Let there be light.

I think they are two distinctly different events, not related to each other. There was obviously light before the creation of the sun and moon and stars.
Would like to see other comments though.

 

I agree with Donna.

I think He created "Light and Dark" then He created the Sun and the Moon.

 

In Hebrew, the word "asa" is translated into English 72 different ways. God didn't "create or make" the sun, moon and stars on day four. He "did" the sun, moon, and stars on day four. What exactly did God "do" with the sun, moon and stars on day four? The text tells us. He "appointed" them to govern the day and the night and to serve as "signs to mark seasons and days and years."

"Appoint" is the correct translation of "asa" in this text because the text is refering to "governing."

Genesis 1:1-2 clearly teaches that God created the heavens and the earth some undefined period of time ago. The heavens were stretched out by God and the foundation of the earth was laid. God created out of nothing a complete and functioning universe with sun, moon, stars, planets, galaxies, and solar systems all functioning as he planned it and created it.

After an undefined period of time, "the Holy Spirit hovered over the planet earth," God said, "Let there be light." God didn't create light on day one. He called for light to reach the earth's surface for the very first time. Job describes the planet earth at its original creation (Job 38-4-9). The earth's core was covered in water and thick clouds preventing sun light from reaching the earth's surface. When God called for light, the clouds thinned and light filtered through. God called the light "day," and the darkness, "night."

With light reaching the earth's surface from the sun for the very first time, the first day from the persepective of the earth came into being.

I would encourage you to take a concordance and look up every reference to the earth's "foundation." Also, check out "heaven" and starry host"

The universe was created in its entirety by God in Genesis 1:1-2.

God then formed and made the earth's biosphere to make it habitable for man in Genesis 1:3ff.

 

Light is a form of energy. There is an equivalence between energy and matter.

 

No question about it. But if God created a fully functioning universe in Genesis 1:1-2, the problem of light on earth is solved.

God created the earth's solar system and put it in motion at the orginal moment of creation.

God then formed the earth's biosphere and filled it making it habitable for man.

Genesis 1:2 describes the earth as being "tohu webohu" (unformed and unfilled). God formed the earth's biosphere and filled it! Genesis 1:3ff.

 

I'm posting the same thing here I've posted on other threads here when this topic comes up.

I think that God creating light before creating the sun and moon (which is what I believe) shows:
1. God is the source of light
2. It gives glory over to God and not to the sun and moon as sources of light, since the sun and moon were being worshipped
3. Creating the sun and moon on the 4th day -- not even the 2nd or 3rd -- clearly tones down their importance as sources of light and as possibilities for being pagan gods; it also makes a clear separation from God creating light and then the sun and moon.
4. It shows that light exists apart from the sun and moon.

The Genesis account glorifies God and not creation; God makes that clear right from the start.

 

What Scriptures do you have besides Genesis 1:16 that supports your interpretation that God created light, in reference to the earth, before he created the Sun.

Job 38:4-9 and Genesis 1:2 adequately explain the condition of the earth at its original inception (Genesis 1:1-2).

The text indicates that the earth was in darkness not because the sun didn't exist but because the earth was in darkness! From what? Job 38:4-9 informs us. Thick clouds!

Genesis 1:3 doesn't report God creating "light." It reports God calling for light - light that already existed from the sun when God stretched out the starry host!

The earth's surface was in darkness. I think we can all agree with that. When God called for light, and the clouds thinned, light reached the earth's surface for the first time, and day one came into existence. With the absence of light on the earth's surface, there could be no day.

Marcia, you and I agree on a lot. I would encourage you to think through just what it was that God created out of nothing as referenced by Genesis 1:1-2.

My understanding of the Genesis account also glorifies God and not creation; God makes that clear right from the start - he stretched out the heavens and laid the earth's foundation, and then God the Spirit hovered an undefined period of time before forming and filling the earth's biosphere to make it habitable for man (Isaiah 45:18).

 

Paul, I don't see Job 38 as an account of creation and certainly not the order of creation. It's a poetic passage rebuking Job, telling Job that God is the creator.

I think your view of how creation went is being read into the text, I don't see it in the text myself. I am not saying that it's a bad view, just that I disagree. I've seen you post this view before, so it's not new to me.

I disagree that Gen. 1.3 is not reporting that God created light. I think that it is. I think this is the beginning of creation.

Note from NET Bible on "God said" in Gen. 1.3:

I know that the NET Bible comments can be wrong, but I agree with them. I don't think it could be any clearer than that the account is stating that God created light.

 

So what you are saying is that God spoke the universe into existence, and the only thing that existed was a watery,formless planet and the creation of light on day one.

Somehow, this planet was spinning on its axis, but was not in its orbit around the sun, because the sun didn't yet exist.

God then began to work on the earth's atmosphere, creating sky, day two.

On day three, God pulled the waters into one place revealing dry ground and started the process of vegetation.

Finally, on day four God created the sun, moon and stars, and I would presume, though the text doesn't say, the rest of the universe, including all of the other planets, solar systems, etc. It is on day four that the earth begins to orbit the newly made sun. God also, though the text doesn't say, must have created the stars with light in transit to the earth so that we can see the light from solar systems that are billions of years old.

So this earth-centered interpretation of the Hebrew text is what you believe God intended to communicate to us?

In my interpretation I have to supply the missing information of "clouds thinning." But I have Job 38:4-9, Genesis 1:2, Isaiah 45:18, and Zech. 12:1 to synthesize and systematize into a coherent theory. Certainly, I have "forming and filling" to lend credibility to this interpretation. And the creative work of God during the six days gives credance to this idea, for God did in fact shape the earth's biosphere and fill it during these six days.

On the other hand, you have to supply the missing information that God created stars and galaxies with "light" from these sources created in transit. But there are no verses of Scripture that teach this. You also have no idea what kind of "light" God created on day one, since the Bible is silent, according to your interpretation (and denial of Job 38:4-9). Your interpretation also seems to contradict Genesis 1:1-2, Zech. 12:1, and Isaiah 45:18. Instead of a universe being created, your interpretation leaves the reader believing that God created the earth first, and then only later did God create the rest of the universe. But Genesis 1:1 clearly states that God created the heavens and the earth out of nothing at its original inception. But your view has God creating the earth first, and only later, day four to be exact, creating the heavens.

So, while each of our theories require missing information to be filled in, whose theory rests most faithfully on the text of Scripture?

 

So you believe in old earth Creationism?

 

Paul, I'm not sure how believing that there was a universe without light and then God created light contradicts Zech. 12.1 or Is. 25.18, which are not literal accounts of creation, anyway. This is a way of saying that God made the world.

The specific narrative account of creation is Gen 1 and 2.

Why can't God have earth out there before the sun is created? This is not hard for me to believe at all. It might have been just sitting there, not spinning until God made the sun.

As for God creating the earth before the universe, that is not what Gen. 1.1 says. The phrase "the heavens and the earth" means the universe. Most conservative scholars believe this.

From the NET Bible again, note on "earth" in Gen 1.1:

 

Why are they mentioned twice?

The days of creation in Genesis are presented in two parallel thoughts.

The events of day 1 are parallel to day 4
The events of day 2 are parallel to day 5
The events of day 3 are parallel to day 6

Also: In reference to light: Revelation 22:5

"And there will no longer be any night; and they will not have need of light of a lamp nor the light of the sun, because the Lord God will illumine them; and they will reign forever and ever."

Light doesn't necessarily mean Sun or Moon or Stars.

 

So you believe in old earth Creationism? </font>[/QUOTE]I believe in an old universe (stretched out heavens and earth's foundation) and a recent biosphere.

 

</font>[/QUOTE]The NET bible is mixing up different uses of the word shamayim and eres. In Genesis 1:1 it does refer to the universe. Therefore, your interpretation must mean that God created an empty universe devoid of everything but the planet earth and then added to this planet eventually adding stars to the empy universe.

Shamayim is also used of "sky" and eres is also used of "land." Exactly what God did on days one to six! That is, he fashioned the earth's biosphere.

 

To a person living at the time of Moses, what would he have understood Moses to be teaching?

1. That God created the universe (Genesis 1:1).
2. That the earth was unformed and unfilled (Genesis 1:2).
3. That the earth was formed and filled (Genesis 1:3ff.)making it habitable for man.

Isaiah agrees with this in Isaiah 45:18:

For this is what the LORD says -
he who created (bara - past tense) the heavens (Genesis 1:1), he is God;
he who fashioned (formed) and made (asa) the earth (Genesis 1:3ff), he founded it (Genesis 1:1);
he did not create it (bara - Gen. 1:1) to be empty (Gen. 1:2 tohu webohu - barren and empty),
but formed it (Gen. 1:3ff) to be inhabited -

Genesis 1:1 teaches that God created the universe - the sun, moon, stars, planets. IMO, this is what a Hebrew would have understood.

Genesis 1:2 teaches the condition of the earth at its original inception (v. 1) - barren and empty, covered in water and darkness, the Holy Spirit hovering an undefined period of time. IMO, this is what a Hebrew would have understood, because this is what the text says. God created the universe and the planet earth is described in this original creation.

Genesis 1:3 ff. teaches that God formed and filled the earth making it habitable for man. God brought light to the earth's surface that was in darkness, God shaped the sky, God shaped the seas and land, God brought forth vegetation after its kind, God appointed the sun and moon, God brought forth fish, fowl, animals, man, all after their kind.

Isaiah 45:18 is not figurative, it is literal, and it affirms the creation narrative. Job 38:4-9 is poetic, but poetry can also contain scientific truth. God revealed to Job that the earth at its foundation was eveloped in thick cloulds confirming Genesis 1:2. Zechariah 12:1 teaches that God stretched out the universe and laid the earth's foundation when creating the universe, first mentioned in Genesis 1:1.

This is what a Hebrew, IMO, would understand. God created the universe, he described the condition of my planet, and he made it habitable for man to live on this planet!

 

I think the problem is that you are assuming this Hebrew would have understood modern astronomy, including Earth's place in the universe as one planet among many. I don't think that would be the case.

To this ancient Hebrew, I think the sun, moon and stars would be seen as existing for Earth the same way clouds do, and so creation of Earth would include the creation of the stellar bodies. I think this creation event is placed on day four as a polemic against worshiping them (as Marcia mentioned), and also because daylight, water and earth were seen as more fundamental than the lights in the sky.

 

Perhaps.

But viewing Genesis 1 from the earth's perspective also would have meant that the Hebrews would have been impressed with the vastness of the sky.

Since the Hebrews also wrote by revelation of God, their Scriptures speak of the stretching out of the heavens, the foundation of the earth, the number of stars as many as the grains of sand, etc.

They had supernatural revelation that predated modern discoveries.

So, standing on earth, is it not possible that they believed in a vast universe, an earth unformed and unfilled in darkness and water, and a formation of the earth's biosphere to make it habitable for man?

IMO, they would not have made the mistake that moderns make of assuming that day four was the day that God "made" the sun, moon, and stars. I think they would have understood this to mean "appoint." They were Hebrews. They wouldn't have made such a simple mistake with their own language!

I may be wrong, but in light of the rest of the Hebrew Scriptures, I think this makes more sense.

 

I think Genesis 1 places the stretching out of the heavens on day two.

A vast pre-formed universe? No, I don't think Genesis describes that.

I'd recommend picking up The Genesis Debate: Three views on the days of creation. All views are presented by teams who accept biblical inerrancy and reject evolution. The third view is the framework view, and I think you might find it interesting, and even if you aren't convinced by all of it, you may find parts of it useful.

 

Thanks, Mercury.

I disagree with the idea that God stretched out the heavens on day two for the simple fact that Genesis 1: 8 defines the expanse as "sky." This again comports well with my interpretation that the six days of "fashioning" deal with the earth's biosphere and not the creation of the universe which took place in verse one and is marked off by the hovering or brooding of the Holy Spirit over the face of the waters in verse two.

Show me from the text why you believe the expanse is more than the "sky" (earth's atmosphere) mentioned by God. The text doesn't say that the expanse is the universe. It says that it is the "sky," the same sky that God fills with birds on day five and the same sky in which the sun, moon, and stars become visible in on day four.