Genesis tells us that God created the earth in 6 days (and rested on the 7th). Part of Gen. 1:16 says, "He also made the stars." Most SDA Christians believe that this means that God created the stars at the same time as He created the earth, but this is not correct.

Most Christians know that the angels were created before the earth's inhabitants and of course they had to live someplace. Ellen White backs this up saying, "The King of the universe summoned the heavenly hosts before Him, that in their presence He might set forth the true position of His Son and show the relation He sustained to all created beings. The Son of God shared the Father's throne, and the glory of the eternal, self-existent One encircled both. About the throne gathered the holy angels, a vast, unnumbered throng--"ten thousand times ten thousand, and thousands of thousands" (Revelation 5:11.), the most exalted angels, as ministers and subjects, rejoicing in the light that fell upon them from the presence of the Deity. Before the assembled inhabitants of heaven the King declared that none but Christ, the Only Begotten of God, could fully enter into His purposes, and to Him it was committed to execute the mighty counsels of His will. The Son of God had wrought the Father's will in the creation of all the hosts of heaven; and to Him, as well as to God, their homage and allegiance were due. Christ was still to exercise divine power, in the creation of the earth and its inhabitants. But in all this He would not seek power or exaltation for Himself contrary to God's plan, but would exalt the Father's glory and execute His purposes of beneficence and love. {PP 36.2}

Why do we as SDAs not hear much about this? Many Adventists believe that the entire universe was created on day 4 of creation week. Is it because when reading Genesis 1 quickly it seems to indicate that this is what happened, even though the rest of the Bible supports creation of the universe long before? Aren't we here to teach the Gospel? Doesn't that include the origin of sin and where it came from? Are we afraid of what our other Christian friends might think?

Good question, Lineman. You might get more response to it by re-posting it in the Origins forum, though.

Yes, I believe you're right about the stars and the rest of the universe being made earlier. Gen. 1: 16 says "the stars also," (the words, "he made" being added by the translator) and according to Jewish SDA scholar, Jacques Doukhan, it reads like it was intended to be an afterthought or parenthesis. He said it was something like, "By the way, He also made the stars."

On the other hand, if those words are telling us that all of the stars came into existence during the creation week, it would mean that the universe was empty space until that week. That seems highly unlikely.

However, Moses' main point here is that Yahweh is the one who created the whole universe. I doubt he was concerned with all the detail that we are concerned with today. If he was, I'm sure he would have written it differently. Some of us wish he had.

I have certainly seen a lot of non-SDAs take that position - but I have not seen many SDAs do it -- if any.

As I like to point out -- The Bible says that on day four God made TWO GREAT LIGHTS -- not "a zillion and two".

Bob

What was holding the earth in orbit prior to day 4? mel

Orbit around what? Earth did not "need" the sun for anything until Day 3 and with that light source of day 1 - did not even need the Sun then.

The fact that water was covering the face of the deep in vs 2 may mean that we had some geothermal activity on earth prior to the Sun being created.

In Gen 1 we have "rotation" of the earth with "evening and morning" and so we have a single sided light source of some kind (light on one side of the earth) and the planet in rotation.

But we have no indication that the earth was at that point (before day 4) orbiting a star or that we had any planets at all in this solar system.

Indeed -- look at the planet "X" scenario.

in Christ,

Bob

No indication except.........common sense! We do not know how Moses received the extremely abreviated version of the creation events. Was he reporting verbatim what he was told or was he reporting something that he was shown as video and how it appeared to him? I suppose God could have kept the water from freezing solid without the sun but why would he do it that way? Mostly we see "nature" as following certain rules and we can predict even invisible objects and their orbits because of their effects on other objects. I believe God uses practical "natural" physical laws in his creation and we should not assume that he did otherwise in the creation of Earth. mel

well according to Peter -

Moses got his information this way -

2 Peter 1 –

20 But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation,[/b]
21 for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but [b]men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God




According to Paul - Moses got his information this way -
2 Tim 3:

16 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;
17 so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work



According to God - Moses got his information this way --

Numbers 12:


6 He said, ""Hear now My words: If there is a prophet among you, I, the LORD, shall make Myself known to him in a vision. I shall speak with him in a dream.
7 ""Not so, with My servant Moses, He is faithful in all My household;
8 With him I speak mouth to mouth, Even openly, and not in dark sayings, And he beholds the form of the LORD. Why then were you not afraid To speak against My servant, against Moses?''




We already know that geothermal activity alone can heat a planet's surface.

We already know that God can make a planet.

We already know that God claims that Moses' information comes from Him.

I don't see how the fact that humans still do not know exactly how to create a planet -- detracts from what God says He did -- since for now, He is the only one that actually does it.




"Natural Laws" like "He spoke and IT WAS.. He commanded and it stood fast"?

Psalm 33:9
For He spoke, and it was done;He commanded, and it stood fast.

Is that how natural laws are described by Darwinists?

In fact -- wouldn't Darwinists claim that this is the OPPOSITE of the naturalist explanation?

http://www.wingclips.com/cart.php?target=product&product_id=16679&category_id=778


Why not simply observe that the "SIX days you shall labor..FOR IN SIX DAYS the LORD MADE..." language is nothing remotely like "a natural law" nor is it anything like the way Darwinists claim all of life on earth came to be.

in Christ,

Bob

It was passed down by word of mouth from Adam to Moses.

I follow the theory that the earth did rotate around the sun like other planets rotate around their suns. It was like Venus. There was no sun or moon, according to earth's perspective because of a thick atmosphere.

And it's about perspective. What perspective do we have in the creation account?

Gen. 1:2 And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

The perspective is where the Spirit of God is, upon the face of the waters.

On the 4th day, God said let there be lights in the firmament.

Gen. 1:14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:

The firmament is the upper atmosphere. Are those lights actually in the firmament? No. They are in outer space. But from our perspective they are in the firmament. That's where we see them.

The sun is in the sky.

According to our perspective.

But, before the 4th day, it wasn't in the sky. Because the sky was dark. This dark material would have been removed on that day. Formerly, it served to keep the water on the earth.

Those lights where not for signs, seasons, days, and years. Because we couldn't see them. It may have also taken some adjustment for these bodies to keep track of time. God would have fine tuned the Solar System, to be like a big clock.

Gen. 1:17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
1:18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that [it was] good.

So, let them be in the sky. And let them be rulers. God made the Sun ruler of the day and the Moon ruler of the night, in the same way God made Saul king of Israel. God made him ruler. But God didn't bring Saul into existence the day He made him king.

Gen. 1:16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: [he made] the stars also.

God made the lights to appear in the sky, and He made them rulers, and he made them to keep track of signs and seasons, days, months, and years.

If the planet and the water weren't created during this time, but where already here before the Lord began creating, then we can also assume those other things would also have been here.

This is just my theory. I've heard of others teaching something similar. If it's wrong, the good Lord be merciful to us. To me, it's the only thing that makes sense.

I am with you here. That is the way it appears to me. God spoke and it was done but obviously that was the short version. mel

I see that the "Moses got it from legend" option is missing from 2Tim 3:16 and 2Peter 1:19 and Numbers 12 --

Gen 1 says "God MADE two great lights" in vs 19

In Ex 20:11 "For in six days God MADE the heavens and the earth the seas and all that are in them".

If "make" is not really CREATE then we need a different Gen 1:1 "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth".

We also need a different Gospel of John 1:3 saying he created all things and nothing came to be without that -- and we need another Col 1:16 "By Him all things were Created".

in Christ,

Bob

And, one assumes that Moses related that information verbatim, yes?

But what does that say about its transliteration, translation, parsing or other forms of exposition?

Kinda dogmatic to simply posit this or that with a language that depended upon a verbal transmission until the times of Ezra. – what? eight centuries later? (should Biblical tradition obtain) Even that verbal transmission was subsequently lost with modern spoken Hebrew being of relatively recent manufacture. That said,

I believe Gd safeguarded His word throughout the many centuries; however, I do not believe He did so without permitting the loss of this Aramaic particle or that Hebraic article – the issue of faith on our part desired.

Incidentally, at rush4hire's 'it was passed down from Adam to Moses'... Adam wasn't there for all of it, just the last day, so how would he know? I think 'God told Moses' is much more plausible. But again, God was talking to a man of that time - smart, able to do great things through God's power, educated in the Egyptian court - but still with no understanding of science and orbits and planets and just how far away the stars are and...

If God's purposes are establishing that He is the creator, telling that to Moses in a simple and understandable form just makes sense. Moses would not have known about numbers greater than a few hundred, so how could God have even said to him "And then for 1.5 billion years the earth was without life, developing the appropriate conditions..." or whatever else?

This is the old "Bible can not be trusted" argument where you allow God to be the author of scripture -- but then He goes on vacation and does not notice that the text of scripture as given to the various nations is so corrupt that you can not "trust" a simple text like "SIX days you shall labor... for in SIX DAYS the LORD MADE".

And the problem with that argument is that it applies to ALL of scripture and the logical result is as we see here.



If God is allowing the MEANING of the text to change -- then however it's original meaning is lost - the result is that the text itself is corrupt -- it's meaning is no longer trustworthy.

On the other hand - if your argument is that the original meaning IS preserved as long as we keep to strict rules of exegesis -- then I would agree. Being honest, detailed and diligent about the exegetical factors of content and established use - preserves the text so that we can believe it when IT says "SIX DAYS you shall labor...for in SIX DAYS the Lord MADE the heavens and the earth the seas and all that is in them" just as Matthew Henry and John Gill affirm -- in spite of the fact that they themselves do not keep Sabbath.

in Christ,

Bob

True - but Moses COULD speak to 1000's of years and beyond (long lived pre-flood man) and also of short periods of time. He knew for example what a year was. And in the case of Ex 20:8-11 it is God writing and speaking -- not Moses "SIX days you shall labor...for in SIX DAYS the Lord MADE" and God did know a thing or two about the difference between a billion and the number 7.



Indeed - He can say "see all these things -- in some way I am responsible for them all". Simple and easy -- no false details added.

But God goes out of his way to tell us about the 6 "evenings and mornings" and then to summarize them this way "SIX days you shall labor...for in SIX DAYS the Lord MADE".

Pretty hard to ignore the fact that this is framed in language that has no possibility of being reformatted back into Darwinism.



Moses has PEOPLE living for "more than a few hundred years" -- you are making stuff up here -- unless you have proof that Egyptians had no numbering system that when beyond 200. You also have the problem of having to argue that God could not show Moses that just as people lived for over 900 years -- there is a simple way to "keep going" with the numbering system by "adding 1" --




Again - I find your argument too speculative to take seriously. I know of no studies that claim that either the Egyptians or the Hebrews could not count past 200.

Moses himself writes of the stars being as the "sands of the sea" and so if God wanted to teach Darwinism instead of creationism he could have added "as the sands of the sea so were the days to form dry land".

The argument that the language did not support the concept does not hold up. The problem is not language.

in Christ,

Bob

Here are those verses.

2 Tim. 3:16 All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

2 Peter 1:19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:

Num. 12:8 With him will I speak mouth to mouth, even apparently, and not in dark speeches; and the similitude of the LORD shall he behold: wherefore then were ye not afraid to speak against my servant Moses?

You are claiming that the whole account of Genesis was a vision that Moses had? You don't believe that Adam told his children about the creation and everything, they they continued to pass that knowledge down, building with each generation?

I didn't say that none of it was written down. If so, then Moses compiled it, probably with the help of his relatives. I also know that Job was written before Moses.



It says very clearly, that the planet was already here and covered with water.

Gen. 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
1:2 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.
1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

Gen 1:1 is a summary of the whole chapter.

Heaven and earth where not created in Gen 1:2. These terms are defined later in the chapter:

Gen. 1:8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.

Gen. 1:10 And God called the dry [land] Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that [it was] good.

The chapter tells how God created a living planet from a desolate planet.

Of course God must have created the planet too, at some time, but not in Gen 1. God never said "let there be planet", or "let there be water". The planet was here with the water. That's what it says. God created heavens and earth from the planet.

God created man from the dirt. He did not create the dirt at that time. Something doesn't have to come from absolutely nothing to be created by God.




God probably told him and Adam didn't have any reason to think God might be lying. If God tells you something, don't you know that what He's telling you is fact and not a lie?



Why would God tell Moses, and not Adam? You don't think anyone before Moses would have asked questions about such things if the information had not been provided? Was there some evolution that took place between Adam and Moses that made Moses smart enough to grasp the concept of God's work in Creation?

I really believe man was created perfect, sinless, and immortal, but since sin, man has been degenerating, and not evolving. Life span shortens, not lengthens. Eyesight becoming poorer and poorer. More genetic diseases. Less intelligence.

Why can't they breed a race horse that's as fast as they had in the 1950s? Because horses are degenerating. No amount of breeding will ever be able to fix that. It's a process of deterioration. It is a fact that the fastest race horses are getting slower and slower with every generation no matter how you breed them.

They will never evolve.

Give man another billion years and he will not evolve, but will degenerate into nothing. Man will destroy himself in another hundred years or so, if Jesus doesn't come.

Matt. 24:22 And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened.



Why would God need billions of years to create a living planet? Doesn't He have other living planets to copy from? Can God not create life from dirt in a matter of minutes?

How many billions of years is it going to take God to resurrect the 6 billion people at the 2nd resurrection? If those people have to evolve from the dirt, that's going to be a boring thing to watch.

What about the new heavens and new earth? How many billions of years is that going to take?

Isaiah 65:17 For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind.

Isaiah 66:22 For as the new heavens and the new earth, which I will make, shall remain before me, saith the LORD, so shall your seed and your name remain.

Rev. 21:1 And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.

Rev. 21:5 And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new.

I'd rather be consumed with the wicked than to have to sit there and watch simple organisms dominate each other and slowly evolve little advantages over each other and become more and more efficient at murdering each other for billions of years until finally the stuff evolves into human beings?

That's a pretty inefficient way to create a world.

Pointing to the fact that during each of the evenings and mornings when it says "God made" we are talking about "creation" as Gen 1:1 sets the context for that.



I agree that the language leaves us possibly with an earth that is in some form of existence and probably has geothermal heat warming the planet.

I would argue that 1:1 is talking about the creation of all of the universe (prior to the 7 days of Genesis) -- but is not placing that statement inside the 7 days of the chapter.

The heavens of day 2, 4 and 5 -- is the one where the birds fly and may include the solar system "where he placed" the sun and moon.

in Christ,

Bob

And how could you have a 'solar ststem' with no sun? Prior to day four what was holding the earth in orbit? mel

I've heard that idea. I don't think it's very strong, though. Here's the point:

Exo. 20:11 For [in] six days the LORD made heaven and earth

And:

Gen. 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. [ -- in six days -- ]

During the six days in Gen 1, Heaven and Earth are defined, as being created during those six days, and not being there before those six days.

If God called the dry land "Earth" on the 2nd day, it would not have been called "Earth" before that. In fact there was no dry land. Same for "Heaven" and "Seas".

Gen. 1:8 And God called the firmament Heaven

1:10 And God called the dry [land] Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas

But then you have this argument:

Gen. 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
1:2 And the earth was without form, and void

So it looks like the statement "and the earth" is talking about the earth that was created in Gen 1:1, which would have happened before the 6 days.

And that's why even a scholar, like yourself, would be convinced of such a theory.

And that's why we could spend our whole lives debating the issue, and it would turn out to be a complete waste of time. So we could just set it aside and work on something else, for now.

Answer as was given before: No sun, no solar system. No need.

All you "need" for day 1 through 3 is a rotating planet -- not an orbiting one.

in Christ,

Bob

A planet by definition is orbiting around it's sun. I believe God made our solar system as a unit at some point in time and then made the planet we call Earth habitable eventually. Details of how that was accomplished are lacking but EGW thot that the planning of that event was a factor in Lucifer's discontent. The planning details (like what a kangaroo looks like) may have taken considerable time. I think it is harmless and fun to imagine those details. I just wish that we were given more information. mel

Is that God's definition or are we playing a game of semantics?

"The EARTH was formless and void... and God said.. let the EARTH bring forth ..."



All this - before God made the Sun.

Or maybe He is either just not that good at it -- or else not good at saying what He did?




True enough - we do not have the "how to" do-it-yourself guide that many evolutionist think they can imagine.

in Christ,

Bob

That's an OK theory, like I said. To be as diplomatic as possible, if I where teaching Creation, I guess I would include that theory as a possibility.

I would say the other theory appeals to some, because of what we see in the Universe now. Trillions of stars, like our sun, probably with planets around them. So it's not hard to imagine God going to one of these solar systems and creating life on a planet.

And alot of people believe that God has done this before, many times, before creating this world.

I know Kent Hovind, (aka: Dr. Dino), suggests that this is the only world God ever created, and on the 4th day, the whole Universe was created. This would mean the angels also where created on the 4th day, cause they are like stars, and the fall of Lucifer happened after the creation of this world.

But he does not accept the testimonies of Ellen White, which say that there are many worlds inhabited by sinless people, where they never ate from the wrong tree.

I would assume those worlds where created before this one, and the world we live on now, is the last world God has created. For 2 reasons mainly, and 3, (hmm).

1. If the other worlds never ate the forbidden fruit, then it's likely they had more knowledge and wisdom than Adam and Eve. They had probably been around a long time before Lucifer fell.

2. It's hard to imagine God wanting to off creating worlds after the fall of Lucifer. The politically correct thing to do would be for God to focus all His attention trying to reconcile Lucifer. Then we would assume God finally got to the point where He had done everything toward reconciliation. God finally gave up and created this one world. Probably God knew Lucifer would have a chance at deceiving these new-born people, knowing they probably would fall and this is where the plan of salvation would play out, and his deceptions would be unmasked.

3. And I sure couldn't imagine God going off creating worlds when this world is in the crisis that it is in. I believe God has been focusing all of His attention in this world to reconcile sinners.

True enough. And If God had said "int he beginning the earth was formless and void as day by day the sun rose and set over an endless sea of water" we could certainly see how such a thing could be rolled into that story.

But there is no cosmology that allows for a planet around a sun without light that suddenly ignites 6,000 years ago at the same time that the planet forms land.

There is no biology that supposes that all plant life originates on earth before the Sun is actually visible in the sky as an object of light.

In other words God has framed the story such that the gap between the sequence He describes and the one that one might imagine if one were imagining solar system evolution -- is not the same. His account is then a kind of "in your face" account that is counter to what we might expect if things were happening on their own.



Me too. In fact I suspect most SDAs would admit that other planets existed with life on them before the earth.

in Christ,

Bob

" all you need is a rotating planet not an orbiting one"
If it's not orbiting it's not a planet! :-) mel

It "appears" to me that by the time mankind got to the point of telling God what a planet was -- He had already created the earth and it was already orbiting one of those TWO great lights He made on day four!

Why would it say that? It says darkness was upon the face of the deep. Now, go to Venus, and that's what it is there. Perfect darkness. There is no sun shining, or rising, or setting on Venus. The atmosphere is too thick.

And the sun is not in the sky, anyway, as it says in Gen 1. But that's where we say it is, because that's where it appears to be. To this day, we still say the sun is in the sky, but the sky is where the clouds are. Technically, you could say, the sun is not in the sky, yet it is, from our perspective.

And that's what it says:

Gen. 1:14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven...

The firmament is not outer space. It's the sky. It's where the clouds are. It's the atmosphere.

Gen. 1:6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
1:7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which [were] under the firmament from the waters which [were] above the firmament: and it was so.
1:8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
1:9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry [land] appear: and it was so.

Now, I'm using Genesis as my lesson book. I'm not consulting the Atheists here.

I do not deny the six literal days.

But I do have concern for the dating of the rocks thing. Why are we focusing on the rocks, like we got something to prove there. The rocks would have already been here, like there are rocks on every other planet in the Universe.

And also I do not believe the stars where created the 4th day. The stars are the whole Universe. Did God create the whole Universe on the 4th day?

What do you say about those other worlds?

Was this the first world God created? Then when the other worlds where created, it would have said something different about their 4th day, concerning the stars?

To me, that's not likely.

I suspect this is the last world God created - but that is a guess.

The wording of the text of Gen 1 does not lead the reader to suppose that the sun was here until Day 4 when it says that "God Made TWO great lights" the greater and the lesser -- if what he meant to say "On day four God caused the thick clouds to pass away" then we certainly have things like "thick cloud lifted" etc in Hebrew being used by Moses in other places.

In fact one way that the Bible speaks of the Sun shining but covered by clouds in the OT is "Sun does not give her light".

It is instructive that this is not the language Moses used here.

in Christ,

Bob

What if..... when Moses was out there watching sheep for Jethro he asked God about how things began and God showed Moses a video. Perhaps Moses wrote about it the way it appeared to him. From his perspective if the clouds did not clear until the fourth day that would be what he would write.
By the way if the moon was to rule the night why does it not remain "full" all the time? Could it be that it was that way originally?
mel

QR frame:

I think that Genesis 1:6-9 establishes that the firmament was established beneath the upper layer of earth's divided waters. Moreover,

verse 20 tells us birds flew in that firmament.

Given the above, it is hardly likely that the greater and the lesser lights placed in the firmament between the stratified waters of earth – can be said to have been the sun and the moon. The stars are an unknowable parenthesis.

It may serve us to remember that the antediluvian world was not as the post-diluvian world.

So, if the above obtains, when then, were the sun and the moon created? If they were created in a long eons ago creation, why did they not serve as the greater and lesser lights of day four of the Genesis 1 creation?

Re moon:

Good observations mel. That said, Babylon first worshipped the moon. Towards the end of its Empire, it again was in the process of reverting to moon worship.

There seems to be, again, those who worship the moon – and why not? if they believe that though the sun rules the day – the moon rules both day and night...

Groaning a bit, now. This is not where I wanted to focus my attention, as I've said. Right now, innocent people are being falsely accused and condemned, like in the Inquisition, and no one seems to be taking it to heart.



You assume it would have said that. Or it could have said:

Gen. 1:2 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.

We're not talking about a cloud but a mass that would have separated this planet from the rest of the Universe, and preserved the water content on this planet. And I didn't make this idea up. I heard it from YEC, God fearing, 6 day Creation scientists.

But let's consider the alternatives. Here are 2 things:

1. If you say the sky was crystal clear and if there where stars, they would have appeared, then you say that all the Universe was created the 4th day. For most of the stars we see are really galaxies. Some are actually suns, like the sun we have.

So whatever suns the other worlds orbit around, must be so far away, you wouldn't see them from this earth, even with no atmosphere at all, as if from the moon, with no sunlight or anything at all to interfere with your view.

But in the astronomy lessons I've seen, by Creationist scientists, shows the spectrum of the stars as mostly red, indicating they are moving away from us. This would lead us to believe the center of the Universe is near us, assuming the Universe would expand from it's center.

Then EGW says Christ will come from the belt of Orion. She doesn't seem to suggest they would have to travel from beyond any visible galaxy. It seems to suggest the current throne of God is somewhere near by.

Either God has been creating worlds near-by His throne, and the far off galaxies we see are like a wilderness, or He has moved His throne to be near this world, and those worlds would would be so far away, it's unimaginable.

Then if these galaxies where created on the 4th day, then none of them would be inhabited. Why so much wilderness? That's just alot. Seems like a waste.


2. Also you would be saying the 4th day is different from the other days. In all the other days, God doesn't create any matter, but we only see a manipulation of matter. The dirt and water where already here. The dividing of the waters to create the atmosphere. The dry land appearing. The earth bringing forth the plants. The beasts and man where formed from the dirt. Man was formed from the dirt. In none of these things, did God create matter from nothing.

Except in the 4th day, where God creates all the galaxies in the Universe, the sun, moon, and planets... from nothing. That's alot of matter. Billions of times more matter than was manipulated here on this earth.

If I where stuck defending this theory, I would try and suggest there was a dark cloud, that had as much matter as the sun, and the whole solar system, like a great cloud of matter in space. Then God created the Sun, moon, and planets from this matter. I think there are such giant dark clouds of matter in space. And as far as we know, there could be a planet in there with water on it. But then I guess it would freeze without a thick atmosphere.

That would account for why you couldn't see the stars from space, from the surface of this planet with no atmosphere. You don't have to say God made the stars the 4th day. It just says "he made the stars also", not indicating when they where made.

Actually, the phrase "he made" was added, so "the stars also" would mean the stars would rule together with the moon:

Gen. 1:21 ...and the lesser light to rule the night: [he made] the stars also.

Not that any of this is impossible. But I'm not convinced that it's the most likely thing, or makes the most sense, or that it's what the Bible plainly teaches.



Exactly. It's all about perspective. The perspective we get is the surface of the waters, where the Spirit of God is.

And from our perspective, the Sun, Moon, and stars are in the sky, the firmament, which is where the clouds are.

First of all - I am not arguing that those who take your position are not YEC creationist or that they do not believe in a 6 day creation of all life on earth.

We simply differ on the detail of what it means to "make TWO great lights" on day four and on what the term "darkness covered the surface" means.

I believe that each time evening and morning are mentioned in the text of Gen 1 -- it is "calling the darkness night" (see vs 5) and that darkness is "still" called night on day 6. That means that even though you could see stars at night on day 6 (a point on which we all agree) it is still called night -- it is stil called darkness.

Your argument requires that 'night' did not occur any time except on days 1 2 and 3 since on day 4 stars became visible for the first time and that was light.

However I do not think the text is telling us that we don't have night any more.

I agree with you that the stars were not made on day 4.

in Christ,

Bob

I do not read that in my Bible, sorry. Gen. 1:1 reads, "In the beginning...". What beginning is He talking about? The beginning of the universe or the beginning of the earth?

Obviously the earth was covered with water (thats what it says), but I believe that it was all ice. The Bible just calls it the "face of the deep". The light that was created on the first day may have been whatever was needed to melt the ice, evaporate some of the new liquid water into the atmosphere and dry the new land.

Has anyone considered that our sun may have been created billions of years before, along with the globe we now call earth? God says that He created two lights on day 4 and to do that all He would have had to do was to light the "fire" on the sun.



My humble opinion.

It appears to me that it means in the beginning of human history or of the world as humans know it. That would be creation week, at the start of which God made the world inhabitable for mankind. I agree with you that it doesn't necessarily mean that it was when all matter came into being for the first time.

I guess I see it a little differently. It just seems to me that this may be talking about way back at the very beginning of created things, long before God created this earth.

I agree - that is possible for Gen 1:1 - a global statement that God is the Creator of ALL things -- with Gen 1:2 through 2:3 showing the 7 real days (i.e Bible really true and trustworthy about events it describes) in which God formed the living inhabitable environment on earth and all life on earth and then rested.

As well as creating the Sun moon (and possibly the planets of our solar system in those same 6 real days)

in Christ,

Bob

By setting the sun on fire, or at least making it much brighter, all the other planets would become visible (although they may have already been there) just not able to be seen even if there were people here.

Not really important though, just a thought. What is important is that God is the creator of everything that was created.

So what was NOT created? (God is the only "thing" I know of.)

True -- when he said 'MADE two great lights" he might have meant to says "caused them to start shining" or "caused the clouds to thin"?. I wonder how Moses' readers at the foot of Sinai would have taken the "God MADE two great lights" statement in the text? Do you think that Moses was leading these shepherds and freed-slaves to think they were MADE then or is this the language they typically used for "caused something to start shining" or "cleared away the fog"?

in Christ,

Bob