[eapen]

I came to say that this changes everything since I thought the light came first. Still seemed relevant. (not trolling)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Let_there_be_light

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. 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 waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, and it was good; and God divided the light from the darkness.

[Cleanaxe]

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/

The New Testament also identifies Jesus as both Wisdom and Light, despite Wisdom being female in Proverbs.

[themodelplumber]

>> 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]

> "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]

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]

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 )

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... .) Viewed from this perspective, the "days" are just poetic structure and have nothing to do with the actual timing of creation.

[nitrogen]

Biblical literalism is much older than 100 years, though different groups in history may have chosen different parts to take literally.

[esaym]

I think Moses would disagree with you :)

Exo 20:11 For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

[jxn]

Actually, the naming/anthropomorphized nature of the sun and the noon--among many other abstract concepts--is still a topic of rich debate. While the English disambiguates this, the original text may not. Many things that are translated in the bible as abstract concepts actually make more sense when translated as the name of a god (with the same name in an ancient Semitic landside add the concept). Check out Robert Wright's Evolution of God for better examples

[lotharbot]

In Genesis 1 it's fairly unambiguously "lights" in Hebrew, with a clear objectification / non-anthropomorphization. They're given proper names in other passages.

There are other parts of the Bible where the translation might possibly more naturally parallel the names of ancient gods; I haven't looked in detail. But not this one.

[sigzero]

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

[lotharbot]

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]

It's not a gender faux-pas now either in 99% of the world.

[Cleanaxe]

I'm not saying there's a contradiction, I just find it interesting.

[idlewords]

"And darkness was on the face of the deep". So in other words, the water was there before the light.

Story checks out.

[mkaziz]

Your quote says that water was already there. :)

[negamax]

Inclination of religious people to prove their texts to be relevant in light of scientific discoveries is interesting trend. And I see it everywhere, in all religions. Have you heard of term scientific religion?

[krapp]

What other choice can religious people make and still remain religious? It can't be the Word of God if it can be disproven, but of course the goalposts of interpretation can always be moved.

I mean, it's no longer dogma that the universe is written on crystal spheres surrounding the perfect sphere of Earth, because it can't be... but Genesis is still vague enough that it can be handwaved to justify anything else science comes up with (until that has to be conceded to as well.)

[tim333]

> It can't be the Word of God if it can be disproven

Maybe He was just kidding

[_urga]

If you want to disprove the Christian faith (faith in the historical person of Jesus Christ), then you need to make up your mind about the positive and negative historical sources concerning him, their closeness in time to him (historical distance), and the textual reliability of those sources.

See Paul Barnett's "Jesus And The Logic Of History" for the historical method as applied to Jesus: http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-History-Studies-Biblical-Theolog...

[krapp]

I'm not interested in proving it or disproving it, but rather just pointing out that Christianity keeps disproving itself, particularly when it comes to interpreting something like Genesis as anything but an ancient fable.

Using science to try to validate a creation myth thousands of years removed from its intended cultural and political context seems kind of absurd - and a lot of Christians would agree with me anyway, so it's not even that irreligious a point of view.

I would argue this is neither good science nor good religion. Both should accept that the map is not the destination, and that although some models are momentarily useful, none are necessarily true. Genesis is a beautiful story which had a point and a purpose in its time and place but it didn't happen. We know it didn't happen because the evidence against its account is overwhelming (unless you reinterpret the account, but then there's no possible way the original Hebrews meant for the story to take into consideration fundamental truths about geology and astronomy which they had no concept of at the time.)

That said though, I wish there could be a thread about these sorts of things without the incessant drive-by downvoting. Or at least without the censorship of the downvote mechanism.

[_urga]

I think there's a difference between the scientific method (our study and understanding of observed uniformity) and the historical method (our study and understanding of events and their explanation, particularly how one event causes another).

Furthermore, there's a difference between historical study (did it happen?) and frequentism (how often has it happened?).

For example, if we are using words such as "didn't happen" then the best way to explain this would be in terms of the historical method and not in terms of frequentism (there is a fascinating essay on frequentism and how it kept people from accepting Bayes theorem for many years).

The other thing people often do in these kinds of discussions is to reduce all human knowledge (the sciences) to merely the scientific method, which is to confuse science with scientism.

I think it's useful and constructive to credit/discredit the Bible on its most central and crucial claim - the historicity of Jesus Christ - something which is much easier and concrete to deal with than trying to peer millions of years back in time through a particular kind of literary genre.

[krapp]

I don't believe the historical reality of Jesus would give or remove credibility from the Bible. Discovering that the city of Troy really existed doesn't prove that the Iliad and Odyssey happened, either, or that the Greek Gods were real. Jesus could very well have existed, while not being the Son of God.

The most crucial claim that the Bible makes is the one that all religions make - which is that the supernatural exists, and takes precedence over the natural world. It's all well and good to approach it from a historical and cultural perspective, but the leap between Jesus being real and Jesus being Christ is pretty much infinite.

[_urga]

See Scientism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism

[scott_s]

I downvoted you because religious discussions are classic internet flamewar topics. We'd like to avoid those.

[lotharbot]

"unless you have something genuinely new to say about them."

(From the guidelines.)

[scott_s]

I contend that there is nothing genuinely new regarding religion in this thread. Also, religious discussion on science story submissions are off-topic, and almost guaranteed to turn into flamewars.

[lotharbot]

then you must have a remarkably deep education on this subject. I congratulate you.

EDIT: in response to your well-timed edit -- there is not currently a flamewar going on. Discussing the intersection of religion and science can be a fast track to a flamewar in the wrong circumstances, but these are excellent circumstances for a reasoned discussion.