8 ms·

Light was created on the first day, but the Sun was created on the fourth. And Genesis presents the Universe's primordial state as being just a watery mass, so

Light was created on the first day, but the Sun was created on the fourth. And Genesis presents the Universe's primordial state as being just a watery mass, so water existed before both. Fun fact: Proverbs 8 identifies Wisdom as the first of God's works, hence the Judeo-Christian tradition of identifying Wisdom with light. http://www.esvbible.org/Proverbs+8/ http://www.esvbible.org/Proverbs+8/ The New Testament also identifies Jesus as both Wisdom and Light, despite Wisdom being female in Proverbs.

sigzero 12y ago
The last one, you are trying to find contradiction where there is none.
- lotharbot 12y ago
  Among serious Christian circles it would be phrased as "learning that first century Jewish culture was different from ours and didn't react the same to certain concepts". They didn't see it as at all weird to identify Jesus with wisdom -- not because they were idiots or missed a blatant contradiction, but simply because they didn't have the same specific hangups we do. Likewise, Jesus identifying as a "hen gathering her chicks" in Matthew 23 wasn't a gender faux-pas.
  - coldtea 12y ago
    It's not a gender faux-pas now either in 99% of the world.
- Cleanaxe 12y ago
  I'm not saying there's a contradiction, I just find it interesting.
themodelplumber 12y ago
>> And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. > Light was created on the first day, but the Sun was created on the fourth. Where does the Bible say the Sun was created on the fourth day? It doesn't appear in the KJV or JBS; is it written like that in another translation? > Proverbs 8 identifies Wisdom as the first of God's works Are you saying that you think this is a contradiction because Genesis says Light was created on the "first day?"
- lotharbot 12y ago
  > "Where does the Bible say the Sun was created on the fourth day?" Genesis 1:14-18. Of particular interest, the text doesn't actually name "Sun" and "Moon". In stark contrast to the mythologies of many surrounding cultures, they're not treated as though they have any personality or volition. They're just lights; their only significance is that they're bright, and are the most prominent bright objects in the day and the night. (That may be the most scientifically revolutionary/remarkable thing about Genesis 1 -- it treats the entire physical universe as physical objects. This is also the most theologically revolutionary/remarkable things about Genesis 1 -- it doesn't merely say Elohim is better than the gods of other cultures, it says those gods are actually just plain ol' objects that do what they do because God designed them that way.)
  - themodelplumber 12y ago
    So I'm curious, which Christian sects think this means the Sun was literally created at that point? I am a Christian but I'm not all Christians, so that kind of reading is new to me and feels rather odd.
    - lotharbot 12y ago
      Christian Fundamentalism (which is a decidedly American/English sect, 100 years old this year) is the only sect I'm aware of that takes a hard-line literalist approach to Genesis 1, and even among them there's argument as to whether the sun is literally created at that time or if it becomes visible somehow. (That idea is fairly old -- I was just reading Aquinas' take on it, written in the 1200s: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/aquinas/summa.FP_Q70_A1.html http://www.ccel.org/ccel/aquinas/summa.FP_Q70_A1.html ) Many Christian sects (historical and modern) don't view Genesis 1 as specific "points in time". There are various alternative theories -- Augustine (354-430 AD) suggests that creation of all six "days" worth of stuff was actually a single instantaneous event, and that the "days" might refer to the way God revealed creation to the "angelic mind", for example. One theory gaining more prominence is that the Genesis account parallels an older Egyptian account in a subversive way -- using the same structure (including the "days") but setting itself apart in the way it speaks about the details of God and creation (see https://bible.org/article/genesis-1-2-light-ancient-egyptian-creation-myths https://bible.org/article/genesis-1-2-light-ancient-egyptian... .) Viewed from this perspective, the "days" are just poetic structure and have nothing to do with the actual timing of creation.

sigzero 12y ago

The last one, you are trying to find contradiction where there is none.

lotharbot 12y ago
Among serious Christian circles it would be phrased as "learning that first century Jewish culture was different from ours and didn't react the same to certain concepts". They didn't see it as at all weird to identify Jesus with wisdom -- not because they were idiots or missed a blatant contradiction, but simply because they didn't have the same specific hangups we do. Likewise, Jesus identifying as a "hen gathering her chicks" in Matthew 23 wasn't a gender faux-pas.
- coldtea 12y ago
  It's not a gender faux-pas now either in 99% of the world.
Cleanaxe 12y ago
I'm not saying there's a contradiction, I just find it interesting.

themodelplumber 12y ago

>> And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. > Light was created on the first day, but the Sun was created on the fourth. Where does the Bible say the Sun was created on the fourth day? It doesn't appear in the KJV or JBS; is it written like that in another translation? > Proverbs 8 identifies Wisdom as the first of God's works Are you saying that you think this is a contradiction because Genesis says Light was created on the "first day?"

lotharbot 12y ago
> "Where does the Bible say the Sun was created on the fourth day?" Genesis 1:14-18. Of particular interest, the text doesn't actually name "Sun" and "Moon". In stark contrast to the mythologies of many surrounding cultures, they're not treated as though they have any personality or volition. They're just lights; their only significance is that they're bright, and are the most prominent bright objects in the day and the night. (That may be the most scientifically revolutionary/remarkable thing about Genesis 1 -- it treats the entire physical universe as physical objects. This is also the most theologically revolutionary/remarkable things about Genesis 1 -- it doesn't merely say Elohim is better than the gods of other cultures, it says those gods are actually just plain ol' objects that do what they do because God designed them that way.)
- themodelplumber 12y ago
  So I'm curious, which Christian sects think this means the Sun was literally created at that point? I am a Christian but I'm not all Christians, so that kind of reading is new to me and feels rather odd.
  - lotharbot 12y ago
    Christian Fundamentalism (which is a decidedly American/English sect, 100 years old this year) is the only sect I'm aware of that takes a hard-line literalist approach to Genesis 1, and even among them there's argument as to whether the sun is literally created at that time or if it becomes visible somehow. (That idea is fairly old -- I was just reading Aquinas' take on it, written in the 1200s: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/aquinas/summa.FP_Q70_A1.html http://www.ccel.org/ccel/aquinas/summa.FP_Q70_A1.html ) Many Christian sects (historical and modern) don't view Genesis 1 as specific "points in time". There are various alternative theories -- Augustine (354-430 AD) suggests that creation of all six "days" worth of stuff was actually a single instantaneous event, and that the "days" might refer to the way God revealed creation to the "angelic mind", for example. One theory gaining more prominence is that the Genesis account parallels an older Egyptian account in a subversive way -- using the same structure (including the "days") but setting itself apart in the way it speaks about the details of God and creation (see https://bible.org/article/genesis-1-2-light-ancient-egyptian-creation-myths https://bible.org/article/genesis-1-2-light-ancient-egyptian... .) Viewed from this perspective, the "days" are just poetic structure and have nothing to do with the actual timing of creation.