Starlight NOT the Light on Day One

Doug Sumowski

Podcaster and Author at Www.dtesh.com (2005–present)Dec 30

How was light created on the first day if the sun wasn't created until the fourth day?

Because the sun is not the ONLY source of light. Other suns/stars give off light too. And it may have taken till day 4 for the ozone layer to form so one on earth's surface could perceive the source of day 1 light as a result of plants in day 3 making the earth more oxygenated.

Also, many early Church fathers, like Augustine, didn't look at Genesis 1 as a literal scientific textbook of creation.

See, Augustine, “On the Literal Interpretation of Genesis: An Unfinished Book”, The Fathers of the Church: A New Translation Vol. 84. Translated by Roland J. Teske, SJ., ., (The Catholic University of America Press, Washington, D.C., 1991), 158, for more info.

Michael Jones

December 30

The Genesis myths are not written with any scientific logic in mind.

Doug Sumowski

December 30

That is exactly my point when I said: Also, many early Church fathers, like Augustine, didn't look at Genesis 1 as a literal scientific textbook of creation.

Comprehension… you need to read for comprehensoin.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

December 31

St. Augustine didn’t know of any textbooks that were strictly literal only and gave no room for metaphors.

No one has said Genesis 1 is a science textbook, but St. Augustine and I both hold it is historically accurate. In his case with the proviso that three of the terms have a different meaning than expected (day, evening, morning).

Doug Sumowski

December 31

Did you read what I wrote or just assume that I meant something I never said?

No one who replied may have said that Genesis q was a textbook, but the person asking the original question, “how could light exist on day 1 when the sun didn't until day 4” obviously did think it was. So you didn't parse my answer correctly to know what I was referring to.

Also, I did point out that

#1 our sun is not the only source of light in the universe. So day 1 light source “could” be the other suns/stars of the universe.

#2 day 4 God said let two great luminaries be in the sky, which could mean that they are to be seen there since the same wording for dividing light from darkness from day one is poetically used. Or in other words, let the source of day 1 light be seen because the ozone layer is created by day 3 plant life. Not they were created on day 4.

Also, I would add because you may not be aware of other posts like this that I commented on, that the word day is not only used in the 24 hour sense in the creation accounts.

Gen 1:3 uses day to mean daytime, he called the light Day and the darkness Night…

Gen 2:4 in the day when God created …the entire creation account is a “day” here like when an old man says, “back in my day…” so the 24 hour motif is incorrect just understanding the contextual use.

Yes Augustine did think words like day, evening and morning were used in a different literary context here because of the style or genre of the text and those 2 alternatives for how the word day is used. You have no disagreement from me.

So stop assuming what I did not say and realize what I was answering before you say something.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

December 31

// the person asking the original question, “how could light exist on day 1 when the sun didn't until day 4” obviously did think it was. //

Not the least. He was presuming we take it as history and assuming (rightly) that history if actual has to get along according to the actual ultimate laws of the universe.

// So day 1 light source “could” be the other suns/stars of the universe. //

Not if they too were created on day IV.

And your #2, I had missed or I would have contradicted that one.

St. Augustine most definitely did not think light from a not yet visible sun or from stars created before it, was coming in the first three days. See book I.

// Yes Augustine did think words like day, evening and morning were used in a different literary context here because of the style or genre of the text and those 2 alternatives for how the word day is used. //

My point is, in book V and VI, he is arguing hos ONLY these three are to be taken other than the usual way. Not bc of genre, but because of the nature of the case - in his case, his assumption God obviously created everything in one single moment (and he dedicates parts of books V and VI to even this out with the otherwise literal interpretation of the account).

Doug Sumowski

December 31

No, read the question: How was light created on the first day if the sun wasn't created until the fourth day?

There is nothing about how we take history in THAT question.

It clearly asks how light was created without the sun…

Obviously if you cannot understand that you lack reading comprehension skills for you are changing: the question to mean something it was not asking.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

January 1

Yes, and he accurately takes the historical sense of Genesis 1 as implying precisely THAT light was created without the sun as well as without other heavenly bodies.

My point is your solution is a cop-out that glosses over part of the history of Genesis 1.

Doug Sumowski

January 1

Genesis 1 is NOT history.

What I said was not a cop out <<< nice attack on my character since you couldn't refute WHAT I said.

My “solution” was merely pointing out that

#1 the sun is not the ONLY light source, so light could in some sense exist BEFORE day 4 four THAT reason along.

#2 the use of the word day in common English use, as is an old man saying, “back in my day” and Gen 1:3 “he called the light Day and the darkness he called Night” refutes the notion that Genesis 1 was a scientific or as you term it historical record of creation… because the use of the Hebrew word yom is not a fixed period of time, like 24 hours.

#3 early Church Fathers, like Augustine, didn't view it as historical or science. St. Augustine had his own “cop out” that disagrees with YOUR points. Should you ever read his City of God to find out.

And #4 the literary style of Genesis 1 is not historical but poetic. It is not science or factual in it's presentation. So YOUR premise is wrong as well as the original questioner.

So. Yeah. Nice chit chat

#1

"the sun is not the ONLY light source, so light could in some sense exist BEFORE day 4 four THAT reason along."

Hans-Georg Lundahl

January 1

#1 not if as you say the other light sources are such as Genesis 1 also describes as created on day IV

Doug Sumowski

January 1

#1 the text of Genesis does not say that “the stars also” were created or made on day 4, only that with the sun and the moon, the stars were also made.

Genesis 1:16 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.

You assume that he made them on day 4 because that is when they were to “be lights in the vault of the sky” but since they were … “to separate the day from the night” (Genesis 1:14) and that was something God already did in Genesis 1:4 (God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness) … a “literal” reading would have to assume they existed on day 1, but were not seen.

Scientifically, light could have existed on earth with a cloud covering like the one on the planet Venus, prior to the ozone layer being the result of plant life on day 3, which would make Day 4 a parenthetical explanation of Day 1 when “God … separated the light from the darkness” (v4) that lights in the vault of the sky were “to separate light from darkness” in v14 and 18.

So no you are incorrectly assuming that the “sun and moon and stars” were the product of Day 4. Or even hinted at by the author in how he presented the events of Genesis 1.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

January 3

# 1 Is a really short one. Your Genesis 1:16 is a free translation. Douay Rheims has And God made two great lights: a greater light to rule the day; and a lesser light to rule the night: and the stars. I just verified that Hebrew also adds on “and the stars” - meaning, all the adverbials attached to the two great lights and all the verbal phrases apply equally to the stars. Both fix stars and planets, by the way.

Scientifically, light could have existed on earth with a cloud covering like the one on the planet Venus, prior to the ozone layer being the result of plant life on day 3, which would make Day 4 a parenthetical explanation of Day 1 when “God … separated the light from the darkness” (v4) that lights in the vault of the sky were “to separate light from darkness” in v14 and 18

Theologically, and philosophically, the solution given by St. Augustine in book I of De Genesi ad literam libri XII is flawless. It is that God provided light directly by divine fiat for the time up to the creation of the sun and it circled earth just as the sun would do later on.

#2

"the use of the word day in common English use, as is an old man saying, “back in my day” and Gen 1:3 “he called the light Day and the darkness he called Night” refutes the notion that Genesis 1 was a scientific or as you term it historical record of creation… because the use of the Hebrew word yom is not a fixed period of time, like 24 hours."

Hans-Georg Lundahl

January 1

#2 the most basic uses of yom are either “6 am to 6 pm” or “6 pm to next 6 pm” and context in Genesis 1 argues mostly “6 am to next 6 am (at Jerusalem meridian)

Doug Sumowski

January 1

#2 the usage of “yom” is not fixed to any definite period of time as you present. It is not only 12 hours or even 24 hours.

All you have to do is look at Genesis 2:4 to see that.

Genesis 2:4 4 These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created. In the day (Hebrew word “yom”) that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens

Notice that the entire creation account, the second one to be precise, takes place in 1 day “In the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens”

Just like when an old man would say, “Back in MY DAY we walked uphill to school in the snow both ways.”

Day does not always mean a fixed period of time.

Daytime or day lasts longer in the Summer than it does in the winter. “Night” or nighttime is a period of time when it is dark outside. “Day” or daytime is merely the period of time when there is light outside.

Hence, Genesis 1:16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night.”

Can the sunshine be longer than 6 am to 6 pm? Or the moonshine, ONLY between 6 pm and 6 am?

We may assign those timeframes to such 12 hour periods, but the sun can rise at 5:45 and set at 7:45 depending on the time of the year and where you are on the earth.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

January 3

# 2 That either yom or day can be used in not strictly literal ways, in figures of speech is per se unproblematic. This doesn’t mean that this liberty could extend into days that are numbered and that have evenings or mornings. The solution offered but ultimately not insisted on as obliging in books V and VI is somewhat of a stretch. The six day account is a vision Moses had on Mt. Sinai. I’m fine with that. It was mediated by God’s angels. No problem. But he then says what happened was a one moment creation, the angels however were given to see it in six consecutive moments of perception - the days, and each moment of perception had two moments : the evening knowledge of what was created, when the angels saw the things in themselves, and then the morning knowledge when they looked up from the things and saw them in God. But this stretch actually does allow for a strict, if unusual, motivation why the days have numbers and evenings and mornings. Your general observation hasn’t.

#3

"early Church Fathers, like Augustine, didn't view it as historical or science. St. Augustine had his own “cop out” that disagrees with YOUR points. Should you ever read his City of God to find out."

Hans-Georg Lundahl

January 1

#3 St. Augustine very much viewed it as being historical, and before giving what you could consider his “cop-out” parallel to yours in books V and VI gave a good explanation leaving creation of other luminaries also to day IV - and after he gives his one moment creation, he gets back to saying that “six literal days is anyway good enough for beginners, it’s not subtle, but there is nothing really wrong with it”

Doug Sumowski

January 1

#3 Concerning St. Augustine

What Augustine means by “literal” is quite different from many modern uses of this term. To quote the great theologian Inigo Montoya: “you keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”

When Augustine described his later works on Genesis as “literal,” he intended to distinguish them from the allegorical approach of his earlier two-volume work on Genesis against the Manichees. These works had included such ideas as taking the days of Genesis 1 as 7 epochs of redemptive-historical history, and 7 stages of the Christian life.

With his turn to a “literal” commentary, Augustine wants to move from such allegorical uses of the text to its historical signification. Thus, in his Retractions, he qualifies the word “literal” in the title The Literal Commentary on Genesis as meaning “not the allegorical meanings of the text, but the proper assessment of what actually happened.” This adjustment of interpretative strategy did not entail a rejection of allegorical exegesis wholesale.

Hence, for Augustine, the term “literal” was concerned with historical referentiality, not with the particular literary genre or style in which that history is recounted. in his literal commentaries, one can find affirmations of the validity of allegorical interpretation, as well as repetitions of specific allegorical interpretations contained in his earlier works.

Thus, for Augustine, the term “literal” was concerned with historical referentiality, not with the particular literary genre or style in which that history is recounted. For instance, Augustine did not employ the term “literal” to exclude the possibility of language that is metaphorical, figurative, pictorial, dramatic, stylized, or poetical. This is consistent with how the word “literal” is often used today.”

Augustine’s literal commentaries display this kind of sensitivity. It is not uncommon, in fact, to find him pausing to worry whether an interpretation he has just advanced is not, in fact, an “altogether absurd and literal-minded, fleshly train of thought.” Though he is writing a “literal” commentary, Augustine appears worried to avoid “literalistic” interpretations.

So what specifically does Augustine think Genesis 1 “literally” means? In his finished literal commentary, Augustine emphasizes the ineffability of the creative act, and our difficulty in accessing its meaning: “it is indeed an arduous and extremely difficult task for us to get through to what the writer meant with these six days, however, concentrated our attention and lively our minds.”

Ultimately, Augustine affirms that ordinary 24-hours days “are not at all like [the days of Genesis 1], but very, very different.” In Augustine’s view, God creates all things simultaneously, and the 7-day construct in Genesis 1 is an accommodation in which “the Scriptural style comes down to the level of little ones and adjusts itself to their capacity.” Specifically, he affirms that the ordering of Genesis is not according to temporal sequence but rather the ordering of angelic knowledge. Thus, Augustine not only distinguished the days of Genesis 1 from ordinary 24-hour days, he also distinguished God’s initial creative act from his subsequent activity in creation:

When we reflect upon the first establishment of creatures in the works of God from which he rested on the seventh day, we should not think either of those days as being like these ones governed by the sun, nor of that working as resembling the way God now works in time; but we should reflect rather upon the work from which times began, the work of making all things at once, simultaneously.

Although Augustine was alert to broader philosophical issues in his context, his interpretation of Genesis 1 was ultimately rooted in certain exegetical concerns. For example, Augustine wrestled with the nature of the light in days 1-3 before the creation of the luminaries on day 4. Noting the phrase “let them be for signs and for seasons, and for days and years” in Genesis 1:14, Augustine asked, “who can fail to see how problematic is their implication that times began on the fourth day, as though the preceding three days could have passed without time?” This problem greatly vexed Augustine. Ultimately, he identified the pre-solar light of day 1 with the spiritual/angelic creation. Angelology is a significant complicating feature of Augustine’s.

Augustine was alert to broader philosophical issues in his context, his interpretation of Genesis 1 was ultimately rooted in certain exegetical concerns. interpretation of Genesis 1—for instance, he correlated the morning/evening structure of Genesis 1, and the phrases “let there be” and “thus it was,” with different modes of angelic knowledge. He also assigned angels a significant role in the oversight of creation; at one point, for instance, he ponders whether the stars are “enspirited” by angels or merely “directed” by them.

Another textual difficulty that weighed on Augustine was the challenge of relating Genesis 2:4-6 to the creation week of Genesis, particularly the different usage of the word “day” in 2:4 and the apparent dischronology introduced in 2:5 (“when no shrub had yet appeared”). He devotes the entirety of Book 5 of his literal commentary to how Genesis 2:4-6 “with all their problems, confirm the opinion that creation was the work of one day.” Anticipating the charge that his notion of instantaneous creation draws too heavily on Sirach 18:1 in the Old Latin version (“he who remains for eternity created all things at once”), Augustine appeals to the textual proximity of these verses: “now we get evidence in support, not from another book of holy Scripture that God created all things simultaneously, but from next-door neighbor’s testimony on the page following this whole matter.” Augustine also drew attention to God’s rest on the Sabbath after the completion of creation in Genesis 2:1-3. Insisting that “God did not delight in some kind of time period of rest after hard toil,” he argued that this language must be taken analogically.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

January 3

# 3 With his turn to a “literal” commentary, Augustine wants to move from such allegorical uses of the text to its historical signification. Thus, in his Retractions, he qualifies the word “literal” in the title The Literal Commentary on Genesis as meaning “not the allegorical meanings of the text, but the proper assessment of what actually happened.” This adjustment of interpretative strategy did not entail a rejection of allegorical exegesis wholesale.

I have no problem with that.

Thus, for Augustine, the term “literal” was concerned with historical referentiality, not with the particular literary genre or style in which that history is recounted. For instance, Augustine did not employ the term “literal” to exclude the possibility of language that is metaphorical, figurative, pictorial, dramatic, stylized, or poetical. This is consistent with how the word “literal” is often used today.”

I have no real problem with that either. As long as you stick to what it means. It means, you don’t have to have a specific literary style to have history.

But this doesn’t mean a piece of the account can be taken out of it and treated as an extended metaphor and as therefore not having - what were you saying? - historical referentiality. This means Genesis 1 is history.

And #4

"the literary style of Genesis 1 is not historical but poetic. It is not science or factual in it's presentation. So YOUR premise is wrong as well as the original questioner."

Hans-Georg Lundahl

January 1

And #4 Hebraists disagree with you. Hebrew poetry and Hebrew narrative have different characteristics and the ones of Genesis 1 are those of narrative. NOT poetry.

Doug Sumowski

January 1

#4 I would love to know what “Hebraists disagree with you. Hebrew poetry and Hebrew narrative”.

That many scholars agree that the Genesis 1 text uses "high style" and those artistic devices common to Hebrew poetry--especially catachresis, anaphora, and parallelism. This is the reason it is considered not a historical work but a different literary genre. One more closely used in the ancient world is called a myth. Or as Jesus used a parable.

Genesis 1 is written in prose rather than in poetic lines--no meter. It does not use anaphora and parallelism the same way as that first section.

Genesis 1 can be compared with the Enuma Elish, as they have many similarities and it is determined by a great number of scholars that Genesis 1 is more of a Priestly account of creation to refute the Enuma Elish that the captives in Babylonian captivity would have known. (Reading the Old Testament by Lawrence Boadt, Paulist Press, page 93, copyright 2012, ISBN 978–1–61643–670–4)

Anything else?

Answered twice

# 4 and # 4 b

Hans-Georg Lundahl

January 3

# 4 That many scholars agree that the Genesis 1 text uses "high style" and those artistic devices common to Hebrew poetry--especially catachresis, anaphora, and parallelism.

Do you get the text divided into lines that are divided into half lines each having three full words? Do you get the parallelism usually between the two half lines and sometimes instead between two lines, or the second halfline extended in next line? No.

Therefore it is not poetry.

You can say that the opening words of the Ghettysburg adress are very high style, but nevertheless what Abraham Lincoln said of the US Constitution is a historical statement, not a poetic metaphor.

Anaphora means repetition. Precisely as with parallelism, this is between half lines or lines as previously stated.

Catachresis, I’d like to see an example given and commented on.

In other words, but also because the Church has always taken it so, Genesis 1:1 is history, either of the first 1 moment (St. Augustine’s view) or of the first 168 hours (the majority view) up to Genesis 2:4 where the Genesis 1 account ends.

# 4 b

“Genesis 1 can be compared with the Enuma Elish, as they have many similarities and it is determined by a great number of scholars that Genesis 1 is more of a Priestly account of creation to refute the Enuma Elish that the captives in Babylonian captivity would have known. (Reading the Old Testament by Lawrence Boadt, Paulist Press, page 93, copyright 2012, ISBN 978–1–61643–670–4)”

Hans-Georg Lundahl

7.I.2022

Obviously, this origin story for Genesis 1 is not the least shared by either St. Augustine, nor by Hebrew tradition. It is clearly not the tradition of the Catholic Church.

The idea was near condemned in 1905.

CIRCA CITATIONES IMPLICITAS IN S. SCRIPTURA CONTENTAS
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/pcb_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19050213_cit-implicitas_lt.html

Here is my comment on it:

Creation vs. Evolution : When Are Implicit Citations Licit?
https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2017/07/when-are-implicit-citations-licit.html

If you take that idea as your starting point for your “Augustinian” view of Genesis 1, it’s not Augustinian, it is modern sham science.

Enuma Elish is no proof and furnishes no proof that Genesis 1 was written in refutation of it, but if it was, why not by Moses, if Enuma Elish is old enough so he could have read it while Prince of Egypt?

Either way, Genesis 1 is God telling Moses (through angels, which is where St. Augustine finds plausability for his idea) how creation happened.