Answering the Question of Light Before the Sun's Creation
According to Genesis 1, the sun was not created until Day 4. How could there be day and night (ordinary days) without the sun for the first three days?
Answer
- Again, it is important for us to let the language of God’s Word speak to us. If we come to Genesis 1 without any outside influences, as has been shown, each of the six days of creation appears with the Hebrew word yom qualified by a number and the phrase “evening and morning.” The first three days are written the same way as the next three. So if we let the language speak to us, all six days were ordinary earth days.
- The sun is not needed for day and night. What is needed is light and a rotating earth. On the first day of creation, God made light ( Genesis 1:3 ). The phrase “evening and morning” certainly implies a rotating earth. Thus, if we have light from one direction, and a spinning earth, there can be day and night.
Where did the light come from? We are not told, but Genesis 1:3 certainly indicates it was a created light to provide day and night until God made the sun on Day 4 to rule the day. Revelation 21:23 tells us that one day the sun will not be needed because the glory of God will light the heavenly city.
Perhaps one reason God did it this way was to illustrate that the sun did not have the priority in the creation that people have tended to give it. The sun did not give birth to the earth as evolutionary theories postulate; the sun was God’s created tool to rule the day that God had made ( Genesis 1:16 ).
Down through the ages, people such as the Egyptians have worshiped the sun. God warned the Israelites, in Deuteronomy 4:19 , not to worship the sun as the pagan cultures around them did. They were commanded to worship the God who made the sun—not the sun that was made by God.
Evolutionary theories (the “big bang” hypothesis, for instance) state that the sun came before the earth and that the sun’s energy on the earth eventually gave rise to life. Just as in pagan beliefs, the sun is, in a sense, given credit for the wonder of creation.
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
OV Social
Come on Answers in Genesis explain this one, because this isn't "wording of the day" kind of thing. PLANTS existing BEFORE there was a SUN to provide light to them?
Are you stating that plant life on Earth existed before the sun or am I misreading your post?
The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'.
And I quote "11 Then God said, "Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds." And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.
14 And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth." And it was so. 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day."
That's why I can't take the bible seriously. Third day plants, Fourth day sun and moon. I don't believe it but some do.
"Evolutionary theories (the “big bang” hypothesis, for instance)"
The Big Bang Theory is not an "evolutionary theory." Please learn about the things you attempt to talk about.
It's ridiculous that you are considered, "Expert Verified," when you try to use a misleading and false blanket term like "evolutionary theories."
If you believe in god (which one?) and god gave you the brains to think, then use your brains and follow the evidence.
The universe is around 13.7 billion years old, our planet is about 4.7 billion years old, our current human species is somewhere around 150,000 years old.
Very primitive books written by humans for humans in the region of the world that around the current Israel that record how these primitive people viewed the universe is nothing more than interesting history.
Be aware that while these primitive books were written, highly sophisticated societies existed in other places of the world.
The reality is that we do not need a god to explain anything all the way to the big bang.
Here is an example of primitive thinking (as in lack of reasoning) that many apologists use:
1. The sun goes up in the morning
2. I can hear the cock crow every day before the sun comes up
3. It is the cock who makes the sun come up in the morning, no need to think anymore
Please use your brains, even if you think they are god given...
Speaking as a non-Christian, this argument that the days of creation could not be allegorical simply because the author used an ordinal and the phrase "evening and morning" is juvenile and unconvincing. Furthermore, big bang cosmology is not a necessary component of evolutionary theory in the Darwinian sense, yet AiG continues to conflate the two, much to the frustration of anyone who understands the difference.
If the fossil record isn't what it appears to be and AiG can demonstrate it, the scientists will listen. AiG should publish a compelling alternative hypothesis that better explains all observations. If the fossil record and all the death therein was indeed deposited within human history, why are there no mammals except the upper layers? How did layers of denser rock form above layers of light rock? These are just two of many very real and easily verifiable observations that traditional geology and evolutionary theory explains better than AiG geology.
This left me wondering about the motivation of organizations like AiG. Are they reaching out to non-Christians? If so, these childish arguments are the wrong approach. Are they defending cherished beliefs in the face of more progressive believers? If so, AiG needs to pick their battles more wisely. The evidence for an ancient earth is overwhelming. Everyone should be willing to accept the possibility that a cherished belief like "original sin" may be superfluous, unnecessary, and incorrect.