• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Sunlight is not Daylight

gnostic

The Lost One
For God nothing is impossible and the Bible does not contradict itself.
I believe what the Bible says.

And there lies your problems.

The problem is not only you taking a literal approach (literal interpretations) to Genesis, you are trying to mix history with Genesis and mix science with Genesis.

Genesis isn't a book of history or book of science. It is a book of theology and the most essential parts of Genesis and other parts of the Old Testament, is the moral to the stories/narratives.

With the Eden episode, the core theme is not about its historicity or the science; it is about the relation between God and man, from Adam to Jacob and Joseph, and God relationship with the people - the Jewish people - the ancestors as well as the descendants. And that relationship is based on God's covenant to the cultural heroes in Genesis: Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

The plot of Genesis is merely setup for the main theme for the rest of the books attributed to Moses, the fulfillment of the covenant and the introduction to the Torah - the Law.

By taking the historical route or the science route with the Genesis, you and other literal-based believers exposed Genesis and other books to some of the flaws and contradictions that you clearly refused to see.

I think the literal interpretations of Genesis and trying to squeeze history and science into Genesis, have done far more harms than good to Christianity in the last few centuries.

Some Muslims in these last several decades have done exactly the same things with their Qur'an - trying to turn the scriptures into science textbook. All this achieve is exposed the book to critical analysis that revealed their many flaws, inconsistencies and mistakes.
 
Last edited:

exchemist

Veteran Member
And there lies your problems.

The problem is not only you taking a literal approach (literal interpretations) to Genesis, you are trying to mix history with Genesis and mix science with Genesis.

Genesis isn't a book of history or book of science. It is a book of theology and the most essential parts of Genesis and other parts of the Old Testament, is the moral to the stories/narratives.

With the Eden episode, the core theme is not about its historicity or the science; it is about the relation between God and man, from Adam to Jacob and Joseph, and God relationship with the people - the Jewish people - the ancestors as well as the descendants. And that relationship is based on God's covenant to the cultural heroes in Genesis: Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

The plot of Genesis is merely setup for the main theme for the rest of the books attributed to Moses, the fulfillment of the covenant and the introduction to the Torah - the Law.

By taking the historical route or the science route with the Genesis, you and other literal-based believers exposed Genesis and other books to some of the flaws and contradictions that you clearly refused to see.

I think the literal interpretations of Genesis and trying to squeeze history and science into Genesis, have done far more harms than good to Christianity in the last few centuries.

Muslims in these last several decades have done exactly the same things with their Qur'an - trying to turn the scriptures into science textbook. All this achieve is exposed the book to critical analysis that revealed it many flaws, inconsistencies and mistakes.
Exactly. You have written almost word for word what I have found myself writing on several other threads about the meaning of Genesis. ;)
 

gnostic

The Lost One
Exactly. You have written almost word for word what I have found myself writing on several other threads about the meaning of Genesis. ;)
The problems with some believers of today, whether they be Christians or Muslims, is trying to put modern contexts to ancient texts, that they lose track of the original contexts or meanings, what these books are trying to teach.
 

exchemist

Veteran Member
The problems with some believers of today, whether they be Christians or Muslims, is trying to put modern contexts to ancient texts, that they lose track of the original contexts or meanings, what these books are trying to teach.
Yes. If only some of these people had read some literature, and read these texts with a literary eye, we would not get half these misunderstandings. (The same goes for some of the more superficial atheist critiques too, of course.)
 

izzy88

Active Member
I believe that the Bible does not contradict itself, and when we read that light was created before the sun, then the only logical explanation is that sunlight is not daylight.
First off, you really aren't talking about the Bible contradicting itself, you're talking about the Bible contradicting science.

The thing is, Genesis is not giving a scientific account of Creation, it's giving a mythological one, a poetic story.

Reading every book, every verse of the scripture as though it were intended to be literal and scientific is an error. The genres of writings contained in the Bible are many; treating them all the same creates problems that aren't actually there.

Biblical literalistism, fundamentalism, whatever you want to call it, is a modern phenomenon resulting from uneducated people trying to interpret ancient texts anachronistically.

When you break from the Church and leave behind all of the history, the accumulated wisdom, the millennia of scholarship from some of humanity's most intelligent minds, you're inevitably going to draw all sorts of nonsensical conclusions.
 

Skwim

Veteran Member
I believe that the Bible does not contradict itself, and when we read that light was created before the sun, then the only logical explanation is that sunlight is not daylight.
I'm calling a
Troll very small.png
here. Simply consider what his video says.

.
 

gnostic

The Lost One
Going back to your original claim, three1, about sunlight not being daylight, because what Genesis say about the 1st day and 4th day, it does contradict what we know now about the the Earth relationship with the Sun.

What we know from science is that Earth is not flat, not stationary, and it is not the Sun moving our sky, but the Earth rotating itself on its axis that the sun provide light when he Earth’s surface is facing the sun.

That’s how the Earth is receiving daylight. The daylight does com from the Sun’s rays.

Even when part of the Earth isn’t facing the sun, thereby inhabitants in these regions are experiencing night time for some hours, and when the Moon can be seen, the only light that shine on the surface is still sunlight that’s being reflected off the Moon’s surface. The Moon itself have no light of its own; the Sun is the original source of light for both day and night.

Genesis 1:3-5 (1st day) is wrong to believe that the original source of light don’t come from the Sun. Genesis 1:14-19 is also wrong to say the Sun and stars were created AFTER the creation of the Earth (1:1-2).

It is quite obvious that the authors have very little understanding of the Earth, Sun, Moon and stars. That in this day and ages that some people, particularly creationists think Genesis 1 is all true, cannot learn and will not learn, that Genesis 1 (as well as chapter 2) defy all knowledge we have with all these astronomical bodies.

The sun and all the planets in the Solar System were formed from nebulous gases and debris from earlier stars that went supernova, creating elements heavier than hydrogen, helium and lithium (look up “stellar nucleosynthesis” and “supernova nucleosynthesis”), heavier elements, such as carbon, oxygen, nitrogen, nickel, iron, lead, etc. All these elements are materials of what make up all the planets (including dwarf planets), moons, asteroids, comets, etc.

The sun itself is comprised of number layers that include the surface (photosphere), radiative zone, convective zone and the core. Much of the elements on all 4 layers are mostly made of hydrogen, with each layers becoming denser the further down you go, towards the core.

It is the Core itself that provide heat, radiation and energy to the rest of the layers. It where hydrogen nuclei fuse together to form the heavier helium nuclei, which we know as thermonuclear fusion, a process known as Stellar Nucleosynthesis.

Nuclear fusion provide a great deal heat and energy, that it would cause heat transfer to the Convective Zone, and the heat transfer continued to the Radiative Zone of the Sun, and that it turn heat up the Photosphere.

What we can see on the surface with telescopes, is hydrogen in plasma form, being incandescent. That provide the light and heat for the rest of the Solar System, including the Earth.

There are no light sources that could give Earth daylight.

If you really think daylight doesn’t come from sunlight, then you are still living in the Iron Age, where they have really very little understanding of astronomy, and where the “God did it” superstitions rule supreme...and the authors to Genesis were wrong.

The orders of creation in Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 are wrong on both accounts. 1 and 2 not only contradict each other, there are no scientific knowledge in these 2 chapters.
 

IndigoChild5559

Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
It is not the book of your people, it is the book of every man who serves God.

These people also show you "evidence" that man is a hominid, do you believe that too?
No, three1, the Tanakh is the reiigious text of the Jewish people. It was written by Jews about Jew for Jews. Now if you want to take inspiration from it, that's fine. But it still isn't your book.

Of COURSE I know humans are hominids. Sheesh. I'm not a moron.
 

Super Universe

Defender of God
I believe that the Bible does not contradict itself, and when we read that light was created before the sun, then the only logical explanation is that sunlight is not daylight.

You couldn't explain the earth, God, and the universe to humans 3,000 years ago in modern terms. You had to use childish concepts because they had absolutely no understanding of science.

The men who wrote the books of the bible were so primitive, they were afraid of comets, all of them.
 

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I believe that the Bible does not contradict itself, and when we read that light was created before the sun, then the only logical explanation is that sunlight is not daylight.
The real point is that Genesis creation is an old creation myth, a work of folklore.

In fact the universe is about 13.8 bn years old, the sun and earth are about 4.5 bn years old, life on earth appears over 3.5 bn years ago, and all the evidence we have supports the theory of evolution to account for the kinds of life we see about us.

Since I take it you believe God created the universe, why would you not agree with what science finds when it examines the universe? The bible, after all, was written by a variety of humans at different times in different places for different purposes. It portrays God as a psychopathic monster who orders invasions, massacres of populations, mass rapes, arbitrary killings, religious intolerance, slavery, women as chattels, and human sacrifices.

Why not look at the science and enjoy proceeding on a factual basis?
 

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
The problems with some believers of today, whether they be Christians or Muslims, is trying to put modern contexts to ancient texts, that they lose track of the original contexts or meanings, what these books are trying to teach.

I agree with that.

However the Bible as a compilation cannot therefore be claimed as divinely inspired nor written in the least through any type of divine guidance or help.

Rather its a work solely conceived and made by human beings with all it's flaws errors and contradictions intact in regards to the tenant set out within. For those astute enough, will realize there is no participation of any God as it applies to any of the texts that are written down, nor is there any miracle of continuity or inerrancy associated with the books of the Bible to serve as a physical medium demonstrating divine perfection and errancy.

That's where the mistakes lay with a number of people, to which I think the confusion lay over the issue of divine guidance compared with human ideology that is behind written and oral traditions.

It's much more honest, truthful, and straightforward for those who consider it to be that way.
 
Last edited:

Shad

Veteran Member
I believe that the Bible does not contradict itself, and when we read that light was created before the sun, then the only logical explanation is that sunlight is not daylight.

You seem not to grasp what daylight actually is. That is the only logical explanation from what you posted.
 

Native

Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist
I looked into this a while ago and found the following:
If the Sun Is Created on Day 4, What Is the Light on Day 1? - TheTorah.com
The website explains something referred to as "the buried light". You may find it of interest.
Excerpt from your link:
"Here, God creates the sun and the moon to separate day from night and to shine upon the earth. But the distinction between day and night is already noted in day one! Moreover, if the sun was only created on day four, and the sun is what determines day and night, as we all know, then what is the light on day one?

This problem is often touted as proof that this text is meant as an allegory and not to be taken literally.[1] In the modern day creationist lingo, this problem spawned what is called the “Day-Age Theory,” i.e., that “day 1, day 2,” etc. cannot refer to what we mean by a day but must refer to some unspecified long period of time.[2]

Admittedly, the impossibility of the creation account, which bears virtually no resemblance in its understanding of the universe to modern notions, is only a problem for modern, scientifically minded people. Nevertheless, the contradiction between day one and day four was apparent to traditional commentators for millennia".
---------
I´ve already given my reply at this on #8Native, Today at 10:16 AM. The confusion of "the two time creation of light" and the similar "two time creation of Earth" derives from a scholarly lack of mythical, astronomical and cosmological insights.

The Biblical part of the Creation Story can ONLY be correctly interpreted by studying Comparative Religion and Mythology, for instants the Egyptian story of creation which connects to the creation of the Milky Way (via goddess Hathor) and it´s central light as the first "buried light".
 

Draecea

New Member
Excerpt from your link:
"Here, God creates the sun and the moon to separate day from night and to shine upon the earth. But the distinction between day and night is already noted in day one! Moreover, if the sun was only created on day four, and the sun is what determines day and night, as we all know, then what is the light on day one?

This problem is often touted as proof that this text is meant as an allegory and not to be taken literally.[1] In the modern day creationist lingo, this problem spawned what is called the “Day-Age Theory,” i.e., that “day 1, day 2,” etc. cannot refer to what we mean by a day but must refer to some unspecified long period of time.[2]

Admittedly, the impossibility of the creation account, which bears virtually no resemblance in its understanding of the universe to modern notions, is only a problem for modern, scientifically minded people. Nevertheless, the contradiction between day one and day four was apparent to traditional commentators for millennia".
---------
I´ve already given my reply at this on #8Native, Today at 10:16 AM. The confusion of "the two time creation of light" and the similar "two time creation of Earth" derives from a scholarly lack of mythical, astronomical and cosmological insights.

The Biblical part of the Creation Story can ONLY be correctly interpreted by studying Comparative Religion and Mythology, for instants the Egyptian story of creation which connects to the creation of the Milky Way (via goddess Hathor) and it´s central light as the first "buried light".

In my opinion, the Bible is given too much authority and is taken too literally. It's not a book of modern science and isn't compatible with modern science. Why is it that people continually try to force scientific compatibility?
 
Last edited:

gnostic

The Lost One
The men who wrote the books of the bible were so primitive, they were afraid of comets, all of them.
Well, you could fear that a comet may crash on Earth and kill you or other people.

The problems with these biblical books thinking these meteors or comets are stars, eg “falling stars”.

They are not stars.
 

Super Universe

Defender of God
Well, you could fear that a comet may crash on Earth and kill you or other people.

The problems with these biblical books thinking these meteors or comets are stars, eg “falling stars”.

They are not stars.

As a modern educated person you understand that a comet is not a sign from God of impending doom. The primitives didn't understand the concept of rocks falling from the sky. When they would see "falling stars" sometimes men would go out to the spot and find hot rocks. These men would go back and explain that it was a rock falling from the sky. The men in the village would not accept this. They would say "No, no, no. There are no rocks in the sky. How could a rock fall from the sky?" They did not understand the universe but wrote books as if they did.
 

Kangaroo Feathers

Yea, it is written in the Book of Cyril...
I believe that the Bible does not contradict itself, and when we read that light was created before the sun, then the only logical explanation is that sunlight is not daylight.
You can believe what you like. If you want to convince anyone else, though, you need evidence.
 

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
In my opinion, the Bible is given too much authority and is taken too literally. It's not a book of modern science and isn't compatible with modern science. Why is it that people continually try to force scientific compatibility?
I think it's because they've been hoodwinked into just thinking the Bible is free of error and contradiction.

It makes me wonder when this strange notion of Bible inerrancy and non-contradiction began? I kind of suspect the Catholic Church started the notion to make it look like some divine power was at play.
 

Draecea

New Member
I think it's because they've been hoodwinked into just thinking the Bible is free of error and contradiction.

It makes me wonder when this strange notion of Bible inerrancy and non-contradiction began? I kind of suspect the Catholic Church started the notion to make it look like some divine power was at play.

Considering the Catholic Church had a habit of restricting reading of the Bible to only those part of itself, I'm inclined to agree with you.
 
Top