When were the luminaries created?

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.

Do you come to that conclusion partly on the basis of v. 1? Or, do you think, instead, that that conclusion can be reached without v. 1? In other words, how do you yourself view v. 1 in this?

Is not v. 1 the single most foundational statement in all Scripture? If it is, then should it not have anything to say as to how to interpret all subsequent verses? Or, what, to you, does v. 1 mean? How would you paraphrase v. 1?

So, also, is v. 1 a title? Or, instead, is v. 1 the narrative opening? How does the conclusion regarding the luminaries effect the interpretation of v. 1? Why should it? Or,...should it? Is v. 1 to be reinterpreted retroactive to v. 14-18? Or, instead, are vs. 14-18 to be understood as being deeply subordinate to v. 1?

The reflection of all Biblical Theology in Genesis 1:1 is found only in the Hebrew. For one thing, unlike the English translations, the Hebrew word order of v. 1 suggests action and anticipation, not an aloof description of mere state:

In the beginning created...

For, a mere descriptive state would allow that v. 1 does not merely serve as 'summary introduction' (or 'introductory encapsulation', or summary title), but actually and simply is such a thing.

But, to prove, absolutely, that v. 1 is simply a 'summary introduction', one would have to absolutely preclude its functioning as a narrative opening. The converse is not even logically possible, for if it is the narrative opening, then it automatically is allowed to serve also as Proper Title, even as Adam, by analogy, serves as proper Title Human for the whole Human Race. Like an automobile tire used for a tire swing, a particular serviceability of a thing is not necessarily identical to that thing's own proper or primary purpose. But, unlike a tire, none of the services and purposes of Genesis 1 wears out.

Some who think v. 1 best serves as a mere summary title reason to this in order to exegetically preclude the Gap theory. But, since when does precluding an interpretation that one considers to be in error determine how one ought to interpret a given verse? Moreover, not only is the service of v. 1 as a title not the most foundational value of v. 1, this 'title' view makes a hash of v. 2, and renders the 'light' of v. 3 as the first thing that God wants us to know that He created. This, despite that God is a Living Creator of creaturely life, and of such life's natural supports such as the Earth and its ecology.

Then there is the idea that 'the' primary purpose of v. 1 is partly polemical. But this is like saying that the way in which '2+2=4' is a fact unto itself is partly that of its being a polemic against such things as financial fraud. In other words, the idea that Genesis 1:1 is just as foundationally polemical as it is true is like saying that the most foundationally informative statement about a proper reality is one that is partly contrived, and this contrivance a mere contingency against some already-existing error.

As for just how deeply Genesis 1:1 is the foundational anticipatory model, consider its value to the universal self-evidence of life-affirming, Divine Design:

In the Hebrew, but not in the English, the first phrase of Genesis 1:1 self-evidently is anticipatory. Specifically, it anticipates both the subject and the object. Thus it anticipates a kind of mutually affirming relationship between the subject and the object. In fact, it is that specific kind of relationship that exactly reflects the Truth of the Gospel: 'God first loved us, so we love Him.' The Gospel is not either itself a polemic nor based on a polemic. It is, and is based upon, nothing other than the originatively foundational greatness and goodness of God.

And that goodness and greatness is a particular seven-fold Cosmology of Anticipation for

(I) water based life,
(II) the Earth's cosmically unique role in the support of that life, and
(III) a Biblically compatible kind of human physical and metaphysical cosmological virtue.

Specifically, for:

1. the general cosmos and the special Earth (v. 1).

2. The Earth, as its own general subject, implying that which we all intuit is most valuable about the Earth unto itself in all the cosmos: its abiding maximal abundance of open liquid water.

3. that water and its special relation to the Sun's light, hence the water cycle;

4. The water cycle and its special beneficiary and member, biology;

5. biology and its special category, animal biology (plant/animal/mineral = animal);

6. Animal biology and its special category, human;

7. The man and his wife (Genesis 2:21-23)

First, this is not a poll, a quiz, or a simply-put True/False test. It is an inquiry, and even an argument. I do not so much care what you think as why you think it.

So, second:

Do you come to your conclusion partly on the basis of v. 1? Or, do you think, instead, that that conclusion can be reached without v. 1? In other words, how do you yourself view v. 1 in this?...

It is what Scripture states in Genesis 1.

And God said, “Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to distinguish between the day and the night, and let them be signs to mark the seasons and days and years. And let them serve as lights in the expanse of the sky to shine upon the earth.” And it was so. God made two great lights: the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night. And He made the stars as well. God set these lights in the expanse of the sky to shine upon the earth, to preside over the day and the night, and to separate the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.

hmmmm.... You have not interacted with any points I made. Imagine if Jesus made complex points to the Pharisees regarding the Law. All that the Pharisees would have had to do was simply tell Jesus what the Law said, and then tell him that Law did not say any of complexity.

The common instructions to a child trying to learn to ride a bike is simply 'pedal hard' and 'steer'. But the actual basic dynamics of riding a bike---so that it does not fall over---are a bit more complicated, or else a bit more simple, than those instructions. A bike with no pedal crank cannot be pedaled, but it nevertheless can be ridden well. And a push scooter is just a bike with a very low-to-the-ground tipping point, allowing the novice bike-rider to more easily ride it than a 'normal' size bike. The basic dynamic does involve some steering, but the steering can be accomplished in smooth terrain without even holding the handle bars.

As a five-year old, I tried to simply follow the common instructions for riding a bike, no more, no less. I kept falling over. A few years later, my parents got me a push scooter. Even as I could ride the scooter, I was completely nonplussed in seeing kinds ride a 'bike'. I could not begin to see how they did it with natural forces. So I became convinced they were using telekinetic ievitational forces to keep the bikes from falling over.

Please, please, please, tell me of the exact hermeneutics you actually are using on Genesis 1:1-13 by which you find nothing odd about the fact that, according to your interpretation of v. 14-18, the luminaries were not created until Day Four.

I ask you again: What do you make of v. 1 in relation to this? Does it change how you would otherwise interpret v. 1? Say you did not yet know of what the Day Four portion of the account said. In that case, how would you think of what vs. 1-13 says?

Does not vs. 10-13, in its own terms, have a natural normal accessibility? It seems to me you are allowing vs. 14-18 to be the exception to that. Specifically, that you are implicitly invoking a neoPlatonic reductionism regarding God's sovereignty, by essentially saying:

'God can do anything that's bizarre or backwards to Nature, so long as it's logically possible; Therefore, of a given passage, given any exegetical impression that that passage teaches that God did something of the sort, that must be the correct exegesis of that passage.'

In short, my real question is, Is Genesis 1

(a), unintelligently 'plain',

or, instead,

(b) naturally plain?

It seems you are allowing both, per neoPlatonic reductionism regarding God's sovereignty.

But, if the account itself involves both (a) and (b), then on what basis can we ever determine what any of the account really means, especially the more ambiguous parts. You are aware, I presume, that, among Calendar Day creationists, there is a very wide range of interpretations of some or all of the first eight verses. Those such as Henry Morris think vs. 1-3 constitutes explicit information on cosmic physics. And, according to Morris, liquid water is involved prior to when God puts physical energy into the 'cosmic' equation.

In order for Genesis 1 to be the most blessed possible for humans, it cannot include any 'creationary' factoids, such as 'cosmic physics'. For, to claim that it does is, in effect, to 'define it downward' to meet merely a 'good-enough-for-government-work' set of apologetics values, and this for rather secular, modern-centric, and frankly physics-snobbish motives. Given that atheism and paganism are defined as a rejection of the universal self evidence of Divine Design (Romans 1:20), the 'cosmic physics' hermeneutic accomplishes nothing so much as to define the debate on origins as a race, and then to think to be winning this race by ever only keeping even with the opponents' refusal to get anywhere within a million miles of the finish line.

In more Biblically relevant terms, such a hermeneutics plays 'metaphysical chess' as if this game is won by taking points. Only, the reality of God's Truth is like a chess game in which the only way to win is for one's own King to be sacrificed for each lowly pawn.

So consider why it is that Genesis 1 involves some ambiguity. That ambiguity is not there to allow its meaning to be obscure. Much less is that ambiguity an effort, on the parts of the account's author, to be sure that many of us twist its meaning due to many of its terms' equivocal nature. The ambiguity is simply a 'side effect' of its addressing us 1) on a universally known topic 2) in a powerfully brief, and natural values-centered, way.

The topic is so naturally evident to us that the author lets that be the main guide to our interpreting it. And it is forwardly-building flow of information. And it is touched only with whatever emphases that serve its topic, including even sequences of mention.

So it is that Genesis 1 reflects the nature of our own everyday simple sets of statements on a single natural valuable topic. To think otherwise of any part of the account is to admit that it either (a) is a flawed effort at plain communication or (b) is a less or more esoteric body of...whatever.

Is this some sort of Illuminati thread?

I know it... It's like... Lumi-whats????

Some sort of space alien?

You and me both, bro.

It appears to be the case. I offer this visual evidence.

Sooooooo sorry 'bout dat. I feel so dunce now.

I always thought luminaries was dem little paper baggies wit candles in um.

That was my understanding as well.

Oh no!!!

The Lumi are coming to take us all away!!

Is it a girl or a boy then????

It could very well be an it.

Ummmm... because it makes the little baggies glow???

".... ho-ho hee-hee ha-haaa.
To the funny farm,
Where life is beautiful
All the time."

Poor thingy (or lack thereof).

please define 'luminaries'

There are those that say that size doesn't matter.