He’s not just saying “He’s God” as though it were a sufficient answer for every problem in the Bible, he’s saying that in the specific case, when God is involved in creating the entire universe, it doesn’t seem (to him) like that big a deal if the sun’s a few days late showing up. And I rather agree that it’s a subtle point, though I think that there are points to ponder, as I’ve indicated above.

PS — There’s no email notification, but if you have a newsreader, you can subscribe to the comments RSS at the bottom of the right-hand column.

Geisler didn’t write Genesis, so his opinion doesn’t matter.

Geisler did, however, write When Critics Ask. I do think the missing sun is an interesting topic of discussion, but that’s not really what I was discussing in my post. My post is talking about how Geisler deals with what he sees as being important Bible “difficulties,” and the inconsistencies between what he presents as being the solutions to these problems. Regardless of whether or not you agree that the problems are really “Bible contradictions,” I should hope that you would agree that there are “Geisler contradictions” in claiming that God was the narrator in Genesis 1, and that He therefore was the observer Who was unable to see the sun for three days after He created it.

The point of the idea is that God is the ultimate source of light, physically and in metaphorical ways. “Light needs a source” is just our experience, not some fundamental necessity of being. If God wants to create photons in transit, I don’t see what the problem is.

But if God is the light source, then there’s no reason for it ever to be night, yet the text declares that day/night cycles start on the first day.

The problem isn’t that believers have ever had any particular difficulty claiming that “Goddidit” is the answer to this or that inconsistency, the problem is that the narrator in Genesis 1 shows no awareness of the fact that light needs a source. Once you realize that light has to have a source, the presence of “sourceless” light becomes one of the more significant and remarkable aspects of the story.

By the time John wrote Revelation, people were aware that light comes from a light source, and therefore John makes special mention of the absence of the sun and moon, because it’s significant and remarkable that the New Jerusalem would have endless daylight without the need for a sun. Revelation tells the story the way Genesis ought to have told the story, had the author been aware that daylight wasn’t something that “just happened” spontaneously.

It’s easy to see how primitive men might not have realized the connection at first. After all, it starts getting light before the sun appears, doesn’t it? So it’s “obvious” that daytime is something that happens on its own, and that the sun doesn’t come along until later.

Another example would be the story of the burning bush. Fire needs fuel to burn just like light needs a light source. In Exodus 3, though, the story says the fire did not consume the bush, meaning the fire had no fuel. The absence of a natural cause is what made the phenomenon remarkable, and what made Moses turn aside to see it (according to the story). That’s why the phenomenon gets special mention.

Or look at Genesis 2:5-6.

Now no shrub of the field was yet in the earth, and no plant of the field had yet sprouted, for the LORD God had not sent rain upon the earth, and there was no man to cultivate the ground. But a mist used to rise from the earth and water the whole surface of the ground.

Here the narrator does realize that plants need water to grow, so in the absence of rain there would be a problem with the story if he said there was a garden. He doesn’t simply ignore the problem and leave us to suppose that it’s possible for God to be physically and metaphorically a water source, he describes an alternate water source. So he does address apparent difficulties in the story—when he’s aware of them.

We can imagine any number of rationalizations for why the narrator of Genesis 1 failed to notice that there was anything unusual about daylight (and nighttime) being created before there was any sun to cause it. But the simplest explanation would be that he failed to notice the problem because he wasn’t aware it was a problem. This is a primitive creation myth, invented by primitive, superstitious believers. A person who understood that light comes from light sources would not have written Genesis 1 that way, even if he were describing the same sequence of events. The absence of the sun on the first day would be obviously remarkable, and he would hardly have overlooked it. That would be like having the resurrected Jesus show up, and having the disciples say, “Oh, hi Jesus.” Just doesn’t quite fit.

You provide the reference yourself to Revelations that completes the theme. The point of the idea is that God is the ultimate source of light, physically and in metaphorical ways. “Light needs a source” is just our experience, not some fundamental necessity of being. If God wants to create photons in transit, I don’t see what the problem is. It’s no more trouble for a deity who is writing the laws of nature than it is for a video game developer to create arbitrary instances of light without sources.

Geisler didn’t write Genesis, so his opinion doesn’t matter. I maintain these are non-contradictions and a poor way to kick off your list.

Ben

Dr. Geisler of course does know that light needs a source, so he recognizes the problem and tries to solve it by supposing that we should simply assume the existence of either an unknown light source or of an unseen sun. But if the narrator in Genesis is supposed to be God, neither of those options really works.

Sure, Genesis 1 works on the level of a primitive myth made up by some because-I-said-so tribal elder. It works because that’s all you expect from that sort of myth. But Dr. Geisler wants more, and it breaks down when you try and push it to the level he’s expecting.

These two contradictions are bad examples.

How so? If, as you claim, they’re contradictions, then the Bible is not inerrant — and this is the point those examples illustrate.

Speaking of which I think this post needs more cow bell. Srsly.

Oh, I dunno. Seems to me you’ve provided plenty.

Speaking of which I think this post needs more cow bell. Srsly.

Ben

For “*possible*”, read ‘plausible’.