Was there ever a time when the Earth existed, and the Sun didn't?

[Tcg]

.
The first creation story found in Genesis 1 starts with the creation of the heavens and the earth. Sometime later the sun was reportedly created. Is this possible?

Was there ever a time when the earth existed, and the sun didn't?


Tcg

[JoeyKnothead]

The bible tells us some dude parted the seas, the whole planet got flooded, a virgin gave birth, and a dead guy hopped up and strolled to town.

And here we are having to fuss about when the lights got turned on.

Religion, not even once.

[TRANSPONDER]

The bible tells us some dude parted the seas, the whole planet got flooded, a virgin gave birth, and a dead guy hopped up and strolled to town.

And here we are having to fuss about when the lights got turned on.

Religion, not even once.

And yet, the whole of Bible credibility at present depends on Genesis. If that can be wangled into factual credibility some way, any way, they can believe it 'cover to cover'. But if it is globally accepted that it is wrong, the whole edifice begins to crumble. I have debated Exodus here - you know my theory; it never happened (1) and was written in Babylon, using Babylonian myth and (I suspect) a garbled account of the expulsion of the Hyksos. If this becomes accepted - that Exodus is wrong, too, then the nativities must follow (and they are demonstrably not true, or at least irreconcilably discrepant) and the Resurrection itself will not stand up to scrutiny, nor the Trial, the sermons, the parables or the wrangles with the Pharisees, Sadducees and teachers of the Law, and the whole of the rest of the book.

For me, the NT is the Jugular, but Genesis isn't a bad place to start, either.

(1) I recently watched a couple of short vids on the sea peoples and on the philistines. They covered it all - Merneptah smiting the Israelites in Canaan before the sea peoples attack, after which the 'Peleset' were settled in Gaza and they showed that pottery and DNA show clearly the Mykenean origins of these people. As well as the emergence of Israel from the north east which is what the Bible says, but they supposedly got there via Sinai.

[Diagoras]

We have no explanation for "and the evening and the morning were the first day" when we have no sun which essentially defines evening and day on the earth.

Not if the evenings and mornings are metaphors.

Surely it's equally reasonable to treat both "and the evening and the morning were the first day" and "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." (to take one of many biblical passages at random) as metaphors?

It seems to me that those passages which create the most difficulty when attempting to match them with basic scientific knowledge should be the ones which are more likely to be meant as metaphors. People like Newton, Galileo and Eratosthenes probably had little difficulty in recognising that, but apparently there are still some today who struggle with the concept.

[TRANSPONDER]

"Metaphorically true means Not true at all" If the description of the creation is to be regarded as metaphor, then it is (at least as I see it) accepting that it didn't actually happen.

[Wootah]

[Replying to JehovahsWitness in post #28]
This is a perfect example of what I write about apologists defending the Bible regardless of its anti factual non logic. No effort is made here to explain 'the light.' There is a fairly pathetic reference to "the heavens," this vague reference to "heaven" is typical of the cosmology of the time.
"So Elohim made the dome and separated the waters that were under the dome from the waters that were above the dome. And it was so. Elohim called the dome “Sky”. (Genesis 1:7–8a)
https://isthatinthebible.wordpress.com/ ... -theology/

We now know the 'heavens' are just clouds in the sky. There is no 'heaven.' This can easily be ascertained by simply looking at a photo of the Earth, or riding in the space station.

There seems to be a fear on this forum, to call out "intellectual dishonesty" as if it is a personal insult, or 'uncivil' or otherwise violates a rule of the forum. But I do not know a more accurate way to denominate the use of science when it appears to further one's argument, yet to denigrate science when it exposes your beliefs for the fantasies they are.

Many of the events in the Bible are God taking actions. These events do not have to be scientifically accurate.

Where you are, pick up an object off the floor and put it on a table. If we had to use science to observe the world how could we explain that? How did that object defy the laws of physics? And yet who would deny that of your own free will you moved an object? We are walking miracles.

[JoeyKnothead]

Where you are, pick up an object off the floor and put it on a table. If we had to use science to observe the world how could we explain that? How did that object defy the laws of physics? And yet who would deny that of your own free will you moved an object? We are walking miracles.

Good. Now when the pretty thing fusses at me for putting my feet up on the coffee table, I can tell her all what such a miracle I just did.

An inability to explain something should never be confused with thinking a god did it.

[Diogenes]

Many of the events in the Bible are God taking actions. These events do not have to be scientifically accurate.

Of course not. The supernatural and magic do not require either logic, evidence, nor scientific accuracy. These represent why reasonable people do not take the Bible literally.

Where you are, pick up an object off the floor and put it on a table. If we had to use science to observe the world how could we explain that? How did that object defy the laws of physics?

Huh? What laws of physics are defied by putting an object on a table? If this is an example of the reasoning used to support a literal interpretation of the Bible, I think I understand the problem of trying to debate Christian apologists.

[Diagoras]

Where you are, pick up an object off the floor and put it on a table. If we had to use science to observe the world how could we explain that?

We could reasonably start with some basic principles of mass and energy. Depending on who you were explaining it to, you might need to start with something like this.

How did that object defy the laws of physics?

I'm thinking that you're making a different point to how I'm reading this. The answer is "It didn't", but perhaps it's not answering the question that you wanted to ask.

And yet who would deny that of your own free will you moved an object?

There's plenty of argument over free will for starters.

We are walking miracles.

We're quite remarkable, aren't we?

[Tcg]

The bible tells us some dude parted the seas, the whole planet got flooded, a virgin gave birth, and a dead guy hopped up and strolled to town.

And here we are having to fuss about when the lights got turned on.

Religion, not even once.

What we do know from the story is that the lights got turned on before there were any lights to turn on.


Tcg

[JehovahsWitness]

We still have no accounting for the light ("let there be light") at the beginning without any source for it.

Why do you think there was no source for the light? Did the text not say in the beginning God created ..." the heavens"?

OK. Now account for the light.

" the heavens" is most likely a reference to the celestial bodies which would include the stars (our sun is a star) and stars are a source of light.



If the text states God created the [physical] heavens, then it is be inference saying he created a sources of light in the physical universe.



JW

To learn more please go to other posts related to...

THE SUN , THE PHYSICAL HEAVENS and ...THE 7 CREATIVE DAYS OF GENESIS