Why did God make the first day, on the fourth day?

Question

Doesn't that scream absurdity? Why would you take the story as literal, after that paradox?

Read the creation story again, carefully...

Martin S gives the first serious, and reasonable anwer that I have ever heard to this question.

A very reasonable view was presented by Air Commodore P. J. Wiseman;

Wiseman’s basic argument is that the six days do indeed represent days of 24 hours, but they are not days in which God created the universe, but days in which he revealed truths of his creation to an individual at the dawn of history over a period of six days.

Pay attention Hypno Pope...

J D Ayer, you're exactly the reason I started to read the Bible, decades ago. You answer like a snake that's had his head stepped on. Did you read Martin's answer before, or after you answered my question? Half ******...pffftt...

Answer 1

Wiseman’s basic argument is that the six days do indeed represent days of 24 hours, but they are not days in which God created the universe, but days in which he revealed truths of his creation to an individual at the dawn of history over a period of six days.

We now know a great deal about ancient writing in Assyria, Babylonia, Ur and Egypt. There are over a quarter of a million cuneiform tablets now scattered in museums around the world, going back to 3,500 B. C. They deal with mundane issues of personal, family, and business matters and well as issues of state. Wiseman gives impressive evidence to show how the whole structure of Genesis fits so well with the way tablets were written in ancient times, tablets that could well have been handed down through several generations. Moses would have been in an ideal position to edit these.

Evidence he assembles to support the view that Genesis describes six days over which God revealed these truths rather than six days in which he created the universe include, very briefly:

The ten-fold “God said”, analogous to the “Ten Words” God spoke to Moses on Mount Sinai, which he suggests are God’s revealing of the history of Creation, not the acts of creation itself.
The Hebrew word for “made” which simply means “did”, not “create”. What God “did” was to reveal this particular truth on this particular day.
The writing of each day would be sufficient to write on one tablet. Babylonian accounts of the Creation were written on six tablets.
Babylonians had a tradition of early man being instructed in the truths of creation over six days.
The beginning and end of each tablet fits well with what we know of ancient tablets. Genesis 2:1-4 would be the colophon, which came at the end of a series of tablets.
The giving of names (i.e. “God called”) makes sense if these names were given for man’s benefit. The giving of names indicates that God is telling the story.
The word “rested” in 2:2 would be better translated “ceased”. The early Septuagint (Greek) translation of 2:3 supports the idea that it was not the work of creation, but the histories of creation that God ceased. God ceased his revelation on the seventh day in order to enable man to rest, not himself. Jesus said that the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath (Mark 2:27). If God instituted the Sabbath at the dawn of history, that would explain why it is mentioned several times before Sinai (e.g. Genesis 7:4; 8:10; 29:27, 28; Exodus 16.).
The Babylonians and Egyptians had a tradition of the truths of creation being revealed to the first man. The Jews had an early tradition of these truths being revealed to both Adam and Enoch.
The Hebrew words for “evening” and “morning” would be better translated “sundown” and “daybreak” and simply indicate the period of night between e ach of the six days when man was allowed to rest.
Wiseman points out seven difficulties that are eliminated by the above interpretation:

(1) God giving names—we now see the reason for this. (2) ‘God said’—the whole account was a revelation to man, just as the two final statements of what ‘God said’ are stated to have been. (3) The ‘evenings and the mornings’ are now seen to be, quite naturally, for man’snightly rest. (4) The seventh day on which God ‘ceased’ was for man’s sake. While (5) all the days, including those in the fourth commandment and the seventh day’s rest, are seen to be natural days, there is no need to give these days exceptional duration, and this (6) disposes of the idea that (a) the day of rest was instituted a few hours after Adam had been created (b) that it was the end of a long geological age, or that the seventh day is one of some thousand years. And (7) it resolves the old conflicting ideas about the ‘light’ of day one being present before the ‘sun and moon’ of day four and all its related problems.

Reasons which Wiseman gives for believing that Genesis 1 is very ancient are:

The absence of mythical or legendary matter such as occur in all other accounts of Creation.
All the references in this first chapter are universal in their application and unlimited in their scope. We find no mention of any particular tribe or nation or country, or any merely local ideas or customs. Everything relates to the earth as a whole and to humans without reference to race. Every other account of Creation includes such references.
There is no mention of any event subsequent to the creation of humans.
It is uncontaminated by human speculation.
There is no hint of the worship of sun or moon or the influence of stars, all later developments.
All the facts in the chapter are things humans could not have found out for themselves at the dawn of history. God did not keep them in the dark till later generations.
The simplicity of terms used.
The term “Sabbath” is not used. It is simply “the seventh day”.
No Israelite of a later generation would have used the plurals “us” and “our” of God in verse 26.
The Bible speaks of revelation of such things from the beginning (i.e. Isaiah 40 which contains the statement “Has it not been told you from the beginning? [literally: “from the first”]. Have you not understood since the earth was founded?—v. 21).
Wiseman says:

Genesis 1, disencumbered of its misinterpretations, stands out in its sublime grandeur, its remarkable accuracy, its concise comprehensiveness, quite unique in the creation literature of the world.

Answer 2

Read your question again oh mighty master of the paradox...

there is no paradox in the story...only in the structure of your question

God did not create "day" until "Period of equally divided time Unit Number Four".

And...if he created the sun first, wow...would that look really funny. Nothing else in existance (erase all from the first three days). Just a sun.

At least the creation story stages correlate with how science says it would have happened. Birds before man, fish before birds, stars before planet

Answer 3

God did not make the first day on the fourth day.

God made light and darkness on the first day. As any person with a flashlight or glowstick knows you do not need the sun, you just need to create a chemical reaction.

The second day God created Heaven.

The Third day, God created the Earth.

The fourth day God created the Sun and the Moon.

Once God created the Sun God no longer needed the previous light he had created and used to make the grass grow. God must have removed it. This is "unstated" in the Bible, but, is evident to anyone capable of basic reasoning skills.

I could go on using basic logic and a grade school education to rip your pitiful post apart, but, I will desist and allow you to attempt to form some kind of reasonable thought.

Unlikely, I realize from your totally illogical and obviously uneducated post, but, I always like to give people the benefit of the doubt.

PS Excellent, well educated and well reasoned post Martin S. I appreciate the information and the link.

Answer 4

Do you realize that scientists claim something similar?

After all, when a proto-sun begins to shine from that point on does the Solar wind start to clear debris out from the path around the sun.

That means that the Bible's account where there first is light and later it is mentioned again can be understood in that light.

Perhaps there were two problems, the garbage that was around the sun which had to be cleared. This garbage might have consisted in huge asteroids impacting the earth and causing more or less persistent darkness to reign on earth for this long time.

Then after the asteroids had been cleared, the earth's own atmosphere cleared also.

How long time would this have taken? I could find no estimate anywhere in any literature on proto-suns and this activity.

Perhaps you might want to read this page:
http://bythebible.page.tl/Creation.htm

Answer 5

I have read over it several times. I have studied it often, because i believe in two seperate creation stories... one by Eloheim which is Gen. 1 and then Yehweh in Gen. two which came later.

Eloheim is a plural form of the Creative God/ Goddess. That tells me that it was more than one aspect of the Creator or more than on God (let us make man... ). Yehweh was one God who created Adam and Eve and the garden to test some therories well after Eloheim created the earth. (Just my therory... you can flog me if you want... i went to private fundimental christian school and now i am pagan who believes that i am from the other people outside of the garden. Adam and Eve were not the first people and i am not from them.)

Which one are you talking about? Gen. one with Eloheim where things were originally formed or Gen. two when Yehweh decided to grow his little garden of Eden experiment?

Gen. 1:1-5 are all about the first day. They created light and day on that day and made the first day. We do not know what the light source was, or if there was even a need for one. It could have been just light and day... after all the Creators were doing this, and we do not know what they could or could not do. There could have been a star they created or they could have held a torch. Doesn't really matter much in and of itself. They created light and day...
On day four they created the things the earth needs and we as humans need to mark the days and seasons and years, etc. Day four is day four, light and dark were already here on day one.
Day four is not day one.

But we can each believe what we want, as we are all here now, and it really does not matter in the long run.

Answer 6

I have read it, carefully, thank you. God does not need stars or planets in order to have light.

Rev 21:23 And the city had no need of the sun, nor of the moon, that they might shine in it, for the glory of God illuminated it, even its lamp is the Lamb.
Rev 21:24 And the nations of the ones saved will walk in its light; and the kings of the earth bring their glory and honor into it.

Rev 22:5 And night will not be there; and they have no need of a lamp or a light of the sun, because the Lord God will illumine them. And they shall reign to the ages of the ages.

Answer 7

I can barely make it past the first 2 paragraphs without wondering which time zone God is in. If I do, then by paragraph four I am bewildered by the fact that the sky is made out of water.

Answer 8

I must respond that "Bunnie" exemplifies ignorance in literal terms; sometimes things need to be spelled out and this is why.

Yes, it does scream of ignorance and most probably see your question as eye opening to all as intended for many ages and levels of maturity; Bunnie exemplify's self centerdness with assumtions questions should reflect his/her idea of "correctness";

With this lesson comes tolerance and humility something one should think about before commenting on...

Answer 9

Heavens and earth the first day.It was just a rock in space.
Night and Day on the fourth. Which means the earth started rotating.

Need simpler terms?

Get A Grip

Answer 10

You have to read the Bible with more insight than that. Do you understand all poetry and literature literally?