"Bereshit..."

[scapularkid8]

In the Beginning…we know the rest . One of God’s first acts was to create Light over the void that was the Earth…if the Light came first how does it work that “evening came and morning followed” a couple of times before the sun and moon were created?? Was the Light abstract? I’m confused

 

[LilyM]

In the Beginning…we know the rest . One of God’s first acts was to create Light over the void that was the Earth…if the Light came first how does it work that “evening came and morning followed” a couple of times before the sun and moon were created?? Was the Light abstract? I’m confused

Nu-uh. Genesis 1. God creates light, separates light from darkness, calls the light ‘day’ and the darkness ‘night’. In that order.

Note that the sun isn’t a requirement for light to exist (hence table lamps) nor the moon a requirement for darkness (hence blinds). So ‘day’ is simply a period of light and ‘night’ a period of darkness.

 

[Crumpy]

The series “The Universe” on the History Channel discussed the Big Bang.

First, there was no bang. There was nothing to make noise like a bang or anything, for that matter, to observe noise.

Second, they estimate it took 400,000 years for the matter to get organized, but then there was light. – not star light, just light. Look up black body radiation in a science encyclopedia, or on that new thing, what is it? the “inter-” something.

Third, re-read Genesis 1 verse 1. Genesis is a theological book, not a science book. It’s about God. It doesn’t prove faith, it assumes it. It starts assuming you have faith. You won’t understand it if you don’t have faith. If you got past verse 1 of chapter 1, you’ve got it made. Have faith.

Legend or tradition attributes the first five books of the Bible to Moses. God’s command to write things down is even recorded there, but his death is also recorded there. Others must have had a hand in the writing of those books.

Let’s go a step farther or maybe two steps farther in your question.

As I’ve read, the prevailing Egyptian creation myth was that the universe was created this way: An egg with wings was flying around and then hatched into the universe.

Not only does Genesis radically depart from the pagan myths about the origin of the universe, but it records the Jewish belief in one God as the creator. It depicts the sun as a created object, not the god that the Egyptians made of it. Likewise, the animals that the Egyptians worshipped.

Rather than just assume that Genesis is just a bundle of existing middle eastern creation and flood stories, perhaps consider that the writer(s) of Genesis simply used the familiar existing stories and wove them into a single story, from the Jewish point of view.

Again, not a science book, not a book of myths, either. Keep in mind that it is a theology book of its day. I’m no expert or scholar of any stripe, but this is what I have figured out from my short lifetime of study and meditation on the subject.

Maybe one more step in unpacking Genesis.

Chapter One is a revelation of a God who gives commands, e.g. let there be light. What happens? There IS light. etc.

God creates mankind, a man and a woman, and gives them a command. what happens next? They don’t obey. BANG. Now, that is the big bang of Genesis, and in fact of the whole bible. What does God do next? (Read the book.)

Maybe one more tidbit.

The climax of the seven-day account of creation is a day of rest. Well, specifically, it is a day of worship. That is also a command, right from the beginning. Why did God create mankind – men and women ? TO WORSHIP HIM.

Can’t stop here.

What reason? that is, why? did God intervene when Isreal was in slavery in Egypt? To give them FREEDOM so that they could WORSHIP the one, true God. (Again, read the book, excellent details.) See also Galatians chap 5 (the whole chapter) about freedom.

Look at the whole story. You’re tripping up on the details.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Yes, you cannot read Genesis literally. It was written by primitive people who had no real understanding of science or astronomy. Read Genesis for its spiritual truths and not science and you’ll be fine.

 

[Cranch]

In the Beginning…we know the rest . One of God’s first acts was to create Light over the void that was the Earth…if the Light came first how does it work that “evening came and morning followed” a couple of times before the sun and moon were created?? Was the Light abstract? I’m confused

God created on the first day, light, which being moved from east to west, by its rising and setting, made morning and evening. But on the fourth day he ordered and distributed this light, and made the sun, moon, and stars.

—Bishop Richard Challoner

The sun was made on the fourth day, and placed in the firmament to distinguish the seasons, &c.; but the particles of fire were created on the first day, and by their, or the earth’s motion, served to discriminate day from the preceding night, or darkness, which was *upon the face of the deep.
*

—Fr. George Leo Haydock

Perhaps this body of light might resemble the bright cloud which accompanied the Israelites, Exodus xiv. 19, or the three first days might have a kind of imperfect sun, or be like one of our cloudy days. Nothing can be defined with certainty respecting the nature of this primeval light.

—Dom Augustin Calmet
​

​

​

 

[Nickkname]

In the Beginning…we know the rest . One of God’s first acts was to create Light over the void that was the Earth…if the Light came first how does it work that “evening came and morning followed” a couple of times before the sun and moon were created?? Was the Light abstract? I’m confused

To understand biblical verses, you must realize that the Bible is interpreted metaphocially, Christologically, morally, and literally.

Metaphoically: God drawing light out of darkness shows that God draws a greater good out of an evil, and this is why he permits evil - to draw a greater good out of it.

Christologically: Christ is “the Light of the world”, and “the people in darkness have seen a great light”. Out of the greatest evil imaginable - the killing of Christ, God’s only Son - the Lord drew the greatest good imaginable - the Redemption of mankind. Furthermore, at the end of time, when the world is steeped in darkness, Christ will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead.

Morally: God wants us to be bearers of light in a world of darkness. We must shine with the radiance of Jesus Christ. We live in the world but must not live of the world - we must not be worldly, we must rather live of God, we must live Godly lives.

Literally: God created all that is, seen and unseen. He created the universe and the Kingdom of heaven and all the animals, the angels, and man, both his body and his soul. He is the Creator of all good things, and he is the Supreme Good.

The reason that the story of Creation is divided into days is to show the sacredness of the Sabbath, the last day of the week: “Since on the seventh day God was finished with the work he had been doing, he rested on the seventh day from all the work he had undertaken. So God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all the work he had done in creation.”

 

[Seamus_Sully]

In the Beginning…we know the rest . One of God’s first acts was to create Light over the void that was the Earth…if the Light came first how does it work that “evening came and morning followed” a couple of times before the sun and moon were created?? Was the Light abstract? I’m confused

I am only giving my opinion, I am not trying to disagree with any person.

I am not a scholar, but only a student. Please take that into consideration when reading my opinion. THANKS!

I forget the chapter and verse, but the Book of Revelation gives a definition of light, God’s Glory. Also, in the first chapter of Genesis God calls the light day.

The Bible’s definitions are important. Light is called day. And light is God’s glory.

Also, Jesus is the Beginning or Bereshit. Jesus, that is, the Incarnation of the Second Person of the Holy Trinity.

In God’s Infinite Beauty and Eternal Love

 

[COPLAND_3]

I have put together a commentary on Genesis based on the Summa Theologica of St. Thomas Aquinas, it is reader friendly. I have taken his writings on it and put them into a verse by verse commentary, here is the link litteralchristianlibrary.wetpaint.com/page/Commentary+on+Creation+According+to+St.+Thomas+Aquinas

Plus, here are more great commentaries from St. Ambrose, Chrysostom, Ephram the Syrian, Tertullian, etc etc. This will allow you to go as deep as you desire. litteralchristianlibrary.wetpaint.com/page/Bible+Commentaries-Fathers+and+Doctors

As for the answer to your question, I have always gone with the answer from St. Augustine that he gave in the City of God, and that it was the creation of angels in verse 1:3, here is his quote

Where Scripture speaks of the world’s creation, it is not plainly said whether or when the angels were created; but if mention of them is made, it is implicitly under the name of “light,” of which presently. “When the stars were made, the angels praised me with a loud voice.” Job 38:7 The angels therefore existed before the stars; and the stars were made the fourth day. There is no question, then, that if the angels are included in the works of God during these six days, they are that light which was called “Day.”
For when God said, “Let there be light, and there was light,” if we are justified in understanding in this light the creation of the angels, then certainly they were created partakers of the eternal light which is the unchangeable Wisdom of God, by which all things were made, and whom we call the only-begotten Son of God; so that they, being illumined by the Light that created them, might themselves become light and be called “Day,” in participation of that unchangeable Light and Day which is the Word of God, by whom both themselves and all else were made. “The true Light, which lights every man that comes into the world,” John 1:9 —this Light lights also every pure angel, that he may be light not in himself, but in God; from whom if an angel turn away, he becomes impure, as are all those who are called unclean spirits, and are no longer light in the Lord, but darkness in themselves, being deprived of the participation of Light eternal. For evil has no positive nature; but the loss of good has received the name “evil.”
To me it does not seem incongruous with the working of God, if we understand that the angels were created when that first light was made, and that a separation was made between the holy and the unclean angels, when, as is said, “God divided the light from the darkness; and God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night.” For He alone could make this discrimination, who was able also before they fell, to foreknow that they would fall, and that, being deprived of the light of truth, they would abide in the darkness of pride. St. Paul tells us, 1 Thess. 5:5 For you are all sons of light and sons of the day; we are not of the night or of darkness. St. Peter and St. Jude said that certain angels sinned and were wandering stars for whom the nether gloom of darkness has been reserved for ever.(2 Peter 2:4; Jude 1:13)

 

[NotWorthy]

I’m sorry but this has to be said.

When I read the subject of the thread, I could have sworn the body of the original post would simply read,

“In the woods”?

Think about it.

 

[jmcrae]

I’m sorry but this has to be said.

When I read the subject of the thread, I could have sworn the body of the original post would simply read,

“In the woods”?

Think about it.

That’s where my admittedly dirty mind was heading, too …

Thanks for the thread; I learned a new word, today.

 

[NotWorthy]

Even if one were to remain holding on to the Fundamentalist view that the world was created in 6 days, “Wouldn’t a God who could make something out of nothing, simply create light and darkness to follow the days and nights, until He created the sun and moon”?

 

[Nickkname]

No, because (a) Genesis isn’t meant to be taken as a scientifc nor actual reading of the work of creation, (b) light and darkness require a physical source of light - and the Sun had not been created yet according to the creation story, and c) Fundamentalist intrepretation of the Scriptures is erranous.

 

[NotWorthy]

No, because (a) Genesis isn’t meant to be taken as a scientifc nor actual reading of the work of creation, (b) light and darkness require a physical source of light - and the Sun had not been created yet according to the creation story, and c) Fundamentalist intrepretation of the Scriptures is erranous.

Bear in mind that I believe in the “extended version” of creation, but the Church Herself says that taking the creation account literally is a valid position as well, right? IN other words, do the Church teach that a fundamentalist interpretation of Genesis’ creation account is false?

And regarding your point b), I don’t think God is constrained to limiting the source of light to the sun prior to the creation of the sun.

 

[Nickkname]

Bear in mind that I believe in the “extended version” of creation, but the Church Herself says that taking the creation account literally is a valid position as well, right?

And regarding your point b), I don’t think God is constrained to limiting the source of light to the sun prior to the creation of the sun.

Yes, literally as in ‘God literally created all that is, seen and unseen. He is the Creator of all good things.’

True, the sun is not the only celestial body in the heavens, but bear in mind, “day” and “night” can only happen on the Earth, a la the Earth’s orbit around the sun. (Of course the other planets have days and nights too, but I’m making reference to the story of creation). So unless there was a sun before the sun, there could be no days or nights, nor dawns or evenings.

 

[NotWorthy]

Yes, literally as in ‘God literally created all that is, seen and unseen. He is the Creator of all good things.’

True, the sun is not the only celestial body in the heavens, but bear in mind, “day” and “night” can only happen on the Earth, a la the Earth’s orbit around the sun. (Of course the other planets have days and nights too, but I’m making reference to the story of creation). So unless there was a sun before the sun, there could be no days or nights, nor dawns or evenings.

So the Church condemns the 6 day creation account? I didn’t think this was true, but I’m not sure.

 

[Nickkname]

So the Church condemns the 6 day creation account? I didn’t think this was true, but I’m not sure.

Here is what the Church teaches about the six days of creation. My emphasis is in bold.

*God himself created the visible world in all its richness, diversity and order. Scripture presents the work of the Creator symbolically as a succession of six days of divine “work”, concluded by the “rest” of the seventh day. On the subject of creation, the sacred text teaches the truths revealed by God for our salvation, permitting us to “recognize the inner nature, the value and the ordering of the whole of creation to the praise of God.” *(Catechism of the Catholic Church, 337)

Source: vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P1A.HTM

 

[Nickkname]

So you see, it’s symbolic. Just as I said in my first post, which I repeat here:

The reason that the story of Creation is divided into days is to show the sacredness of the Sabbath, the last day of the week: “Since on the seventh day God was finished with the work he had been doing, he rested on the seventh day from all the work he had undertaken. So God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all the work he had done in creation.”

 

[Cranch]

…light and darkness require a physical source of light - and the Sun had not been created yet according to the creation story

So unless there was a sun before the sun, there could be no days or nights, nor dawns or evenings.

And God said, Let there be light. The first word of God created the nature of light; it made darkness vanish, dispelled gloom, illuminated the world, and gave to all beings at the same time a sweet and gracious aspect. The heavens, until then enveloped in darkness, appeared with that beauty which they still present to our eyes.

“And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, and to divide the day from the night.” Heaven and earth were the first; after them was created light; the day had been distinguished from the night, then had appeared the firmament and the dry element. The water had been gathered into the reservoir assigned to it, the earth displayed its productions, it had caused many kinds of herbs to germinate and it was adorned with all kinds of plants. However, the sun and the moon did not yet exist, in order that those who live in ignorance of God may not consider the sun as the origin and the father of light, or as the maker of all that grows out of the earth. That is why there was a fourth day, and then God said: “Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven.”

—from Hexaemeron, Homilies II & VI
St. Basil the Great, Doctor of the Church​

 

[Nickkname]

And God said, Let there be light. The first word of God created the nature of light; it made darkness vanish, dispelled gloom, illuminated the world, and gave to all beings at the same time a sweet and gracious aspect. The heavens, until then enveloped in darkness, appeared with that beauty which they still present to our eyes.

“And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, and to divide the day from the night.” Heaven and earth were the first; after them was created light; the day had been distinguished from the night, then had appeared the firmament and the dry element. The water had been gathered into the reservoir assigned to it, the earth displayed its productions, it had caused many kinds of herbs to germinate and it was adorned with all kinds of plants. However, the sun and the moon did not yet exist, in order that those who live in ignorance of God may not consider the sun as the origin and the father of light, or as the maker of all that grows out of the earth. That is why there was a fourth day, and then God said: “Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven.”

—from Hexaemeron, Homilies II & VI
St. Basil the Great, Doctor of the Church​

I will not argue with a Doctor of the Church, but I will repeat what the Church teaches: the story of creation is not to be taken in the literal sense that God did this on this day; its symbolic and shows that all of creation is ordered to the praise of God. From the Catechism:

*God himself created the visible world in all its richness, diversity and order. Scripture presents the work of the Creator symbolically as a succession of six days of divine “work”, concluded by the “rest” of the seventh day. On the subject of creation, the sacred text teaches the truths revealed by God for our salvation, permitting us to “recognize the inner nature, the value and the ordering of the whole of creation to the praise of God.” *(Catechism of the Catholic Church, 337)

Source: vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P1A.HTM

 

[NotWorthy]

So you see, it’s symbolic. Just as I said in my first post, which I repeat here:

The reason that the story of Creation is divided into days is to show the sacredness of the Sabbath, the last day of the week: “Since on the seventh day God was finished with the work he had been doing, he rested on the seventh day from all the work he had undertaken. So God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all the work he had done in creation.”

Nickkname, I just want to remind you, I don’t think the Church **condemns **the six-day belief. I agree that this is symbolic, but the Church does not correct those that cling to the fundamentalist thoughts on a literal creation account in Genesis.

Here’s how it was answered in Ask the Apologist: