&commInfo=5&topic=Luke&ar=Luk_3_23
1. what if there were different lights that were used in six day creation?
2. what if light and darkness as for day and night were symbolic for begining and ending of a slide show?
3. what if there were two groups of humsn beings were created from the begining?
without revelations from the Almighty G-d, how can a mortal man assert his understanding to be true? Let us be humble when we only know in part.
regarding the carbon dating how could the scientific data b3 true if the samples were radiated by other means? the used assuption that they were decayed naturally cannot be verified.
I'm not saying there isn't a god, I know there is, but if this universe is 14.6 billion years old, and life couldn't have existed in any part of it for at least the first 5 or 6 billion years or whatever, dosn't that just show how important this place is and how valuable our lives are to god? Or now am I just being dumb, yeah, sure.
It's the same the sun produces.
And the evidence for this? "You see there's this book..."
It is not my job to prove there is no god because I make no such assertion. I think god is as likely as unicorns or fairies. And why
Religion was man's early attempts to explain reality. Most were illiterate and superstitious. Smart men learned that mankind can be controlled through fear. It is still used quite effectively because many are still scientifically illiterate and superstitious. We need to outgrow the security blanket known as religion and proceed to bigger and better things.
'The sun,moon,earth,universe are all matured.
And that summarizes everything.
Good work Bro
The first set of books, the Old Testament, was written in Hebrew. Among the Dead Sea scrolls are manuscripts of those texts that appear to pre-date Jesus (whose ministry was in the first century AD). The content of those manuscripts, as I understand it, is virtually identical to our modern versions of the Old Testament, with minor variations, though I have not studied them personally.
The second set of books, the New Testament, was written within the first century AD in Greek. We have portions of Greek manuscripts of the New Testament that match our current New Testaments that appear to date back to 125 AD, with multiple additional early manuscripts and partial manuscripts dating from then to over the next century or two. The content of these texts also matches what we have today.
Hope this helps.
*However*, my initial intro to the responses by those who believe/defend the Christian doctrines regarding the order of "creation" are this: either science is wrong ng about the age and progression of the bodies in our solar system, OR that the order is irrelevant, it all is irrelevant... because we have misinterpreted some phrase/s in this latest version of the bible.
As someone who has studied calculus based physics (some astro as well) and who has a degree in ancient history, I feel confident in saying that the arguments above are almost so tangential to the original question as to be unworthy of discussion here.
The problem with the Christian timeline is this: The light(or energy, in whatever form) that reaches Earth comes from the sun. That is indisputable. So... the HUGE discrepency here is this: how in the hell did the sun's light originate before the sun itself?
Christians aren't arguing that "the sun's light originated before the sun itself." The claim is that light originated before the sun, not that the sun's light originated before the sun.
Sort of a silly question for you, but do you believe that the sun is the only source of light? If not, I'm not sure why you would think that the Bible is claiming that "the sun's light originated before the sun itself." The Bible certainly never says that.
Thanks for your thoughts though!
Really because the moon last night was as beautiful and bright as ive ever seen, it doesnt matter if its the suns energy it wouldnt exist at night if it didnt reflect off of the moon
So can someone explain where dinosaurs fit into this? Did man and dinosaur walk together on earth. If so, then they were here 6 thousand years ago and carbon dating got this very wrong too?
This star is therefore older than our sun and the earth, and its light is older than the light revealed on the third day (after the earth was created) 'Let there be light', except there already is.
I thought there was NO light till the 3rd day. How does the bible explain MACS J1149+2223 shining its light out into the universe 5 billion years before the creation of earth? (Give or take 6,000 years)
Please see the book "The Age of the Universe" by Gorman Gray
Also please see the Facebook group "Young Biosphere Creation"
Too, ancient Hebrew, like many other ancient languages, has no past perfect form of verb, instead relying on a common, or everyday normal, sense of a narrative objects' relative chronology, NOT on a Fairy Tale kind of mere logical possibility.