I like that one. I made Micheal the district manager to implement XY and Z.
And what’s interesting here is, it’s just 1 action. You only did 1 thing. You didn’t do two separate things in a single sentence.
And with the sun, it’s not like God made the sun and then returned later and assigned the function. The assigning of the function is the event. It’s just 1 thing that happens. Just like making Micheal the district manager to implement XYZ is just 1 action. Not 2.
People are trying to smuggle manufacturing into the sentence as if God is doing two separate actions.
Here’s where a knowledge of Hebrew would be handy. The English translation definitely implies that, but I can’t read the Hebrew. Maybe the translation (every translation) is bad.
Anyway, let’s try again for clarity: Are you saying that Day 4 involves moving the sun, moon, and stars from some other place, wherever that might be, where they had been previously and perhaps since the initial creation, into the vault of the sky?
But that’s not the structure of the text (again, in translation). That would be “I made John for the purpose of being a catcher” or something like that. Or “I made the birdhouse for a nesting place”. Perhaps the Hebrew doesn’t differentiate these forms, but English most certainly does. So was the English text a mistranslation?
Well here’s the thing. We know that the sun materially exists before God sets it in the raqia. Because God declares the suns roles before God actually sets them there.
Genesis 1:16-17 NIV
[16] God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars.
[17] God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth,
So setting them in the vault is not describing their original material creation.
They logically have to pre exist being placed in the raqia. Because if they didn’t yet materially exist, then there would be nothing to place there.
But that’s a key point too. That’s the whole point of creation. In the old testament, God doesn’t create things ex nihilo. He creates order out of chaos. The formless earth materially exists. if it didn’t, then God would have nothing to give order to.
John, that’s not quite my point. Genesis 1:1 is the creation of the entire cosmos—sun, moon, and stars included. Genesis 1:3 isn’t God creating photons; it’s God calling the already‑created sun to begin the first day, just as He ‘commands the morning’ in Job 38:12–13. That’s why I read those passages together.
And yes, the Israelites obviously knew the sun controlled seasons and agricultural cycles. What they didn’t have was a worldview free from the sun‑moon worship of Egypt and Mesopotamia. So on Day 4 Moses is doing something very deliberate: he’s telling Israel, ‘No, the sun and moon are not gods. They aren’t beings to be worshiped. God made them and assigned their purpose—to mark days, seasons, and years.’ In other words, the sun answers to God, not the other way around. Day 4 is functional and polemical, not a description of the sun popping into existence. That’s my take
John (As AdrianB stated), let the text itself tell you what it means for God to “make” the sun. Genesis 1:1 already has God creating the entire cosmos—sun, moon, and stars included. So Genesis 1:3 isn’t God manufacturing photons; it’s God calling the already‑created sun to begin the first day, exactly like He “commands the morning” in Job 38:12–13. That’s why I read those passages together. The creation is in v.1; what follows is God ordering and assigning functions.
And the text tells us exactly what those functions are: to rule, to govern, to separate, to give light, to mark days and seasons. Those are roles, not mechanisms. Nothing in the passage describes material origins. When God ‘makes’ the sun in Genesis 1, the action is functional, He assigns its purpose within the ordered world. Hebrew uses asah this way constantly. I can ‘make’ you president without changing a single atom in your body; what changes is your role. That’s the same semantic range we see throughout Scripture.
For example, asah is used for appointing someone to a role (2 Sam 7:11; 1 Kings 12:31; Neh 7:2), for preparing something already existing (Gen 18:7; Ex 30:25), for covenantal designation (Ex 12:48; Deut 26:19), and for God assigning status or function (1 Sam 12:6; Deut 8:5). In none of these cases does asah mean “manufacture a physical object.” It means appoint, prepare, commission, or assign purpose. That’s exactly what’s happening on Day 4, I believe.
And remember the cultural context: the Israelites obviously knew the sun controlled seasons and agricultural cycles. What they didn’t have was a worldview free from the sun‑moon worship of Egypt and Mesopotamia. So on Day 4 Moses is making a theological point: ‘No, the sun and moon are not gods. They don’t rule you. God made them for a purpose—to mark days, seasons, and years.’ In other words, the sun answers to God, not the other way around. Day 4 is functional and polemical, not a description of the sun popping into existence."
John, I just want to share a video. It’s less than 10 minutes long. By a Hebrew scholar I think it would help shed light on some of the circumstances here:
A lot of confusion on this topic stems from the first 3 verses of the Bible. But knowing that there are traditions that involve pre existing matter, I think simplifies the discussion. And he talks about the significance of “bara” and “asah” in this video and in the full recording as well.
John, the sun was doing on Days 1–3 exactly what it does today, shining while the earth rotates, producing alternating periods of light and darkness. Nothing in the text suggests a physical change in the sun itself.
Day 4 is not about altering the sun; it’s about assigning its human‑facing role: marking seasons, days, and years.
In other words, on Day 4 Moses is telling Israel, “God made the sun for these purposes, so don’t worship it.” It’s not that the sun finally gained a purpose on Day 4; it’s that its purpose was declared to the Israelites.
Think of it this way: if your wife bakes cookies in the morning, and in the afternoon she says, “These cookies are for the kids,” the cookies didn’t change. They were sitting there the whole time. What changed was the declared purpose, not the material object.
Genesis distinguishes between existence (1:1) and function (Day 4). You’re demanding a material change the text never claims.
I agree with Adrian’s functional reading, but I’d phrase it differently: the sun already had its role from the moment God made it — Day 4 is simply when Moses tells Israel what that role is. The sun was doing its job long before Day 4; the narrative is presenting its purpose, not assigning it for the first time
Yes “And God said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.” And it was so. 10 God called the dry ground “land,” and the gathered waters he called “seas.” And God saw that it was good.” there is no mention of anything being created nor made. Only God action on the waters. Now I don’t assume the water are moved to one place. Meaning the one place could be the seas/oceans depending upon ones point of view
