How was the sun created on the fourth day?

[wwjs]

Why not ask why was sun created after the earth?

[Arellius]

When I search for answers, I read that the sun is 4.57 Billion years old and the Earth 4.53... It might be based on a theory, but that such a thing as the sun was created in 1 day?! I'm not willing to believe it. Just like others said, first the Earth was created and afterwards the sun ?!

It's common knowledge that the earth cannot, will not, is unable to...survive without the sun right ?

[littleendian]

When I search for answers, I read that the sun is 4.57 Billion years old and the Earth 4.53... It might be based on a theory, but that such a thing as the sun was created in 1 day?! I'm not willing to believe it. Just like others said, first the Earth was created and afterwards the sun ?!

One must want to believe it, otherwise of course it doesn't make any sense i.e. you have to be a "man of faith", in other words a bit gullible

[Doubting Thomas]

Not to mention but we all know the earth orbits the sun. What was the earth doing before the sun was created, just floating out in space all alone? Then when the sun was created all of a sudden its gravitational pull just pulled the earth into its orbit?

Not to mention the silly idea that God spent 7 days creating earth alone, but one day creating the sun and the trillions of other stars & planets in the entire universe.

Actually this version makes more sense than the biblical account:

[CleanShavenJesus]

How was the Sun created on the fourth day if the Sun wasn't created until the fourth day? Four days wouldn't pass without the Sun.

I had read the Bible for decades and never thought of this, to be perfectly frank.

Most Christians, except for YEC'ers still living in the 19th century, don't take Genesis 1 to be a literal representation of the physical creation of the universe. After researching Genesis from a historical perspective, I see a story with incredible amounts of theological and existential meaning, not a literalistic account for the mechanics of creation.

So the rest of it is literal, but the part that doesn't make any sense is metaphorical. How convienent.

Look, I'm not a literalist. I'm just saying, more and more of the Bible is taken metaphorically by Christians as time goes on. Probably because it's been proven that the majority of the Bible could never even have happened. I wonder if the whole thing will be metaphorical in 50 years?

[Doubting Thomas]

Most Christians, except for YEC'ers still living in the 19th century, don't take Genesis 1 to be a literal representation of the physical creation of the universe. After researching Genesis from a historical perspective, I see a story with incredible amounts of theological and existential meaning, not a literalistic account for the mechanics of creation.

Heh, did I call that or what? Earlier in the thread I said:

Oh right, that part of the bible is metaphorical. But that thing about gays being an abomination is literal truth.

[Mister Agenda]

How was the Sun created on the fourth day if the Sun wasn't created until the fourth day? Four days wouldn't pass without the Sun.

I had read the Bible for decades and never thought of this, to be perfectly frank.

Most Christians, except for YEC'ers still living in the 19th century, don't take Genesis 1 to be a literal representation of the physical creation of the universe. After researching Genesis from a historical perspective, I see a story with incredible amounts of theological and existential meaning, not a literalistic account for the mechanics of creation.

I wish Christians that take Genesis 1 less literally were the majority of Christians at this site. I can find common ground with someone who doesn't think evolution is a conspiracy invented by atheists to undermine faith in God.

[Pandas United]

Most Christians, except for YEC'ers still living in the 19th century, don't take Genesis 1 to be a literal representation of the physical creation of the universe. After researching Genesis from a historical perspective, I see a story with incredible amounts of theological and existential meaning, not a literalistic account for the mechanics of creation.

So the rest of it is literal, but the part that doesn't make any sense is metaphorical. How convienent.

Look, I'm not a literalist. I'm just saying, more and more of the Bible is taken metaphorically by Christians as time goes on. Probably because it's been proven that the majority of the Bible could never even have happened. I wonder if the whole thing will be metaphorical in 50 years?

Is it wrong to believe our hermeneutics can get better as time goes on? And no, to say a metaphorical interpretation of Genesis is something new is false. Many Rabbi's and church fathers throughout history (before any knowledge of evolution or the age of the earth) interpreted Genesis as a purely allegorical passage. Take Saint Augustine, Origen of Alexandra, and Irenaeus as examples.

Is it wrong to take a verse and try to read it in the genre we believe it was supposed to be? This isn't concordism. Why on earth would anyone take a poetic/metaphorical verse, and try to read it as a science book? It seems awfully dishonest by the skeptic, and awfully bad hermeneutics by the believer. I mean, do you really believe if the author of Genesis' intent was to write about the mechanics of creation, he would have made the mistake of saying God created light on the first day before He created the sun or the stars on the fourth day? Not to mention, how would these presumed "24 hour days" even be 24 hour days before the sun was created? Aren't days marked by the rotation of the earth around the sun? All sorts of problems for the skeptic and believer alike that hold to a literal interpretation of Genesis.

Meanwhile, an allegorical interpretation fits perfectly in the hermeneutics and logical consistency of Genesis 1.

---

Most Christians, except for YEC'ers still living in the 19th century, don't take Genesis 1 to be a literal representation of the physical creation of the universe. After researching Genesis from a historical perspective, I see a story with incredible amounts of theological and existential meaning, not a literalistic account for the mechanics of creation.

Hi Pandas, sorry to press you on a derail but I have to point out that the bible was always meant to be taken literally. Why do you feel that you are able to reinterpret the bible in such a way?

The Bible was always meant to be taken literally? Really? So when Jesus said in John 10:7-9- "So Jesus said to them again, “Truly, truly, I say to you, I am the door of the sheep. “All who came before Me are thieves and robbers, but the sheep did not hear them. “I am the door; if anyone enters through Me, he will be saved, and will go in and out and find pasture.

We should interpret that as in Jesus is a literal door right? He is literally composed of wood, hinges and a knob or latch, right?

Or in Isaiah 59:1- "Surely the arm of the LORD is not too short to save, nor his ear too dull to hear." Isaiah is saying that God literally has limbs; God is composed of arms, ears and other physical attributes? Well that seems awfully anthropomorphic.

In short, no. The Bible contains several different styles of writing. Fundamentalistic approaches to scripture of purely literalistic reading is horrible hermeneutics.

---

Most Christians, except for YEC'ers still living in the 19th century, don't take Genesis 1 to be a literal representation of the physical creation of the universe. After researching Genesis from a historical perspective, I see a story with incredible amounts of theological and existential meaning, not a literalistic account for the mechanics of creation.

I wish Christians that take Genesis 1 less literally were the majority of Christians at this site. I can find common ground with someone who doesn't think evolution is a conspiracy invented by atheists to undermine faith in God.

No worries, a lot of Christians are finally coming out of the dark, learning that there is nothing to fear. I understand some of the skepticism towards neo-Darwinian evolution, I feel as though that is justified. As someone pursuing a PhD in biochemistry and molecular biology, I have my own doubts about neo-Darwinism. Especially in regard to recent developments in Margulis' theory of symbiogenesis. But skepticism towards macroevolution, and belief in YEC is purely caused by ignorance.

[Cato]

Meanwhile, an allegorical interpretation fits perfectly in the hermeneutics and logical consistency of Genesis 1.

Bullshit! There is no allegorical hermenutic that can explain why the Earth existed before the Sun. Or why the moon was considered an independent light source.

Why does my life depend on molecules containing elements heavier than iron? Supernova or God?

[Minimalist]

So the rest of it is literal, but the part that doesn't make any sense is metaphorical. How convienent.

They all pull that shit to one degree or another. Except Westboro Baptist.
They are real xtians.