INTRODUCTION
The thread, 'Genesis 1 and 2 ~ Creation', is a broad topic, and I am psychologically-cognitively unable to keep track of the parts of that thread that relate directly to the question of 'when were the luminaries created according to Genesis 1?' So I've begun the present thread as properly a subtopic of that thread, but that it has its own title on the 'Biblical Discussion Forum' section of CC.
I presume that that thread, 'Genesis 1 and 2 ~ Creation', begins essentially with the questions of whether (a) Genesis 1 and 2 ought to be taken literally and (b) if so, are they the truth regarding origins? Regarding the present thread, I wish it to be limited to posts that affirm both (a) and (b). But I am not confident that that wish is particularly practical for a community such as CC.
In any case, here's me hoping that we can keep the present thread limited to addressing the question, 'According to a Biblical Hebrew-based version of a literal Calendar Day reading of Genesis 1, when were the luminaries created? More specifically, regardless of special considerations of God's creative freedom and power, what does the account, according to this reading, teach as to when the luminaries were created?
I here offer a two-part bit as to my own thoughts on that:
PART ONE
In the CMI online article, Deism and divine revelation: Why do we need special revelation? (https://creation.com/deism-and-divine-revelation), by Shaun Doyle, a strong case is made against the tenets of deism, all of which deny Special Revelation, and thus elevate to essentially divine status the human capacities for reason regarding Nature. The article, I believe, succeeds in disproving those tenets, and in showing that the Christian canon regarding the Gospel is Special Revelation that deism cannot attain.
In other words, I believe that that article covers the 'philosophical distance' that deism cannot.
Nevertheless, does covering that distance equate to covering all possible intermediate exegetical and hermeneutical ground? The answer, I think, is no. For, one may be saved while also being deeply misguided as to what constitutes one or more normally self-evident natural realities, whether (I) of Scriptural exegesis and hermeneutics, or of (II) the empirical and inner subjective-objective realms.
An example of (II) is that one can be a true Christian while believing the Earth is flat rather than a ball. The present thread concerns a case of (I).
PART TWO
Does covering the full philosophical distance gives us warrant for an interpretation of Genesis 1 according to which God created some things in a radically unexpected sequence? I fear that it is the human Fallen condition that, partly in face of skeptics of the account, drives us Calendar Day creationists to hold too tightly to that interpretation. Specifically, the typical advocacy of that interpretation of those particular parts of the account seems to hold that that interpretation is a natural part of, and even foundational for, Gospel Truth.
That interpretation---let us call it the Odd Sequence interpretation, or the OS---fails to allow for the natural exegetical and hermeneutical effect of the first thirteen verses. Namely, that effect is one that does not remotely suggest to the normal-and-rightful human expectations that, in that first part of the narrative, the luminaries are not created in v. 1. So the OS, despite its advocates' holding that the first thirteen verses are Inspired, opt for interpreting those verses on the basis of a narratively subordinate section of the narrative (vs. 14-18). This treats the narrative exactly backwards to what is normal.
In other words, staunch advocacy of the OS, despite holding the vs. 1-13 are the Inspired First Thirteen Verses, essentially reinterpet those verses according to a presumptively simplistic view of vs. 14-18, namely a view that makes 14-18 the exception to the account's otherwise universally normal-natural accessibility. And that exception itself, despite this accessibilty, is one that abides mainly or only a neoPlatonic reductionism regarding God's sovereignty.
In short, the OS treats Genesis 1 not as a universally accessibly-communicative cosmogony, but rather, as a less or more arbitrary Fairy Tale that God contrived, and that He opted, for 'His own purposes', to make the reality of origins.
More to the point, the OS is, in effect, saying that the first thirteen verses are not exegetically nor hermeneutically transparent in terms of the 'light', the 'darkness' and the luminaries, so that any transparency thereto is achievable only upon having arrived at vs. 14-18. In other words, the OS, in effect, says that prior to, or short of, the Day Four portion of the account, (i) the account's own concerns regarding the 'light', the 'darkness', and the luminaries is hermeneutically and exegetically inaccessible or obscure, and (ii) that the account's authorship intended this.
The thread, 'Genesis 1 and 2 ~ Creation', is a broad topic, and I am psychologically-cognitively unable to keep track of the parts of that thread that relate directly to the question of 'when were the luminaries created according to Genesis 1?' So I've begun the present thread as properly a subtopic of that thread, but that it has its own title on the 'Biblical Discussion Forum' section of CC.
I presume that that thread, 'Genesis 1 and 2 ~ Creation', begins essentially with the questions of whether (a) Genesis 1 and 2 ought to be taken literally and (b) if so, are they the truth regarding origins? Regarding the present thread, I wish it to be limited to posts that affirm both (a) and (b). But I am not confident that that wish is particularly practical for a community such as CC.
In any case, here's me hoping that we can keep the present thread limited to addressing the question, 'According to a Biblical Hebrew-based version of a literal Calendar Day reading of Genesis 1, when were the luminaries created? More specifically, regardless of special considerations of God's creative freedom and power, what does the account, according to this reading, teach as to when the luminaries were created?
I here offer a two-part bit as to my own thoughts on that:
PART ONE
In the CMI online article, Deism and divine revelation: Why do we need special revelation? (https://creation.com/deism-and-divine-revelation), by Shaun Doyle, a strong case is made against the tenets of deism, all of which deny Special Revelation, and thus elevate to essentially divine status the human capacities for reason regarding Nature. The article, I believe, succeeds in disproving those tenets, and in showing that the Christian canon regarding the Gospel is Special Revelation that deism cannot attain.
In other words, I believe that that article covers the 'philosophical distance' that deism cannot.
Nevertheless, does covering that distance equate to covering all possible intermediate exegetical and hermeneutical ground? The answer, I think, is no. For, one may be saved while also being deeply misguided as to what constitutes one or more normally self-evident natural realities, whether (I) of Scriptural exegesis and hermeneutics, or of (II) the empirical and inner subjective-objective realms.
An example of (II) is that one can be a true Christian while believing the Earth is flat rather than a ball. The present thread concerns a case of (I).
PART TWO
Does covering the full philosophical distance gives us warrant for an interpretation of Genesis 1 according to which God created some things in a radically unexpected sequence? I fear that it is the human Fallen condition that, partly in face of skeptics of the account, drives us Calendar Day creationists to hold too tightly to that interpretation. Specifically, the typical advocacy of that interpretation of those particular parts of the account seems to hold that that interpretation is a natural part of, and even foundational for, Gospel Truth.
That interpretation---let us call it the Odd Sequence interpretation, or the OS---fails to allow for the natural exegetical and hermeneutical effect of the first thirteen verses. Namely, that effect is one that does not remotely suggest to the normal-and-rightful human expectations that, in that first part of the narrative, the luminaries are not created in v. 1. So the OS, despite its advocates' holding that the first thirteen verses are Inspired, opt for interpreting those verses on the basis of a narratively subordinate section of the narrative (vs. 14-18). This treats the narrative exactly backwards to what is normal.
In other words, staunch advocacy of the OS, despite holding the vs. 1-13 are the Inspired First Thirteen Verses, essentially reinterpet those verses according to a presumptively simplistic view of vs. 14-18, namely a view that makes 14-18 the exception to the account's otherwise universally normal-natural accessibility. And that exception itself, despite this accessibilty, is one that abides mainly or only a neoPlatonic reductionism regarding God's sovereignty.
In short, the OS treats Genesis 1 not as a universally accessibly-communicative cosmogony, but rather, as a less or more arbitrary Fairy Tale that God contrived, and that He opted, for 'His own purposes', to make the reality of origins.
More to the point, the OS is, in effect, saying that the first thirteen verses are not exegetically nor hermeneutically transparent in terms of the 'light', the 'darkness' and the luminaries, so that any transparency thereto is achievable only upon having arrived at vs. 14-18. In other words, the OS, in effect, says that prior to, or short of, the Day Four portion of the account, (i) the account's own concerns regarding the 'light', the 'darkness', and the luminaries is hermeneutically and exegetically inaccessible or obscure, and (ii) that the account's authorship intended this.