Question 437283: 3) If the account in Genesis is literally true, then the sun was not created until the fourth day. And if the sun was not created until the fourth day, it could not have been the cause of the alternation of day and night for the first three days. But either the word “day” is used in scripture in a different sense from that in which it is commonly accepted now or else the sun must have been the cause of the alternation of day and night for the first three days. Hence it follows that either the account in Genesis is not literally true or else the word “day” is used in scripture in a different sense from that which it is commonly accepted now. (G, C, A, D)
I've gotten this far -
1) G - C Premise
2) - C - A Premise
3) D v A Premise / -G v - D
4) G - A 1,2 HS
5)
Answer by richard1234(7193)   (Show Source):
You can put this solution on YOUR website! My interpretation is that since the Genesis account says God created light on the second day, He probably created or implemented some sort of light the second and third days, then created the light we know as the "Sun" (as well as the moon and other stars) on the fourth day.
Revelation 21:23 presents a similar case: "And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof."
See if you can introduce another possibility into your logic.
|
|
|
