The bible seems to suggest that the Sun was made on Day 4, after the Earth. This would suggest that the Earth is older than the Sun. However, science says that the Sun is older than the Earth. Who is right?
I read it more as the sun was assigned its function on day 4. It had existed long before that, especially since, in either view, Earth was already covered in plants.
What do you think?
1 Like
It was, or the book sez it was
Ok. Can you guys use scriptures so I can have a better understanding?
In Genesis 1:16-18, when it says
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. God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth, to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good.
Some scholars like John Walton believe this passage is not talking about material creation or God just “making” the sun out of scratch, but rather assigning a purpose for it – bringing order out of chaos. Even before the “day 1” creation event, Genesis 1:2 says:
Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.
This could be symbolic of chaos, which is what God is bringing under control by assigning functions to the different aspects of the earth.
1 Like
Ok, but even if you want to interpret it that way, the sun was created on day 1, because the days begin with the phrase" then god said". The sun would be created on day 1, even if you interpret it that way. Correct me if I’m wrong but it seems like the bible says that the Earth is older than the Sun. Also, if the earth was formless and empty, why ws God hovering over the waters?
It’s possible the first day is referencing the sun, but again, I don’t believe this account is focused on material creation at all. It is about God showing the contrasts between things like dark/light, earth/land, etc., and assigning functions to them. So in that context, I believe the sun is billions of years old either way, regardless of which day the sun’s function was assigned.
That’s a good question. Like I said earlier, the waters could be symbolic of chaos. To me it’s another clue that material creation is not the focus here. The Earth already physically existed, and so did water.
1 Like
Genesis isn’t science and it can’t tell us about the formation of the solar system.
1 Like
Well the sun is older. The Bible uses multiple tools in order to present the truth. For example are we more like chimps or more like seeds? The Bible says we are like seeds. So who is correct the Bible or Science?
The question is set up with a false premise. It’s not which is right but what’s the best way read the Bible to extract the best truth and how does that connect with reality.
Well then what is it? Why would Moses write it anyway?
An important book about our relationship with God, how things went wrong, and how things will be set right. Does it have to be science to be important? I don’t think so.
And Moses didn’t write it.
1 Like
Ok, but all scripture is God-breathed. Scripture cannot be wrong.
But our understanding of it sure can be!
2 Likes
So what do we do when Scripture contradicts itself?
1 Like
And, about genesis 1:3, god is light. On the New Earth we won’t need the Sun because God’s glory provides light. So maybe that light was God?
Zactly. Why discuss it in a " science and" forum?
How do you know it cant be wrong? Is it accurate?
Now accurate? Cubits are neither precise nor accurate.
How much error is allowed in perfection?
Was there a 300 ( exactly) cubit ark, and all thevwotld flooded?
That’s a question you can take up with Rohan, who is more eager here to defend his version of inerrantism. [edited to remove my latter sentences here.]
It’s the part you left off (that comes after the “and…”) which is why these sorts of discussions are appropriate here. I know you addressed that to beaglelady, but since I’d already butted in …
I wouldn’t be too quick to assume what is implied by the Bible not directly addressing a question. In a sense we’re reading someone else’s mail here, a message not addressed to us in this time. It is probably lacking in illustrations and phonetic renderings of preverbal grunts for the sake of still more ancient people who may -somehow- intercept the message.