In the Beginning, when the Earth was formless and void, Elohim (plural for God) said, Let There Be Light! And there was a Big Bang! The sun, the moon and the stars were “not” made until the Fourth Day so, my question is, What was the First Light?
The same notion is found in Egyptian and Babylonian texts. Wayne Horowitz says the Babylonians thought the sky emitted light. In other words, the writer of Genesis had no idea light came from the sun.
1 Like
Then, I would have to ask if the Book of Genesis was breathed out by God for Moses and his scribes to write down or is it inspired by God who spoke face to face with Moses? I’m guessing Horowitz is or was an Orthodox Jew who does not believe that Jesus is the Christ/Messiah.
Horowitz has no agenda against any religion, he is only speaking about Mesopotamian cosmology, his book Mesopotamian Cosmic Geography is considered authoritative.
1 Like
It probably was not written by Moses, but some other inspired biblical writer. Does Genesis ever claim to be written by Moses?
The Sun was not made until the “forth day”. Here is another clue. In the Beginning was the Word and the Word was with Elohim and the Word was Elohim. What or who is the Word?
I just said that the inhabitants of the ANE did not know that light came from the sun.
typical Baptist answer as we would say in my own Baptist church…the answer to 90% of questions safely can be “Jesus.” Good thought. Where do you make this out? I am not sure I agree but interesting to hear this argument
. Looking forward to your thoughts…and welcome!
“It probably was not written by Moses, but some other inspired biblical writer. Does Genesis ever claim to be written by Moses?”
And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, He explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning Himself. Luke 24:27 He said to them, “This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about Me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms.” Then He opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures. vs. 44,45
Hi Randy, Thanks for the encouragement. I have been studying this topic for several years now and I have been going to Church websites and Face Book and Answers in Genesis and asking this question. Main Stream Christianity cannot answer me. Scientists claim that the Sun was made on the first day but because of the mist it could not shine until later. My answer to that is, How did vegetation grow on the Third Day before the Sun could shine? I have a website of my work but I read in the rules and wanted to start a discussion first. I have learned that because this is a new idea I have to break it down. No one wants to read from an unknown author. I am not trying to discredit the Bible but by using the Hebrew and Greek texts I believe that I can show evidence for the Big Bang Theory. I read a question from another member asking for resources. I would like to offer mine for free because freely I have received, freely I give. This is my passion. To teach the Word of God. Everyone has permission to use my site, comment and ask questions. Iron sharpens Iron. And God Said… Kaboom! www
1 Like
What scientist claims this? It sounds like what Old Earth Creationists claim. I know some scientists are OEC, but no science would motivate that kind of concordist claim.
The standard evolutionary creationist position (i.e. the one promoted by BioLogos) is that the Bible is not intended to provide scientific evidence. You get scientific evidence from studying nature. Reading explanations of the Big Bang into the Bible is eisogesis. Perhaps these articles would interest you:
https://biologos.org/blogs/guest/the-problem-with-trying-to-read-science-out-of-scripture
1 Like
Thanks for reading the guidelines and attempting to follow them. To clarify, it’s okay to put links, as long as it isn’t in the OP, and as long as it isn’t blatant or repetitive co-opting of the discussion forum for advertising/proselytizing.
In case people were confused by the quote above, here is the link: https://andgodsaidkaboom.weebly.com/
1 Like
Thank you Christy.
Problems drop away as soon as you ditch the attempt to force Gen 1 to be a material ("science*, ancient or modern) account of the world, and see it instead as describing the world pehnomenologically (ie, as seen, not as theorized), from a theological point of view. In this case, the primary theology is “cosmic temple” theology, which you can read up in detail on particularly in John Walton, Richard Middleton, or Greg Beale.
On such an account the organisation of the text into three “domains” (heaven, sea, earth) with three sets of “denizens” (heavenly bodies/birds, fish, land creatures/man) is theological, but the descriptions are what the writer saw as he looked over the land and sea.
Regarding the light on day 1, I wrote on that here.
In literary terms, the alternation of light and darek establishes both time, and the heavens which will come to be inhabited and ruled by the heavenly lights on day 4.
Without a scientific concept of air (as the material substance we understand), which only came about under the Greeks centuries afetr Genesis was written, there is no way to conceive of the sun lighting up the blue sky, and every reason to see it as a light source - both for the authro and his readers. After all, we ourselves see the moon as a “light” even after knowing that it only reflects the sun’s rays.
Now, there is no more reason to doubt the inspiration of the Holy Spirit for such a phenomenological text, than for any other phenomenological text (such as those describing the rising of the sun). The aim is, at the broadest level, to get us to see that all we see around us was made by God, not by nature alone or by warring deities; and at a more detailed level to see the world around us as God’s temple - a sacred and holy space in which we may seek and find God.
Phenomenologically, bright blue sky is accurate - and that’s what’s required of a phenomenological text, not hidden or even overt 21st century science. After all, nobody would be very patient if the text said, “In the beginning God created quarks, which in aggregate gave the illusory sense of solidity to our planet, which is actually the interaction of energy fields…”
6 Likes
Great for my smile this morning. Thank you.
Glad about that, Randy!
The point is serious, though - those who bemoan the “ancient science” of Genesis don’t seem clear what it should have been instead - a 2018 “state of cosmology” paper? Or a popular science piece that glosses over the approximations and analogies being used to make it comprehensible even to scientists?
We’re still pretty unclear about how the solar system formed. So if Genesis described it invoking mechanisms as yet undiscoverable, everyone would be saying it was in error, until the truth was discovered, when everyone would be saying the writer was lucky (but wrong about the firmament etc).
First catch the genre - AND the role in the biblical metanarrative, and suddenly ALL is light! FWIW my own understanding now is that Gen 1 is at heart only the setting for the whole of the rest of the Bible - from Genesis 2 - to decribe the drama of the new creation that culminates in Christ.
4 Likes
I read your link that was supposed to be about Light but it was a brief history about air. I do agree about God being a Spirit who hovered over the “floating” waters which would be the definition of H2O. The Spirit “of” God could not be a separate Spirit before the world began or Jesus, rather, The Word would not be the First Born of All Creation. Therefore, Yehovah was hovering over the hydrogen and oxygen and said, Light Become! And, The Word became The Holy Spirit who overshadowed Mary and she conceived the Son of the Holy Spirit, the Spirit From God. God Himself could not come down from the Highest Heaven or we would all evaporate. I have written about this on my website under the titles, God The Spirit and in a blog, Evaporated. www.andgodsaidkaboom.weebly.com
This topic was automatically closed 6 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.