3 ms·

> Therefore one interpretation of the fourth day narrative is that it describes the sky becoming clearer so that these individual bodies can be seen. It is not

• dane-pgp 5y ago
  Like I say, the text states that there is light and the day-night cycle before the sun, moon, and stars are created; so the text does not allow for a simplistic interpretation of the individual words in isolation. You could conclude that there is no logically consistent interpretation possible, and if your prior is that the narrative can't be correct then I suppose that's an appealing conclusion, but I think it is just as reasonable to say that the text is describing (at least poetically) the subjective experience of a nominal observer on the surface of the Earth as it is being formed.
  • goto11 5y ago
    No, it is not reasonable, because you are applying your interpretation ("created" means "made visible") only in the specific passage where you find the literal meaning uncomfortable. If you at least were consistent in your interpretation, your conclusion would be that God didn't create anything, but just made things visible for an observer.
    • dane-pgp 5y ago
      > only in the specific passage where you find the literal meaning uncomfortable. The simplistic meaning is not "uncomfortable", it's ruled out (or at least made questionable) by the text which precedes it. For the other passages there is no such apparent contradiction. > If you at least were consistent in your interpretation For all the other passages, there is no difference between "creating" and "making visible", because there was nothing obscuring the view of the observer. (I suppose that most of the fish species wouldn't have been visible because of the depths or areas where they live, but an observer could have noticed at least some local sea creatures).
      • goto11 5y ago
        The original question was if Genesis was in conflict with current science. This is clearly the case.