The evidence doesn't suggest that the ancient Hebrew writer thought that Adam and Eve were the first humans. There is an indication that Adam and his family were aware of others nearby (Genesis 4:13-17).
Genesis 1 made more sensible and scientific
- Thread starter Interplanner
- Start date
The evidence doesn't suggest that the ancient Hebrew writer thought that Adam and Eve were the first humans. There is an indication that Adam and his family were aware of others nearby (Genesis 4:13-17).
themuzicman
Well-known member
"Light" to the people of the ancient near east was time. Light governed the days, months and years. Light brought order from chaos with respect to time.
Ben Masada
New member
If you take this text literally, how will you be able to explain the contradictions? For instance, on the first day, HaShem said, "Let there be light" and there was light. However, only on the 4th day the sun and the moon were created and set on the sky to shin; the sun during the day and the moon and stars during the night. How about the light of the first day? If the sun is in charge to light our days, what about the light of the first day? Can you explain it? Don't use Physics because you can't. The only explanation is found in metaphorical language.
You're going to have to explain how that is a contradiction.
We do not need the sun to generate light.
The reason the writer puts the "lights in the heavens" on Day Four (Genesis 1:14-18)is because he is describing the restoration of the Land from the "darkness" and "deep waters" that prevailed before the Creation began (Genesis 1:2).
Thus, the "light" (from the sun) in Genesis 1:3 could be referring to the diffused sunlight (from behind the rain waters overhead, Genesis 1:7) whereas the "lights in the heavens" did not become visible until the waters (and clouds) receded.
It doesn't matter what other "people of the ancient near east" might have though about "light." The Hebrew writer plainly said "God called the light, day" (Genesis 1:5) in contrast to "darkness" and "night." Thus, we should understand that he was simply referring to the sunlight that results in daylight.
In the context of the Genesis creation story, the writer himself understood that the "light" of daytime (Genesis 1:3) came from the "lights in the heavens" (Genesis 1:14-18). There is no need to speculate about any other source of light in that context.
How would we know that "water is older than the sun"? Who was around before the sun existed to record such a notion?
However, I do agree with you that it is evident in the context of the Genesis creation story that the "deep waters" (Genesis 1:2) were there before either the "light" (Genesis 1:3) or the "lights in the heavens" (Genesis 1:14-18) became visible. In fact, this concurs with what Peter later said about the "heavens existing and the earth being formed out of water" (2 Peter 3:5).
What I'm explaining to you is a reasonable interpretation of God's word.
Your view makes no sense because you have "deep waters" existing (Genesis 1:2) before God even started creating anything on Day One (Genesis 1:3) and then you ignore the fact that there was "evening and morning, night and day" which would require that the "light in the heavens" were already there (Genesis 1:14-18).
A good explanation of the story needs to take all of the information into account.
6days
New member
No, what you are doing is trying to add deep time to scripture and change what God says.Rivers said:
It isn't just my view. It's what scripture plainly says.Rivers said:
Again, this is your attempt to add time to God's Word. He tells us He made "everything" in six days. There was no water before day 1.Rivers said:
I don't ignore that fact. I believe it because that is what God says.*Rivers said:
I think those are the words the pope said to Galileo. *Rivers said:
Light today comes from the sun. The question is: Where did the light come from before the sun was created on Day 4?
The sun was not "created" on Day Four. It was present on Day One. We know this because the Hebrew writer indicated that there was already "evening and morning, day and night" on Day One (Genesis 1:4-5). He later explained that this was caused by the sun (Genesis 1:14-18).
Keep in mind, the whole account must be taken in context and allowed to interpret itself.
Yep. So it goes. Time to rethink your theology.
It is easy to explain. The "light" from the sun can be diffused by clouds. When the clouds recede, it becomes possible to see the sun, moon, and stars from which the light originated. From the geocentric perspective of the ancient Hebrew writer, there is no contradiction.
themuzicman
Well-known member
This actually supports what I just said. "Day" and "Night" are time references, especially to those in the Ancient Near East. They had no idea what "light" was, other than it made things easier to see, and was usually warm.
If you look at day 4, the sun, moon, and stars aren't created until then. If it meant sunlight, day 4 would have to happen first.
You're begging the question and ignoring the text.
We know there was light on days 1 to 3 and we know that the sun was created on Day 4. Thus we can assume there was initially a source of light other than the sun.
Nope. That passage says the heavenly bodies were for "signs and seasons." No mention of "evening and morning."
It's a fallacy to impose the concepts of other writers upon the context of the person who wrote the Hebrew creation story. The writer must be interpreted within the context of his own use of the language.
This ancient Hebrew writer was telling his people that the "lights in the heavens" were the cause of the "separation of day and night (Genesis 1:14) which is what was established by the light on Day One (Genesis 1:3-5). We have to be careful to read the entire story in its own context.
Evidently, you haven't taken any courses in logic or exegesis. There's no "begging the question" (if you even understand what that means) and I've done nothing other than explain the text from the information in the text.
There is nothing about "creating" the sun on Day Four. There's also no reason to "assume" that the writer meant a different "light" in Genesis 1:3-5 (which you can't explain from the text anyway). There's no exegetical difference between the words "light" and "day" and "night" and "darkness" that are used in both Genesis 1:3-5 and Genesis 1:14-18.
6days
New member
You seem desperate to add time into God's Word, and you jump from one bad theistic evolutionist argument to the next. Now you try draw a false distinction between two words used interchangeably in scripture. For example we can read that God created (bara)angels; and elsewhere that God made(asah) angels. God created rivers...God made rivers. God created the heavens and the Earth in Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 tells us that he made the heavens and the Earth.*Rivers said: