Why we take it literally.

[disciple]

Originally Posted by tdidymas

There is an obvious premise in your argument here - "if the creation account in ch. 1 is figurative, then Adam cannot be a literal person." Or else, "if Adam was a literal person, then Gen. 1 MUST be interpreted literally." I don't agree with your premise. There was time between the beginning and the creation of man, which your proof texts do not address.

There are some things about the Gen 1 account of a literal 6-day creation that contradict things about known science today, such as (not an exhaustive list):
1. There were 3 evening/morning days (24 hr periods - literal days) before the sun, moon, and stars were created
2. The light on day 1-3 had to have a different source than the sun, moon, and stars, which source does not exist today
3. Day and night were not governed by lights until the 4th day - so how do you get evening/morning the 1st 3 days

Then you have to somehow reconcile the YEC 6000 year old universe with evidences of long ages (100's of 1000's of years), such as observations of supernovas and ice core samples which accurately and mathematically put events in space and on earth at > 100,000 years. So then there are only a few possible conclusions we can arrive at, e.g. these two:

1. Gen. 1 is a scientific, historical, chronological account, and the scientific evidence we see is simply an illusion; then we have to take Gen. 1 literally with blind faith. (the YEC stand)
2. Gen. 1 is a figurative account of creation which has no scientific basis (its value is religious, not scientific). Therefore the "6 days" is about creation order, not about science. Then the scientific evidences about long ages of the universe and of earth can be accepted, as well as the archeological evidence of the existence of man which appears to be about 6000 years.

I happen to think that #2 is more reasonable.
TD

Hi TD,

Thanks for your input. I see no reason not to interpert the creation account as literal and as I said in my OP if we don't, then we also have to dismiss what Luke,
Paul and Jesus said pertaining to Adam and creation. Placing long ages of time between "the beginning" and the creation of Adam presents the problem of having to redefine the “very good” of Genesis 1:31 because God would have to place Adam, as a very late arrival, in a world that was not "very good" at all. Adam would have been walking on the graveyard of literally billions and billions of dead creatures, including the dinosaurs, over which he had never exercised dominion. God would have placed him in a world that would be the domain of a fallen and wicked being, Satan. This is contrary to the clear teaching of Scripture.
Most gap theory advocates claim that the original creation of Genesis 1:1 existed for millions of years but that God in His Word leaves us no clear evidence about its existence. This means that we know nothing about the order of the events of that creation; nothing about its features; and nothing about its history, which would have cons***uted over 99.9% of the earth’s history, since the time from Genesis 1:2 to present day is chronologically calculated to only about 6,000 years. It is then left up to the evolutionists to fill these gaps in our knowledge. It seems more reasonable to trust that a powerful, soverign God would give us a correct account of His creation than to trust in the theories of men no matter how brillant they appear to be.

[alanmolstad]

Originally Posted by disciple

Hi TD,

Thanks for your input. I see no reason not to interpert the creation account as literal and as I said in my OP if we don't, then we also have to dismiss what Luke,
Paul and Jesus said pertaining to Adam and creation. Placing long ages of time between "the beginning" and the creation of Adam presents the problem of having to redefine the “very good” of Genesis 1:31 because God would have to place Adam, as a very late arrival, in a world that was not "very good" at all. Adam would have been walking on the graveyard of literally billions and billions of dead creatures, including the dinosaurs, over which he had never exercised dominion. God would have placed him in a world that would be the domain of a fallen and wicked being, Satan. This is contrary to the clear teaching of Scripture.
Most gap theory advocates claim that the original creation of Genesis 1:1 existed for millions of years but that God in His Word leaves us no clear evidence about its existence. This means that we know nothing about the order of the events of that creation; nothing about its features; and nothing about its history, which would have cons***uted over 99.9% of the earth’s history, since the time from Genesis 1:2 to present day is chronologically calculated to only about 6,000 years. It is then left up to the evolutionists to fill these gaps in our knowledge. It seems more reasonable to trust that a powerful, soverign God would give us a correct account of His creation than to trust in the theories of men no matter how brillant they appear to be.

I totally disagree with about everything you have posted above....from the start I think you are adding things to the text and building one false argument on top of another....

[disciple]

Originally Posted by alanmolstad

I totally disagree with about everything you have posted above....from the start I think you are adding things to the text and building one false argument on top of another....

Hi Alan,

I think it's fine that you disagree. I don't think I have added anything to the text, I have given my opinion and what I believe about the text. There is also a difference between a false argument and one you just don't agree with. What do you consider false about my statements?

[alanmolstad]

Originally Posted by disciple

..... What do you consider false about my statements?

thats a very good subject for my next post....I will go over that post and add my own comments where I think things you have stated simply do not find support in the Bible....

[alanmolstad]

so while you re-read the Genesis 1 verse1 and attempt to answer my question, Im going to tell you a story.


a long time ago I was In a cl*** taught by a very well known Young earth Creationist....

His name was Ken Ham.

He taught my Sunday morning adult Bible cl*** for around 8 weeks at our church in Seattle.
He is (I think) the most well known and well respected YEC writer and researcher in the world.

Well....needless to say after the 8-week cl*** was over a lot of the people in my cl*** had a lot of issuesand questions about Genesis and what we really should believe.
There were a few voices that did stand up and started to give a bit more bible-backed view of the Genesis story, and I am proud to say I was among them that entered into this work of providing answers to people who had doubts.

However I was challenged by a lot of the cl*** to as I began to openly disagree with what Ken Ham had been teaching.

One of the first places where I disagreed was on the question, "What did God make first?"
This was the real heart of the problem I had with Ken Ham as he had all kinds of ways to prove that "light" was the first thing God made....and as Ken also taught that the sun was not made until the 4th day, Ken Ham had then needed to invent a whole pile of ways to have "light" before there was any 'source" for that light.

Once the door was open to adding invented ideas , the pile of extra-Biblical ideas that were used as "foundation" for other even more wild ideas grew and grew, the pile-on of one false YEC idea on top of another false YEC idea just never stopped!



This is the main thing a person has to deal with when debating a believer in Ken Ham's version of creationism.
The fact that the Young Earther will pile-on one invented idea on top of another....and use this as their foundation to add even more false ideas to the growing pile or error.

So I had to pin people down on the question as to "What does the Bible say God made first in the beginning?"
Over and over I would ask them...."What does the Bible say God made first "In the beginning?"



How did this question do?
Well, the truth is, that this one simple question actually did a very good *** at helping many Bible students see the real need to allow the Bible to say what it means...
It also showed the cl*** the members of the cl*** who could disregard easily what they saw clearly the Bible was teaching as they pushed their own YEC agenda.


The question helped people see that there are some people that have their own ideas what they think the "Bible should have said"....and so they struggle to twist the Bible in an effort to make it more correctly line-up with YEC teachings....






Just so everyone knows where I stand on YEC teachings....I believe Young Earth Creationism is an invented idea of a bunch of false Bible teachers, and it fools many Bible students that unfortunately never bother to open their Bibles and check out what it being said.

[alanmolstad]

Because i do not understand how to break up your post into nice little sections...(any advice on how to do that would be helpfull) I will just post your whole comment in regular type, and then slide my own comments into the mix in what i hope will be BOLD type...

Originally Posted by disciple

Hi TD,

Thanks for your input. I see no reason not to interpret the creation account as literal
I agree, I always read the text in Genesis as it it truly means just what it says....



and as I said in my OP if we don't, then we also have to dismiss what Luke,
Paul and Jesus said pertaining to Adam and creation.

Placing long ages of time between "the beginning" and the creation of Adam presents the problem of having to redefine the “very good” of Genesis 1:31 because God would have to place Adam, as a very late arrival, in a world that was not "very good" at all.
"not good"???
Thats just your opinion...there is not a single word to support this idea you have here...and because you base a lot of other things on this opinion you are building a whole foundation on nothing but your private views...






Adam would have been walking on the graveyard of literally billions and billions of dead creatures, including the dinosaurs, over which he had never exercised dominion. God would have placed him in a world that would be the domain of a fallen and wicked being, Satan.
Again this is just your personal opinion....not a word in the Bible supports this view



This is contrary to the clear teaching of Scripture.
Most gap theory advocates claim that the original creation of Genesis 1:1 existed for millions of years but that God in His Word leaves us no clear evidence about its existence. This means that we know nothing about the order of the events of that creation; nothing about its features; and nothing about its history, which would have cons***uted over 99.9% of the earth’s history, since the time from Genesis 1:2 to present day is chronologically calculated to only about 6,000 years.
Again, this is your personal opinion.....



It is then left up to the evolutionists to fill these gaps in our knowledge. It seems more reasonable to trust that a powerful, soverign God would give us a correct account of His creation than to trust in the theories of men no matter how brillant they appear to be.

Now lets move on from all the things you have posted that simply are not found in the Bible, and go back to the simple words of the text and allow the text to tell us whats going on and when.

First, in Genesis 1 verse 1 , what does the Bible say God made first "In the beginning"?????

[disciple]

Originally Posted by alanmolstad

Because i do not understand how to break up your post into nice little sections...(any advice on how to do that would be helpfull) I will just post your whole comment in regular type, and then slide my own comments into the mix in what i hope will be BOLD type...






Now lets move on from all the things you have posted that simply are not found in the Bible, and go back to the simple words of the text and allow the text to tell us whats going on and when.

First, in Genesis 1 verse 1 , what does the Bible say God made first "In the beginning"?????

Ok Alan, I don't mind listening to what someone has to say. In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

[alanmolstad]

Originally Posted by disciple

Ok Alan, I don't mind listening to what someone has to say. In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

CORRECT!

First, I have to tell you that answering that question, or rather allowing yourself the will to answer that simple question puts this conversation a lot farther down the road.

The truth is, I run into a lot of YEC believers that simply refuse to answer that opening question because they don't like where the answer found in the Text takes them in the future conversation they can clearly see approaching them.



and now back to our topic....

[alanmolstad]

so according to the text, the first thing God made "In the beginning" was ________"the Heavens"

Now I know a lot of people have found many different ways to define the term "heavens", and Im not going to stop now and try to prove that only one meaning fits the context here.....(thats ****s a lot of time pointlessly)

All I want to tell you is that among the many, many ways to understand the term "heavens" that one of the ways is that it is a word that helps us describe all the "stuff" in the sky......all the stars....all the worlds.....all the billions and billions of other galaxies.....all the gas, all the space dust....all the black-holes.

In fact, the term "heavens" is about the only single correct word that can be used to describe all of the creation of such things.

So, the use of the word "heavens" is not only correct when considering the poem-like nature of the genesis story.....its highly scientifically accurate too!



God made the "heavens" first.........so he made the stars.......so he made our star.....he made the sun.
yes, its true.....right here at Genesis 1:1 we are reading about God creating all the needed 'light source"we will ever have on the earth.


There is no need to invent a "sourceless light"

There is no need to be embarr***ed with a light is talked about before a source is made to cause that light.

No need to think that the "light" of Genesis was in any way , shape, or form different than the normal light we see all around us today...





The Bible lists the source first thing right off the bat......







So that issue is taken off the table

[alanmolstad]

But.......lets get back to the text and deal with the first question that now can pop up as we read....

The question is about the 'darkness"
If the Bible has told us in unmistakable terms that the stars including our own sun are created....then why is the earth said to be in "darkness"?


The answer is found in another part of the Bible that happens to also be talking about this very same time in earth's history.....
*** 38
https://www.biblegateway.com/p***age...38&version=NIV

[alanmolstad]

check *** 38 verse 4 to confirm that we are dealing with the same moment in time as is dealt with in genesis...


Then look at this -
"Who shut up the sea behind doors
when it burst forth from the womb,
9 when I made the clouds its garment
and wrapped it in thick darkness'


So in *** we read about the seas, and them being in "darkness".....but we also are told the reason the *** seas and the Genesis "waters / the deep" are in darkness too.....

"clouds"

[disciple]

Gotta go Alan, more tomorrow.

[alanmolstad]

Originally Posted by disciple

Gotta go Alan, more tomorrow.

dang,,,,,I did not know yu were watching my posts in real time!!!!

Im screwing around doing laundry and stuff to get ready for a trip...I should have posted a lot more

[alanmolstad]

(I will try to make this up to you by posting now a bunch of things so that we have plenty of areas to talk about at your return.)

Another thing we learn here at *** 38 isall about the "waters" that the Spirit of God is busy "hovering" over in Genesis.....we learn where they came from....

[alanmolstad]

The seas are said to have "burst forth from the womb,".........

and according to science, very true too....

[alanmolstad]

Ok....time to do a little review so we can get a grasp of what we have looked at so far....


In Genesis the first thing the bible tells us that God made was the "heavens"....
and the term "heavens" can be talking about all the stars, and our sun is just a star too....so that means that right at the start of the genesis story we have the real "source" for all the light talked about later in the story....

The earth is said to be covered in water....and in *** we learned where this water came from...

Now many people have tried to twist into the story that the "waters"and "the deep" was not talking about the seas.....but there is no need to do such things....The "waters" and "the deep" can be just normal ways to talk about the seas of the earth.....

and the reason why the sea was in darkness is told to us as being just normal but very 'thick" clouds........




So there is nothing very weird or odd about the opening of the genesis story at all!
If you just stick to the text you dont need to invent all the stuff that the YEC rely on to make the story read they way they want.....

[alanmolstad]

Now let us also review where we have seen the Young Earth teachers go off the deep end on the issues we have looked at so far...

What happens is that because the YE teacher holds that the sun was not made until the 4th day, this has caused them to need to invent an answer that at least 'sounds' correct....even if there is nothing really in the Bible to support it at all.

Thus because the YE Teacher has to drag the suns creation to the 4th day, they came up with all kinds of ways to light the earth for the "Let There Be Light" verse, that does not need the sun to be around.....


This is also kinda like what the Young earth teacher will do when they need to deal with the question of "the waters" and 'the deep" that appear in the story before they believe any rain has fell on the earth yet.....

They invent answers....


they need to invent all kinds of answers, that pop in and out of favor depending on what YEC book you are reading...
In one book a YEC writer might push the "sourceless light" idea, but in a later book a different YEC writer might dismiss that idea as silly.....



I just think that if you stick close to the story as written you dont need to do any of the stuff......
The story reads just fine as is...and in complete agreement with evolution and science by the way......

[alanmolstad]

"he made the stars also."



So if Im correct, and if the bible does teach that god made the stars at genesis 1:1...then why does the Bible later say that God made the stars on the 4th day?




The answer is- Thats not actually what the text says on the 4th day.


But people read it there, How can i say its not there when you can open the Bible and see it there?

The answer is - go look a bit closer at the text there.
Here is a link to the text in question. http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Genesis-1-16/

How does the verse read?....
it reads "And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.



So the way the text reads, Im totally wrong correct?

except i noticed something odd about that Bible verse....whats with the italic words "he made"?


and what does it mean again when you read a word in italic in your Bible?
The answer is that the Bible will put a word in italic when its simply added by the editor and does not appear in any translation or old m****cript.

So the fact is, the people that push the idea that god made the stars on only the 4th day, base their idea on what is clearly an addition to the text by the editor....and ...well......thats not really a good idea to base a foundational idea on such paper-thin proof.......

[alanmolstad]

so..if you take out the "he made" addition to the verse, and just stick to the parts you know are meant to be there...does the sentence work?.....
The answer is YES!......it works just fine......

"And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night the stars also"

All it says is that the lesser light will rule the night and the stars also.........its no big deal...Thats after all what the lesser light still 'rules" or overpowers the darkness of the night and the sky filled with stars......

[tdidymas]

Originally Posted by alanmolstad

so..if you take out the "he made" addition to the verse, and just stick to the parts you know are meant to be there...does the sentence work?.....
The answer is YES!......it works just fine......

"And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night the stars also"

All it says is that the lesser light will rule the night and the stars also.........its no big deal...Thats after all what the lesser light still 'rules" or overpowers the darkness of the night and the sky filled with stars......

This is a strong argument until you look at the whole context:

14 Then God said, “Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night, and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years; 15 and let them be for lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth”; and it was so. 16 God made the two great lights, the greater light to govern the day, and the lesser light to govern the night; [He made] the stars also. 17 God placed them in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth, 18 and to govern the day and the night, and to separate the light from the darkness; and God saw that it was good. 19 There was evening and there was morning, a fourth day.

This is the context of the 4th day, and it clearly states "God placed them in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth" - if God PLACED them (or SET), then it means that God placed them there on the 4th day. If you claim that clouds were removed on that day to expose what was there already, then you are changing the text.
TD

[alanmolstad]

although times have changed, let me tell you a little story that shows how the two lights were "set".

I grew up in a small town and before Christmas at the main store on main street they would hang a curtain in the main store front window and coverup what was being prepared to show .
Then on an evening before Christmas they would pull back the covering and people could see for the very first time the things that the store had for sale this year that were new and interesting.

Now, it is true that when they pulled back the covering the things that were sitting in the window were new to the people looking.

But its not like the things just suddenly appeared there in that moment the curtain was pulled aside.
But it was the first moment that people were allowed to see what was behind the curtain.


The two lights are a bit like that in the Genesis story.

The "source" of all the lights talked about in Genesis is introduced early on with the words "In the beginning God created the heavens..."
But we also had a world covered in darkness as we learned in the book of *** that I talked about in the comments before this.

So although we have plenty of source for light, and plenty of the sun's light burning brightly, the thick clouds of the book of *** have cast the earth in "darkness"

The story advances, and we get the "Let there be light" and there is suddenly some light on the earth.
But notice it's not a lot of light.

Yes, if you look at the wordings here at this early part of Genesis all you can see as far as light goes is that there is a noticeable difference between "day" and "night" but not much else.

So we are able to tell the difference between "day"
But what does the word "day" mean?
The answer is: that you have a "day" when the part of the earth you are standing on, (or in this case the part of the earth the Spirit of God is hovering over) turns in the direction of the sun.
Same is true when the bible tells us that due to the thinning clouds we now can see when it is "night"
The reason we have something called a "night" is when the part of the earth we are standing on turns away from the sun.

So everything is in place to have normal days and nights, just like we have today!
We have an earth spinning in its rotation and orbit around the sun.

That is when we have days and nights, today as well as way back in the story of Genesis.

No need to invent weird "days" and weird 'nights" and weird reasons to have them before there was a sun.
The reason we see days and night in Genesis is the same reason we have them today.


In the book of *** we learned about the thick clouds that cast the earth seas in darkness at the time of Genesis, but we also know that in our age we dont see such clouds anymore.

What happened to the clouds?.....
the answer is that they thinned out and slowly allowed more and more of the sun's "Greater light" to be seen on the earth.
This is why the sun's light is talked about in a progressive way on the 4th day.

Notice that the things the greater amount of light show us on the 4th day.
Its a slowly clearing sky.....and finally even the dim light of the stars is able to be seen though the clearly sky.


and on that note, have you noticed that the story of Genesis does not say that the "sun" was made on the 4th day?
Do you know why it does not say that the "sun was made" on the 4th day?....it could not say that!

The sun was already made and burning brightly in the heavens from the beginning.
But on the 4th day that amount of light is talked about.


This is like what is going on right now on other of our sister worlds.
While the inner planets around our sun are not covered in a blanket of thick clouds anymore, we yet still see that on the outer words there still is a covering of thick clouds around worlds like Neptune ( see http://nineplanets.org/neptune.html )

The ground of that planet is likely cast in thick darkness as was the earth at one time too. (as talked about in Genesis)
And because the sun's solar wind has not yet stripped away the thick clouds you continue to have this darkness on the outer worlds.
But if you could slowly strip away the clouds around the planet Neptune what would you see?

The answer is: that at first you would be only able to tell the difference between day and night, as you started to be able to tell when the part you are standing on turned toward the sun and then turned away from the sun.
Later as more of the clouds thinned away you would be able to see the reflected light off of the many moons around Neptune, and also be able to tell when the tilt of the planet gave you different seasons, like winter and your summer.
You would be able to tell when a year on Neptune had happened.

the final thing you would be able to see and inform you that all the thick clouds have all thinned away would be that at night you would be able to see the stars.


Now, the day you are first able to make out the stars you might think that on that same day "god made the stars today"...but that would be wrong.
It might appear to you that the "stars are brand new", but thats not really the case.
the stars are billions of years old, but your being able to see them is brand new.

God has "set" them before you for the first time....

[tdidymas]

Originally Posted by alanmolstad

although times have changed, let me tell you a little story that shows how the two lights were "set".

I grew up in a small town and before Christmas at the main store on main street they would hang a curtain in the main store front window and coverup what was being prepared to show .
Then on an evening before Christmas they would pull back the covering and people could see for the very first time the things that the store had for sale this year that were new and interesting.

Now, it is true that when they pulled back the covering the things that were sitting in the window were new to the people looking.

But its not like the things just suddenly appeared there in that moment the curtain was pulled aside.
But it was the first moment that people were allowed to see what was behind the curtain.


The two lights are a bit like that in the Genesis story.

The "source" of all the lights talked about in Genesis is introduced early on with the words "In the beginning God created the heavens..."
But we also had a world covered in darkness as we learned in the book of *** that I talked about in the comments before this.

So although we have plenty of source for light, and plenty of the sun's light burning brightly, the thick clouds of the book of *** have cast the earth in "darkness"

The story advances, and we get the "Let there be light" and there is suddenly some light on the earth.
But notice it's not a lot of light.

Yes, if you look at the wordings here at this early part of Genesis all you can see as far as light goes is that there is a noticeable difference between "day" and "night" but not much else.

So we are able to tell the difference between "day"
But what does the word "day" mean?
The answer is: that you have a "day" when the part of the earth you are standing on, (or in this case the part of the earth the Spirit of God is hovering over) turns in the direction of the sun.
Same is true when the bible tells us that due to the thinning clouds we now can see when it is "night"
The reason we have something called a "night" is when the part of the earth we are standing on turns away from the sun.

So everything is in place to have normal days and nights, just like we have today!
We have an earth spinning in its rotation and orbit around the sun.

That is when we have days and nights, today as well as way back in the story of Genesis.

No need to invent weird "days" and weird 'nights" and weird reasons to have them before there was a sun.
The reason we see days and night in Genesis is the same reason we have them today.


In the book of *** we learned about the thick clouds that cast the earth seas in darkness at the time of Genesis, but we also know that in our age we dont see such clouds anymore.

What happened to the clouds?.....
the answer is that they thinned out and slowly allowed more and more of the sun's "Greater light" to be seen on the earth.
This is why the sun's light is talked about in a progressive way on the 4th day.

Notice that the things the greater amount of light show us on the 4th day.
Its a slowly clearing sky.....and finally even the dim light of the stars is able to be seen though the clearly sky.


and on that note, have you noticed that the story of Genesis does not say that the "sun" was made on the 4th day?
Do you know why it does not say that the "sun was made" on the 4th day?....it could not say that!

The sun was already made and burning brightly in the heavens from the beginning.
But on the 4th day that amount of light is talked about.


This is like what is going on right now on other of our sister worlds.
While the inner planets around our sun are not covered in a blanket of thick clouds anymore, we yet still see that on the outer words there still is a covering of thick clouds around worlds like Neptune ( see http://nineplanets.org/neptune.html )

The ground of that planet is likely cast in thick darkness as was the earth at one time too. (as talked about in Genesis)
And because the sun's solar wind has not yet stripped away the thick clouds you continue to have this darkness on the outer worlds.
But if you could slowly strip away the clouds around the planet Neptune what would you see?

The answer is: that at first you would be only able to tell the difference between day and night, as you started to be able to tell when the part you are standing on turned toward the sun and then turned away from the sun.
Later as more of the clouds thinned away you would be able to see the reflected light off of the many moons around Neptune, and also be able to tell when the tilt of the planet gave you different seasons, like winter and your summer.
You would be able to tell when a year on Neptune had happened.

the final thing you would be able to see and inform you that all the thick clouds have all thinned away would be that at night you would be able to see the stars.


Now, the day you are first able to make out the stars you might think that on that same day "god made the stars today"...but that would be wrong.
It might appear to you that the "stars are brand new", but thats not really the case.
the stars are billions of years old, but your being able to see them is brand new.

God has "set" them before you for the first time....

Out of its context, this looks like a very convenient theory. However, let's look carefully at what some other of the context actually says:
v. 16 says the 2 great lights were "made", which is the same verb as is used in other days for beasts, plants, etc. This term is equivalent to "created" since: "created" was used in both v. 1 for the heavens and earth, and in v. 21 for all living things in the sea, and BOTH terms were used for man in v. 26-27. Many terms in the scripture are this way, different terms used interchangeably for the same meaning, in fact all languages do this.

Therefore the common-sense conclusion to this is that the "great lights" (i.e. sun and moon) were CREATED on the 4th day, this would be the literal interpretation.

Furthermore, your theory that the cloud receded "slowly" (i.e. like natural processes today, as you describe) would be wrong, since it happened in a single 24-hr period.
TD

[alanmolstad]

the light of the Sun is not the same thing as the Sun itself in the same way the sound of my truck is not the same thing as my truck my truck can be running and if I'm inside the house I can hear it but the moment I step outside I hear the sound of my truck its not appeared and it's not the truck suddenly started up its just at the moment I was able to first. That's the truth that I hurt its the same way with the Sun with printing for billions and billions of years it's just that when the clouds parted and Finn that we were able to see it

[alanmolstad]

I'm at work until I am NOT typing this I'm using my voice translator on my phone so there are some errors I will fix it when I have time hopefully you will be able to tell what I meant to say

[alanmolstad]

I'm going to have to wait before I respond the translator on my phone is not adequate you're not getting exactly what I meant to say