However, the sun was created after light. But it does say that God separated the light from the darkness, so there could very easily have been a night and day. God also said that the sun and moon were "for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and for years." They are simply a sign to show us when the day starts and when it ends. They don't necessarily determine when day and night are; they simply show us when they are.
49 comments
"So its just an amazing coincidence that it gets light when the sun is visible and dark when it is not?"
Paul, buddy, look. Just stop and think for a minute and it will be clear to you. The creation story is nothing but Bible babble. Light could not have been "created" before the sun. Only someone who has completely removed themselves from reality could believe the asinine gobbledygook you spewed here.
When in doubt, truama-induced amnesia is the solution to your problems. says:
They don't necessarily determine when day and night are; they simply show us when they are.
Let me summarise, God made the roof first and the house later?. Can I have a child first and then become pregnant with him?.Honestly, do you still think that homeschooling works or this guy is kidding u?
I just realised something incredible. He almost grasps the fact that the moon has absolutely nothing to do with night (that's the incredible part), but then he goes on to sort of imply it was created to tell us when it is night. It is ridiculous, as it is possible to see the moon during daytime. The length of a month is loosely based on the period of the moon and the presence of the moon causes some natural effects (like moonlight and the tides) and that's pretty much all the moon does. We don't really need months, we could easily divide the year differently. Dividing it to ten parts would be more consistent with the decimal system.
I mean, to begin with, the moon doesn´t signal night AT ALL, only that you see it better. Second, sun is the source of light, let me remind you that even at the time of the Bible, it was crystaline clear for them that the sun produced light. It´s bad enough that you interpret literarily the Bible, but adding to it and making such unrealistic interpretations is even worse. I mean, night and day are clear, neatly clear for everyone.
This is a perfect argument against homeschooling; one day this kid might want to be, say, an engineer, or go to medical school and he'll realise that while he knows the Bible back to front, he has no real concept of anything that could help him get ahead in life - unless, that is, he ends up in a religious vocation. One of the saddest things about T4C is that most of those kids aren't knuckle dragging, mouth breathing halfwits; they're just average sorts whose parents have brainwashed them at an early age and taught them to eschew anything that doesn't agree with outdated and, frankly, dangerous beliefs.
...the sun and moon were "for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and for years." 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. 17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, 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."
In other words, according to the Bible, God divided light and darkness on Day 1; then on Day 4, he made the sun and moon to "divide the light from the darkness" again.
The ancients would have had no way of knowing why the sky itself gets light when the sun is out (the old "why is the sky blue" question) - that question involves quantum physics and was only answered fully in the 1960's. God, of course, would have known all about scattering and the interaction of photons and electrons, since presumably he created them. Evidence once again that the Bible comes from men, not God.
This reminds me of an old joke.
So if we had no sun, it would still be light during the day, but we wouldn't know when day began and ended because there was no sun in the sky to tell us that.
I've actually commented on here several times about how the ancient Hebrew view of the world was that the sun had absolutely nothing to do with daylight, but any intellectual observation could tell you otherwise, and these days not even the densest of the dense could think otherwise.image
Yes, there was light before the sun formed. Other stars are way older than Sol, and the universe's origin probably generated a metric shitload in basically every spectrum. It doesn't necessarily follow that there would have been day and night on Earth, though -- particularly since Earth didn't exist in physical form until "the second day."
But...If one of them's down, then it's the opposite. If there's no sun, it's night. If there's no moon, it's day. Isn't that technically defining them?
@ John: Oh, but of course there ARE no quantum physics, see that's the beauty of it! Quantum physics are not in the Bible, and so therefore cannot possibly exist!
Wouldn't it have been the reverse? After all, light takes about 8 minutes to get here from the Sun, so it would be Sun, 8 minutes later, light. Of course, relativity holds that time travels as fast as light, so we only know about it when the light got here, but I don't want to confuse homeschoolers.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
