Genesis 1:3-5: The Fall of Satan?

  • Thread starter Thread starter SenorSalsa
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

SenorSalsa

Guest
While I was writing on my blog today(shameless plug for the link in my sig). I came to the thought that these verses are about the fall of Satan. it talks about God separating the Light and the Dark, but God does not create the Sun or Stars until 3 days later, 1:14-19.

Because Good and Evil are often represented by light and dark, I was wondering if that passage has ever been interpreted that way before? I know that people often say that the Bible does not make mention of the fall of Satan, but I think it is quite possible that these verses might hint at its happening
 
While I was writing on my blog today(shameless plug for the link in my sig). I came to the thought that these verses are about the fall of Satan. it talks about God separating the Light and the Dark, but God does not create the Sun or Stars until 3 days later, 1:14-19.

Because Good and Evil are often represented by light and dark, I was wondering if that passage has ever been interpreted that way before? I know that people often say that the Bible does not make mention of the fall of Satan, but I think it is quite possible that these verses might hint at its happening
It is an interesting reflection which you have outlined.
However, I have never come across such.
The angels and the fall of satan can be read in the Book of Revelation.

More accurately, St Augustine in reflecting “Light & Darkness” explains this to the Infiniteness of God and the finite man.

In God there is no day or night; Yesterday, today and the Future are NOW.
**
Man in the finite sense needs Night & Day, that is TIME.
TIME & SPACE are created by God for finite beings like us.**

Hope this helps.
 
It is an interesting reflection which you have outlined.
However, I have never come across such.
The angels and the fall of satan can be read in the Book of Revelation.

More accurately, St Augustine in reflecting “Light & Darkness” explains this to the Infiniteness of God and the finite man.

In God there is no day or night; Yesterday, today and the Future are NOW.
**
Man in the finite sense needs Night & Day, that is TIME.
TIME & SPACE are created by God for finite beings like us.**

Hope this helps.
I’m not quite sure I follow you. So the seperation and light and dark is the creation of time?
 
I trust Dr. Scott Hahn’s teaching is clearer.

“In The Beginning…”
What was God Doing Before He Created?

Let’s consider creation a little more closely now. We’ve considered what in general the six and seven day pattern might refer to, but let’s take a quick look at that phrase, “in the beginning.” It’s one of my favorite passages in the Bible: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.”

Now we could tear that apart and spend I think hours and hours on it, but let me just ask you a question. This is what came to me over and over again when I used to read this: “In the beginning God created.” What was God doing before he created? Did you ever wonder that?

• How many people have ever wondered, "What was God doing with the billions and trillions and quadrillions of years that he had on his hands before he created? Just sitting around, twirling his thumbs, waiting, wondering what it would be like, planning, and so on?

It’s a hard question. Now there are two approaches to answering it. One was taken by a great reformer, a great Protestant reformer, John Calvin said that he was preparing hell for people who ask such impertinent questions. There might be a certain propriety in such a response.

But I prefer what St. Augustine said and many others as well. Augustine, I think might have been trying to be a little bit humorous. Certainly he was trying to be subtle and ironic when he said, “What was God doing before he created?” He answered, “**Nothing. He didn’t have the time.” **

Now you’ve got to think about that for a second. It kind of gives you a charley horse between the ears. What does he mean, “Nothing. He didn’t have the time.” Well, for Augustine, time and space are relative properties for creatures but not the creator.

We speak of God, for instance, as being “omnipresent,” that he is present everywhere. A corollary of that is that God cannot move. Is that because he is just some static, frozen deity? No. In order to move from here to there, you’ve got to be here but not there and then you’ve got to be there and not here. Figure it out. Can God move? No, because where isn’t he? Where could he move to that he isn’t already present? Poor God, stuck in one place, but that one place is every place! So we don’t speak of God as being spaceless, so much as filling space to overflowing. Space can’t contain the infinite glory of God.

Time is the same way. Time in a sense is a succession or duration of moments. As creatures understand time in their own finite existence whatever the conditions may be, a housefly or a human. It doesn’t matter. But time is one of the experiences of finite creatures. Just as God cannot move anywhere in the universe because he is everywhere to begin with, so for God, the past, the present and the future are one, eternal simultaneous moment, one eternal present.

Now, if you understand that, write a dissertation, publish it and make millions because few people can go much further than just to say, “Okay, for God all eternity is his experience and the past, present and future one eternal present.” I mean, we can say it but I don’t think anybody here tonight can really imagine what that’s like. You know, we can say, “Time flies when you have fun and a year can go by like a day or a week can go by like a day, or whatever,” but I mean not to the degree that God experiences time as one simultaneous present moment. He fills time like he fills space.

So what was God doing before he created? Nothing. He didn’t have the time! Time began when God created it. He created out of nothing. He didn’t use a pile of pre-existent matter that he had in the side yard. He created out of nothing. Matter is what he spoke into existence by the powerful word of God.

So likewise, time was created and space and matter. These were the things that God created when he said, “Let there be light” and he pronounced these various “fiats” as we might say in Latin, “Let there be, let there be…” He didn’t roll up his sleeves and get to work and so many hours later it was there. His word went forth and whatever he declared, by declaring it, he did it! That’s the Word of God and that Word became flesh and dwelt among us.

In the New Testament we discover that that Word is not some impersonal utterance; rather that Word is the eternal logos; the eternal Word is the Second Person, the Eternal Son of God, our Savior. So the powerful agency of God at work from the very beginning is none other than Jesus Christ himself, according to John, chapter 1 and Colossians 1, verse 15 from St. Paul’s perspective and from others as well. So we can already recognize the work of our Savior, not just some generic god, but the Blessed Trinity through Jesus Christ and the power of the Holy Spirit is at work building us a home that he will then renovate and reconstitute in the glorious new heavens and the new earth at the end of the ages.
 
While I was writing on my blog today(shameless plug for the link in my sig). I came to the thought that these verses are about the fall of Satan. it talks about God separating the Light and the Dark, but God does not create the Sun or Stars until 3 days later, 1:14-19.

Because Good and Evil are often represented by light and dark, I was wondering if that passage has ever been interpreted that way before? I know that people often say that the Bible does not make mention of the fall of Satan, but I think it is quite possible that these verses might hint at its happening
I have never come across that interpretation.

Looking at the structure of the first chapter of Genesis, a different interpretation is suggested.

Notice that “in the beginning” the earth was “formless and void.” (Gn 1:2)

In the first three days of creation, God structures His creation by separating out elements from each other.

Day one: darkness/light.
Day two: sky/water.
Day 3: land from water.
Thus God gave form to His creation.

In the second three days, God populates His creation by parts.

Day four: moon and stars populate the darkness; sun populates light.
Day five: birds populate the sky; fish populate the water.
Day six: land is populated by animals and, finally, humans.
Thus God filled the void by populating His creation.

This exegesis is not dogmatic, and even if it was in the mind of the author, that does not rule out other meanings being packed in to the text.

But to me this one seems to “fit” better than the one that you presented.

Regards,
Joe
 
I trust Dr. Scott Hahn’s teaching is clearer.

“In The Beginning…”
What was God Doing Before He Created?
lots of words
Ok, so that makes sense in as much as such a concept can. Basically creation of Day and Night is the creation of time, but it then begs the question, what causes the light of Day, and the darkness of Night, if not the Sun, the Moon, and the stars.
 
Ok, so that makes sense in as much as such a concept can. Basically creation of Day and Night is the creation of time, but it then begs the question, what causes the light of Day, and the darkness of Night, if not the Sun, the Moon, and the stars.
It seems as though you are trying to get Genesis to present history according to your own notions of how it should be presented.

I have showed you an explanation of Genesis that arranges the events thematically. You seem to want the events to be arranged strictly chronologically.

Fine… I will give you an answer in that vein. I do not even for a moment think that such a thought was in the mind of the author of Genesis; nor do I think that the Divine Author deliberately arranged Genesis to “teach” what I am about to write. But if it will satisfy your sense of chronology, then I will provide an answer.

According to some theories of cosmogeny, light existed before the sun and moon and stars. The “big bang” released matter and energy, which cooled as the universe expanded. The initial blast and the size of the universe caused the radiation to be more energetic than what we would call visible light, but as things cooled down, wavelengths that we would call visible began to appear. This happened before the primordial universe has been organized into stars and planets. Thus, light first, then sun and moon and stars.

Regards,
Joe
 
While I was writing on my blog today(shameless plug for the link in my sig). I came to the thought that these verses are about the fall of Satan. it talks about God separating the Light and the Dark, but God does not create the Sun or Stars until 3 days later, 1:14-19.

Because Good and Evil are often represented by light and dark, I was wondering if that passage has ever been interpreted that way before? I know that people often say that the Bible does not make mention of the fall of Satan, but I think it is quite possible that these verses might hint at its happening

The kind of representation mentioned in your post is not part of the theology of the compilers of the book - nor is the notion of a “fallen angel”. The “sons of Elohim” in Gen.6.1-4 are the closest thing to fallen angels in Genesis. There are one or two references or possible hints that there is such a being - but “the fall of satan” is a mosaic of post-Biblical legends, Biblical texts, & a handful of allusions - Luke 10.18 refers to it, very briefly. The sort of thing one finds in “Paradise Lost”, or in prayer-cards, is not derived as it stands from an array of Biblical texts about the fall of satan. A lot of angelology & demonology has a rather sketchy foundation in the Bible. For the compilers of much of the OT, Genesis included, it is God Who is (in a sense) the only character. 🙂

The author of Gen. 1 is making the points (among others) that God is the only God, & is alone Almighty - any hint of an enemy power would go some way to undercut this. Besides, other ancient myths make such points explicit - & in the Bible itself, when God fights with the Sea, or with the sea-serpent, or with the monster Rahab, we are told He does.
 
SenorSalsa: maybe someone already mentioned this but the bible does point out the fall of Satan.
Ezekiel 28 starting with verses 12 to 19. The context is the curse on the king of Tyrus but the subject is Satan.
Better yet is Isaias 14 from verses 9 to 19. The context again is a proverb vs. the king of Babylon (a type of Satan) but more specifically v.12 that mentions his name when he was a Cherubin in the mountain of God (His throne) :Lucifer,son of the morning! Put these two verses together and you can see that Satan’s future is very, very, very bleak.
 
Because Good and Evil are often represented by light and dark, I was wondering if that passage has ever been interpreted that way before?
It seems the same idea occurred to St. Augustine. From the Haydock Bible commentary on Genesis 1:4:S. Augustine supposes the fall and punishment of the apostate angels are here insinuated. L. imp. de Gen. H.
 
While I was writing on my blog today(shameless plug for the link in my sig). I came to the thought that these verses are about the fall of Satan. it talks about God separating the Light and the Dark, but God does not create the Sun or Stars until 3 days later, 1:14-19.

Because Good and Evil are often represented by light and dark, I was wondering if that passage has ever been interpreted that way before? I know that people often say that the Bible does not make mention of the fall of Satan, but I think it is quite possible that these verses might hint at its happening
It’s an interesting interpretation of Scripture. However, just take it at face value: light and non-light.
 
It seems the same idea occurred to St. Augustine. From the Haydock Bible commentary on Genesis 1:4:S. Augustine supposes the fall and punishment of the apostate angels are here insinuated. L. imp. de Gen. H.
That’s interesting.
Thank you.
I have not previously come across this interpretation.
 
Notice that “in the beginning” the earth was “formless and void.” (Gn 1:2)

That resonates with what we know about the Universe.

In the first three days of creation, God structures His creation by separating out elements from each other.

Day one: darkness/light.
Day two: sky/water.
Day 3: land from water.
Thus God gave form to His creation.

This resonates with what we know about the Universe.

In the second three days, God populates His creation by parts.

Day four: moon and stars populate the darkness; sun populates light.
Day five: birds populate the sky; fish populate the water.
Day six: land is populated by animals and, finally, humans.
Thus God filled the void by populating His creation.

This does not resonate with either geological or biological data.
 
Peary:
This does not resonate with either geological or biological data.
I’m not sure what you are getting at. I have already stipulated that the author of Genesis is not trying to teach Geology and he is not trying to teach Biology. He is trying to teach primordial history, and even that is being presented in a format which isn’t familiar to most modern readers.

Regards,
Joe

(aside: it is difficult to quote and link back to your message if you put your own comments inside the quote block.)
 
Peary:

I’m not sure what you are getting at. I have already stipulated that the author of Genesis is not trying to teach Geology and he is not trying to teach Biology. He is trying to teach primordial history, and even that is being presented in a format which isn’t familiar to most modern readers.

Regards,
Joe

(aside: it is difficult to quote and link back to your message if you put your own comments inside the quote block.)
**I understand but you seem to be suggesting that what the author is saying is valid, and just because he is teaching primordial history and presenting it in a format which isn’t ‘familiar’ to most modern readers, doesn’t make it less valid. But it does because it shows the lack of understanding he had on how the **earth evolved.
 
I understand but you seem to be suggesting that what the author is saying is valid, and just because he is teaching primordial history and presenting it in a format which isn’t ‘familiar’ to most modern readers, doesn’t make it less valid. But it does because it shows the lack of understanding he had on how the earth evolved.
I wonder if you had a purpose in composing your entire message in boldface, except for the last two words. Are you trying to communicate something particular through the formatting of your text?

As for the substance of your claim:
The author of Genesis is not attempting to reveal the phylogeny of the various creatures. Rather he is teaching that God is the source of all creation, and that He created matter, organized it, and brought all living things to populate it, much as a man might build a home for his family.

It isn’t important that the details don’t match this or that theory (i.e., model) of cosmogeny or phylogeny. Those theories – to the extent that they approach the original sequence – are good. They are the result of our work to increase our knowledge. We are made in the image and likeness of God, who is all-knowing. The more truth we acquire, the more we express that image and likeness.

But in the context of a culture that lacked radio telescopes, electron microscopes, and electrophoresis, we cannot expect to see the results of these technologies expressed.

At the same time, these technologies that allow us to collect data and make inferences about the created world do not directly reveal God, though they can help us to understand the ways in which He worked. But they show nature, not divinity.

The ancient writings, produced in the context of a culture that did not have access to the tools that we do, still show truth.

Regards,
Joe
 
Two weeks ago we had a 79 year old sub priest and he told me that Satan did NOT exist but was a “Made Up” concept by the church to “scare” people into not sinning.:eek:
 
I wonder if you had a purpose in composing your entire message in boldface, except for the last two words. Are you trying to communicate something particular through the formatting of your text?

For about the 40th time already, the boldface helps me see the
words. I have degeneration of the retina. As for the last two words, I have no idea as to why they did not show up in boldface too. If the boldface bothers you, or if my handicap offends you, you are not under any obligation to respond to my postings.

As for the substance of your claim:
The author of Genesis is not attempting to reveal the phylogeny of the various creatures. Rather he is teaching that God is the source of all creation, and that He created matter, organized it, and brought all living things to populate it, much as a man might build a home for his family.

It isn’t important that the details don’t match this or that theory (i.e., model) of cosmogeny or phylogeny. Those theories – to the extent that they approach the original sequence – are good. They are the result of our work to increase our knowledge. We are made in the image and likeness of God, who is all-knowing. The more truth we acquire, the more we express that image and likeness.

I agree with you. And I also contend that the Bible is not a scientific text.
 
While I was writing on my blog today(shameless plug for the link in my sig). I came to the thought that these verses are about the fall of Satan. it talks about God separating the Light and the Dark, but God does not create the Sun or Stars until 3 days later, 1:14-19.

Because Good and Evil are often represented by light and dark, I was wondering if that passage has ever been interpreted that way before? I know that people often say that the Bible does not make mention of the fall of Satan, but I think it is quite possible that these verses might hint at its happening
Hi SenorSalsa,

As a matter of fact St Augustine of Hippo in City of God came up with exactly that same interpretation, although he was not sure if it was necessarily true.

It’s interesting that so few people have heard of this interpretation…St Augustine was very good at picking out these things in scripture and giving interesting symbolic interpretations of…I think he (and you as well) may have been correct, as it does make sense that the creation of the angels should figure somewhere in Genesis, even in symbolic language, and St Augustine said that God separated the good angels from the demons in His foreknowledge of their future sin…

Here is a link to what he wrote where he treats this at some length (And it goes on in the succeeding chapters until chapter 34with other topics thrown in):

ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf102.iv.XI.19.html

(if the link does not work it is Book XI chapters 19-34 in City of God)

God Bless,
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top