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.
Ah, the Ramban. You win 27 bonus points for knowing your Jewish scholars and recognizing their wisdom!
I read once where the Apostle Paul would be well-known today even if Christ had not confronted him on the road to Damascus. Paul was a brilliant student of the great Gamaliel -- considered to be one of the greatest Jewish scholars ever -- and probably would have been his successor in the Sanhedrin.
I like to think that Paul really did take Gamaliel's place in a spiritual sense. Considering that Gamaliel once saved Paul and Peter's life (Acts 5:34-39), I also wonder whether Gamaliel was a secret follower of Jesus.
Just a thought and opinion, not a hill I would die upon.
Please understand that it doesn't bother me at all that you have a different understanding than I do concerning either creation or prophecy. We are like two people looking at a seven faceted diamond but from different facets and seeing things a bit differently - but it is the same diamond (the words of God) - and the same Light.
The bottom line is that we must declare the Truth as we have received it. We must tell others what we see.
you: 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.
At the risk of causing yet another sidebar, I should mention here that some mathematical concepts do not translate well to physical systems. For instance, math can deal with the concept of infinity but space/time is finite. Math can deal with the concept of null or void, but it doesn't translate to physical systems, e.g. vacuums are still subject to physical laws, are geometrically "in" space/time, etc.
Those two sample concepts - infinity and void - are also Spiritually meaningful. So is timelessness and therefore, most importantly, God's Name: I AM.
All of this sets up my reply to GodGunsGuts' question:
Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am. - John 8:58
This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all. – I John 1:5
Every other source of knowledge – sensory perception, reasoning, counsel of others, etc. – is greatly subordinate to me.
For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know [them], because they are spiritually discerned.
But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man. For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ. - I Corinthians 2:6-16