Jac wrote:
Let me address some of the points you brought up. If I missed something important, let me know:
1. You claim that we can translate "God made [the sun]" as "God had made the sun." I disagree. If by "can" you mean that it is within the acceptable rules of grammar considered apart from context, then sure. But by that criteria, we can translate John 1:1 "The Word was a god." Now, if you want to talk about the translation of verbs and how that relates to this particular verse, we can. And perhaps after I make my case, you'll still disagree. But suffice it to say here that I do not think that we can translate the phrase as you suggest, and the fact that no one that I'm aware of has ever translated it that way should tell you something. Don't go ACB on me here and claim all those Hebrew scholars are wrong . . . (how is THAT for a rhetorical debate tactic!
)
Ok. So we disagree about made/had made. Either way, I don't think it makes much of a difference anyways. At least regarding the 4th creation day.
Genesis 1:14-19
14 Then God said, “Let there be lights in the [t]expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night, and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years; 15 and let them be for lights in the [v]expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth”; and it was so. 16 God made the two [w]great lights, the greater [x]light [y]to govern the day, and the lesser [z]light [aa]to govern the night; He made the stars also. 17 God placed them in the [ab]expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth, 18 and [ac]to govern the day and the night, and to separate the light from the darkness; and God saw that it was good. 19 There was evening and there was morning, a fourth day.
You interpret this text to mean that the sun, moon and stars were created on day 4. I think it is showing how the already existing sun, moon, and stars, became visible to someone on the earth's surface. Verses 14-16 explain how the sun, moon and stars that God already created, became visible(verses 17-18) to govern the day and night. And to separate the light from darkness.
Jac wrote:
2. We had this little exchange:
The simple fact is that the sun comes after the creation of light. That is completely impossible to get away from. That's been my point the entire time.
And I disagree. It's not a simple fact. It's your interpretation. The sun existed on the first day. The sun is the source of light.
Jac wrote:
I overstated my case. What I should have said is that the simple fact is that the text depicts the sun coming into existence after the creation of light. THAT is what you can't get away from. And to demonstrate that is what was in my mind, look at my language later in the same post:
That which does not exist cannot produce that which does exist;
Evening/morning is depicted as existing before the sun, which is to say, evening/morning are depicted as having existed at one point in which the sun did not)
Therefore, the evening/morning cycle is not produced by the sun;
Side note: so produces the evening/morning cycle? Answer: the light, created on day 1
Ok. Looks like we're at an impasse here too. The light on day one comes from the already existing sun, moon, stars, etc.
Jac wrote:
Now, if you are going to argue that even though light is depicted as coming first and the sun depicted as coming later that, despite the actual language of the text, that the text really wants us to understand that the sun was already in existence, then fine. You can make that argument. But, of course, you have to make that argument from the text. You don't get to appeal to things like the rotation of the earth to do it. And just offering a conclusion--a counter reading of the text--by claiming that we can interpret the fourth day to teach that "[the sun] just became visible" isn't sufficient. I don't need an interpretation. I need warrant for that interpretation.
Again, we disagree. No need to press it. It's a common YEC/OEC disagreement.
Jac wrote:
3. Then you said:
You are the one practicing eisogesis, by saying that there was light other than the sun which existed on day 1. The text does not say that the light was something other than the sun. You just assume it was, because you wrongly believe the sun didn't exist until the 4th day.
And this I just disagree with you on, and very strongly. The text says there was light. Three days later, the text says there was the sun. It is not eisogesis to say that if there is no sun, then it cannot produce the light. Nor is it eisogesis to say that the light was there without the sun, because that is exactly what the text depicts.
Light first.
Sun later.
It's eisogesis to say that there was some light source that God created, that He just removed, and put back each day, to make evening/morning cycles. Instead of understanding the simplest interpretation that makes sense,the sun existed on day one, and the sun was the source of light, which was responsible for the evening/morning cycles that make up an ordinary day, you need to make up some story about God creating some special light that He removes and puts back every day, to make a day. It's no better than the typical "appearance of age" arguments used by YECs, to try to get around the universe looks old, because it is old.
Jac wrote:
4. Then you said:
I can say that ordinary days didn't exist if there was no sun, for the same reason we can't use the earth spinning on its axis as an argument.
You've contradicted yourself here. The second part is right. We cannot talk about the earth spinning on its axis. As you point out, that's modern science. Moses wouldn't have known about it. In just the same way, you canNOT say "that ordinary days didn't exist if there was no sun." That statement assumes that the sun defines the day based on the rotation of the earth. And what I am telling you--and if you respond to nothing else, please just respond to this--is that the definition of a morning/evening is the presence or absense of the light. Look at these two statements side by side:
The definition of a morning/evening is the presence or absense of the light
The definition of a morning/evening is the rising or setting of the sun
Jac, we are talking about ordinary days as Moses would have understood the term. Morning/evening is the presence or absence of light BECAUSE the sun is rising or setting. Again, as Moses would have seen it, the light becomes present BECAUSE the sun is rising. The light fades away BECAUSE the sun is setting. Moses saw that every day of his life(weather permitting).
Jac wrote:
Now, MODERN SCIENCE tells us, due to the rotation of the earth, that these sentences mean the same thing. But exclude modern science. Imagine a world in which light exists apart from the sun, that the sun is certainly a light giving body such that when it is there, night is not, but that it comes with the light, governing and marking it--it does not determine the light. That shouldn't be a hard picture to imagine. Maybe it is easy for me because I have a five year old daughter. She thinks the sun wakes up first thing in the morning. Do you see that? Morning comes. It starts to get light outside. And the sun comes up! The, then sun gets tired. It starts to get dark. And that tells the sun that it is bedtime.
Do you see that difference? If so, you should be able to see that those two statements are NOT the same thing.
From Moses' point of view, the two sentences mean the same thing. From Moses pov, the absence and presence of light, is cause by the setting and rising of the sun. You cannot get away from that fact!
Jac wrote:
5. Finally, you want to talk about the meaning of boqer and ereb. I grant that part of their meaning is "sunrise" and "sunset" respectively, that is, that those ideas are within those words' semantic range. But that is not the same thing as saying that evening (ereb) means a sunset. What it means is just that: the evening. You can, of course, use the word to refer to the sunset, to the time of the day in which the sun sets. But there is no 1:1 correspondence there. That's just not how definitions work.
You asked me to show you from scripture, proof to back up what I'm saying. So I showed you that scripturally, boqer and ereb CAN mean sunrise and sunset. Now, if you want to say that they don't always mean sunrise and sunset, I agree.
Jac wrote:
Given all that, I won't retract my claim of dishonesty. I'm not, in that, leveling a charge of malice, because I'm not sure tha the dishonesty is intentional. Moses would certainly know an ordinary day if the sun didn't exist. He'd look for an evening/morning cycle based on the light that God created on day 1. To claim that Moses couldn't know such because the light necessarily presumes the sun is correct scientifically, but we aren't reading science into the text. So the argument is dishonest because it claims not to rely on science but then smuggles it in through the backdoor
And I'd just disagree. It's just ridiculous to think that Moses didn't know that the light becomes present, and absent BECAUSE the sun is rising and setting. He saw it everyday. Even a five year old can make the connection.
Jac,
I know you wanted an argument from scripture. And frankly, I can understand why you want to stick to scripture alone. Because half the argument that proves YEC wrong, IMHO, comes from how we look at God's creation. You can say that the sun didn't exist on day one from your interpretation of scripture, and I'd disagree. But when you start looking at how we see creation, the notion that the sun didn't exist until day 4, becomes ridiculous.
Just look at day 3, which you say happened before the sun existed:
9 Then God said, “Let the waters below the heavens be gathered into one place, and let the dry land appear”; and it was so. 10 God called the dry land earth, and the gathering of the waters He called seas; and God saw that it was good. 11 Then God said, “Let the earth sprout [j]vegetation, [k]plants yielding seed, and fruit trees on the earth bearing fruit after [l]their kind [m]with seed in them”; and it was so. 12 The earth brought forth [n]vegetation, [o]plants yielding seed after [p]their kind, and trees bearing fruit [q]with seed in them, after [r]their kind; and God saw that it was good. 13 There was evening and there was morning, a third day.
So, not only did God have to remove and put back this "light" for the evening/morning cycle to happen without the sun, but on the third day, the waters were gathered into seas. And that means that God had to sustain the earth's temperature without the sun. And vegetation sprouted. The earth brought forth seed plants, and fruit trees, which grew WITHOUT THE SUN.
So, we can believe and have a basis for the belief from the HGM, that the sun existed on the first day. This sun was created by God, as the source of light that Moses knew was the reason for the evening/morning cycle. This sun existed on the 3rd creation day, however long that day was. And the sun was an integral part of all the plants growing. The same way that the sun is an integral part of how plant life is sustained today.
Or, you can believe there was no sun until day 4. The light for the evening and morning cycles was removed and put back by God. And the temperature of earth's atmosphere was sustained by God without the sun, so that the water on the earth didn't freeze. And God, without the sun, had the earth sprout, grow and sustain plant life WITHOUT photosynthesis, and the warmth of the sun.
So, we have 2 different beliefs. Each is compatible with a HGM interpretation of scripture. But only one of the two makes sense with what we see everyday in our lives.
And obviously it goes without saying, that God could have removed and put back some kind of light. And God could have sustained the earth's temperature so the water didn't freeze. And God could have made another way to have plants sprout, grow, and live without the sun.
But which makes more sense? Seems pretty obvious.
