A non-creationist interpretation of Genesis

So why has none of that been passed down? Why are there so many interpretations?

 

It has. He even gave the citation to show that it has.
Do you think your ignorance of the topic indicates the world is not aware of it?
What is your understanding of Revelation, and where do you think that interpretation came from?

 

It's been more and more forgotten about when Christianity made the move from a Jewish sect to a mostly gentile one. That there are so many different interpretations not only of the Book of Revelations but of the Bible as such, is a side effect of the Reformation. If you hand everybody a Bible rather than just let scholars have access to it, weird interpretations will spring up. Very few of us are experts in ancient Jewish apocalyptic literature. Sadly - especially in the US - Luther’s advice, that everybody is able to make sense of the Bible for his own life, that but not everybody is qualified for teaching , has often been kind of neglected. Which gives rise to all kinds of odd and uninformed teachings. And usually the odder the teaching the more publicity it gets.

I suppose that’s the price us Protestants will have to pay for “freedom of conscience”, a value that I would not want to give up for the life of me.

 

I like the fact of being able to read it for myself and then reading others interpretations, and deciding which makes sense to me. However, I do believe that at times writers of scripture probably had no idea about some of the stuff that they were writing down.

 

Interesting. The entire first half of this post was ad hominem attacks and irrelevant bull(*)(*)(*)(*). Let's see how the second half fares.

So far: so bad.

And having the genetic code necessary to survive being in said place at the moment. It's worth noting that barring geologically rapid environmental shifts and migration, most of the time, species which live in a given environment have lived in that environment for many generations, thus giving nature the chance to biologically select for various genetic traits. And yes, to a certain extent, it is random. But randomness stabilizes over a large sample size. And these are pretty huge sample sizes we're talking about for the most part.

Correct! "Selects" is used to simplify and explain what is actually going on: that organisms better adapted to their environment are more likely to survive and pass on their genes. There is no real "selection", that's just what we use to describe what nature does on its own.

And seeing as humans are technically a part of nature, our "artificial" selection was very much a part of natural selection. Why did the horse survive? Well, you completely neglected to mention why you think it would have gone extinct, but assume that it would have, it remained alive because other organisms saw benefit in its continued survival. Not a foreign concept.

Wow, you really screwed the pooch on your understanding of "natural selection".

A fact that you have utterly failed to demonstrate. What, are there more people walking around with debilitating genetic defects today than there were hundreds of thousands of years ago? Come on, show some actual data. Some real information. Provide your own damn evidence.

You know, the massive assortment of links and citations I provided.

You don't seem to understand what a "birth defect" means in this context, so I'm going to have to ask you to give me your definition of the term.

And nobody is denying that! So basically, this whole argument comes down to you (*)(*)(*)(*)ing up a definition completely, misinterpreting taxonomic information, all with the purpose of making an argument against a position nobody holds. In fact, this is a common theme with you - attacking evolution by pointing to things people hundreds of years ago believed in lieu of evidence, while modern evolutionary theory has moved forward. Why can't you just be honest about it?

Really? Because the general consensus I've seen from the articles about the evolution of the family Tyrannosauroidae is that we don't know why their arms evolved that way. Please, if you know otherwise, let's have some evidence!

Hey, you know what? You don't like my evidence? Why don't you go out and look for some of your own. No seriously. Just spend like 5-10 minutes doing a little bit of research. See if you can find out what paleontologists think the cause of these bizarre proportions are. Because I explained why I thought what I think. You haven't offered a damn thing as far as evidence goes.

Prove it. Put up or shut up. You have a hypothesis? Great. Now why should I believe your hypothesis over the countless other educated guesses out there?

I don't see why I should. I offered you enough to inform yourself, both in video form explained by a scientist who then brings citations for everything he states, and in text form (again with extensive citations). But all right, let's start with this one:

You can find information and evidence for it here. And don't tell me that's too much, because evolution is a fairly large theory - looking at one individual piece of evidence at a time makes it all too easy to miss the big picture, which only appears when you examine batches of evidence. (Yes, who would have thought that examining the evidence for one of the most extensively-documented, well-evidenced pieces of scientific research would take time and effort!)

 

I wonder which one of those tasted more like chicken?

 

I told you to start a discussion of your evolutionary facts one by one, and what I I see in this reply of yours is a beast running away with the tail hidden between the back legs...

Others besides me, have noticed that dudes come here to attack religion and the bible with their evolutionary ideas and atheistic tendencies, and when they are confronted in their "field of expertise" they show up to be as thoughful as "monkey in front of a banana made of plastic"... lol

When Katrina hit New Orleans, people were taken to a stadium. By knowing of former similar actions from authorities, I wrote that after two or three days there will be stealing, rape, abuses, etc. etc.

Bingo! that is exactly what happened, not because I predicted, but because such is nature in action, forget about the fittest, forget about genetical codes, the knowledge acquired by the individuals, etc... survival... the need of survival will cause individuals to kill, to have no mercy (lots of rich people were assaulted and killed by poor people going to higher areas looking for food)... no rules... no theories... just survival in progress.

If this scenario happens with people with rationality like us, we can't expect less from the beasts. The conclusion is that the theory of evolution is just a nice story, a wonderful travel to the world of fantasy, where evertything obeys a plan where nature selects who survives and who gets extincted... as if nature has a brain and capabilities to find where to change environments...

Reality is that the Bible is 100% correct when presented to us a world that is getting degenerate, not only socially in humans, but biologically degenerate. We are informed of humans living hundreds of years of age, and getting more degenerate each time.. on the other hand, we observe the same tendency in nature when we discovered dinos with hundreds of teeth!!!... to end today as species with an ugly beak, smaller and dumb...

To whom are we going to believe? to the bible of course.

To whom are we going to listen: to a bunch of clowns who can't differenciate a simple birth defect from one generation into another and call it "millions of years of evolutionary pressure", or the wisdom given by the bible?... of course, the wisdom given by the bible.

About their representatives, to whom are we going to follow, a dude who believing in his own intelligence created a dumb hypothesis, got married with a close member of his family (following his own beliefs) in order to have "better children" but still having children with birth defects when he did so... or the Messiah, to whom nobody in this world has showed greater wisdom than him?... we follow the Messiah, of course...

The Messiah is the winner, while the evolutionists, ha, just watching how they drop a debate giving excuses like "I can't discuss a fact alone because this and that.. foosheee foosheee"... ahhh.. get out of here... lol..

While the bible still is the Temple of Wisdom, the theory of evolution is just a vain brute force attack that never gets the code... evolutionists can't even read... they still having reading comprehension problems when they read the first verses of the book of Genesis... Lol...

Lets see, this topic is about a non-creationist interpretation of Genesis... what is your best shot? stay on the topic.

 

The world and lifeforms are getting more complex as time passes. A hundred thousand years from now humans will be as different from us as were are to humans who lived a hundred thousand years ago. They may or may not acknowledge that they came from us. Maybe their religious fundamentalists will claim that their favorite deity created them from scratch.

 

Nope. I gave you plenty of resources to start on the evidence for evolution. Then you demanded I simplify, so I did - I went to one piece of evidence for evolution, the concordant phylogenies (which is probably the strongest piece of evidence we have for evolution). Sure, it's complex, but it's not so complex that it's impossible to understand. The problem is you.

Nope, you still don't get it. Literally all that "natural selection" is is a description of the manner in which animals more suited to their environment are less likely to die before reproducing. That's all it is. There is no plan, it's just the term used to describe the natural phenomenon.

That would be you. Again, you think the T-Rex's arms came about as a birth defect? Prove it. My friend did write back by the way.

You know, you don't just get to assert things in science.

All right. You want even more specific? Tiktaalik. Given the fossils we had, we knew that 390 million years ago, there were no known reptile species. However, 360 million years ago, there were extant reptile species. Given this knowledge, we predicted that we would find a transitional form - that is, something between an amphibian which was common 390MYA and a reptile which emerged between then and 360MYA - at some point between the two dates. Tiktaalik was found in the layer of rock strata predicted by evolution, and had exactly the characteristic predicted by evolution.

Or how about the evidence of gene fusion present in Chromosome two? Our closest primate relatives, the chimps, and almost every other species in the family, have 24 pairs of chromosomes, we have 23 pairs of chromosomes. If evolution, and more specifically the descent of man from ape-like ancestors were true, we would expect to see evidence that one pair of chromosomes fused with another. We see exactly that.

Of course, these are both fairly specific examples. But for much of the extant phylogenic tree, you can find similar examples. I'm not running. I've given you more than enough resources to get started on researching on your own. What has happened, however, is that you've refused to look at them, and simply declared victory on account that I can't simplify a complex scientific theory down to one or two pieces of evidence. Who, exactly, is running?

I don't see any merit to a non-creationist interpretation of Genesis, for the same reason I don't see any merit to the interpretation that Faust was actually a Bonobo, and Mephisto was a metaphor for his Jungian subconscience. The materials to turn it into a non-creationist interpretation aren't there. Nothing in the text itself would evidence that it isn't to be read exactly as written, and nothing given to us from the people who wrote it would evidence that they would even know half of what the interpretations talk about. In my opinion, the correct interpretation of Genesis is the one that involves god creating the world in 7 days, followed by a global flood. It's also completely bollocks.

 

Which came first, lungs, or the need to breathe using them?

 

Here we go. Time to show and tell. Put your cards over the table, lets see what you have. Explain your concordant phylogenies, start with details of the process (and methods) used, the selection and arrangement of samples, the applied variables, everything...

Take your time, lets go step by step. Nobody will rush you. The important thing here is for you to give your best shot and we don't want to get disappointed with a poor presentation from your part. You did great starting with the best evidence for evolution.

So, the next postings from you will be in specfic the whole presentation of your best evidence.

OK, very well, so you have the right and knowledge to decide what is literal description and what is not in your theory, but you won't accept the same right and knowledge from religious people doing so when reading the bible... hmmm

I'll tell you again, contrary to what natural selection implies, species are not ruled by any favourable variation (Darwin's lunacy), but totally the contrary, the key, the fact, the reality is that species degenerate throughout generations. Period.

He is not an expert with vertebrates. He claims that the tiny arms didn't incommode the beasties, question, How does he know that? We observe today that people with similar tiny arms and lesser digits are more limited to do things than people with arms that are in proportional lenght with their bodies and that have five digits in their hands.

Obviosly his opinion is garbage to the square, the T-Rex was very limited when using those atrophied arms.

And most funnier than ever, he says that he has no idea of why this species "evolved" (Jargon) that way... the correct way to ask this question is, why the T-Rex degenerate that way? What was in the environment that caused to this species to suffer such a multiple mutations like gigantism and atrophic of the upper extremities at the same time...

About ratites with vestigial wings, this is an example of degeneration, while the dino T-Rex had atrophied arms in lower proportion with the body, these dinos ratites lost their arms. Degeneration of the species in action.

Give thanks to your friend from my part, he has help us to expand more about the degeneration of the species with a wonderful example: ratites.

So, you prefer to talk about the tiktaalik. OK, lets concentrate then in this species. Remember, one fact at the time.

About your starting point, if you think that giving a wikipedia link will be your fact, I will clarify you that it is not that simple.

First you must start to provide the method used to measure such 390 millions of years. You must provide the method of measurement and how this method itself was verified in order to check its accuracy. You can't come here and talk about specific millions of years for this and that without the proper verification. You want to talk about science? then be ready to respond to every challenge so your words can be finally validated. You atheists and evolutionists demand from biblical accounts a demonstration of the duration of periods like "a day", well, here you must also "prove" your millions of years accounting. Your failure to do so, will discard the whole argument of yours, because your point of argument is based in such a timing frame.

If you don't see any merit to discuss a non creationist interpretation of Genesis, why are you here in the first place? Do you go to a library to play loud music and dance... or go to a disco party with books to read and study?

>>>MOD EDIT: INSULT<<<

 

Good suggestion.

Present for us one verifiable fact that proves that ToE is wrong.

 

Depends on how you define your terms. Animals have long needed an apparatus to filter oxygen from their surrounding milieu. There's always been a need to breathe. We're looking at a period something like 375 million years ago. There were essentially no land animals (insects were already present), and a lot of the life was in very shallow seas, where there was fierce competition for resources. It's not exactly known why the jump was made from sea to land (as is often the case - while we can tell quite a lot of things about prehistory, examining exact evolutionary pressures or reasons why particular genetic mutations were favored is hard enough even today when we have all the evidence), but there is a lot of information surrounding the issue if you care to look. So I guess it depends on what you mean by "need". Obviously, any species that required a breathing apparatus and did not have one would go extinct almost immediately, so it's a safe bet that lungs came before the need to use them. That said, there almost certainly were reasons why mutations that would transform a swim bladder into a lung were selected for.

No.

Just no.

I refuse.

You're basically asking me for a college course introduction into evolution and zoology. You want me to teach you evolution from the ground up. And I'm not going to do that. I'm just not going to. I have better things to do, like cleaning my room or watching trains roll by under an overpass or listen to my racist, ignorant uncle explain why "America was so much better before all those damn wetbacks showed up". Why should I offer lectures to a creationist who doesn't even understand how radiometric dating works in a subject he has a clear interest to not learn anything about? If you actually were interested in learning, you would have checked out one of the sources I provided. Or maybe take a college course.

I'm not a professor involved with evolution (seriously, I'm a computer science student with a chip on his shoulder and some background in evolutionary biology), and even if I were, it wouldn't be my job. The evidence for evolution via natural selection is immense and irrefutable. They don't even give college courses in it, that's how far into the realm of "established fact" its drifted. I welcome you to spend some time looking at some of the extensively-documented sites I've already offered. Because I'm not going to spoonfeed you this (*)(*)(*)(*). Not more than I already am. Ask me individual questions. Pose individual arguments. But I will not rehash the entirety of the evidence for evolution from the ground up for you. I think it'd probably be a complete waste of time given your posting style, and even if I thought you were actually receptive to learning, you need to understand that what you are demanding would take me not hours, but days to weeks. And I'm just not going to do that. Not if you won't take the first steps in understanding it on your own time.

Lesson one: science builds on itself. I don't have to demonstrate that radiometric and other geologic dating mechanisms works to you for the same reason that I don't have to demonstrate that newton's laws work on the general human scale. It does. It's been used in science for over a hundred years with concordant results, strong predictive power, and I'm not going to get into this bull(*)(*)(*)(*) with you. I'm just not. You want to know that radiometric dating works? Read a (*)(*)(*)(*)ing book.

Says who? I've seen atheists demand that theists explain how they understand "a day" to mean millions upon millions of years, but your claim is a new one.

It's already been done, the information is all out there, go look for it yourself, because I am done spoon-feeding you.

 

I know you have it all reasoned out and it makes sense to you, but I just don't see it. Some of the questions that evolution brings up, are just too hard for me. Theres not much use in trying to explain it to me either, because either I'm not smart enough or I just don't get it. Usually with evolution, I get so bogged down in minutia, that I end up being more lost than I was before.

 

From the creo-pov that question is meant as an unsolvable paradox, that shows ToE cant be so.

of course, it is like "which came first, a person speaking french, or another person who could understand it"

Lungs appear to have developed as an enlarged area of vascularized
tissue in the throat for air-gulping fish.

Not all the details are known, but obviously it was an advantage to be able to do so. We have fish today that come out of the water.

For the first who could do it, it was a wide open habitat to exploit.

Before their use by land dwelling animals, yes. They were of use for breathing all along.

Actually, you got that backwards. The lung of early fish is now a "swim bladder", or still used as a lung, or in some cases as the coelacanth, the
thing is now filled with oil.

Its a sort of reverse gish-gallop, and just as unreasonable.

I asked for just one simple fact to disprove ToE; that will not of course, be provided.

( i hope he does, i will want to grab it and get me a Nobel)

 

Virtually every question in evolution can be boiled down to the basic principles of the theory: descent with modification, and natural selection. I'm not 100% on my information here, but try to imagine it like this: at that time period, there was intense competition in the shallow seas - lots of species, not a lot of space. A species which could evolve to utilize more space, say, by leaving the water and going on land, would have a clear advantage, as there were no major land predators at the time. It's not known exactly how these mutations came about, but we know why they would be advantageous.

Basically, it's a question of how deep down the rabbit hole you want to go. There are a lot of really complex facts and the entirety of evidence is in fact quite hard to wrap your head around. When it comes to technical terms, it is very easy to get confused. But at the same time, it's really cool, really intriguing information if you're into that kind of thing. I certainly am. You should probably at least understand the points where it interacts with your faith at a basic level, though. Please don't reject it outright because you don't get it.

 

I have noticed that I will be on a Science Forum or on a News or Politics Forum discussing some scientific reality and all of a sudden....BAM! A few highly religious ideologues will jump on a topic and disrupt it with a whole bunch of Religious Mumbo Jumbo.

Now I take this is stride and I will debate the issues with them but even though they are doing this in a topic and forum that has NOTHING TO DO with religion or faith...these same type of people will vilify the posts of a member who is posting facts or at the very least a line of logic that might go against the beliefs of such people and do so in a PERFECTLY LEGITIMATE forum, topic or manner and have to listen or read what I just did.

The FACT is that RELIGION or BELIEF in a GOD or BIBLICAL TEXT or any RELIGIOUS TEXT....CANNOT BE PROVEN AS FACT NOR CAN ANY OF THIS BE USED AS A METHOD OF PROVIDING PROOF IN THE EXISTENCE OF A GOD....nor can it be used as a reliable 100% factual record for past events in HISTORY.

As well....since the Bible both Old and New Testament WAS CREATED by the IMPERIAL ROMAN CHRISTIAN CHURCH as the Roman Emperors appointed Biblical Staff to pick and choose exactly which books and Gospels would be used to create the Bible.....and as well since any books or Gospels that were in conflict with what other Gospels or Books might have stated were facts and thus since a specific IDEOLOGY was chosen to be represented by this CONSTRUCTED BIBLE....we cannot use the Bible as an accurate representation of what the ACTUAL EVENTS AND MESSAGE occurring and detailed by Jesus were for certain.

As well...such added into the Bible books such as REVELATIONS....which was not added into the Bible until 419 AD and was rejected by the Church several times before being added due to QUESTIONS OF THE VERACITY AND AUTHENTIC NATURE of Revelations.

Revelations has been determined to be a construct created by THREE OR MORE AUTHORS and this has been verified by a huge number of Biblical Scholars have sited many issues with Revelations detailed here by WIKI...

More recent methods of scholarship, such as textual criticism, have been influential in suggesting that John the Apostle, John the Evangelist and John of Patmos were three separate individuals. Differences in style, theological content, and familiarity with Greek between the Gospel of John, the epistles of John, and the Revelation are seen by some scholars as indicating three separate authors.[16] The English Biblical scholar Robert Henry Charles (1855&#8211;1931) reasoned on internal textual grounds that the book was edited by someone who spoke no Hebrew and who wished to promote a different theology from that of John. As a result, everything after 20:3, claims Charles, has been left in a haphazard state with no attempt to structure it logically. Furthermore, he says, the story of the defeat of the ten kingdoms has been deleted and replaced by 19:9-10.[17] John's theology of chastity has been replaced by the editor's theology of outright celibacy, which makes little sense when John's true church is symbolised as a bride of the Lamb. Most importantly, the editor has completely rewritten John's theology of the Millennium, which is "emptied of all significance."[18]
John Robinson in "Redating the New Testament" (1976) has heavily criticised Charles' position and accepted apostolic authorship, dating John's Gospel before the Siege of Jerusalem in 70 AD. He also argues that John's "poor" Greek is a literary device since Galileans were known to have excellent Greek.[19] He says: "The Greek of the Apocalypse is not that of a beginner whose grammar and vocabulary might improve and mature into those of the evangelist. It is the pidgin Greek of someone who appears to know exactly what he is about[.]"[20]
It has also been contended that the core verses of the book, in general chapters 4 through 22, are surviving records of the prophecies of John the Baptist.[21] In this view, the Lamb of God references and other hallmarks of Revelation are linked to what is known of John the Baptist, though it must be confessed that little information about him is known.

My entire point is that a person cannot site or quote Biblical Text as any form of PROOF to refute such REALITIES as QUANTUM AND BIOLOGICAL EVOLUTION.

AboveAlpha

 

I understood your point, and didn't need a chapter in response.
I am essentially on your side, but if this is going to get under your skin to the point that you are yelling at people constantly in CAPITALS then you are going to be a very stressed camper.
By the way, the book is titled Revelation, not Revelations.

 

Ah...the letter S.

Sorry about the Cap's. LOL!

Sometimes it would be nice to just have an honest debate where people use LOGIC...and SIGHTED PROOF....such as a viable link to a source that is reliable and is not biases....to determine the validity of a persons stated beliefs.

In another topic a person provided a source that was a link to a group that pretends to be a scientific organization and then when checking into it found this group to be a religious Intelligent Design Advocate.

I mean...what is the fun in debating a point if a person either makes up information or uses a False Source to back their claims.

Personally I don't care if I am right or wrong as long as I can know the FACTS!

AboveAlpha

 

You are hoping to find something you aren't likely to on an online forum.

 

Easily: God

 

It have been a pleasure having a discussion with you.

 

Thing is that rather than sticking to plain facts you yourself often seem to be prone to conspiracy theories. For example “Logic and sighted proof” told the ‘godfather’ of NT textual criticism, Bruce Metzger, that "What the synods and councils did in the fifth century and following was to ratify what already had been accepted by high and low Christians alike.” http://ho-logos.blogspot.de/2009/02/canon-textual-criticism-and-more-with.html
Most of the Old Testament was already codified long before Christianity at about 200 BC, the main discussion among early (and later) Christians was whether to include the Apocrypha of the Septuagint or whether to stick solely to the Hebrew Bible.

What I fully agree with though is that one cannot quote Biblical texts to prove or refute anything in the field of physics or biology and that the Bible does not constitute proof in the scientific sense for God’s existence.

 

Of course it&#8217;s great that the Bible has been translated into virtually every language so that everybody can read it. And even though getting educated on the Bible and its history certainly helps to deepen one&#8217;s understanding, I don&#8217;t think one needs an academic degree in theology to benefit from reading it. What is problematic though is that there are some very fishy anti-scholarly teachers out there, especially in the US where religion has turned into a market place, who heavily distort the Bible. When unsuspecting people read the Bible through such teachers lenses they&#8217;ll get interpretations, which may sound alluring, but are at best just humbug and at worst outright dangerous, especially so when it comes to some dispensionalist interpretations that seek to turn the Book of Revelation into a fairground crystal-ball.

So you disagree with Calvin&#8217;s notion of divine accommodation? Which texts in particular do you think are completely cut loose from the author&#8217;s own cultural horizon?
Clearly not the creation stories in Genesis, which &#8211; as the text I linked to in the OP clarifies &#8211; obviously reverberated the authors&#8217; historical background and their then ideas on the world. This does not mean Genesis wasn&#8217;t inspired and has nothing to tell us now, but the truths that it holds are theological truths about our relationship with God, not scientific facts about how exactly God created the universe. If God had been interested in conveying to us how His creation works rather than letting us find out for ourselves in due time, the Bible would be full of mathematical formulas. It ain&#8217;t.

 

The issue of questionable chronology in Genesis chapter 1, though adequately resolved in a post by Junobet, benefits from some additional analysis.

The Genesis content in question, as posted by Junkieturtle is:

In Gen 2:4 (These are the generations of the heaven and earth when they were created. In the day that the Lord God made earth and heaven…), there is a critical omission or mistranslation. The Hebrew word “tho” was not properly evaluated in "aelleh tho-ledeth." It means the application of symbolic to a subject. Thus the generations (productions) would be described in symbolic language. The Hebraic Tongue Restored states that Genesis should not be taken in a purely literal sense. St. Augustine agrees, and Origen notes that the literal sense thereof is absurd and contradictory.

Essenian tradition holds that every word in Genesis has three meanings: the obvious, the comparative/figurative, and the superlative/hieratic. Maimonides suggests using reason to discern between allegorical, figurative, hyperbolic, and literal.

Esoteric philosophy considers creation to be a process of emanation guided by intelligent forces under immutable law rather than a single act of creation followed by natural evolution.

The idea of emergence from nothing is not accepted, since everything comes from a sourceless Source, the Absolute.

In the initiation of manifestation, unity became duality: night and day, positive and negative. Spirit and potential matter, energy, produce a third “only begotten Son”, the Logos, the architect of the universe, also considered a unified but multifaceted plurality, the Elohim.

The seed of the whole universe existed in precosmic undifferentiated substance (Mulaprakriti); the seeds of all living things potentially exist within the matter of the universe. Such matter and seeds are densified in the stages of the septenate process.

In a literal sense, creation of the plant kingdom ahead of the sun, moon, and stars would be a chronological error. The clue to this trip-up is in the fact that sun (shemesh) and moon (iarech) are not found in the earliest available Hebrew text, where the abstract "maoroth" (sources of enlightenment) is used instead.

Note that Gen 1:1 - 1:5 applies to the emergence of the finite from the Source, or order from chaos, whereas Gen 1:14 – 1:18 implies the appearance of a sun in a solar system.

Also, the moon-sun-stars reference, like most of the account of creation in Genesis, is derived from Chaldean astrometaphysical esotericism.

All of the analysis above is derived from Hidden Wisdom in the Holy Bible, Volume 2.

Much in line with the above is the appropriate post by Junobet, an excerpt of which follows: