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: And let them be for lights in the
firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
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. And God
set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
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. And the evening and
the morning were the fourth day.
(Gen
1:14-19)
Day
4 marks the creation of the heavenly bodies – the sun, moon, and
stars. We have seen already that God created light on Day 1. The
presence of light clearly demarcated day and night so that the
passage of days could be measured until now. Here, God creates the
permanent lights to replace the temporary one He had created earlier.
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: And let them be for lights in the
firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
Interestingly,
the Bible reveals the motive for creating these heavenly bodies. In
this passage, I can identify at least 4 purposes:
1)
And let them be for signs:
Exactly what is meant by “signs” is not made clear in this
passage. I've
heard some pastors talk about the gospel message being present in the
signs of the zodiac but I'm very skeptical of the claim. I've heard
all the details and feel they're simply a stretch. It reminds me a
little of Nostradamus, where his quatrains are just vague enough that
they can seem to explain some future event.
Still
others talk about signs like the star of Bethlehem which announced
the birth of Jesus. I've written before how that “star,” as
described in the Bible, did not behave in a way any astronomical body
would. I suspect that was more likely an angel.
I
suspect it most likely means God will use the heavens to reveal His
power. Psalm 19:1 says, “The
heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his
handywork.”
Simply put, the vastness of space and number of stars gives us a
glimpse of the power of God. Also, there are the miracles like
Joshua's Long Day (Joshua 10:11-13) and the turning back of the sun
(Isaiah 38:8). In both cases, we see the authority of God is above
the movement of the planets.
2)
And for seasons:
We see that God purposefully created the seasons. We know that He
gave the plants and tree to Adam for food. We see perhaps too that
God intended Adam to farm. Of course, it was not initially the
burden that it would become after the curse. When God cursed Adam,
He warned him that he would plow but now the ground would produce
thorns and He would have to earn his bread by the sweat of his brow.
Because
there are seasons, we know that by this time, the earth was certainly
in motion, making its elliptical orbit around the sun; the earth must
also have already been tilted on its axis. Both of these factors
determine the seasons.
3)
and for days, and years: Many
of our denominations of time are derived from natural phenomenon.
One rotation of the earth on its axis is a day; one orbit of the sun
is a year; one orbit around the earth by the moon is a month. Even
the start of each season is clearly identified by a solstice or
equinox. We see from these passages that it is God who ordained how
long a day would be or how long makes a year.
By
the way, there is no natural phenomenon that accounts for a seven day
week. Many believe the seven day week – which is recognized by so
many cultures – is a legacy of the original seven day week
established by God during the creation.
4)
And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give
light upon the earth:
One obvious blessing from the sun is that it not only gives us heat
but it also gives light. God could have created us to live and see
in the darkness but He ordained it to be otherwise and so gave us the
sun and moon to give light upon the earth.
In
the Bible, light is often used metaphorically to represent knowledge
or enlightenment. The Bible is a lamp for our feet (Psalm 119:105).
Jesus also said that believers walk in the light while the lost love
darkness because their deeds are evil (John 3).
One
criticism often made of the Bible is that it seems to say in this
passage that the moon “gives” light. First, it doesn't say
exactly that. It does refer to the moon as the “lesser light”
that rules the night but does not describe a method by which the moon
gives light. But moreover, it is an acceptable and common use of the
language to say the moon gives light. I remind you of the well known
poem, “'Twas
the Night Before Christmas.”
“The
moon on the breast of the
new-fallen snow
gave the lustre of midday to objects below.”
gave the lustre of midday to objects below.”
And
God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the
lesser light to rule the night:
So,
after having given us the purpose of the sun and moon, the Bible then
says God creates them with very little description as to how. There
is no description like the plants seeming to come forth from the
ground or the land rising out of the sea as with earlier creative
acts. It only says that God wanted there to be these lights and so
He made them.
An
interesting fact about the sun and moon is their difference in size.
The sun's diameter is about 400 times larger than the moon's but the
sun is also 400 times further away. The result is that both objects
appear to be almost exactly the same size when viewed from earth. It
is incredible to think this is just an accidental coincidence; Such a
coincidence is far more likely to be a product of design.
he
made the stars also.
The
earth is not some insignificant speck in the vast cosmos; rather, God
created the universe with the earth in mind. The enormity of the
universe and the innumerable number of stars gives us a glimpse of
God's omnipotence. However, the earth is the indisputable center of
God's attention. The sun and moon, which affect the earth most
directly, are given the most description in this passage. The stars
receive barely a mention.
I
can't let this pass without mentioning the distant starlight problem.
Out of our ignorance, we question how the light from millions of
lights years away (in distance) can reach us in a single day or even
a few thousand years (of time). The fact that we haven't yet found a
completely satisfactory answer to the question is not necessarily
evidence that it didn't happen. We see the light from the stars so
we know it has had time to reach us. Therefore, we can continue
seeking answers to understand how.
And
God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the
earth, And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the
light from the darkness:
Critics
of the Bible will often pounce on this verse as an excuse to ridicule
the Bible. Some ancient philosophers (it would be a stretch to call
any person of antiquity a “scientist”) believed there was a dome
over the earth and the heavenly bodies were literally lights inside
the dome. This just wasn't Christian or Jewish philosophers but many
other cultures this as well. This passage in one sense could
understood to support that idea. However, it doesn't literally say
it. There are at least two other ways we might understand this
passage.
First,
we ordinarily refer to the sun, moon, and/or stars as being “in the
sky.” It would be odd to describe them otherwise. I have used
similar wording on this very blog many times and no one has ever
accused me of believing in a dome around the earth. For the Bible to
say that God that put them “in the sky” need not mean anything
more than we mean by the same term.
Secondly,
the word “firmament” in the KJV is a little esoteric. Other
translations have “heavens.” The Bible attests there are three,
distinct heavens: the first heaven is the sky/atmosphere around the
earth. The second heaven is outer space. The third heaven is the
abode of God. The word “firmament” in the KJV could include
either the 1st or 2nd heavens. The
same passage in the NASB can be read and understood without the
ambiguity or controversy we find in the KJV.
and
God saw that it was good. And the evening and the morning were the
fourth day.
Prior
to now, days were marked by the temporary light created on Day 1.
Now, God has created the sun and the meaning of a “day” is
clearly defined as one passing of evening and morning. Once again,
we see that the days of the creation week are ordinary days.
5 comments:
I think that the four words listed as the purposes of lights in the heavens may not be four separate purposes. I suspect that "signs" means "markers of different times," e.g. "when this set of stars is in the sky, plant; when this other group appears, harvest, etc." The Hebrew word for "seasons" has the primary meaning of "appointed time" or "meeting time" (okay, I'm cribbing from an interlinear and concordance, not my own nigh-negligible knowledge of Hebrew), and probably refers to using astronomical signs to determine feast days rather than, say, spring or autumn (i.e. "signs and seasons" are the same thing, and not entirely distinct from marking days and years).
It seems to me that a great many defenders of biblical inerrancy seem to assume that the Holy Spirit has poor composition skills. Certainly there are possible readings of the text that do not imply that, e.g. the sky is a solid dome to which stars and planets are affixed, or that the moon does not give light on its own, but the text is very easily read as expounding such a cosmology and nothing in the text contradicts it.
It is a striking coincidence that the angular diameters of the sun and moon are nearly identical. On the other hand, the year is not an even number of days or lunar months long (and the lunar month itself is not an even number of days long). The motions of celestial bodies provide myriad opportunities for precise coincidences, very few of which are realized.
I can't let this pass without mentioning the distant starlight problem. Out of our ignorance, we question how the light from millions of lights years away (in distance) can reach us in a single day or even a few thousand years (of time). The fact that we haven't yet found a completely satisfactory answer to the question is not necessarily evidence that it didn't happen. We see the light from the stars so we know it has had time to reach us. Therefore, we can continue seeking answers to understand how.
First, it's not entirely out of ignorance. We know how fast light moves. You might as well argue that "out of ignorance," not knowing of means by which a man's fingerprints might end up at a crime scene if his fingers were never there, we carelessly and ignorantly infer his presence from those fingerprints. We don't automatically assume that his eyewitness testimony to his own whereabouts overrules any possible circumstantial evidence.
Note that on your own principles, we don't know that light from the Andromeda galaxy has reached Earth, any more than we know that, e.g. shared pseudogenes and endogenous retroviruses in humans and chimpanzees were inherited from a shared ancestor. Perhaps the light was created in transit, and was never emitted by suns in other galaxies. If these lights were created purely for "signs and seasons, days and years," then we don't actually need for the galaxies themselves to exist, just the light that appears to come from them.
Steven J,
You said, “I think that the four words listed as the purposes of lights in the heavens may not be four separate purposes.”
You could be right. It's sometimes difficult to group items from a list – especially when there is no punctuation. For example, I might say, “My favorite sandwiches are peanut butter and jelly and peanut butter and honey.” In this example, I have either listed two sandwiches (PB&J and peanut butter with honey) or maybe three (PB&J, peanut butter, and honey) or maybe four (with peanut butter listed twice). I still suspect that Genesis is listing 4 motives. I did a quick search on Biblegateway and there are no other times in the KJV where “signs” and “seasons” are listed in the same verse.
I agree that a common meaning of “season” is “appointed time.” The most well known example of this was made famous by the song, “Turn, Turn, Turn” by the Byrds: “To everything there is a season, and a time to every purpose under heaven” Ecclesiastes 3:1. Of course, “seasons” can also mean “seasons” in the calendar sense. I'm not sure how the sun, moon, and stars would be given for “appointed times.” If you have a theory, I'd be happy to hear it.
You said, “It seems to me that a great many defenders of biblical inerrancy seem to assume that the Holy Spirit has poor composition skills.”
It is a weakness of language that nearly anything written can suffer from ambiguity. Here's an amusing example that highlights the problem with written words: “I didn't say he stole her purse.” If you read that sentence out loud seven times, each time stressing a different word, the same sentence can have seven different meanings.
Even a rather simple text like Revelation 1:1a, “The Revelation of Jesus Christ” could be read a couple of ways. Is this a text “revealing Jesus” or is it a “revelation from Jesus”? I recognize this as a problem with language rather than poor writing skills.
You said, “The motions of celestial bodies provide myriad opportunities for precise coincidences, very few of which are realized.”
The “coincidences” are precise enough for the practical purposes of the ancients. Much of the imprecision has only been realized in the last few centuries due to the increase of our ability to measure these things precisely. Regardless, the times probably were more precise in the past. We know, for example, that the moon is receding away from the earth at an observable rate each year such that it would be impossibly close to the earth even 1 billion years ago. We know that the earth's rotation is slowing down about 1.7 milliseconds every 100 years meaning 4 billion years ago, a day should have only been about 5 hours long (if my math is right).
Continued...
You said, “First, it's not entirely out of ignorance. We know how fast light moves.”
We have never measured how long it takes light to reach us from another star. Not only can we not reach another star, such a feat would be impossible anyway because we could not synchronize the start/stop clocks. We can only make assumptions based on measurements taken on earth.
But that's not the ignorance I'm referring to. The distant starlight problem in creation and the horizon problem of secular cosmology are both time/distance problems. Since both theories suffer from a time/distance problem, there is obviously something about the speed of light in deep space that we don't understand.
You said, “Note that on your own principles, we don't know that light from the Andromeda galaxy has reached Earth, any more than we know that, e.g. shared pseudogenes and endogenous retroviruses in humans and chimpanzees were inherited from a shared ancestor. Perhaps the light was created in transit, and was never emitted by suns in other galaxies.”
This is more of a problem with your science. I believe it is out of character for God to create light in such a way as to make it seem there is a star/galaxy where there really isn't one. But since secular theories of our origins ultimately rely on poofism, there is no scientific reason why the light couldn't just appear in transit. Moreover, if our senses are really nothing more than chemical reactions in our brains, maybe there really isn't even light; instead, it could just be a reaction in our brains that make us think there is light coming from another star.
God bless!!
RKBentley
One can, with sufficient determination, find ambiguity in anything (shall I hunt down arguments -- which I find a trifle implausible -- that the Bible does not in fact condemn homosexual conduct between men?). I think that, e.g. flat-earth cosmology of the book of Enoch and of Flavius Josephus is some indication of the "plain sense" of Old Testament references to cosmology. The account misses a number of opportunities to point out that, e.g. the Earth orbits the sun and turns on its axis.
The lunar recession argument depends on assuming that recession has occurred at a constant rate throughout the history of the Earth-moon system. The exact calculations are very complicated, but most of the tidal effect that slows the moon's orbit and pushes it further from Earth comes from the sea, not the solid bulk of the planet, and most of that from small shallow regions like the Bering Strait. Plate tectonics thus affects the rate of recession by eliminating and reforming such shallow regions. The rate slows down drastically when, e.g. there's a single supercontinent, or widely separated continents. See, e.g. this article for a more detailed discussion with citations to technical references.
Also note that while the recession rate would have been effectively constant over the last several thousand years, it would have made negligible difference to the angular diameter of the moon.
I am aware of at least two proposed solutions to the horizon problem -- cosmic inflation and the Turok-Steinhardt ekpyrotic cyclic model of the universe -- that do not require that light speed be variable, or change depending on direction, or otherwise behave in weird fashions, or that our present physics be radically yet undetectably incomplete. For that matter, creationism offers a possible third: the universe was just "poofed" into existence with its present degree of uniformity, billions of years ago.
Post a Comment