Every now and again you run into an Episcopalian who is troubled by the appearance of the sun on day 4 of creation week and from this presumed difficulty finds it easier in conscience "to run with the world" rather than hold to a straightforward reading of the word of God in Genesis Chapter 1.
Biblical Creationists see no difficulty at all with God using the light created on day 1 of creation week to provide the light component for 24 hour days (as we experience them) during days 1 to 3.
Why God chose to switch from one light source to another during the course of creation week is an interesting question but uncertainty as to reason ought not be a barrier to acceptance of the proposition. It is essential for the Christian to have faith in the word of God. As with reason for Job's suffering, explanation can often come later.
I was interested to read last week of a posting at ICR
which, pardon the pun, sheds a bit of light on subject of light before the sun. For the lazy I will quote part of the posting here:
"The day is thine, the night also is thine: thou hast prepared the light and the sun." (Psalm 74:16)
One of the traditional "discrepancies" attributed by the skeptics to the Genesis account of creation is the fact that there was "light" (Hebrew ôr) on the "first day of creation week, whereas God did not create the "lights" (Hebrew mā'-ôr) to rule the day and the night until the fourth day.
However, It is interesting that modern evolutionary cosmologists find no problem in having light before the sun. According to their speculative reconstruction of cosmic history, light energy was produced in the imaginary "Big Bang" 15 billion years ago, whereas the sun "evolved" only five billion years ago. Thus, even in their attempts to destroy the divine revelation of Genesis, they inadvertently find it necessary to return to its concepts. Light energy somehow had to be "prepared" before the sun and other stars could ever be set up to serve as future generators of light energy. The fact that light is an entity independent of the sun and other heavenly bodies is one of the remarkable scientific insights of the Bible. As the basic form of energy (even Intrinsic in the very nature of matter, as expressed in the famous Einstein equation), it is significant that the first recorded word spoken by the Creator was: "Let there be light" (Genesis 1:3).
This is an interesting observation. Something I had not considered before. Caution needs to be taken in applying a historical application to poetic language but it appears to me the psalmist was firm in mind as to there being two distinct fiats regarding the creation of light and the sun and, consequently, the psalmist had a concept of the one not being dependent upon the existence of the other for it to be a reality.
Most bible translators have accurately translated the Hebrew correctly in their bible versions but, sadly, translators of the New International Version have ducked for cover. They have interpreted this passage with culturally influenced minds. Instead of "light and sun" they introduce "sun and moon" with no warrant.
Translators of the New International Version like many alleged evangelicals of today play "fast and loose" with the word of God just to fit in with the world. The alleged issue of the sun being created on day 4 is no issue at all for understanding the passing of 3 days (as we experience them today) beforehand or for accepting Genesis 1 as historical narrative or prose. Episcopalians - drop it! You are making yourselves look silly.
Sam Drucker
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
5 comments:
Sam, thanks for this. I commented on another blog (in your side bar) on this issue the other day. Old Watcher had a different slant, but I like what you say. I don't like what Anglican scally wags say as they try to look good to the world (as far as I can tell)
Here's a little question.
If, on day one of the Creation Week, some atmospheric phenomenon occurred which enveloped the earth and blocked out light from the sun and the astral bodies, would Time have existed and continued as it does today?
Neil
Neil, as I have been taught, time is not contingent on the availability of light so time would have continued.
The non availability of light would not alter the passage of time. An imaginary clock on earth in the scenario you portray would move at the same speed as today.
Why do you ask?
Sam Drucker
Have you seen the Anglican's busy talk about the teaching ethics issue that is currently getting air time in Sydney?
I'd be interested in what you have to say.
There's a fair bit on their (the SAD) website, but it misses the point...how to get to the gospel...it all seems to be about manouvering for position, sledging the other side, imputing motives (which might or might not be true, of course), and 'having a go' but I don't see a Christian spirit of love emerging (and am I surprised?).
Sam,
The point I am raising is that time may well have been proceeding irrespective of light - which you have picked up. Therefore, there needed to be marker (as has been suggested elsewhere) and "evening and morning" introduced from the first day is a marker which all generations of humanity will recognise as defining a 24 hour day.
Neil
Post a Comment