Day 1 Light Is Starlight Arriving

[Rella]

disagree. I believe they were created at the beginning of day one.

1:16 God made the two great lights, the greater light to govern the day, and the lesser light to govern the night; He made the stars also. This was the fourth day.

But does it matter when they were made if they were not placed until the fourth day?

Well, folks... I think my brain is fried from the heat? Cause all I am envisioning for the day 1 lights
is millions of Energizer bunnies, carrying flashlights and riding on drones.

Everyone be blessed and I shall return, hopefully tomorrow.

 

[CrowCross]

1:16 God made the two great lights, the greater light to govern the day, and the lesser light to govern the night; He made the stars also. This was the fourth day.

That is what the bible says.

 

[EarlyActs]

The stars arrive on day 4.

Gen1:14 Then God said, “Let there be lights in the 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;
1:15 and let them be for lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth"; and it was so.

1:16 God made the two great lights, the greater light to govern the day, and the lesser light to govern the night; He made the stars also.
1:17 God placed them in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth,
1:18 and to govern the day and the night, and to separate the light from the darkness; and God saw that it was good.

1:19 There was evening and there was morning, a fourth day.

Yes, btw, I've read that before! Imagine that.

Here's the deal: Genesis has many dangling phrases that are not part of an action that is going on, but are mentioned to form a complete picture. In this case, there is the list of all the local things that act as signs and the major lights. But any grammar research will tell you that 'he made the stars also' is detached. The verb 'to set' is not used there, etc. The suggestion is therefore something else. The most common example of detached inclusions is the genealogies; so-and-so had a named son and we hear about what that son did, and then: 'and he also had other sons and daughters.'

When you add this to what is seen at Day 1, where there is a general light that can mark the beginning of a day (see photos of the night sky where there is no competition for natural light), and when you know that the local moving lights were placed on Day 4, not existing on Day 1, it raises a strong case for general starlight on Day 1.

To complete the question here, let's put it the other way around: if you don't use the general 'cloud' of starlight that shows in pure conditions, as Day 1 light, then you have to imagine some other kind of light as so many have: 'shekina' or a special glow God started or some such. But the passage is not like that. It is highly sensible and rational. That means the stars are not made Day 4, because they are not the placed objects; the local, moving ones are the placed objects, the markers.

 

[EarlyActs]

1:16 God made the two great lights, the greater light to govern the day, and the lesser light to govern the night; He made the stars also. This was the fourth day.

But does it matter when they were made if they were not placed until the fourth day?

Well, folks... I think my brain is fried from the heat? Cause all I am envisioning for the day 1 lights
is millions of Energizer bunnies, carrying flashlights and riding on drones. View attachment 1139

Everyone be blessed and I shall return, hopefully tomorrow.

It does matter that they are not created til the 4th day, because there is only a general light, which I think is the dusty cloud of distant starlight, not local markers. We can see this from photographs from the purest night sky settings. There was utter darkness before Day 1 even with the earth there. In fact, no light bounced off the water.

This fact could be very important in sequencing and dating the existence of earth; it can be the result of the 'spreading' out of the heavens before Day 1, yet in the dark until starlight arrives on Day 1.

 

[EarlyActs]

disagree. I believe they were created at the beginning of day one.

The general light of Day 1 (yowr) should not be confused with the marker/signal lights (shama) of Day 4. For one thing, if we do, then we have a major text conundrum.

I think the text is describing something quite rational about the 'spreading out' of the universe by Day 1, and yet also about the 'placement' of the marker/signal lights of Day 4.

 

[Carbon]

The general light of Day 1 (yowr) should not be confused with the marker/signal lights (shama) of Day 4. For one thing, if we do, then we have a major text conundrum.

I think the text is describing something quite rational about the 'spreading out' of the universe by Day 1, and yet also about the 'placement' of the marker/signal lights of Day 4.

I can say just the opposite.

 

[Carbon]

The general light of Day 1 (yowr) should not be confused with the marker/signal lights (shama) of Day 4. For one thing, if we do, then we have a major text conundrum.

I think the text is describing something quite rational about the 'spreading out' of the universe by Day 1, and yet also about the 'placement' of the marker/signal lights of Day 4.

Personally, I believe you are mixing things up a bit. Which I believe is very easy to do.

Consider for a moment:

In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. Gen 1:1.

Now, the heavens and the earth are created. They are created: the Earth, moon, stars, sun, planets, etc...
Can you find a place where scripture teaches they are not all created at this time in the story of creation?

Then, verse 2 says:

And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the water.

As a theologian said, one of our issues with interpreting the creation story in Genesis we are looking and considering it from space, where we should be looking and considering it from where the Spirit is.

And the Spirit is moving upon the face of the water.

 

[Carbon]

Sorry, are you saying that our light comes only from the stars? The sun and the moon are much brighter from our viewpoint.

I have to ask what your viewpoint is.

 

[Carbon]

Day 1. The local system is not in place til Day 4.

Not created or not in place?

 

[EarlyActs]

Personally, I believe you are mixing things up a bit. Which I believe is very easy to do.

Consider for a moment:

In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. Gen 1:1.

Now, the heavens and the earth are created. They are created: the Earth, moon, stars, sun, planets, etc...
Can you find a place where scripture teaches they are not all created at this time in the story of creation?

Then, verse 2 says:

And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the water.

As a theologian said, one of our issues with interpreting the creation story in Genesis we are looking and considering it from space, where we should be looking and considering it from where the Spirit is.

And the Spirit is moving upon the face of the water.

Yes re 1:1.
It is not action in the story. It is the title of the section, like 5:1 and many others. Rabbi Cassuto showed this pattern in FROM ADAM TO NOAH.

 

[EarlyActs]

Personally, I believe you are mixing things up a bit. Which I believe is very easy to do.

Consider for a moment:

In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. Gen 1:1.

Now, the heavens and the earth are created. They are created: the Earth, moon, stars, sun, planets, etc...
Can you find a place where scripture teaches they are not all created at this time in the story of creation?

Then, verse 2 says:

And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the water.

As a theologian said, one of our issues with interpreting the creation story in Genesis we are looking and considering it from space, where we should be looking and considering it from where the Spirit is.

And the Spirit is moving upon the face of the water.

Re ruach
So you have decided it was the person, the Spirit. Why is there no further mention?

 

[EarlyActs]

Not created or not in place?

As the text says, the earth was there covered and dark until Day 1. And land didn’t appear until later; the LXX used the term for ‘submerged’ in v2.

But the spreading out is likely a prior event and it resulted in earth.

 

[EarlyActs]

I can say just the opposite.

Yowr is not confused with shama at all. Shama becomes joined to raqia (firmament) as the text moves forward and they are different in location and function.

Go ahead; which thing will you say is the opposite of the text?

 

[Carbon]

Yes re 1:1.
It is not action in the story. It is the title of the section, like 5:1 and many others. Rabbi Cassuto showed this pattern in FROM ADAM TO NOAH.

So in the beginning, in the title of the story, God created the heavens and the earth, but He didn't create the heavens yet, only the earth.

So, God works with Rabbi Cassuto.

Come on now bro, your just falling further from being sensible.

 

[Carbon]

As the text says, the earth was there covered and dark until Day 1.

Yes, covered with water and an opaque sky.

And land didn’t appear until later; the LXX used the term for ‘submerged’ in v2.

Yes, on day three, that is.

But the spreading out is likely a prior event and it resulted in earth.

What resulted in Earth?

 

[Carbon]

Re ruach
So you have decided it was the person, the Spirit. Why is there no further mention?

I have decided nothing, scripture teaches such. Why did you ask why there is no other mention? Not sure what you are talking about.

 

[CrowCross]

Consider for a moment:

In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. Gen 1:1.

Now, the heavens and the earth are created. They are created: the Earth, moon, stars, sun, planets, etc...
Can you find a place where scripture teaches they are not all created at this time in the story of creation?

The common belief is that Genesis opens with what God did....then goes on to explain how He did it.

 

[Carbon]

The common belief is that Genesis opens with what God did....then goes on to explain how He did it.

There are many common beliefs today. Some are very misleading, also.
Many times we think something is common, but we find out it's not the only belief and isn't so common.

It very well could be that I suppose, but even then, why put the heavens aside until a later time? What teaches us that we should we do so? It says, in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
Instead of going on to explain how He did it, why not go on to explain after he created everything, how He now orders it?

 

[CrowCross]

There are many common beliefs today. Some are very misleading, also.
Many times we think something is common, but we find out it's not the only belief and isn't so common.

It very well could be that I suppose, but even then, why put the heavens aside until a later time? What teaches us that we should we do so? It says, in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
Instead of going on to explain how He did it, why not go on to explain after he created everything, how He now orders it?

That would depend upon what you consider as the earth and the heavens.

Is the earth a ball hung in the sky with oceans, trees, animals and all that goes along with it...or a ball of formless and void water?
God seemed to have created the heavens (sky) on day 2.
It seem that on day day 3...verse 10.... 10 God called the dry land “earth,”.....which would indicate the opening statement is a quick general overview of what God did then the following verses explaied how.

Now, if the earth was already there prior to the opening statement in Genesis...how long was it there? It sounds like you're heading in the pre-Adamic race belief.

 

[EarlyActs]

So in the beginning, in the title of the story, God created the heavens and the earth, but He didn't create the heavens yet, only the earth.

So, God works with Rabbi Cassuto.

Come on now bro, your just falling further from being sensible.

silly, it is a broad title of all that transpired, without exact details. Since you are not familiar (Cassuto is not the only reasonably bright person to mention this), here are some of the others:

5:1
6:9
10:1

There is usually a title, some pre-existing conditions, new action and a summary.

I often refer to ch 24 about pre-existing conditions because Rebekkah was not just being talked about that day, was not just beautiful that day, was not a virgin just that day. This is very common.

If you have no time for literary detail then stop reading.

Another example of style is the relegated phrase. In the genealogies, the important son is detailed, then 'he had other sons...' .

Defining creation:
the details of our system are not like the scattered massive universe, and the text is aware of this. There is a play on words in ch 15 where Abraham should read (what the local moving stars are saying about Christ the Seed) but then tally the stars. It makes perfect sense. The dusty cloud would have been 'astronomical' while the 'reading' was a proposition, not a math problem.

The distant universe is later said by Psalms, Job, Isaiah, to have been spread out or stretched. This is not the fine tuned verb of placing as found in early Genesis. So yes, God places earth and shama, but the distant worlds are another kind of event, and already there by Gen 1. They are lifeless; there is no evolution happening.