Why do people complain about plants dying without light on day 3 of

[Democritus]

creation when light appeared in Gen.1:3? Of course, nothing in the Biblical text rules out the possibility that the light created on Day 1 could not have sustained photosynthesis on earth during a Day 3 of any length. But even if that "original light" were insufficient, nothing in the original Hebrew text prevents the sun from having existed prior to the creation of plants on the earth. ** [See my elaborations below and my FOOTNOTE below.]



====================================================================

OPTIONAL DETAILS OF WHY DAY 3 & DAY 4 CREATE NO PROBLEMS:

No matter how long the YOM periods (commonly translated in modern English Bibles as "day"), the plants from day 3 didn't have to wait for the creation of light (which already happened on day 1 in what I assume was the Big Bang explosion) and the condensation of matter into stars and galaxies and planets necessarily came long before plants would be flourishing on the earth. (Surely everyone would agree that the earth would not have condensed and formed before the stars existed, including our sun. So the existence of the earth on day 3 tells us that the stars including our sun MUST have already existed even if they are not easily seen by a ground level observer on the earth who looks up at a dense, water-vapor-filled, cloudy green-house-effect atmosphere -- which would have been an ideal growth environment with what was perhaps a tropical environment due to the bright but diffused light from a sun which cannot yet be viewed as a bright disk in the sky.)

Isn't it obvious that Genesis 1 must be understand from a observer's viewpoint standing on the earth and looking at conditions on the earth's surface (both land and oceans) as well as looking upward toward the sky? I'm not suggesting that the human author of the Pentateuch was standing on the earth at that time as an observer but simply that the text of Genesis 1 was written to reflect an earth-bound view of events -- and not a viewpoint from the Creator's perspective looking "down" over all.


** FOOTNOTE:
In Day 4 the lights were said to have been placed in the sky to "separate the light from the darkness." That should sound familiar. It is the exact Hebrew phrase used for God's work on Day 1 when, "God separated the light from the darkness" (Genesis 1:4) Obviously the text is recalling the prior formation of the Sun, moon and stars from Day 1. And if we understand the Big Bang, we know that the original explosion from the singularity ultimate led to the condensation of stars and galaxies, and there is no reason why the Genesis text cannot be assuming all such events to have been summarized in the Day 1 account.

Clearly, the author -- by recalling the same words/phrasing from Gen. 1:3 -- is emphasizing that although the APPEARANCE of the sun, moon, and stars is something new with Day 4 (and that the new phenomenon of the "cleared atmosphere" allowing the heavenly bodies to be viewed from the surface of the earth can now allow measuring of periods of time and even celestial navigation, first by animals but later by humans) the reader is being reminded that the basic separation of light from darkness (obvious even through the cloudiest tropical atmosphere) has existed since Day 1.

Right? What/where is the flaw in this simple reading of the Hebrew Text?
===============================


Whether or not someone "believes" Genesis 1 is not the focus of my analysis. I'm approaching it simply as an exegete of ancient texts and demonstrating that the ALLEGED CONFLICT BETWEEN DAY 3 AND DAY 4 IS BOGUS. My point is that the "conflict" is due to lazy reading and thinking of the text. Whether you reject the Genesis account in general is irrelevant to me.

 

[PirateAM™]

You might be right, but the stars which implies galaxies, did not happen until day 4. This implies that the earth is the oldest celestial body, and the longer the "day" the worse this discrepancy is. This is not in line with the evidence nor does it really fit well with the big bang. Further, a creative and all powerful God could have ensured that something as trivial as the order of events (even at a very general sense) was somewhat correct.

Edit:
The conflict between day 3 and day 4 is only not bogus if you are a YEC, otherwise attempts to rationalize the time line to the actual chain of events completely falls apart. For example our star is a third generation star and the only reason our earth can exist is because two generations of stars burned and died. Further, by the time the earth formed (after our sun), the "light" from the big bang had faded and would not have supported plant life to for your sliding time line.

God would not have viewed creation from the surface of the earth (and by the way, the language used does indicate a flat earth), but from outside of it, not to mention he would have known "what he had created" so the "APPEARANCE" should have been accounted for when they were created not when "visible". Then again the language of the passage does not indicate appearance. Also, a "cleared atmosphere" conflicts with plants growing.

In short, the creation story does not explain the evidence in any meaningful way, nor does it remotely match the evidence, nor does it remotely indicate that it was inspired by divine knowledge by an all knowing, creative god. It is no better than any other creation myth.