RE: [asa] The moon rules...

"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? "

YEC view: Man's first sin ruined everything. It even made tigers and the other predators carnivores (they were originally vegetarians and not harmful to people). ;-)

I tell my kids, some people think this, some think that (give a variety of views for them to pick their own). They will want to know yours and start with yours as a default- it is natural.
________________________________
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On Behalf Of Jon Tandy
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 9:54 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 12:49:19 2009