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

[Miles]

Its often overlooked too that much of scripture has dual meaning, physical and spiritual.

Christ explained this to his disciples, so "light" refers to spiritual light, knowledge, wisdom.

"Let there be light" and other expressions, need to be considered on this basis.

Hmm. Okay, then First Genesis should, in part, be considered as saying:

Genesis 1:3
3 Then God said, "Let there be spiritual light!" And spiritual light began to shine. 4 He saw the spiritual light, and he knew that it was good. Then he separated the spiritual light from the darkness. 5 God named the spiritual light "day," and he named the darkness "night."

Genesis 1:6-8
6 Then God said, "Let there be a spiritual space to separate the water into two parts!" 7 So God made the spiritual space and separated the water. Some of the water was above it, and some of the water was below it. 8 God named that spiritual space spiritual "sky." There was evening, and then there was morning. This was the second day.

Genesis 1:9-10
9 Then God said, "Let the spiritual water under the spiritual sky be gathered together so that the dry land will appear." And it happened. 10 God named the dry land spiritual "earth," and he named the spiritual water that was gathered together spiritual "seas." And God saw that this was good.

Genesis 1:14-15
14 Then God said, "Let there be spiritual lights in the spiritual sky. These spiritual lights will separate the days from the nights. They will be used for signs to show when special meetings[ begin and to show the days and years. 15 They will be in the spiritual sky to shine spiritual light on the spiritual earth." And it happened.

That pretty much how it should be considered? If not, why not?

.

[JoeyKnothead]

Its often overlooked too that much of scripture has dual meaning, physical and spiritual.

Christ explained this to his disciples, so "light" refers to spiritual light, knowledge, wisdom.

"Let there be light" and other expressions, need to be considered on this basis.

Interestingly enough, stories also have another dichotomy - truth or lies.

[brunumb]

Its often overlooked too that much of scripture has dual meaning, physical and spiritual.

Christ explained this to his disciples, so "light" refers to spiritual light, knowledge, wisdom.

"Let there be light" and other expressions, need to be considered on this basis.

And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. [4] And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. [5] And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

Not seeing any spiritual light, knowledge or wisdom implied there.

Although, a little while later he did also say "You'd be wise not to eat from that tree that gives knowledge", but that's another story.

[Edit: Miles beat me to it]

[Wootah]

The only thing left to ponder is why you didn't answer the question, "What laws of physics are defied by putting an object on a table?"

Determinism?

[Wootah]

[Replying to Diagoras in post #38]

I guess my point is that objects defy the laws of physics all the time when we move them around and that is how I perceive God as a being that interacts with the universe from time to time and moves things around. When God does it we call it a miracle but if we think about it we, who are made in the image of God, do these miracles every day.

Thank you for the links. I have been trying to redo my high school maths at Khan Academy. I would love to get back into physics one day as well.

[TRANSPONDER]

Its often overlooked too that much of scripture has dual meaning, physical and spiritual.

Christ explained this to his disciples, so "light" refers to spiritual light, knowledge, wisdom.

"Let there be light" and other expressions, need to be considered on this basis.

Hmm. Okay, then First Genesis should, in part, be considered as saying:

Genesis 1:3
3 Then God said, "Let there be spiritual light!" And spiritual light began to shine. 4 He saw the spiritual light, and he knew that it was good. Then he separated the spiritual light from the darkness. 5 God named the spiritual light "day," and he named the darkness "night."

Genesis 1:6-8
6 Then God said, "Let there be a spiritual space to separate the water into two parts!" 7 So God made the spiritual space and separated the water. Some of the water was above it, and some of the water was below it. 8 God named that spiritual space spiritual "sky." There was evening, and then there was morning. This was the second day.

Genesis 1:9-10
9 Then God said, "Let the spiritual water under the spiritual sky be gathered together so that the dry land will appear." And it happened. 10 God named the dry land spiritual "earth," and he named the spiritual water that was gathered together spiritual "seas." And God saw that this was good.

Genesis 1:14-15
14 Then God said, "Let there be spiritual lights in the spiritual sky. These spiritual lights will separate the days from the nights. They will be used for signs to show when special meetings[ begin and to show the days and years. 15 They will be in the spiritual sky to shine spiritual light on the spiritual earth." And it happened.

That pretty much how it should be considered? If not, why not?

.

Very good. Perfectly true. The Genesis - apologist will try to pass off what they can't validate by science - denial by saying it's 'Metaphorical". Which is a cheezy way of translation - shopping so the Bible says what they would like, not what it actually says. You blow this effort out of the water by showing that this is all too specifically descriptive and cannot credibly be passed off and covered up as a metaphorical description of What actually happened, because, as I said, why the heck could God not tell Moses how he actually did it instead of a creation myth like the others of the time?

No, evasion does not work, and only denial of the science. We have seen the effort to try to explain how it could Look as though the sum, Moon and stars were actually there but couldn't be seen because of the cloud, but that can only work if God showed Moses a mental image as though he was standing on the earth where no man has gone before. But why on earth not say 'And the face of the earth was covered by cloud, and the light and dark, morning and evening had no discernable cause; and the Lord made the clouds to clear and behold! The light came from the sun which rose over the horizon as the ball (dur) shaped earth rotated the land towards its' face. And likewise the round moon rotated about the earth and at night, it lit the dark with the light reflected from the sun, and the stars and planets gleamed in the sky, the planets with the reflected light of the sun and the stars with their own light, for they were like the sun but very far away"

And the whole boring list of Begats could surely have been spared to sock it to the doubters with some real 'science in the Bible', not the denial of science (though I have never seen any who dared to say the earth was a flat circle (chwug) scribed out with a compasses (meshuggua or something like that in hebrew). It is what is says (or so my translation - shopping revealed (1) and makes it absolutely clear that we have a flat circle of the earth and sky - dome over it. Mountains around it (with sluices "Fountains of the deep") and waters above the dome, which must require God, sitting on his throne to wear diving - gear.

Now of course, this can be passed off, covered up or explained away as metaphor. Not a 'spiritual light' making a daylight snapping on and off to make day and night without a sun, but a creation -myth frankly explaining in mythical terms some truth or other. Well, I can live with that, because as an atheist and Bible - critic That's just what I think it is. But to pretend that it conveys some truth (from God) won't wash. If the creation is wrong, can we believe Eden? It's trash and (if we took it true ffsoa) is clearly a stitch - up by God because he did not want man to live forever or be perfectly innocent. He needed man to sin as that was part of his plan, and I won't poke into the plot -holes there as I'd be writing into my lunch hour.

The point is, if Genesis is metaphor, whence cometh sin? If it can't be put down to man eating an apple when told not to (as though the fruit of knowledge of good and evil was plainly mythological) where does sin come from? Easy: 'God made us that way'. But that means that God is responsible for sin, not man, and that won't do. The name of the game is that everything bad, rotten and evil that God does is to be blamed on man.

Well, it has been clear for decades (but nobody hears it from the atheist apologists or listens if they do) that the crucifixion makes no sense as a way to make a loophole in God - imposed sin. It is (I'm sure) Paul's own brilliant theory of how God got around the sin - death curse and saved man (only if they believed in Jesus, mind) and was a theory he invented and argued out himself (Romans) and was not a thing he got from the disciples, and served one purpose - so that his fellow Greco - Romans could become God's people without having to observe the Law.

That is what it's all about and I'll bet my collection of antique codpieces on it, but that's getting discursive, though the point is that it explains that the Bible is indeed metaphor, even when it uses (fiddled) history.

(1) I have to say that I have never had a comment on this. If I have it wrong, someone put me right; if I am right, this absolutely torpedoes the 'circle of the earth means a globe' apologetic.

[Tcg]

[Replying to brunumb in post #53]

All I know is that I'm starting to feel rather bad for the humans and animals that God makes a bit later. They're not going to have anything real to live on, or to drink, or to eat and no real light with which to see any of those things even if they were real which of course we've now learned they aren't.

"Say, it's only a paper moon
Sailing over a cardboard sea"


Tcg

[JehovahsWitness]

Genesis 1:3
3 Then God said, "Let there be spiritual light!" And spiritual light began to shine.

That pretty much how it should be considered? If not, why not?

.

COULD THE CREATIONS REFERENCE TO LIGHT AND DARKNESS BE A METAOHORE FOR SPIRITUAL LIGHT AND DARKNESS?

No, because God pronounced both light and darkness "good" (see Gen 1:31) and there is never any indication in the bible text that spiritul darkness is "good". If darkness is something God considered good when he completed his work, it could not refer to spiritual darkness.



Further Genesis 1 verse 2 has God's spirit moving over the darkness of the watery deep, but the spirit of God is never associated with spiritual darkness in the bible.

1 CORINTHIANS 6 :14, 15

For what partnership can righteousness have with wickedness? Or what fellowship does light have with darkness? What harmony is there between Christ and Belial?

[brunumb]

I guess my point is that objects defy the laws of physics all the time when we move them around and that is how I perceive God as a being that interacts with the universe from time to time and moves things around.

There is no defying of the laws of physics when we move objects around. Everything actually happens in accordance with the laws of physics. If not, there would be absolute chaos. Also, there is no sign that any god being is interacting with the universe from time to time, or ever. If this is incorrect then you should be able to relate such instances that allow you to make the claim.

[JoeyKnothead]

I guess my point is that objects defy the laws of physics all the time when we move them around and that is how I perceive God as a being that interacts with the universe from time to time and moves things around.

There is no defying of the laws of physics when we move objects around. Everything actually happens in accordance with the laws of physics. If not, there would be absolute chaos. Also, there is no sign that any god being is interacting with the universe from time to time, or ever. If this is incorrect then you should be able to relate such instances that allow you to make the claim.

You know brunumb, Newton's Law: An object at rest tends to stay at rest, unless there's a force acting on it, then all hell breaks loose. It works together with Newton's Other Law: For each action there's an equal and oh my God it's all falling apart before my very eyes.

Frankly, I'm shocked a man of your obvious intelligence knows so little about physics.