RE: [asa] The moon rules...

Hi Jon,

Kids, I love 'em.

How one defines "rules" seems to be the question. A ruler doesn't have to
be present to rule. [Remember the centurion that had great faith and
recognized that Jesus could "rule" over his distant servant's palsy.]

Also, there is nothing at night that remotely compares to the power of a
full Moon. Sirius is the brightest star, but the full Moon is 33,000 times
brighter. Even at new crescent phase, the Moon is brighter .

In order to have division there must be two sides, so a light presence is
necessary for the division of night and day. Interestingly, the very first
thing in the Bible that God named was "Day". The only thing we know that
makes our normal day is the light that comes from the Sun. Nothing else
makes "day", which gives us daytime, etc. It could have been the initial
burst of life-energizing light from the Sun if its light burst through its
dust & gas cocoon, which may have only been glowing in the infrared prior to
this special event. Since the Moon reflects the Sun , it is fair to say
that it too divides the darkness, so even the nighttime experienced on Earth
does not have immunity against the light of the Sun (ie Day).

Once the Earth was formed, a normal day experience would be possible, but
only because that which produces this experience, the Sun, was shinning
brightly from the observations given for the "first day".

"Coope"

From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of Jon Tandy
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 11:54 PM
To: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: [asa] The moon rules...

Our five-year-old was asking my wife yesterday some deep questions. One of
them was, "Why is the moon out at the same time as the sun?"

Which led me to thinking. According to Genesis 1, the sun was made to rule
the day, and the moon was made to rule the night. According to a literalist
interpretation, what does this mean? If the sun ruling the day means that
it is out in the daytime, then the moon must rule the night because it is
out at night. Which leads back to the question - if the moon is supposed to
rule at night, then why is it out in the daytime, and why is it often not
out at nighttime? One of the functions of the lights in the firmament was
to divide the day from the night, but that feature of the creation is
apparently broken, with the moon's erratic behavior. Is God's creation not
acting perfectly in accordance with His decree, or is this an evidence of
creation's brokenness due to mankind's sinfulness? If the lights were to
divide the light from the darkness, then why does the moon's presence
actually make it light at nighttime?

Or if this is a *general* statement, that the sun gives light during the day
generally (except during solar eclipses) and the moon *generally* gives
light at night (except at new moon, or when the moon isn't in the sky at
night) -- then why can't the command for animals to reproduce "after their
kind" be taken similarly as a *general* statement, meaning that normally
hippos bring forth hippos, but in some rare cases hippos might become a
different kind (e.g. aquatic mammals).

Or, if the whole passage is taken as a literary account, and/or a typical
Ancient Near East creation account, then what purpose does the part about
the sun and moon play in the narrative? I know the section is said to be a
polemic against or alternative to the pagan concept of heavenly deities
being in control, but what does the part about the "ruling the day and
night" have in the ancient cultural understanding? Collins and Blocher
don't comment too much on this, except to suggest it has to do with seasons
in the Hebrew liturgical calendar.

"... then it becomes likely further that 'signs and appointed times' is a
hendiadys meaning 'signs marking appointed (liturgical) times" (C. John
Collins, Genesis 1-4, p. 47)

(referring to Paul Beauchamp) "The luminaries will serve as signs for the
religious festivals...among which figures the Sabbath. It is therefore the
pivot on which the whole structure turns." (Henri Blocher, In the Beginning,
p. 52)

Obviously, concordists try to make the statements literal, scientific
pronouncements, but it seems that a literary or ANE understanding would make
more sense here.

Jon Tandy

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed Jul 1 09:20:38 2009