Replies

Thank you so much for your reply and the link, and most especially thank you for those beautiful Scriptures!

Schroeder actually addresses your first point in the article on the above link. Concerning Day One, he says:

But Nachmanides points out a problem with that. The text says "there was evening and morning Day One... evening and morning a second day... evening and morning a third day." Then on the fourth day, the sun is mentioned. Nachmanides says that any intelligent reader can see an obvious problem. How do we have a concept of evening and morning for the first three days if the sun is only mentioned on Day Four? We know that the author of the Bible - even if you think it was a bunch of Bedouins sitting around a campfire at night - one thing we know is that the author was smart. He or she or it produced a best-seller. For thousands of years! So you can't attribute the sun appearing only on Day Four to foolishness. There's a purpose for it on Day Four. And the purpose is that as time goes by and people understand more about the universe, you can dig deeper into the text.

Nachmanides says the text uses the words "Vayehi Erev" - but it doesn't mean "there was evening." He explains that the Hebrew letters Ayin, Resh, Bet - the root of "erev" - is chaos. Mixture, disorder. That's why evening is called "erev", because when the sun goes down, vision becomes blurry. The literal meaning is "there was disorder." The Torah's word for "morning" - "boker" - is the absolute opposite. When the sun rises, the world becomes "bikoret", orderly, able to be discerned. That's why the sun needn't be mentioned until Day Four. Because from erev to boker is a flow from disorder to order, from chaos to cosmos. That's something any scientist will testify never happens in an unguided system. Order never arises from disorder spontaneously. There must be a guide to the system. That's an unequivocal statement.

The second point I away with because God is the Creator of time, He is not time bound like we are. For that reason, I also away with any time-relative theological disputes such as concerning predestination v. free will. A thing is true because God says it and He has given us both prophecies (predestination) and commandments (free will.)

For my thoughts [are] not your thoughts, neither [are] your ways my ways, saith the LORD. For [as] the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts. – Isaiah 55:8-9

For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known. - I Corinthians 13:12

I will however point out that the Sabbath is also prophecy:

Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath [days]: Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body [is] of Christ. - Colossians 2:16-17

To God be the glory!

(I'm heading out now, but I look forward to reading your reply!)

[[Then on the fourth day, the sun is mentioned. Nachmanides says that any intelligent reader can see an obvious problem. How do we have a concept of evening and morning for the first three days if the sun is only mentioned on Day Four?]] How can this be a 'problem'? It's not mentioned that God 'created' the sun on the 4'th, but rather it's ismply the first itme hte sun is mentioned. [[Nachmanides says the text uses the words "Vayehi Erev" - but it doesn't mean "there was evening." He explains that the Hebrew letters Ayin, Resh, Bet - the root of "erev" - is chaos.]] Thisp oint is addressed in thel ink I gave- it doesn't mean chaos as asserted. [[That's why the sun needn't be mentioned until Day Four. Because from erev to boker is a flow from disorder to order, from chaos to cosmos.]] This is a stretch of hte origninal words and intents [[Order never arises from disorder spontaneously.]] Not that htis is relevent to hte discussion, but I think this isn't entriely true- order can hypothetically accidently arise from disorder- small insignificant orders can arise by htrowing multicolored confetti into a wind tunnel, there 'might' arise some orderly patterns- but again, this is insignifcant to the order described in life. Some life orders 'might' arise accidently from chaos- but again- insignifcant to hte discussussion- just a side note [[I will however point out that the Sabbath is also prophecy:]] Well, I don't htink we can attribute it being prohpecy to all previous Sabbaths simpyl because there is a future prophecy about the occassion as well. Adam's presence and essence was both a physical reality, and had a prophetic meaning at hte same time The prophesy about 'Adams' didn't do away with hte phyisical reality of the first Adam. concernign the light though, there is an undergraduate who really made a stir in the scientific comunity by hypothesisisng about how 'the light' came about before hte sun- It turns out that tremendous pressure on Water causes a spontanious illumination which has been verified via experiments. He contends that this could have been 'the light' before the sun was created- however, the problem I see with htat hypothesis is that the light woudl have been continuous, and NOT divided as God said the light and dark were on the first day Gen 1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. Gen 1:4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. Gen 1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day The following is from the Scholar and commentator Barnes concerning the words in quesiton concerning night and day which Nachmanides assigns different meaning to by takign hte root and attempting to make it mean what the whole word does not mean in context and htroughout God's word elsewhere: ערב ‛ereb, “evening, sunset.” A space of time before and after sunset. ערבים ‛arebayîm, “two evenings,” a certain time before sunset, and the time between sunset and the end of twilight. הערבים בין bēyn hā‛arbayîm “the interval between the two evenings, from sunset to the end of twilight,” according to the Karaites and Samaritans; “from sun declining to sunset,” according to the Pharisees and Rabbinists. It might be the time from the beginning of the one to the beginning of the other, from the end of the one to the end of the other, or from the beginning of the one to the end of the other. The last is the most suitable for all the passages in which it occurs. These are ten in number, all in the law Exo_12:6; Exo_16:12; Exo_29:31, Exo_29:41; Exo_30:8; Lev_23:5; Num_9:3, Num_9:5,Num_9:8; Num_28:4. The slaying of the evening lamb and of the passover lamb, the eating of the latter and the lighting of the lamps, took place in the interval so designated. At the end of this portion of the sacred text we have the first פ (p). This is explained in the Introduction, Section VII. The first day’s work is the calling of light into being. Here the design is evidently to remove one of the defects mentioned in the preceding verse, - “and darkness was upon the face of the deep.” The scene of this creative act is therefore coincident with that of the darkness it is intended to displace. The interference of supernatural power to cause the presence of light in this region, intimates that the powers of nature were inadequate to this effect. But it does not determine whether or not light had already existed elsewhere, and had even at one time penetrated into this now darkened region, and was still prevailing in the other realms of space beyond the face of the deep. Nor does it determine whether by a change of the polar axis, by the rarefaction of the gaseous medium above, or by what other means, light was made to visit this region of the globe with its agreeable and quickening influences. We only read that it did not then illuminate the deep of waters, and that by the potent word of God it was then summoned into being. This is an act of creative power, for it is a calling into existence what had previously no existence in that place, and was not owing to the mere development of nature. Hence, the act of omnipotence here recorded is not at variance with the existence of light among the elements of that universe of nature, the absolute creation of which is affirmed in the first verse.

Sorry- not sure why it glommed the paragraphs together- here's an easier to read revision hopefully- Removed the hebrew words- think that's what did it. [[Then on the fourth day, the sun is mentioned. Nachmanides says that any intelligent reader can see an obvious problem. How do we have a concept of evening and morning for the first three days if the sun is only mentioned on Day Four?]] How can this be a 'problem'? It's not mentioned that God 'created' the sun on the 4'th, but rather it's ismply the first itme hte sun is mentioned. [[Nachmanides says the text uses the words "Vayehi Erev" - but it doesn't mean "there was evening." He explains that the Hebrew letters Ayin, Resh, Bet - the root of "erev" - is chaos.]] Thisp oint is addressed in thel ink I gave- it doesn't mean chaos as asserted. [[That's why the sun needn't be mentioned until Day Four. Because from erev to boker is a flow from disorder to order, from chaos to cosmos.]] This is a stretch of hte origninal words and intents [[Order never arises from disorder spontaneously.]] Not that htis is relevent to hte discussion, but I think this isn't entriely true- order can hypothetically accidently arise from disorder- small insignificant orders can arise by htrowing multicolored confetti into a wind tunnel, there 'might' arise some orderly patterns- but again, this is insignifcant to the order described in life. Some life orders 'might' arise accidently from chaos- but again- insignifcant to hte discussussion- just a side note [[I will however point out that the Sabbath is also prophecy:]] Well, I don't htink we can attribute it being prohpecy to all previous Sabbaths simpyl because there is a future prophecy about the occassion as well. Adam's presence and essence was both a physical reality, and had a prophetic meaning at hte same time The prophesy about 'Adams' didn't do away with hte phyisical reality of the first Adam. concernign the light though, there is an undergraduate who really made a stir in the scientific comunity by hypothesisisng about how 'the light' came about before hte sun- It turns out that tremendous pressure on Water causes a spontanious illumination which has been verified via experiments. He contends that this could have been 'the light' before the sun was created- however, the problem I see with htat hypothesis is that the light woudl have been continuous, and NOT divided as God said the light and dark were on the first day Gen 1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. Gen 1:4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. Gen 1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day The following is from the Scholar and commentator Barnes concerning the words in quesiton concerning night and day which Nachmanides assigns different meaning to by takign hte root and attempting to make it mean what the whole word does not mean in context and htroughout God's word elsewhere: ‛ereb, “evening, sunset.” A space of time before and after sunset ‛arebayîm, “two evenings,” a certain time before sunset, and the time between sunset and the end of twilight. bēyn hā‛arbayîm “the interval between the two evenings, from sunset to the end of twilight,” according to the Karaites and Samaritans; “from sun declining to sunset,” according to the Pharisees and Rabbinists. It might be the time from the beginning of the one to the beginning of the other, from the end of the one to the end of the other, or from the beginning of the one to the end of the other. The last is the most suitable for all the passages in which it occurs. These are ten in number, all in the law Exo_12:6; Exo_16:12; Exo_29:31, Exo_29:41; Exo_30:8; Lev_23:5; Num_9:3, Num_9:5,Num_9:8; Num_28:4. The slaying of the evening lamb and of the passover lamb, the eating of the latter and the lighting of the lamps, took place in the interval so designated. At the end of this portion of the sacred text we have the first פ (p). This is explained in the Introduction, Section VII. The first day’s work is the calling of light into being. Here the design is evidently to remove one of the defects mentioned in the preceding verse, - “and darkness was upon the face of the deep.” The scene of this creative act is therefore coincident with that of the darkness it is intended to displace. The interference of supernatural power to cause the presence of light in this region, intimates that the powers of nature were inadequate to this effect. But it does not determine whether or not light had already existed elsewhere, and had even at one time penetrated into this now darkened region, and was still prevailing in the other realms of space beyond the face of the deep. Nor does it determine whether by a change of the polar axis, by the rarefaction of the gaseous medium above, or by what other means, light was made to visit this region of the globe with its agreeable and quickening influences. We only read that it did not then illuminate the deep of waters, and that by the potent word of God it was then summoned into being. This is an act of creative power, for it is a calling into existence what had previously no existence in that place, and was not owing to the mere development of nature. Hence, the act of omnipotence here recorded is not at variance with the existence of light among the elements of that universe of nature, the absolute creation of which is affirmed in the first verse.

How can this be a 'problem'? It's not mentioned that God 'created' the sun on the 4'th, but rather it's ismply the first itme hte sun is mentioned.

[[Nachmanides says the text uses the words "Vayehi Erev" - but it doesn't mean "there was evening." He explains that the Hebrew letters Ayin, Resh, Bet - the root of "erev" - is chaos.]]

Thisp oint is addressed in thel ink I gave- it doesn't mean chaos as asserted.

[[That's why the sun needn't be mentioned until Day Four. Because from erev to boker is a flow from disorder to order, from chaos to cosmos.]]

This is a stretch of hte origninal words and intents

[[Order never arises from disorder spontaneously.]]

Not that htis is relevent to hte discussion, but I think this isn't entriely true- order can hypothetically accidently arise from disorder- small insignificant orders can arise by htrowing multicolored confetti into a wind tunnel, there 'might' arise some orderly patterns- but again, this is insignifcant to the order described in life. Some life orders 'might' arise accidently from chaos- but again- insignifcant to hte discussussion- just a side note

[[I will however point out that the Sabbath is also prophecy:]]

Well, I don't htink we can attribute it being prohpecy to all previous Sabbaths simpyl because there is a future prophecy about the occassion as well. Adam's presence and essence was both a physical reality, and had a prophetic meaning at hte same time The prophesy about 'Adams' didn't do away with hte phyisical reality of the first Adam.

concernign the light though, there is an undergraduate who really made a stir in the scientific comunity by hypothesisisng about how 'the light' came about before hte sun- It turns out that tremendous pressure on Water causes a spontanious illumination which has been verified via experiments. He contends that this could have been 'the light' before the sun was created-

however, the problem I see with htat hypothesis is that the light woudl have been continuous, and NOT divided as God said the light and dark were on the first day

Gen 1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

Gen 1:4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.

Gen 1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day

The following is from the Scholar and commentator Barnes concerning the words in quesiton concerning night and day which Nachmanides assigns different meaning to by takign hte root and attempting to make it mean what the whole word does not mean in context and htroughout God's word elsewhere:

ereb, “evening, sunset.” A space of time before and after sunset arebayim, “two evenings,” a certain time before sunset, and the time between sunset and the end of twilight. be yn ha arbayim “the interval between the two evenings, from sunset to the end of twilight,” according to the Karaites and Samaritans; “from sun declining to sunset,” according to the Pharisees and Rabbinists. It might be the time from the beginning of the one to the beginning of the other, from the end of the one to the end of the other, or from the beginning of the one to the end of the other. The last is the most suitable for all the passages in which it occurs. These are ten in number, all in the law Exo_12:6; Exo_16:12; Exo_29:31, Exo_29:41; Exo_30:8; Lev_23:5; Num_9:3, Num_9:5,Num_9:8; Num_28:4. The slaying of the evening lamb and of the passover lamb, the eating of the latter and the lighting of the lamps, took place in the interval so designated.

At the end of this portion of the sacred text we have the first ? (p). This is explained in the Introduction, Section VII.

The first day’s work is the calling of light into being. Here the design is evidently to remove one of the defects mentioned in the preceding verse, - “and darkness was upon the face of the deep.” The scene of this creative act is therefore coincident with that of the darkness it is intended to displace. The interference of supernatural power to cause the presence of light in this region, intimates that the powers of nature were inadequate to this effect. But it does not determine whether or not light had already existed elsewhere, and had even at one time penetrated into this now darkened region, and was still prevailing in the other realms of space beyond the face of the deep. Nor does it determine whether by a change of the polar axis, by the rarefaction of the gaseous medium above, or by what other means, light was made to visit this region of the globe with its agreeable and quickening influences. We only read that it did not then illuminate the deep of waters, and that by the potent word of God it was then summoned into being. This is an act of creative power, for it is a calling into existence what had previously no existence in that place, and was not owing to the mere development of nature. Hence, the act of omnipotence here recorded is not at variance with the existence of light among the elements of that universe of nature, the absolute creation of which is affirmed in the first verse.