Therefore, the first half of the creation week does not necessarily proceed along the lines which some insist. The only solution to this difficulty would be to interpret the text as saying that the Sun appeared on the fourth day, but that it had actually been created on the first and was therefore the source of the light which separated day and night. This is something which the adamantly literal interpreters refuse to do. In critiquing Hugh Ross for suggesting such an arrangement, Terry Mortenson of Answers in Genesis explicitly argues that the Sun, Moon, and Stars were not created until the fourth day, advancing his argument along several lines. 14 Likewise, other Answers in Genesis contributors insist upon the Sun’s actual creation on the fourth day,15 as do the staff at the Institute for Creation Research.16 Absent the Sun, the text does not explicitly say how long these first days were: but it does indicate that the days were still characterized by a distinction between day and night, light and darkness.
…show more content…
Also, they feature evening and morning, though the duration and nature of these phenomena are not elaborated upon, perhaps because it was not integral to the author’s purpose, a topic which will be discussed later. (The same arguments made above concerning the meaning of day also apply to the meaning of ‘evening and morning;’ the state of the earth as presented in the text shows that ‘evening and morning’ here mean something else than in other passages.) We are not told the source of the light which distinguishes day and night. Some maintain that God himself is the source, noting that he is described as being present over the earth (v.2), and is elsewhere portrayed as present in creation (even immediately after the Fall; 3:8). If the earth was in fact rotating at the first (as some claim17), and if God was still hovering above it (as in v. 2), this would seem probable at first glance, though it would not commend an interpretation of the day as being of regular duration (for the reasons discussed above). However, such a notion seems to ignore that God is unchanging and essentially transcendent and distinct from his creation; also, that the light in view seems to be natural in source. “God said ‘Let there be light’” unambiguously implies that he brought it into being, and that it is not the light of his own essence, which a) he often conceals when interacting with his creation (as elsewhere in scripture, in various theophanies:12:7-9; 18:1-3; Ex. 3:2; Job 38:1); b) is infinitely bright and pure (“unapproachable light,” 1 Tim. 6:16); and c) does not seem to explain the waning and disappearance of light during the night. If God was the source of the light, then why is the earth described as being dark while he hovers above it in verse two? On the view of the notion that God is the source, verse three would not then be talking of the creation of anything, but of the unveiling of God’s radiance, and of its use in illuminating the newly created world. But if that were so, Moses would not be speaking of creation but rather of revelation, as God did not make anything, but simply displayed His own magnificence; and, again, how this would fit in with evening and morning and day and night is an open question. Furthermore, the text says that God “saw that the light was good” and that he “separated the light from the darkness” (v. 4). Given that God is already perfectly self-aware, his viewing his own emanation of light and appraising it as good does not fit in with his perfect knowledge (including self-knowledge); nor does his separating it from the darkness mesh with his being distinct and transcendent, as mentioned above. (Indeed, if the light of vv. 3-5 was God’s brilliance, v. 4 would suggest a sort of pantheism, in that it would suggest God separating his radiance – and by extension its source, himself – from the darkness.) No, the narrative is that of the creation of the natural universe, and so the light in view must have some natural source, whatever it might be. These primitive photons,
Also, they feature evening and morning, though the duration and nature of these phenomena are not elaborated upon, perhaps because it was not integral to the author’s purpose, a topic which will be discussed later. (The same arguments made above concerning the meaning of day also apply to the meaning of ‘evening and morning;’ the state of the earth as presented in the text shows that ‘evening and morning’ here mean something else than in other passages.) We are not told the source of the light which distinguishes day and night. Some maintain that God himself is the source, noting that he is described as being present over the earth (v.2), and is elsewhere portrayed as present in creation (even immediately after the Fall; 3:8). If the earth was in fact rotating at the first (as some claim17), and if God was still hovering above it (as in v. 2), this would seem probable at first glance, though it would not commend an interpretation of the day as being of regular duration (for the reasons discussed above). However, such a notion seems to ignore that God is unchanging and essentially transcendent and distinct from his creation; also, that the light in view seems to be natural in source. “God said ‘Let there be light’” unambiguously implies that he brought it into being, and that it is not the light of his own essence, which a) he often conceals when interacting with his creation (as elsewhere in scripture, in various theophanies:12:7-9; 18:1-3; Ex. 3:2; Job 38:1); b) is infinitely bright and pure (“unapproachable light,” 1 Tim. 6:16); and c) does not seem to explain the waning and disappearance of light during the night. If God was the source of the light, then why is the earth described as being dark while he hovers above it in verse two? On the view of the notion that God is the source, verse three would not then be talking of the creation of anything, but of the unveiling of God’s radiance, and of its use in illuminating the newly created world. But if that were so, Moses would not be speaking of creation but rather of revelation, as God did not make anything, but simply displayed His own magnificence; and, again, how this would fit in with evening and morning and day and night is an open question. Furthermore, the text says that God “saw that the light was good” and that he “separated the light from the darkness” (v. 4). Given that God is already perfectly self-aware, his viewing his own emanation of light and appraising it as good does not fit in with his perfect knowledge (including self-knowledge); nor does his separating it from the darkness mesh with his being distinct and transcendent, as mentioned above. (Indeed, if the light of vv. 3-5 was God’s brilliance, v. 4 would suggest a sort of pantheism, in that it would suggest God separating his radiance – and by extension its source, himself – from the darkness.) No, the narrative is that of the creation of the natural universe, and so the light in view must have some natural source, whatever it might be. These primitive photons,