but light as many sources…edison lightbulb…candle…even a firefly. God creates light 4 times in Genesis…why would he recreate the sun 4 times…and the sun being a star..are stars the only light source in Genesis?? What then is your basis that There is a single light source of the sun? Doesn’t God generate his own light…is there not a heavenly light independent of the sun power?
It seems to me John’s question still applies here. The Sun and the Moon are physical objects with mass, and therefore experience mutual gravitational attraction. The Moon orbits the Earth, the Earth orbits the Sun in turn. Had God not “appointed” the Sun and Moon to “rule” the day and night, then what would they have been doing physically instead?
What is “rule” supposed to be in this sense? The Earth spins around it’s axis and that’s why there is a day-night cycle. Are you saying God made the Earth spin, and the Moon orbit it? Is that what this assignment is supposed to convey?
So you’re saying that the sun has been around for billions of years, fusing hydrogen to helium and radiating photons, and then one day God assigns it specifically to keep doing that, which occasions no alteration in its operation?
Thread split, which keen observers will have noticed already.
Well, I can’t imagine the text (or the original authors) had things like the radiation of photons in mind, given that none of the ancient Israelites sharing this narrative would have had any idea what that meant. So no, to rule the day and night would likely not have been about God assigning the sun to do that. I’ll share my thoughts in the next post here.
So I cant speak for the OP, but I’ll just share my opinion.
I think the first step in answering this question is to set aside a scientific‑concordist approach to Scripture. When we start talking about gravitational attraction, fusion, or orbital mechanics, we’re using modern categories that the original audience would not have recognized. Genesis ideally should be approached from a pre‑scientific, ancient Near Eastern perspective.
From that standpoint, I tend to see Genesis 1 as describing how God established an ordered system for human life. The celestial bodies, for example, are said to mark “sacred times, days, and years” (Genesis 1:14). In other words, God is the one who appoints the sun and moon to regulate the rhythms that structure our lives, seasons, crop cycles, days, and years.
The point isn’t to give a scientific explanation of how the universe works. It’s to attribute the order, stability, and regularity of the world we live in to God’s intentional design. Genesis presents God as the one who sets up the reliable system that makes human life possible.
When people ask questions like, “So was the earth orbiting the sun for billions of years and then God came on the scene and then nothing physical happened?” they’re approaching Genesis through a modern scientific lens. But that’s not the world of the biblical authors. Ancient Israelites weren’t thinking in terms of gravity, fusion, or orbital mechanics. Those categories didn’t exist for them, and they weren’t the kinds of questions they were trying to answer.
Instead we should probably orient our minds toward an approach of assigning functions, establishing order, and creating a stable environment for human life.
Sorry, I was trying to be too clever. Substitute “shining” for all the technical bits. And I see you’re considering this only in an ancient Hebrew framework of understanding. But that isn’t what I think the other posters are doing. They’re trying to come up with an understanding of the text that is at least compatible with modern science. That’s why the sun is said not to be created on Day 4, just assigned to its task, which is apparently not supposed to be a physical event and so not noticeable by science.
But I do think the ancient Hebrews thought of the sun actually being made and set into the heavens on Day 4. Not sure what you think they thought.
1 Like
I think the OP may be combining two different interpretive frameworks. They seem to want a cosmic‑temple reading of Genesis while also treating Genesis 1:1 as an ex nihilo event prior to the six days. Those approaches rely on different contextual backgrounds (ancient and modern), and separating verse 1 from verse 2 in that way can create tension. Regardless, Genesis is open to multiple interpretations, and the text itself doesn’t really settle the issue (unfortunately).
My own view is that Genesis is not describing the material creation of the sun. Like the OP, I read the passage in functional terms. The difference is that I see bara as having a flexible semantic range, which makes it reasonable to read Genesis 1:1 as part of the six‑day sequence rather than a separate ex nihilo event.
In which case, the six days wouldn’t provide much detail about the sun’s material origins. But focuses on the lights’ roles, marking days, seasons, and governing day and night, rather than on how they were physically made. The emphasis appears to be on purpose rather than material processes.
But at the same time, if the text is ambiguous, then who knows how many different valid interpretations there have been throughout history.
But in terms of original authorship, ex nihilo creation would likely be an anachronism. In which case, I couldn’t agree with it. I think it makes more sense that, much like the deep and the earth beneath the waters, the players are already on the stage. God is just moving them around and assigning purposes.
But otherwise, yes I agree that people are trying to make Genesis into a scientific text, and I think that’s very problematic. And that includes suggesting that verse 1 is something like the Big Bang or otherwise.
I’ll slowly exit the conversation in curiosity in how this plays out.
That doesn’t seem to fit the story. The only ex nihilo creation would seem to be “Let there be light”, and the light just appears. The sun was likely molded from that light, analogous to a pot from clay, and then fixed into the world’s roof. The light, i.e., is first called into existence and then later localized into various new structures, the sun, moon, and stars.
Can’t say I agree with that interpretation, namely the sun being molded from light.
I think of it more like a sunrise, where light is visible before the sun. Not that the sun doesn’t exist on day 1. Like if you wake up in the morning and you can’t see the sun yet, but you do see light. There is separation of light and darkness before the sun is ever in the sky. Then eventually the sun is visible in the sky.
But the text just doesn’t clarify so I don’t really see it as useful to speculate.
Additionally, I don’t see it as reasonable to think of light as being ex nihilo but nothing else, if that makes sense. Ancient Near East texts, as far as I’m aware, never include ex nihilo creation events. So I’m not sure that that is the right approach to light on day 1.
I see the division of light from darkness as pre-dating the existence of the sun and moon, perhaps even that the Hebrews didn’t associate the blue of the daytime sky with the sun at all. And it seems clear in the text that the sun is both made and placed in the firmament on Day 4.
Again, the text seems clear enough. God speaks the light into being, and it’s not made from any pre-existing material. Then the second act is working with two existing materials, light and darkness.
Sure. And that leads us back to the question of what it means to be “made”. And in Hebrew, bara is a very flexible term.
"choose, create creator, cut down, dispatch, do, make fat
A primitive root; (absolutely) to create; (qualified) to cut down (a wood), select, feed (as formative processes) – choose, create (creator), cut down, dispatch, do, make (fat)."
Select, choose, dispatch, make.
It’s not simply a matter of material molding.
In Isaiah 54:16, for example, God creates a blacksmith. Well, did he mold the blacksmith out of the earth?
Well no. That’s not how the term is used.
Psalm 89:12, God created the North and the South.
Isaiah 43:1, God created Jacob.
Isaiah 43:15, God created Israel.
So to create, doesn’t necessarily mean, like a material formation. As if God took light and molded it into the sun.
Doesn’t seem clear to me that “let there be light” implies ex nihilo creation.
Its more of an announcement than it is an explanation of origins. I could say “Let there be breakfast” and I could pull it out of the refrigerator.
The process of how that unfolds just isn’t stated in the text. People are free to speculate. But it just is what it is, the text is ambiguous.
but also it depends if one has the perspective that scripture is the inspiration of human intellect, or that of revelation; Gods messengers recording the exact intent of Divine Truth. Contemplation upon the Divine is a commitment of much time…more than what is needed in trying to solve logic puzzles of Hebrew text…you really haven’t thought this out.
Don’t know the Hebrew at all, so feel free to dismiss anything I say. But does the “Let there be light” verse even use “bara”?
But that would be a joke, and it’s funny due to the contrast between that and Genesis.
I’d claim that’s because there is no process other than God saying “Let there be” and it happens.
Afraid I have no clear idea what you’re saying there.
Quite possible. Since you apparently have thought it out, could you explain?
honesty is an excuse to be rude…and I know I sound arrogant and rude…Im not hiding behind the shadows of the Internet to attack people.
I am trying to convey my thoughts complete. I phrased it wrong: sorry …what I ment I think contemplation on the relationship with God as revealed by scripture gives the correct answer instead of analysis.