Originally posted by RJHinds
We must keep in mind what kind of literature Revelation is when interpreting it. [quote]
This is true for the rest of the Bible, Genesis also.
[quote]
The vision revealed to John is prophecy like that revealed to Daniel and it must be interpreted in the same way.
The usage of some words are pre-scientific. A
"star" to them was a point of light in the heavens. We might consider some of the pre-scientific language in other books as well including
Genesis.
I think there is every reason to believe the
light of the start of that week was from the sun. And the
"light-holders" or
"light-bearers" (a DIFFERENT Hebrew word used for the fourth day) was the sun also, made more clearly discernible to the seer.
Insisting that the sun was created on the fourth day is not exactly what it says and is like insisting that all the stars will fall to the earth in Isaiah or Revelation.
Just like the beasts in Daniel and Revelation do not represent literal beasts, but empires and kingdoms, the stars in Revelation may not represent literal stars, so we must not jump to conclusions since it is stated in the form of an analogy.
Some of us apply some sense of sober consideration in asking how Genesis should be interpreted as well. The heavenly bodies were made to appear on the fourth day like the dry land was made to appear out from under the water.
Insisting that God created the sun, moon, and stars on the fourth day is akin to insisting real Godzilla like animals come out of the ocean or that the stars of the Big Dipper fall to the earth.
The principle of realistic interpretation I think should apply in some YEC presentations of Genesis.
So this most likely refers to the sudden judgment of God that will come on mankind when he least expects it.
What is SAYS is that the stars fall. Now a massive meteor shower of the plunging of tons of material floating around the planet
could have been what John saw.
If a massive meteor shower is what John prophetically witnessed then it makes sense that to him it appeared as the stars falling.
Possibly the same is true if there were a warping of space / time or perhaps the planet was wrenched out of its usual patterns of movement. I really don't know. But we know what it looked like to John.
And the words are similar to these passages:
" ... and the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken." (Matt. 24:29)
No, the Holy Bible does not say how far away the stars are from earth because it says God stretched out the heaven. So in the beginning the stars may have been closer to the earth, right?
Seriously now. The roaring of the seas
(Luke 21:25) and the powers of the heavens being shaken, with signs in the heavens and falling "stars" has to mean nature seems to have gone wild. I think that is the general idea being conveyed. No one will be able to mistake that the
physical creation is going wild.
I see your point. And I see that you are mistaken, because this does not apply to interpreting the creation account in Genesis chapter one.
I think the point is that some YECs have a hyper-literal interpretation of Genesis, ie. a light before the sun on day one, replaced by the creation of the sun on day four.
Besides, the Hebrew word for
"light" in verse 3 is not the same word for
"lights" or better
"light-bearers" in verse 14.
I think what the seer saw was sunlight diffuse on the day God said
"Let there be light". And on the fourth day when God
"made" the sun, moon, and stars, the source of light was made more precisely discernible.
The word for
"made" as in
"And God made the two great lights-bearers, the greater light-bearer to rule the day and the lesser light-bearer to rule the night, and the stars" can also be translated
"appointed" . However
"made" is fine, as long as we do not insist it has to mean created as
bara is used in verse 1.
Strictly speaking
Genesis 1:14-19 does not say that God
created the sun, moon, and stars on that fourth day. There must be some YECs who have noticed this.