|
Hi monatta! :) I am very interested in this topic, and would be happy to discuss what I think from a Christian point of view. I think you brought up some important topics for discussion about the Bible and the Qu'ran. Regardless of our religious differences, we're all seeking Truth (many of us believe we've found it too!) and so I think it's great that we can discuss these important issues. In my post, I am going to focus on the concerns expressed about the Bible rather than anything concerning the Qu'ran. I’m not trying to convince any Muslims that the Qu'ran is not true (as the Qu’ran says, “there is no compulsion in religion” and I believe only God can lead a person in that way), but my purpose for writing is to defend the Bible in hopes that my Muslim friends (and anyone else reading) might give the Bible and what it says serious consideration. I’m not a scholar or anything like that, but I have studied some on the the Biblical account of creation, and can address some of these concerns. About the creation issue with the sun and also about Biblical creation in general, I highly recommend reading the following article that is written by an astrophysicist who is also a Christian. He explains my viewpoint which I would try to explain to you so much better than I could. This is not an explanation that all Christians will agree on (there’s several possible explanations since obviously none of us were there when it happened), but it is one possible explanation and personally this is the explanation that I agree with. He explains the difference between two streams of thought on Biblical creation ("Old Earth Creation" and "Young Earth Creation"....I happen to be an "old earth creationist" myself), and he directly addresses the issue about the sun being mentioned on the fourth day. Here's the link to a PDF file to a Bible study on the book of Genesis. The article that I am talking about begins on page 13 and it continues to page 18 (so, scroll down to page 13 to begin reading). http://www.wildwoodchurch.org/Bible%20Studies/Genesis%20Study.pdf I don't have the author's permission to post the whole article here, but here is what he says about the sun on the fourth day: At first glance, the answer to the 3rd question, “Is the order of creation consistent with current scientific ideas,” may seem to be “no.” After all, in the creation account both light and plants appear before the sun, which seems to totally contradict all modern scientific idea. But the key to understanding the story of creation is to notice the perspective described in Genesis. The story of creation must be told from the perspective of someone who was there at the creation. It must be told from God’s perspective. Most people think that God’s perspective would be from outside the universe looking in, but that is not the case. Genesis itself tells where God is and what his perspective is. Genesis 1:2 states, “And the earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep; and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters.” The Spirit of God is moving, or hovering, over the surface of the waters. He is near the surface of the earth. The story of creation is told from God’s perspective, on the surface of the planet earth, not from out in the universe looking down at the planet earth. We must interpret the events of the six days of creation from God’s perspective on the surface of the earth. ..... On day one, God said “let there be light” and light appeared on the surface of the earth. The Hebrew word “bara,” which means to create something that hasn’t existed, is not used in this verse. Nothing new was created on this day. Instead, light appeared on the surface of the earth so that daytime could be distinguished from night time. Before day one, atmospheric and interplanetary debris filled the sky so that it was always dark on the surface of the earth. However, as that debris settled, the sky began to clear. Instead of being completely dark all the time on the surface of the earth, you could now distinguish daytime from night time. But like a cloudy day, you could still not see the sun, moon or stars. God calls the light “day” and he calls the darkness “night.” We now have days and nights that are distinguishable on the surface of the earth. The Biblical record of day one completely agrees with the scientific record regarding one of the first events on the early earth. The sky changed from being completely opaque, allowing no light to reach the surface of the earth, to being translucent, allowing light to reach the surface, but still not clear enough to see the heavenly bodies that existed in outer space. On day four, the sun, moon, and stars appear in the sky. Armed with the knowledge that the story is told from this perspective on the surface of the earth, the mystery of why the sun and moon appear on day four when light appeared on day one can be resolved. It is because the sun, moon, and stars first appeared to someone on the earth on day four even though they had been created by God when he created the heavens and the earth in verse 1. But because the earth had an atmosphere that resembled that of a cloudy day, they could not be seen on its surface until day four. Notice that the Bible does not say that God actually created the lights on day four. It says, “God said, ‘Let there be lights in the expanse….’” Dr. Scofield affirms this idea in his Bible notes that describe the appearance of light on day one, “(1:3) Neither here [the appearance of light] nor in vv. 14-18 [the appearance of the sun, moon, and stars] is an original creative act implied. A different word is used. The sense is made to appear, made visible. The sun and the moon were created ‘in the beginning.’ The light came from the sun, of course, but the vapor diffused the light. Later the sun appeared in an unclouded sky.” I HIGHLY recommend reading the whole thing. He goes into a lot of depth and his explanation about how science fits with the creation account in the Bible is quite fascinating. But if you look at it from this perspective, then, yes, plants could have easily existed on Earth before the clouds surrounding Earth broke apart because there was a degree of light getting through before the fourth day. And according to this scientist, there is evidence that plant life did indeed exist while the earth was completely covered in clouds! Concerning what seemingly appears to be a contradiction between when man was created versus when vegetation was created, you have to read it carefully but there is not a contradiction. The first creation account in Genesis 1:1-2:3 is an overview of all 7 days of creation, but then the second creation account given starting in Genesis 2:4 focuses on the creation of man in day 6 and goes into greater detail than the first account. There is a gap of time between where it talks in verses 5 and 6 about there being nothing but a mist on the planet and when God creates Adam in verse 7. Plants, animals, etc. are created in that gap as we see in the first creation account, but it’s not mentioned, in the 2nd creation account in the gap of time between verses 6 and 7, simply because this account is focusing on man. The mention of plants in verse 2:9 which says “And out of the ground the Lord God caused to grow every tree that is pleasing to the sight and good for food…” is not talking about the general creation of plants (they were already created), but God causing all sorts of fruit trees to grow in the garden of Eden after creating man. For Genesis 2:8 says, “And the Lord God planted a garden toward the east, in Eden; and there He placed the man whom He had formed.” But notice that here it says nothing about the original creation of plants. The Bible actually has many verses indicating that the earth is round. Consider these verses: Job 26:10: “He has inscribed a circle on the surface of the waters
At the boundary of light and darkness.” Proverbs 8:27: “When He established the heavens, I was there,
When He inscribed a circle on the face of the deep,” Isaiah 40:22: “It is He who sits above the circle of the earth,
And its inhabitants are like grasshoppers,
Who stretches out the heavens like a curtain
And spreads them out like a tent to dwell in.” A lot of people argue that it says “circle” instead of “sphere” so the Bible must be suggesting that the earth is still flat but round. But it is important to realize that there was no Hebrew word for “sphere” at the time, so circle was the closest thing they could use. However, now that we know that the earth is a sphere, these verses still make perfect sense and fit perfectly into the context of science. As to the other verses mentioned, the term “four corners of the earth” is to me a figure of speech meaning “all the earth” or “all four directions in the earth” and not meant to be taken literally. It’s the same kind of deal when you read “ends of the earth” which appears a lot in the Bible but it clearly means “everywhere on the earth” if read in context. In the case of Revelation about the angels he saw, I believe what he means is one going in each of the four cardinal directions, but so much stuff in Revelation is symbolic and like I said I am not a Bible scholar so it’s hard for me to tell. As a native speaker I wouldn’t read those verses in English and infer that the author thought that the earth was flat. I would assume he was making a figure of speech about the expanse of the earth. I wish I knew the Greek or Hebrew…then I could tell you what the original translation says. Luke 4:5 is one of those mysteries that can’t be explained but we accept on faith, but I should note that not all translations of the Bible in English mention a mountain (the NASB and the ESV for example say that the devil “led Jesus up” but makes no mention of a mountain). So either there wasn’t a mountain involved and Jesus was taken to a place where he could literally see all the kingdoms, or Jesus being able to see all the kingdoms was some kind of miracle from uptop a mountain (the Bible does say that the devil can perform miracles too). Whether the Earth is round or flat (which obviously we all know it is round), there was no way Jesus could see all of the kingdoms without a miracle. Finally, about the earth being still, when I read in the Bible verses that say “He set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved” (I think it’s in a few different places in the Psalms and maybe somewhere in Job), it’s not saying that the earth doesn’t spin around on an axis (sure it does…He created day and night in Genesis). You could also interpret it that the earth is not going to fall apart (yay for gravity). The earth does maintain its shape doesn’t it? Here’s some other translations of the same verse (Psalm 104:50): “He established the earth upon its foundations,
So that it will not totter forever and ever.” (NASB) (If you read NASB which many believe is the most literal English translation of the Bible, it does explicitly make mention that the earth at present rotates on an axis!) “Who laid the foundations of the earth, that it should not be removed for ever” (KJV) “He established the earth on its foundations;
it will never be shaken.” (HCSB) When I read all the different translations, I think that this verse is talking not about whether or not the Earth literally stands still in the universe but the fact that God is sovereign and, because He created the earth and all things, He is in complete control of the earth’s fate. About the instances in Isaiah and in Joshua where the sun “stands still”. We believe those are Old Testament miracles performed by God. You believe in miracles, right? Sure, the sun seemingly “stood still”...from the perspective of those on the earth who wrote Joshua and Isaiah (though the verse in Isaiah never says that it was the sun that moved…it just says that the shadow moved…the lends equal support to the fact that it was the earth that moved). Finally, Ecclesiastes… I don’t think Solomon wrote this to make a scientific claim about whether the sun or the Earth moves, especially since it’s written in poetic language and he personifies the sun in the 2nd half of the verse (common in poetic writing). Think about it… you and I talk about “the sun rising”, “the sun setting”, “sunrises”, and “sunsets” all the time in English. But just because we use that terminology, does it mean that we really believe that the sun is literally rising and setting? Or course not! But we still use the terminology anyway to describe what we know is the earth rotating. The reason Solomon wrote this is to illustrate the truth in verse 1:9 which says “What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun” using the illustration of the endless cycle of sunrise and sunsets. So, those are some of my replies to the addresses made against the Bible in this article. Feel free to post your feedback :) Personally though, I believe there is a much more important question that should be used as a basis in deciding which book is the inspired Word of God. Who is Jesus/Isa? Is He a great teacher and prophet who was taken up to heaven as the Qu’ran suggests? Or is He the living Savior and Son of God who was crucified and resurrected to pay the penalty for our sins as the Bible/Injil suggests? To me, I think that is the most important question that we must each decide when making our choice. I respect you a lot for being bold to post something so controversial on these forums. I know sometimes the debates can get pretty heated :)
|
