Post-Reformation discussions on the uprising Copernican system

Status
Not open for further replies.
Apologia Christou said:
All I have ever come across is, that the light source changed. But of course, this is being read into the text by necessity, since we “know” that the sun gives us the light.
Click to expand...

Okay you’re right, here I meant daylight, both times. Sorry for that. But I think now it is clear what I mean by that, anyways.
 
Logan said:
Not sure why you're replying to me. I have no disagreement.
Click to expand...
Sorry Logan,

I just grabbed the post before the blank one and that was you. Besides, it's not wrong to post a reply to somebody you agree with.

Anyway, please pardon me, I just wanted to say what I wanted to say and I said it. You have a great day.
Ed
 
God first made the light, and then later gathered it into the sources from which we see it. Perhaps He did this so that we would know that He is ultimately the source of all light, and it proceeds from wherever He tells it to. Perhaps it was to keep us from worshipping the sun as the fountain of light and warmth as some heathens do.
The moon shines, and we know it's only a reflection of the sun's light, and yet the Bible speaks of the moon "giving her light." What light? None that begins with her, but is reflected from another thing. Is it farfetched to acknowledge that God can make light first, and a vessel to hold it later, or a source to emit it as He commands?
I see no confusion in Genesis 1, only a lovely description of God doing things beyond our ability to comprehend, and doing them well.
Funny to think about: "light" is only a narrow band of the spectrum of electromagnetic radiation out there--the only reason we can "see" it is because God gave us eyes that collect and interpret those wavelengths. How much more "light" might there even be that we can't see or detect, but is part of God's good providence?
 
Scottish Presbyterian said:
From Genesis 1
Click to expand...

Go on, I am listening. Prove to me that, in Genesis 1, daylight starts without the sun and then later is the result of the sun.

Because I have shown before that, according to Genesis 1, daylight was there from the very beginning and the sun was just placed on top of it, to shine upon the earth. It's the same with the moon. You can quote me, there.
 
1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

1:14-16 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: and let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so. 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.
Genesis 1:3‭, ‬14‭-‬16 KJV
bible.com

Genesis 1:3-16 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Ni | King James Version (KJV) | Downl

And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Ni
bible.com


Genesis 1 is chronological - verse 3 is day 1 and verses 14-16 are day 4. QED.
 
Scottish Presbyterian said:
1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

1:14-16 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: and let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so. 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.
Genesis 1:3‭, ‬14‭-‬16 KJV
bible.com

Genesis 1:3-16 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Ni | King James Version (KJV) | Downl

And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Ni
bible.com


Genesis 1 is chronological - verse 3 is day 1 and verses 14-16 are day 4. QED.
Click to expand...

Ye but, you prove my point. Vers 14 speaks of giving the sun and the moon as lights to divide the "day and the night". And the "day and the night" is the light and darkness that is already there since day 1, as is clear from Genesis 1:5 and 1:18.
 
Apologia Christou said:
Ye but, you prove my point. Vers 14 speaks of giving the sun and the moon as lights to divide the "day and the night". And the "day and the night" is the light and darkness that is already there since day 1, as is clear from Genesis 1:5 and 1:18.
Click to expand...
God made the light that was the day and the night, then later deputized the sun and moon to shine it. What's the hangup here? Do you think that because there was light before there was a sun, the sun can't emanate light? Do you think that because there was day before there was a sun to measure it, the sun can't measure it now? Was there time before you had a wristwatch, or does the watch cause time?
We are told that energy is not created nor destroyed since Creation, but that they convert into each other. The helium in the sun is converting into heat and light--why could not God have made heat and light first and then converted them to the helium that's slowly turning back into them?
 
Ben Zartman said:
God made the light that was the day and the night, then later deputized the sun and moon to shine it. What's the hangup here? Do you think that because there was light before there was a sun, the sun can't emanate light?
Click to expand...

I am not denying that the sun gives light. But the sunlight is not the same as daylight, nor is daylight (called “day” in Genesis 1:5, 1:14 and 1:18) the result of the light of the sun, but it exists independently of it. The sun shines the day the same way as the moon shines the night. It is a shining upon the light of the day, or upon the darkness of the night. Day and night were there from day one; whereas the sun and moon, to shine in it and upon it, came later.
 
Ben Zartman said:
could not God have made heat and light first and then converted them to the helium that's slowly turning back into them?
Click to expand...

God could do anything, but that is not the question. The question is: what does Genesis 1 actually teach. In other words: what do we get simply and solely from the words of the text (exegesis). And I maintain that, by doing simple and honest exegesis, it teaches that daylight was there from day 1, whereas the sun and it’s light came in later. And so this would mean that daylight is not the result of the sun.

You can still say that the sun became the source and reason of the daylight later. But you can not prove this from the text, this is a clear case of eisegesis: reading something into the text that really isn’t there (in this scenario, because of our supposed knowledge of things being different).
 
Last edited:
Apologia Christou said:
And I maintain that, by doing simple and honest exegesis...
Click to expand...

What you are doing is far from "simple". It's convoluted to the point that no one I know of has ever seen that before, or taught it. No commentator I'm aware of has even thought of it.

If that is what Genesis 1 is intended to communicate, and everybody in the entire world throughout history has missed it, then what hope is there of us understanding the rest of Scripture?

It also defies all observation, meaning we cannot know anything about this world we live in if we can't even trust that the sun is the source of daylight, something even the most ignorant child "knows". It would mean that special revelation is required for absolutely everything and discovery and dominion is a futile effort.
 
Logan said:
What you are doing is far from "simple". It's convoluted to the point that no one I know of has ever seen that before, or taught it. No commentator I'm aware of has even thought of it.

If that is what Genesis 1 is intended to communicate, and everybody in the entire world throughout history has missed it, then what hope is there of us understanding the rest of Scripture?

It also defies all observation, meaning we cannot know anything about this world we live in if we can't even trust that the sun is the source of daylight, something even the most ignorant child "knows". It would mean that special revelation is required for absolutely everything and discovery and dominion is a futile effort.
Click to expand...

Excuse me, every commentator has noticed it. That’s why they explain it with a temporary light source of some sort. I am not saying anything new in this sense.

So sure, you can go with their explanation and interpretation on that, but this is not what the passage itself teaches. And it’s not that the passage is unclear or dark, but it explains itself very clearly, interpreting it’s own words and meanings, as I trust I have shown.
 
Last edited:
Knowing the unfathomable complexity and perfection of creation, the Genesis account provides only the most minuscule information about it. While it doesn't explicitly say that there was a change in the means God used to provide light to the earth, I can't see anything there that forbids the conventional understanding that such was likely the case. That's not eisegesis; it's simply taking what is observable in natural revelation and synthesizing it with what is stated in special revelation.

What, may I ask, is the supposed implication or importance of what you are theorizing on this? Are you suggesting that if the sun were extinguished the earth would still experience daylight?
 
Last edited:
Phil D. said:
What, may I ask, is the supposed implication or importance of what you are theorizing on this? Are you suggesting that if the sun were extinguished the earth would still experience daylight?
Click to expand...

That's exactly what he said a number of posts back.
 
Phil D. said:
Knowing the unfathomable complexity and perfection of creation, the Genesis account provides only the most minuscule information about it. While it doesn't explicitly say that there was a change in the means God used to provide light to the earth, I can't see anything there that forbids the conventional understanding that such was likely the case. That's not eisegesis; it's simply taking what is observable in natural revelation and synthesizing it with what is stated in special revelation.

What, may I ask, is the supposed implication or importance of what you are theorizing on this? Are you suggesting that if the sun were extinguished the earth would still experience daylight?
Click to expand...

I doubt that natural revelation teaches us that daylight comes from the sun. It could, sure, but it doesn’t demand anything of this sort. It would be clear revelation if the Copernican System were true. But ultimately, accepting this system is based on faith, too. You and I have no means to know what’s really “up there”. That’s why, for the time being, I have no problems believing the literal account of Genesis 1, because that simply means that I believe the Bible and not the Copernican system on this very issue.

Things of course change when we do have the means to know what’s up there, and it shows the Copernican System to be true. But, until then, on the supposition that my interpretation of Genesis 1 is sound (which I think it is), I would have to go with the Bible.

3:20

 
Apologia Christou said:
You and I have no means to know what’s really “up there”.
Click to expand...
This is a curious position. In your opinion, what criteria would be sufficient for knowledge? I ask because, while no one has ever been to the sun to examine it immediately with their five senses, we still have a lot of observational data on it.
 
Taylor said:
This is a curious position. In your opinion, what criteria would be sufficient for knowledge? I ask because, while no one has ever been to the sun to examine it immediately with their five senses, we still have a lot of observational data on it.
Click to expand...

I have no special criteria for knowledge, I guess it’s the same as anyones else (anyone but the presuppositionalist apologist, that is). I trust my senses.
 
Yup, experience teaches us that
  • the higher the sun is in the sky, the brighter it is out
  • when the sun is not in the sky, it is dark out
  • when the sun is obscured by the moon during an eclipse, is gets darker proportionately
  • daytime is not exactly the same length everywhere, but exactly in proportion to the amount of time the sun is in the sky
  • if daytime were independent of the sun, one would expect daytime to be consistent, say 12 hours every single day (it's not)
  • astronauts who are not in the shadow of the earth experience more than 24 hours of daylight, exactly corresponding with their visibility of the sun, they don't experience "night"
  • people have experienced more than 24 hours of daylight, or 24 hours of darkness while at the poles, exactly corresponding to the amount of time the sun is in the sky
  • Revelation 21:23 and 22:5 teach us that we shall no longer need the sun, which would be nonsensical if we don't even need it right now
But sure, go ahead and believe that natural revelation doesn't reveal anything regarding the correlation of sun and daylight. Seriously, this is stuff a child can and does intuit.
 
Apologia Christou said:
I have no special criteria for knowledge, I guess it’s the same as anyones else (anyone but the presuppositionalist apologist, that is). I trust my senses.
Click to expand...
If you have no criteria for knowledge in this area, how can you say definitively (i.e., as if you know) that we "have no means to know what’s really 'up there'"?
 
Logan said:
Yup, experience teaches us that
  • the higher the sun is in the sky, the brighter it is out
  • when the sun is not in the sky, it is dark out
  • when the sun is obscured by the moon during an eclipse, is gets darker proportionately
  • daytime is not exactly the same length everywhere, but exactly in proportion to the amount of time the sun is in the sky
  • if daytime were independent of the sun, one would expect daytime to be consistent, say 12 hours every single day (it's not)
  • astronauts who are not in the shadow of the earth experience more than 24 hours of daylight, exactly corresponding with their visibility of the sun, they don't experience "night"
  • people have experienced more than 24 hours of daylight, or 24 hours of darkness while at the poles, exactly corresponding to the amount of time the sun is in the sky
  • Revelation 21:23 and 22:5 teach us that we shall no longer need the sun, which would be nonsensical if we don't even need it right now
But sure, go ahead and believe that natural revelation doesn't reveal anything regarding the correlation of sun and daylight. Seriously, this is stuff a child can and does intuit.
Click to expand...

I don’t know which of these points would disprove a disconnection of the sun and daylight (not taken into account the astronauts). God placed the sun upon the light of the day. And Revelation also teaches us that we do not need the moon. Obviously the context is about shining, and not daylight. The glory of God will shine, then.

Taylor said:
If you have no criteria for knowledge in this area, how can you say definitively (i.e., as if you know) that we "have no means to know what’s really 'up there'"?
Click to expand...

Let me ask you this: how do you know what’s up there?
 
Taylor said:
Please don't deflect. I would really appreciate an answer to the question that I asked.
Click to expand...

Because you and I can only believe what’s up there (when it comes to specifics as with the Copernican system). I would be surprised if you would have any means at your disposal that I don’t have, and that would give you access to what’s up there in a different manner than is available to me. So that’s why I asked you the question.
 
Apologia Christou said:
Because you and I can only believe what’s up there (when it comes to specifics as with the Copernican system). I would be surprised if you would have any means at your disposal that I don’t have, and that would give you access to what’s up there in a different manner than is available to me. So that’s why I asked you the question.
Click to expand...
But you still haven't answered mine; you merely restated your conclusion, which is that we cannot know "what is up there." So, I ask you again: If you have no criteria for knowledge in this area, how can you say definitively (i.e., as if you know) that we "have no means to know what’s really 'up there'"?
 
Taylor said:
But you still haven't answered mine; you merely restated your conclusion, which is that we cannot know "what is up there." So, I ask you again: If you have no criteria for knowledge in this area, how can you say definitively (i.e., as if you know) that we "have no means to know what’s really 'up there'"?
Click to expand...

I did not say I have no criteria for knowledge in this area. I said that my criteria for knowledge is basically the same as anyones else, because I trust my senses.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

M
  • Locked
Discussions from the past
Replies
2
Views
1K
biggandyy
biggandyy
B
  • Locked
Post Reformation Reformed Dogmatics & A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Fait
Replies
19
Views
4K
RamistThomist
RamistThomist
DW1689
  • Locked
Post Reformation Reformed Theology resources??
Replies
4
Views
1K
Guido's Brother
Guido's Brother
BlackCalvinist
  • Locked
Reverence in Discussions
Replies
1
Views
1K
BobVigneault
BobVigneault
TryingToLearn
Looking for 16-17th Century Reformed Discussions on Beauty
Replies
2
Views
481
davejonescue
davejonescue
Back
Top