[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.

[tP5n]

He's right, eventhough there have been other groups pushing biblical literalism in history.

Think about it, for a long time the predominant biblical scholarship was catholic biblical criticism, whose point is viewing biblical texts as having human origins. Also remember that Protestantisms critique on the catholic church was that it was too literal in its take on biblical texts, that transubstantiation for example (this is my actual body; this is my actual blood) didn't exist.

And regarding this thread: at least, please stop attempting to do biblical literalism in english. those are not your holy words.

[lotharbot]

The particular form of excessive "everything everywhere is literal" Biblical literalism most Americans are familiar with is about a hundred years old, and arose in response to a fairly excessive "everything everywhere is allegory" Biblical non-literalism from the late 1800s.

In the past there was typically a balance. St. Basil the Great (~329 to 379) wrote "to take the literal sense and stop there, is to have the heart covered by the veil of Jewish literalism. Lamps are useless when the sun is shining." but balanced that sentiment with "There are those, truly, who do not admit the common sense of the Scriptures, for whom water is not water, but some other nature, who see in a plant, in a fish, what their fancy wishes, who change the nature of reptiles and of wild beasts to suit their allegories, like the interpreters of dreams who explain visions in sleep to make them serve their own end."

FWIW Basil emphasized a 24 hour day, but he also describes the elements of air-fire-water "hidden" in the earth: "Do not ask, then, for an enumeration of all the elements; guess, from what Holy Scripture indicates, all that is passed over in silence." (I have quoted elsewhere other scholars from both before and after him who found a slightly more figurative balance point with regard to the same passage.)

[roghummal]

See also: Highlander 2.

[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.

[lotharbot]

On the other hand, Jesus tells us that male and female were made at the "beginning" of creation, when Genesis 1 clearly puts them in day 6. And even Moses' writing in Genesis 2 shows us the creation of man, and then plants, and then woman, which would place the day 3 creation of plants firmly in the middle of day 6. This suggests that what is meant by "day" isn't what we're inclined to think of in our 21st century mindset.

Moses was adopted to Egyptian royalty, and wrote a creation account that subverts the Egyptian account. Reading the Torah without an Egyptian background is like watching West Side Story without knowing Romeo and Juliet, or watching Shrek without knowing Prince Charming. You'll miss all the references, or think their importance is for a different reason than it actually is.

[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.