excreationist

Paul5204:
Let's assume that you're right, and Genesis says that God had already made the Sun before the creation week. Then what do you think about Exodus 20:11 and 31:17? It seems that it is saying that God created the world, including the Sun in six days.

Jayman:
...most YEC's I've talked to explain away the stars by saying that God created them to appear that old, or that God created them in the middle of their (star) life...

This is about God making a "mature" creation - so there would be many adult animals and plants - instead of just eggs and seeds. The trees probably wouldn't have growth rings though and also Adam and Eve wouldn't have belly buttons. In the same way, there may be something about stars in their earlier stages that is missing in maturely created stars.

Paul5204

To all:

I will eventually reply to all [sometime this week, probably tomorrow or the next day], but for now, let me submit a short reply to ReasonableDoubt. Yes, my friend, the rabbis and more than a few ministers and priests might need some refresher courses. And not simply in Hebrew, but also in reading and understanding language. The Genesis text reports that God "put" the two luminaries great in the expanse of the heavens for certain specified reasons. One of the specified reasons is to "divide between the light and between the darkness." This same Genesis text also reports that God "divided" between the light and between the darkness before "and evening was and morning was, for a day one."

So, tell me, if God put the two luminaries great in the expanse of the heavens to divide between the light and between the darkness, and that event is reported to have occurred prior to "and evening was and morning was, for a day one," just when did God make the sun?

In closing, I noticed that the commentary you cited reports that "God created the sun and the moon..." Problem is that the root Hebrew word at issue is 'asah, made, and not bara', created. The two are not synonomous. Bara' is used only three times in Genesis 1. First, with reference to the creation of the material/physical universe, ie., the creation of what we call energy and matter. The next use of bara' concerns those "sea monsters great and all the nefesh chayyah with which swarmed the waters." The last use of bara' concerns humanity. But note that the Genesis text reports that God made ['asah] and created [bara'] humanity, ie., let us make ['asah] man in our image ... and created [bara'] God... If you wish to know what was made and what was created, try reading Genesis 2:7. As you can see, 1 nefesh chayyah [soul living] = 1 ha'adam (of) 'aphar from ha'adamah [body of dust from the ground] + 1 nishmat chayyim [breath of life]. Since there were already animals, ie., living things with physical bodies, no need for God to do any creating to get to the human body, some modifications will suffice, hence the use of 'asah. But the unique human spirit, well, that required God to bara', create. And note that since the text reports that just as with man, so too with the animals, God formed them out of the ground, I am forced to conclude that the animals were likewise made and created, ie., their bodies made from already existing materials and their spirits being their own unique creation of God.

As I promised, I will respond to the rest of later on this week, hopefully either tomorrow or the next day.

Paul5204

Vorkosigan:

My original intent in creating this thread was to respond to prior posts on thesecularweb that concerned rejection of the Bible [Torah] based simply on the fact that the Genesis 1 text purportedly reports that the utterly fantastic notion that the sun was made on day four. As I believe my initial post on this thread makes plain, that reading of Genesis 1 is simply in error, and for any reasonable person, ought not to provide justification for a rejection of the Bible [Torah]. And since I otherwise took astronomy courses while attending UCLA, and regularly review whatever I can get my hands on that concerns astrophysics, I am well aware of the current estimates concerning the age of the universe and I otherwise do not disagree with those estimates.

And I simply do not see what you called "these obvious contradictions." But if it helps your rather thinly vieled bias/prejudice, please know that in the Targum Onkelos, Onkelos renders the phrase that likely most disturbs you: "and chaos was and order was, a day..." And by way of further help, please note that the Genesis text does not report that "evening was and morning was, for a day seven." So in case you are still in doubt, know that it is still day seven, a sabbath holy to the Lord. For now, I will let you try to figure out the implications of that reality and just how it might lend a much better understanding of certain conversations that Jesus had with certain Pharisees as reported in the gospel of John.

Vorkosigan

Vorkosigan:
My original intent in creating this thread was to respond to prior posts on thesecularweb that concerned rejection of the Bible [Torah] based simply on the fact that the Genesis 1 text purportedly reports that the utterly fantastic notion that the sun was made on day four. As I believe my initial post on this thread makes plain, that reading of Genesis 1 is simply in error, and for any reasonable person, ought not to provide justification for a rejection of the Bible [Torah].

Of course not. The Torah should be rejected as a portrait of reality because its picture is all wrong. As an ethical or social guide, it should be rejected for other reasons not relevant to this thread.

And since I otherwise took astronomy courses while attending UCLA, and regularly review whatever I can get my hands on that concerns astrophysics, I am well aware of the current estimates concerning the age of the universe and I otherwise do not disagree with those estimates.

And I simply do not see what you called "these obvious contradictions."

Hmmm...they are so obvious that all the mainstream groups recognize them.

But if it helps your rather thinly vieled bias/prejudice,

My open and forthright acknowledgement of the silliness of those stories, you mean. Of course, I treat all religions with exactly the same skepticism. In that I am very evenhanded; I reject the six day creation and the Confucian claim that the universe came spontaneously from the roiling mass of chi with equal enthusiasm; they are equally silly claims.

please know that in the Targum Onkelos, Onkelos renders the phrase that likely most disturbs you: "and chaos was and order was, a day..." And by way of further help, please note that the Genesis text does not report that "evening was and morning was, for a day seven." So in case you are still in doubt, know that it is still day seven, a sabbath holy to the Lord. For now, I will let you try to figure out the implications of that reality and just how it might lend a much better understanding of certain conversations that Jesus had with certain Pharisees as reported in the gospel of John.

The implications are that a bunch of Jews had an argument about what was proper for their holy day. Nothing particularly interesting about it, unless you can identify something in it.

Jayhawker Soule

And Rashi has yet another interpretation which fails to leverage your understanding of Hebrew tense, asserting that the limunaries were created on the 1st day and set in place on the 4th (Chagigah 12a). Perhaps Rashi too, lacking your self admitted hubris, required remedial Hebrew.

Paul5204

ReasonableDoubt:

I am glad to see that Rashi agrees with me, at least in part, ie., that the sun was made [he uses "created"] prior to that report of "and evening was and morning was, a day one." You referenced Chagigah 12a. I will use the Bereishis - Rashi Commentary: "They [the luminaries] were created from the first day and on the fourth day He commanded them to be suspended in the canopy." My opinion is that both the making and the placing occurred prior to the "and evening was and morning was, a day one." As I promised, I will post a more complete response to all replies to my original post very shortly. But in closing for now, why do you say that Rashi's interpretation "fails to leverage" mine? Irrespective of the his and my distinction between created and made, is is not true that Rashi puts the creating/making on day one? So I am not so far off in my original claim that the 'asah at Gen. 1:16 is in fact in the form of completed action, with that completed action here occuring at some other time than on the day four? I would humbly submit that at least as concerns the creating/making, that Rashi and I both understand [rather well] the import of the Hebrew not expressing the verb in English tenses.