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

[JehovahsWitness]

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?

Not really if I say my child is "the apple of of my eye", that fact that I have not parented a piece of fruit does not negate the other elements in my sentence being literal. An all or nothing approach to literary devices is just plain silly.

RELATED POSTS

How can you determine which parts of the bible are to be taken literally?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 95#p890395

Isn't the reading that settles on "the plain meaning off the words" by definition the most accurate?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 85#p965785

Are Jehovah's Witnesses "biblical listeralists"?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 28#p868428

How can you determine which parts of the bible are to be taken fictional?
viewtopic.php?p=1076525#p1076525

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

THE BIBLE , BIBLE UNDERSTANDING and ... HERMENEUTICS*

* bible interpretation


JW

[TRANSPONDER]

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

Which isn't seen today, and nothing is known that could be (the stars were made later, and don't create daylight), and the Bible says this light was switched on and off as morning and evening before the sun was made. It is absolutely clear what the Bible says, and nobody was about to see it. Isn't it obvious that this is human guesswork based on the flat earth and celestial dome idea and your efforts to make it mean something else are futile. Even if you can talk yourself in to believing the mutually irreconcilable excuses that there was a celestial (sourceless) light and the sun actually was made after the earth OR that it wasn't like that at all and it is all a 'metaphor' of what actually happened, you aren't going to sell it to anyone who isn't already in faithbased denial.

[TRANSPONDER]

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?

Not really if I say my child are the apple of of my eye, that fact that I have not parented a piece of fruit does not negate the other elements in my sentence being literal. An all or nothing approach to literary devices is just plain silly.

RELATED POSTS

How can you determine which parts of the bible are to be taken literally?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 95#p890395

Isn't the reading that settles on "the plain meaning off the words" by definition the most accurate?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 85#p965785

Are Jehovah's Witnesses "biblical listeralists"?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 28#p868428

How can you determine which parts of the bible are to be taken fictional?
viewtopic.php?p=1076525#p1076525

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

THE BIBLE , BIBLE UNDERSTANDING and ... HERMENEUTICS*

* bible interpretation


JW

We are well aware of what metaphor is, but the creation account isn't, unless it is metaphor-as not true. In OW another creation myth that is wrong. If you are using metaphor as a sort of translation -shopping 'Heaven or light or sun mean something else' then say so and don't use vague and irrelevant evasions like my child is not really an apple.

Genesis is clearly talking of daylight, morning and evening, before the sun and moon were made (that's what it says) or formed or created, later on, and nobody but God could know it as humans weren't created then. You have two choices, Genesis isn't correct or science isn't correct. Which is it? Stop being evasive and bite the bullet.

[Diogenes]

... (the stars were made later, and don't create daylight), and the Bible says this light was switched on and off as morning and evening before the sun was made. It is absolutely clear what the Bible says, and nobody was about to see it. Isn't it obvious that this is human guesswork based on the flat earth and celestial dome idea and your efforts to make it mean something else are futile. Even if you can talk yourself in to believing the mutually irreconcilable excuses that there was a celestial (sourceless) light and the sun actually was made after the earth OR that it wasn't like that at all and it is all a 'metaphor' of what actually happened, you aren't going to sell it to anyone who isn't already in faithbased denial.

[emphasis applied]
Well put. The Genesis account is absurd. As you mention, it isn't even good metaphor, yet apologists keep trying to fit their square peg into the round hole of the universe. The real problem is illustrated below.



And as if this were not silly enough, they go farther by insisting THEIR particular approach to this god is the best, if not the only one, from JWs to Mormons, from Shia to Suni, from Jew to Roman Catholic.

[TRANSPONDER]

Thank you. Yes, the problems with the God -claim are many. The case for a creator of some sort (gap for a god) is a case. I give the reasons I don't give it the better probability, but It's a case, and nobody says it isn't.

But that only gets us to "which god?", and which religion and even which denomination, let alone who had the correct Dogma and all those who don't know what is in the KJV will be saved and all those who don't know what's in all the 'wrong translations' will burn.

Of course Christianity has an advantage - it looks like a fairly reliable record of history, even if one didn't ascribe it to the reliable knowledge of God - and the Genesis account really can't be right unless one denies everything we know. Even then, we would have a history no worse than many others. Just as debunking evolution (supposing one could) would not prove the Bible, and making Genesis a creation -myth (which on all evidence, it is) does not disprove the Bible as a human record, though it does mean they can't claim it as what God knew but as a more or less reliable human account.

And, like I say, I do the gospels, because that is the record that matters.

[Wootah]

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.

Maybe. I think you should ponder it. Life is a miracle, we are walking absurdities.

[Tcg]

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.

Maybe. I think you should ponder it. Life is a miracle, we are walking absurdities.

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?"

To assert that life is a miracle would require one to provide evidence that it couldn't have come about by natural means. What evidence can you present?


Tcg

[TRANSPONDER]

Life is, by definition, not a miracle. That is, it is amazing and remarkable, like the universe and everything but a miracle (a supernatural act, never mind by which particular god) it is not, not going by the evidence we have. We can not only walk upright (which going by the morphological and fossil evidence, we once couldn't) but skate, dance and go on miff- marches. But remarkable though that is, it is no more a miracle that a bat being able to fly or a chameleon to change color..

[Tcg]

Life is, by definition, not a miracle. That is, it is amazing and remarkable, like the universe and everything but a miracle (a supernatural act, never mind by which particular god) it is not, not going by the evidence we have. We can not only walk upright (which going by the morphological and fossil evidence, we once couldn't) but skate, dance and go on miff- marches. But remarkable though that is, it is no more a miracle that a bat being able to fly or a chameleon to change color..

Exactly, when someone drops their keys, it is not a miracle that they land on the ground. Gravity and all that.


Tcg

[Inquirer]

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.