The Creation of Man (5)

Great to see you here tonight. Welcome to our Bible study. We are studying what the Bible teaches about man and sin. And we have begun our study by talking about the biblical record of creation that God created man. We've looked at Genesis 1 and 2 and we're going to go back to Genesis 1 tonight so you may not want to be finding your place there. Genesis 1, Genesis 1 and 2. But we've looked at the biblical record not only in Genesis 1 and 2 but also some other supporting passages that supplement, add to, clarify the record there in Genesis 1 and 2. For the last couple of weeks however we've been looking at some theories creation that try to fit evolution and the Bible together. And we've looked at several of those and those of you who are scientifically minded and literate have stretched me a bit as far as what all this is about. But basically we've just looked at several views that try to combine the biblical information with evolution. Theistic evolution, we looked at progressive creation or the day-age theory, spent a good bit of time on that. We briefly dealt with the initial day's theory. Tonight we're going to talk about the gap theory. So we're going to talk about that and then we're going to talk about scientific creationism and hopefully wrap up the whole section on the creation of man. Then we'll begin next week talking about the nature of man. What is man made of? What is it mean to be made in the image and likeness of God? We're going to talk about that more. But let's talk about the gap theory. The gap theory is not strictly an evolutionary theory. I want to give you the statement of the theory first. The gap theory is basically it was promoted by biblical teachers and pastors and so forth who did not necessarily subscribe to evolution. It is not necessarily an evolutionary theory, but it's a theory or a way of interpreting the first three verses of Genesis in a way that puts a gap in there that allows for evolution. It allows for long periods of time. So you can see what's happening. It's an attempt basically to take into account what those who teach the gap theory feel like is required by the geologic timetable in the fossil record. So they put a gap in Genesis 1 to give the long periods of time that they think have been established by science. That's what the gap theory is all about. It's an attempt to fit the long periods in but maintain six literal days of creation. It's a hybrid view basically come up. It was developed by Bible teachers and not scientists, not evolutionists. So it was a credible attempt to take the Bible seriously and have six 24 hour days but somehow also get the fossil record and so forth in there and we'll deal with all that in just a little bit. So let's look at Genesis 1. I want you to see what the gap theory teaches and then we're going to pick it apart and fill in the gaps a little bit. So Genesis 1.1 in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was formless and empty. Darkness was over the surface of the deep and the spirit of God was hovering over the waters and God said let there be light and then you go on through the rest of the days of creation. What the gap theory does is it places the gap between verses 1 and 2. So this is the way they see these verses. There's a gap of time between the original creation in verse 1 and the six days of creation starting in verse 3. And the gap theory basically teaches that chapter 1 verse 2 implies a gap. Now the earth was formless and empty. Those who believe the gap theory say that the word was the verb was should be translated became. So you've got original creation, heaven and earth and then that original creation became without form and void or as the anavis says formless and empty. Gap theorists pull in another verse to support this and it's Isaiah 45 and verse 18 which says for this is what the Lord says he who created the heavens he is God. He who fashioned and made the earth he founded it. He did not create it to be empty but formed it to be inhabited. So he did not create it to be empty or unfilled. He says I am the Lord and there is no other and so gap theorists say well this verse says that God created the earth not empty and and formless. And so there must have been an original earth that was perfect and then somehow it became formless and empty. And then we have the situation because of that that we have there in in verse 2. So gap theorists say that the earth was not created without form and void. God created it perfect and then the earth became formless and empty and that's an evidence of God's judgment. And so what they do is between verses 1 and 2 they put a judgment of God on a perfect earth. They also put the fall of Satan between those two verses. And they also put long geologic periods of time with a race of people and a population of animals on the earth. So here's what it looks like. Gap theory basically teaches in verse 1 God created the heavens and the earth. And though it was a perfect earth he created mankind. He created animals. The earth was populated by man and animals. And then Satan fell from heaven and somehow brought judgment upon the earth. And so God judged that perfect earth and that's the condition of the earth as we find it in verse 2. After this earth may have gone on for millions of years and many people have died and thus accounting for the fossil record. Now now you get all the fossil record and the great gaps of time that evolution demands. And then after this judgment of God because the earth became empty and formless they say you have this judgment of God and now you've got the earth in verse 2. After millions of years people have died, animals have died, the fossil record has been built. You've got plenty of time not necessarily for evolution but for the fossil record and the gaps of time. Those are the two main concerns of the gap theory. You've got plenty of time for all that to happen and now after God judges the earth you've got this condition of the earth without form and it's empty and then God begins a recreation in verse 3 on the first day of creation. So they put all of that between verses 1 and 2. That's basically what the gap theory teaches. And the basic concern is to find some way to have the long periods of time demanded by evolution and also a long period of time to build up fossils and the geologic timetable. So that's where the gap theory came from. It's an attempt to accommodate evolution but they don't necessarily believe in evolution. They're just trying to accommodate the great time period and the fossil record. Does that make clear anybody have a question about how the gap theory came to be and what it teaches? Who can conquer it? I don't remember who first came up with it. It appeared in print in the original Scofield Bible that was done I think in the early 1900s. And it was popularized by the Scofield Bible and many Bible teachers in the early mid 1900s who used the Scofield reference Bible taught the gap theory. So it found its way into Bible colleges and so forth. I don't remember who the first person was to actually teach that. Interestingly enough in the new Scofield Bible in 1967 when they updated it, they moved the gap theory notes out of Genesis 1 and they put a smaller note with Isaiah 45-18 to kind of get it away from... They were beginning to realize it didn't hold water and so they kind of moved it and changed it. I think I saw him back here first and then they will come up to Tommy. Good question. The evolutionary theory came first and the gap theory was developed in response to the evolutionary theory not to accommodate evolutionary changes like animals, you know, apes turning into man and so forth. So they put to accommodate what evolution taught about the long time periods and the fossil record. So they had to accommodate, they felt like those two things even if they didn't believe in the evolutionary development of animals into man. So the evolutionary theory came first. The gap theory was a response to that. If you're really interested in studying the kinds of things Tommy raised here, the Grand Canyon and also the cold beds and the fossils in the cold, there is a lot of good material written on that. We obviously don't have time to go into it tonight. But answers in Genesis and Institute for Creation Research, those two organizations have put out a lot of good information on the development of Grand Canyon. And Mount St. Helens, when it erupted out in Washington, a canyon, I've got the video but don't remember all the footage now. Something several hundred feet deep was created in just a very short period of time by those forces there and it's an amazing thing about the power of water. So the Grand Canyon was not formed over millions and millions of years of water carving it out of rock. It was a result of the flood. And the same thing is true of the incredible pressure that formed coal and smashed animals and made fossils where you've got the fossils of fish in the interior of countries like in the Midwest United States. How did all that happen? Well, the great cataclysmic Genesis flood was responsible for all that and there's a lot that has been written on that. I'm getting a little far from the topic now, but a lot has been written on that and we'll come back to that later when we talk about scientific creationism. Okay, any other questions about the gap theory? What it says? Yes, Bill? No, it really doesn't. There are some who teach that, voided and try to make it an act of judgment. And the same thing is done with the word the verb was changed into the word became. The best book on that was written by a Hebrew scholar by the name of Weston Fields. Weston Fields is one of my Hebrew teachers at Grace Seminary. He was an absolutely brilliant Hebrew scholar left Grace after just a few years there and went to teach at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem. Teaching Hebrew to Jewish scholars. Okay, that's kind of scholarly. He wrote a book called Unformed and Unfilled about the gap theory. It is the most credible, biblical and scientific rebuttal of all of the arguments for the gap theory and it deals with those very things that Bill you say you've heard taught about this passage. I think so. You may have to wait through a little bit of Hebrew, but he, I think he transliterates it in the English in most places at least. It's a great book. Are you smelling a little problem there? Yeah, I am too. I am too. The big problem in fact. We're going to get to that in just a moment here with the objections. All right, let's jump into the objections to the gap theory. The first objection is that the verb was cannot be translated, became and this was one of the best parts of Weston Fields book. He is a one of the foremost Hebrew scholars in the world and he makes it very clear and basically his arguments are why everybody Hebrew scholars at least turn around and ran away. From the gap theory because they realize you cannot take the Hebrew that way at all very few if any legitimate Hebrew scholars would translate the verb that way and that's the big issue is the verb. When the verb to be which is the Hebrew verb, Hayah, when it means became it is it always it is either one of two things, always one of these two things happens. It is either preceded by a preposition, the Hebrew preposition, Lamid which is kind of like the English L. It is either that preposition before the word or there's either a verb that is either the word. Or there's a totally different type of construction the way the verb appears in verse two it is lexically impossible to translate it became now the verb Hayah can be translated became in other and is in other places in the Old Testament but it always has the preposition Lamid before it or it is a totally different construction, totally different tents or mood. So you simply lexically as far as the meaning of the word and translation there is no other instance in the Old Testament where without those things that I mentioned the verb should be translated became so he kind of blew that argument totally out of the water. And so no credible Hebrew scholar now will translate the verb became that was just an attempt because the word can be translated that way in some cases that was an attempt by some people to say, oh we're going to grab onto that and make it sound like God judged an original earth it became it wasn't no one void when it started but it became that way evidently as a judgment of God it was just a feeble attempt to grab hold of a word. So a way that that verb can be translated in other places and put it into Genesis one it simply doesn't fit there so the verb was cannot be translated became in questions about that very no it just it just in a footnote explained the the gap theory. The old scophial basically was just King James translation so use the same words as the King James but just in the in the explanatory note it introduced the gap theory. Okay the second objection to the theory is the meaning of without form and void translated different ways in different translations in the in IV it's inverse to the earth was formless and empty those two words formless and empty or without form and void those those words simply mean and this is the reason Western field fields entitled is book this they simply mean. Unformed and unfilled it has nothing to do with a judgment state or a chaotic state as a result of any judgment the words simply don't indicate that it simply means that when God first spoke planet earth into existence it was yet unformed in other words it did not have land masses the water had not yet been separated from the land making dry land. So it had no shape to it as far as land masses or mountains or anything like that so it was without form it was unformed and it was unfilled it was empty as the in IV translates it it had not yet been filled with plants and animals and mankind so basically the point of the verses this God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth when God first spoke it into existence was just around globe that had not yet been formed and it had not yet been filled with anything that's not a that's not a negative state it's dark yes but that's not an indication of judgment light hasn't been created yet until the next until verse three so that's the reason it was dark okay there's no indication of any judgment or anything morally wrong here. It's just when God first spoke the earth into existence that's the way it looks and now he's going to finish the six days of creation by forming it and filling it and the rest of Genesis one describes how he formed it and how he filled it. It's simply in the beginning had no topographical features like we know now and it had no creatures no plant life no animals no mankind so it was without the order and life that it would have at the end of the six days that's not an inferior creation it's just that that's the way God chose to do it he chose to speak the earth into existence and then as part of the six days he formed and filled it. That's really all that Genesis one one and two means the meaning of without form is void does not in any way indicate some kind of judgment or chaotic state it's just an unformed unfilled planet that God created then he finished it he finished it. Okay any questions about that. Yeah the whole concept of dinosaurs is a fascinating topic and I believe it's in Job 38 39 where two creatures are mentioned one of them is behemoth the other is Leviathan behemoth is a land creature Leviathan is a sea creature and the way they are described defies any animal that we know today behemoth is is described with a tail like a cedar tree now you'll find in many of your notes in your Bibles that that scholars who don't want to admit that dinosaurs could have still been living when Job was alive which was in 2100 BC they interpret behemoth as an elephant. Have you ever seen an elephant with a with a tail that like a cedar tree. I sure haven't and the rest of the description doesn't fit an elephant and Leviathan is the same way it's some kind of sea going dinosaur and yes dinosaurs were on planet earth even after the flood Noah took two of every kind of animal they didn't have to be fully grown. They could be young animals they could have been smaller dinosaurs but there were dinosaurs in Joves Day and where he saw them was in the Jordan Valley along the Jordan River which if you ever go to Israel that is the hottest one of the hottest places on planet earth the dead sea which the Jordan River empties into is the lowest place lowest land mass area on planet earth. It's almost a thousand feet below sea level and so it's very hot and humid there and so the remaining dinosaurs you see this I'm getting it too much here on. Before the flood there was a vapor canopy around the earth like a greenhouse effect perfect environment for dinosaurs and plant eating animals even man ate plants men were not chicken and beef eaters before the flood. Only after the flood well after that vapor canopy collapsed in the flood which is where the forty days of rain came from after the vapor canopy collapsed after the flood the harmful rays of the sun the lack of that canopy was disastrous to the dinosaurs it was not a meteor or a comma that hit the earth and destroyed the dinosaurs is what practically every evolutionary theory teaches it was not they died out slowly after the flood because of the flood so they could not adapt to the new environment that's what happened and so that explains why Job would see behemoth and would hear about Leviathan in twenty one hundred BC again a lot of good books written on how the Bible deals with dinosaurs and how that we're not scientific ignoramuses and fools because we believe in dinosaurs. So it's not the same thing as the same time man did so anyway that yeah that how do we get on that but anyway it was fun it's fun okay. Third let's move on to the third objection to the theory the gap theory that is Romans 512 just that that verse is an objection to the gap here and here's how see it on the screen therefore just as sin entered the world through one man and he's not mentioned in that verse but he is mentioned later in the chapter that man is Adam okay so sin and a world through Adam and death through sin. And in this way death came to all people how did death get introduced into the human race through Adam there was no death before Adam so you cannot have a pre-adamic race of people in Genesis one one all of whom died and created fossil record because the Bible says death didn't happen until Adam. Adam introduced death there was no death until Adam sinned so you can't have death between Genesis one one and Genesis one two and take that verse seriously and it's when those kind of things began to be pointed out that people who believe the gap theory started running away from it quickly. So Genesis 512 says sin and death entered the world through Adam there was no death before Adam of plants or animals no death at all okay then Exodus 2011 is another good objection to the gap theory Exodus 2011 on the screen says for in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth now notice carefully what's being said here in six days what all was created the heavens and the earth. Wait a second isn't that what Genesis 1 1 says in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. So that kind of sounds like to me that the creation of the heavens and the earth are included in the six days right isn't that what Exodus 2011 say. So you don't have the creation of the heavens and earth and then a huge gap of millions of years and then the six days of creation not according to Exodus 2011 the heavens and the earth are part of the six days of creation that's on day one. And so that leads credence to the fact that when God created the heavens and the earth that was on day one it was formulas and void to start with and then on day one he continues creating he created light and then he moves on and fills it and forms it the rest of the rest of those days. So in six days heavens earth see and all that is in them but rested on the seventh day therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day made it holy and we we use that verse last week to object to the day age theory it's clear here these six days are 24 hour days because they become the pattern for us working six days and resting one day and the pattern is that God worked six days rested one day but what I want to see this evening is that the making of the heavens and the earth is included in the six days that's not some original creation millions of years before the six days that that's part of the six days of creation was the creation of the heavens and the earth. So there's no allowance of a gap between verses one and two according to this verse and according to Romans 5, 12 and then one other thing needs to be taken into account that's the passage in Isaiah 45. Why don't you turn over there please Isaiah 45 and I think maybe we'll be able to see in context what Isaiah is talking about. Here's the danger of taking a verse that has the same words without form and void just like Genesis 1, 2 we got the same words so it must be talking about the same thing no it's not talking about the same thing it's not really even talking about the original creation as much as it is the land of Israel. Isaiah is talking about God's judgment on Israel because of their sin and the question of whether or not God is going to leave the land of Israel without any inhabitants and leave it destroyed. Is he going to leave it that way? Is that the reason he created the earth and an Israel in particular? Well in the midst of that look at verse 17. But Israel will be saved by the Lord with an everlasting salvation. You will never be put to shame or disgrace to ages everlasting. In other words there is a future hope for the nation of Israel. That's the context he's talking about it here and in that context he says in verse 18. 4 or because this is what the Lord says he created the heavens he is God he who fashioned and made the earth he founded it he did not create it to be empty but formed it to be inhabited he says I am the Lord and there is no other I've not spoken in secret from somewhere in a land of darkness. I have not said to Jacob's descendants seek me in vain I the Lord speak the truth I declare what is right. So this whole concept in Isaiah 45 of God not creating the earth to be formless and void or without form and empty it's it's being used here to give the rationale for why God is not going to ever lasting forever judge Israel why because that's not why God created the earth to start with here he's talking about the purpose of creation. He's not talking about the same thing as Genesis 1 1 and 2 of what the earth looked like the day it was spoken into existence he's not talking about that he's talking about God did not create the world with the purpose of remaining without form and void. Formless and empty that wasn't his intent in Genesis 1 it's just when he first spoke into existence that's what started and then he continued creating and filled it and formed it. So this verse really has no bearing on on some kind of gap theory in the context it's it's simply supporting the fact that the purpose of creation was not to leave things a waste it was to form and fill it just like he did in Genesis 1 and he's applying that concept to the fact that he will not allow Israel to remain uninhabited and judged and a wasteland forever. There is a future for the nation of Israel that's what Isaiah 45 is talking about comments or questions there then about any of those passages or about the gap theory as a whole. Very yes yes good good point and that that kind of leads into a whole other realm the heavens are everything else and then the earth is planet earth are there other. Earth's out there are there other planets that have had human races or some kind of races on them that I think the very thing very pointed out is that the earth is unique I think the Bible would indicate that earth is unique. Not only the way it's described in creation but jumping off of what Barry said also. If there were other races on other planets in the universe then would they have also sinned and does that mean they would have needed a savior which means. The one God would have sent his only son Christ to die for them to well that that would violate Hebrews which says he only died once. So there are several good I think biblical reasons to believe that earth is unique in all the universe and try as they might scientists will not find. Human or alien life on some other planet. Now that really sounds like I've got my head in the sand and that's what the scientific community would say. Yeah you'll basically when you go to a national park like the Grand Canyon and you hear how those different levels layer rock layers and layers of sediment and so forth got there it's the full blown straight evolutionary theory of millions of years slow sedimentation and building upon one another. And we're going to see in a minute scientific creationism has a totally different answer for that totally different explanation. And see here's the reason why you will not hear anything else in a park like that because if you watch the date between Bill and I and Ken Ham Bill and I acted incredulous that Ken Ham would even dare to mix what he called true science with the Bible you don't mix religion and the Bible they are to totally separate arenas. And religion has nothing to do with science and that dichotomy created by evolutionists keeps us kind of pushed off into a corner where we won't be taken seriously by by scientists. The one problem with that is that there are thousands of credible scientists with the same degrees from the same schools as evolutionists who do not believe in evolution and who believe in in either a design theory or full blown creation by the God of the Bible intelligent design or creation account of the Bible. So to watch that debate you could just see where Bill and I was coming from he had no clue that there could even be any credible scientists who would even let the Bible into the into the argument. And it's because of that feeling that an evolutionist who's been trained that way would not even want to listen to what we're talking about tonight wouldn't even give us hearing because they don't believe the two can mix at all. It's Romans one that's what it is I'm going to get the preaching here if I don't watch out it's it's Romans one of not wanting to admit that there is a God suppressing the truth from creation that is obviously evidence of a designer suppressing that as Romans one says and the only alternative is to worship the creation rather than the creator. Romans one that describes exactly where evolution came from. Let's get back to our topic. I do want to I do want to cover scientific creationism I think I can do this fairly fairly quickly in the next 10 minutes and just give you an idea of what biblical scientific creationism looks like and what it sounds like. The statement of the view scientific creationism takes Genesis one to one and two at face value creationism first of all believes that the Bible is God's word it is God's truth none of us were there at creation God's the only one that was he put down a record of it we take it at face value in six literal 24 hour days. God created everything there are no gaps there is no evolutionary process involved although there is development within species everybody admits that but no cross species from one time to another evolution involved initially the earth was unformed and unfilled and then God shaped it and filled it in the six days that's what scientific creationism teaches. Now one of the reasons why scientific creationism is becoming although to hear many evolutionary biologists or scientists they will not admit this one reason why evolution is becoming so suspect in the scientific community and I've got some books in my library one is called Darwin's black box written by a microbiologist Michael B. who is not a believer but who who fills evolutionary theory full of holes from a genetic biologist perspective and there are lots of books being written like that now. The overwhelming scientific community does not want to talk about that or admit that but it's out there there's a lot of that out there but a lot of these men have begun to poke weaknesses or show weaknesses in the evolutionary theory and their convinced that evolution is an inadequate model by which to explain origins even many secular scientists have become disenchanted with at least some or all of the theory of evolution for for number of reasons and I don't want to go into all of that tonight don't really have time it's not in my purpose to do that but things like the second law thermodynamics that the universe is winding down rather than evolving the universe is energy and order is being expended it's not going to be a problem. So I'm not increasing and and then there are other things to the geologic strata let me just mention that very quickly the geologic strata based on the fossil record is really an assumption you will find some scientists that date fossils by what strata they're found in just listen to the programs listen to the the people who do the programs at the grand canyon and the geographic and discovery channel and history channel and by the way I love those kind of channels it's about the only kind of TV I watch but you listen to the scientific presentations many of them will date the fossils by the different strata whatever strata it's found in and then others and sometimes even the same scientist will turn around and date the strata by what fossil was found in it so it's circular reasoning you can't have it both ways and then there are weaknesses and other things like carbon 14 dating that's been well documented carbon 14 dating is not completely accurate there have been well documented evidences of things that the age was known put another carbon 14 dating and it gets entirely wrong so there are a lot of weaknesses in the evolutionary theory scientific creationism is not just the head and your sand religious view that is afraid to interact with science now it has a different way of looking at the data it takes the scientific data seriously but a different way of explaining it and one of the biggest factors in scientific creationism is number three in your notes the place of the flood the place of the flood the Genesis flood in Genesis 6 and 7 and 8 again I would challenge you to read it's going to take you a little time you have to wait through it but read the Genesis record or the Genesis flood Genesis record is Henry Morris's commentary on Genesis read the Genesis flood the book written by John Whitcombe and Henry Morris written back in the 60s but still the standard it really was the book that catapulted scientific creationism into the debate John Whitcombe was Hebrew scholar graduate from Princeton University taught it at Grace Seminary where I was in seminary he was a fantastic Hebrew scholar he knew the biblical text and because of his training in paleontology at Princeton University he knew the science also so he did a great job of combining those two Henry Morris was a hydraulic engineering professor of Virginia Tech and put the water hydraulic information into the book and together they did a masterpiece on what the Genesis flood did to plant it earth what it did to the geologic strata what it did to create fossils what it did to the formation of the earth's crust and the formation of the continents all of that is accounted for by the flood and they give scientific evidence for that not just biblical evidence but scientific evidence it is a classic argument for science scientific creationism that takes all the scientific data seriously is not neglecting any of it takes it seriously just says okay for you scientists who don't want to believe in a flood the flood will explain all that the flood will explain all the stuff you found all these creative other ways to explain the flood explains it and they show how it does Genesis flood is huge it is absolutely huge in creating the fossil and creating the quick laying down of sediment layers and also in the development of the earth's crust as we know it now and even the upper thrust of the mountains and so forth created by the breaking up of the earth's crust in the flood just read the book it's great Genesis flood place the flood is absolutely critical and then let me just say this and open it back up for questions the time of creation if you believe in scientific creationism then how old is the earth when was it created well if you go strictly by the genealogies in the book of Genesis which an archbishop of the Roman Catholic church did Bishop usher and you have some of his dates maybe in the margin of some of your older Bibles that's what he did and he came up with the date 4,000 for BC when the earth was created there's a bit of a problem with that not a major one but a bit of a problem is the Hebrew term for father so and so was the father or begat so and so can sometimes mean ancestor and they're well documented if you compare the genealogies in Genesis in first chronicles and then compare them with the ones in Matthew the genealogy of Jesus you can see that that term is sometimes used of an ancestor not an immediate father but of one several generations back and so there are some almost hate to use this word there are some gaps in the genealogies not in Genesis one but in the genealogies there are some gaps just by virtue of the way the term Hebrew word for father can mean ancestor but most conservatives would say that does not add millions of years it may add a couple 3,000 at best so most conservatives would say the earth was probably created between 5,000 and 8,000 BC making the earth about 10,000 years old that often is called the young earth theory of creationism if you believe in 6,24 hour days if you believe the fossil record and the geological record can be accounted for by the flood there's no reason to go back any more than say 10,000 years for the creation of the earth when was it created I can't say for sure was it you know on a Thursday at a particular date there's no way to know that for sure but there's no reason to go back any more than say 10,000 years if you take with biblical information seriously okay I'm done with creation I'd love to move on to something else so I'll give you about two minutes for questions and then we'll start with something else next week Bill before I address that let me say there's one other thing God created is not in Genesis 1 it's in Job 38 and that's the angels the angels were created before the earth because the Bible says in Genesis 3,000, Job 38 that when the earth was created the angels sang for joy they had to be created on the six days because God created everything in the six days so we're getting a little bit of a picture of the order God created angels first then the heavens in the earth and then you then light and then you started forming and filling the earth what was the light source there are two views on that one view you have to take day one and day four together day four is when it speaks of the sun and moon and stars being put in place in the heavens there are some who believe that actual that actually the sun was created on day one and that was the light source and they are just placed in the heavens as signs for the seasons on day four right positioned in the heavens to create the seasons in the day and night cycle and so forth I don't subscribe to that theory although there are many who do many good sound scholars that I've read do John sale hammer in his excellent commentary on Genesis and the expositors Bible commentary series takes that view however my difficulty with that is there's nothing else mentioned as being created on day four if sun moon and stars were not actually created on day four so day four is just a gap but nothing being created it was just set in the heavens so I have a little bit of a problem with that I think that the light source on day one was some other light source maybe even the glory of God itself emanating from him to into space I don't know or it may have just been some other light source the weakness of that is what other light source would God have created other than the sun moon and stars so they're arguments both ways for that so long answer to your question basically I don't know what that light source was in verse three but most who believe that the sun moon and stars were actually created spoken into existence on day four would believe that is some other alternate light source that God created we don't really know what it was alright you're ready to talk more next week about the nature of man body soul image and lightness of God I'd kind of like to get into that so let's do that next week let's pray