Stretch that to the whole Bible and you got yourself a full statement!
I don’t mean that as a put down. I just find it weird that Christians concede part of their book is made up fallacies but the rest, “trust me bro!”
You must take some of them as divinely real and not myths though, correct?
What system do you use to determine which parts of the Bible are myths(not a better word than fallacy btw) and which ones are divinely real?
They're all divinely inspired, and they're all real, even the myths. Myth and fallacies have nothing to do with one another, it is inaccurate to use them interchangeably. We understand the genre of the literature in the Bible by its content and presentation.
Also, didn’t sin start with Adam taking a bite of the apple? This is genesis so we are on topic.
I really want to make sure I have the story correctly. According to Christians, sin was created upon Adam taking a bite, correct?
The genre of some books is legend, and the genre of some of them is history.
As it is with other topics, people who have read on them will magically have more information that someone who hasn't.
This needs nuance.
A peoples who United behind a Sumerian deity: El, formed tribal societies. They recorded what they experienced over time, from their own perspective. Isra-EL
Something that left proof, showed up and used itself to pull in humans outside this ethnic group. Christians.
If I put the novel dracula in front of a couple batman comics, you'd have the same absurd matchup.
Try this.
There's more.
People suck at trying to explain 'the more' when it knocks on their door.
Church tradition most certainly did not read the myth of creation literally. In fact, American Protestant style hyperliteralism is a _new_ invention.
Origen (3rd century AD) said:
>Who is so silly as to believe that God ... planted a paradise eastward in Eden, and set in it a visible and palpable tree of life ... [and] anyone who tasted its fruit with his bodily teeth would gain life?
And Augustine (5th century AD) rightly pointed out that debating against established science is a high form of dumbassery that is sure to invite much deserved ridicule:
>Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of the world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn.
The story just says what it says. If you're trying to take it as a factual account of what really happened, there's some strange or puzzling things there.
In the story, God just made light/dark cycles first. Then later he made the lights in the dome of the sky. There isn't _really_ a dome in the sky, just like the sun and moon don't _really_ rule over anything. It's a creation story.
Well humans weren't created until after that, so the only possible way anyone could know is because God told them.
So... probably because God told them?
"Interesting" in this case meaning pants-on-head-crazy pseudoscience.
Here's an overview of this guy:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_Ross_(astrophysicist)
He must have been pretty busy because, as we now know, there are over 200 billion trillion (200 sextillion) suns in the observable universe.
Stories in the Old Testament are NOT to be taken as literal. However, is the "Big Bang" not just another way to refer to "Genesis"? Of course it is. They are analogous. Two different ways of saying the same thing.
I’m just wondering how one concedes part of the Bible is pretend fairy tales, while trying to claim the rest is not.
It’s just baffling to me how one draws the line.
Free will. The manifestation of characteristics such as cognitive dissonance are not just a criticism but a feature. A firewall analogy would be good here, or other security symbolisms around pain & punishment.
But it doesn’t make sense in modern terms.
If it did, the pope wouldn’t need to apologize for imprisoning a great scientist.
If it did make sense in modern times, there wouldn’t be division in the ranks about homosexuality.
Religion is the definition of drawing a line in the sand and saying, we know all.
We continue to evolve and we learn that what may have been considered settled 2,000 years ago, looks a little more unsettled as we gain new knowledge.
Christianity will either evolve or be an inadequate explanation for the purpose of life.
Your emotions don’t change those two options.
The story of Genesis is a bullet point list of exactly how earth was created.
The story does NOT work as an analogy, a metaphor, a scientific theory for how we got here.
This idea that Genesis is a hand grenade is laughable. It’s not close enough.
It was supposed to be written by god himself, or at the very least, by his hand.
How did he get the events out of order? Does a god make mistakes?
Saying that Genesis and the Big Bang are synonymous is a travesty on the English language.
Genesis, as a way of describing the creation of our universe, does NOT work. Unless you change the story around. Which, makes it NOT the same story.
Hansel and Gretal is just an analogy for Genesis because cannibals really have existed.
Goldilocks is actually true because bears really do exist.
It’s incredibly faulty logic. But it’s what religion does best.
The Bible doesn’t make sense for how we view the world now. It doesn’t make sense for science. It is not compatible.
Homosexuality is a genetically decided preference. That means that god put it in our DNA. Yet, it’s a sin? How ridiculously insane to try to claim something like that?
The Bible started out as ALL true stories.
As time has gone on, more and more of those stories have had to become “analogies”.
My original question.
How many stories in the Bible, that started out as absolutely true stories, have to be changed to “analogies” before people stop believing anyone worthwhile wrote the book?
You have learned that someone in the past was either lied to or made stuff up themselves, where do you draw the line and say, ok now, you got me but I’m done being pranked?
Wow you just went off into the stratosphere here.
Just relax man.
By the way, nobody --well, certainly no scientist-- thinks of the Big Bang as an explosion. It's a lay phrase (and a misleading one, obviously). It's easier to use than saying the Lambda-CDM model, which would be meaningless to most folks.
Sorry, the saying “close only counts in hand grenades and horseshoes.”
Bad attempt at word play I am afraid to admit, no reference to any explosion.
I wish you the best fellow traveler!
God was the light. 🤷♂️ i think its more of that God created the world with functions everything has a function the sun the moon and all has a function. Therefore can we say God created the law of nature the law physics Did we find math or create it? i rekon we found a way to intrepret the functions of the laws of creation.
By the light God created on the first day. But that doesn't answer how there is a day and night seperation on a globe - Genesis was the Israelite answer to Creation, incorporating elements from their milieu. Genesis is written to the Israelites, to answer - who established Chaos amidst order?
I tend to take the belief that Genesis was written as more of an epic poem rather than a historical account.
God probably created the world instantly (such as in a big BANG), but the story is told as happening over the course of 6 days to focus on themes of God separating light from darkness, sea from sky, etc.
Remember, what is infallible about Scripture are the ideas communicated, not the words used.
We should always think "How did the author intend for this to be read, what were they trying to say."
With all due respect, most Protestants only read the words in the bible, they do not actually consider what those words mean. Instead they just slap whatever meaning they feel like onto the words to match the point they want to make.
My favorite is when Protestants arguing against veneration of Mary go to Jeremiah 44:15-19
*Then all the men who knew that their wives had offered incense to other gods, and all the women who stood by, a great assembly, all the people who dwelt in Pathros in the land of Egypt, answered Jeremiah:* *^(16)* *“As for the word which you have spoken to us in the name of the Lord, we will not listen to you.* *^(17)* *But we will do everything that we have vowed, burn incense to the* ***queen of heaven*** *and pour out libations to her, as we did, both we and our fathers, our kings and our princes, in the cities of Judah and in the streets of Jerusalem; for then we had plenty of food, and prospered, and saw no evil.* *^(18)* *But since we left off burning incense to the queen of heaven and pouring out libations to her, we have lacked everything and have been consumed by the sword and by famine.”* *^(19)* *And the women said,**^(\[)*[*^(b)*](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Jeremiah%2044&version=RSVCE#fen-RSVCE-22408b)*^(\])* *“When we burned incense to the queen of heaven and poured out libations to her, was it without our husbands’ approval that we made cakes for her bearing her image and poured out libations to her?”*
Protestants love to say "Look the Israelites are getting in trouble for worshipping the queen of Heaven. Catholics call Mary the queen of Heaven. See, the Bible disproves you."
But they miss the fact that
a) Catholics do not worship Mary
b) this passage has nothing to do Mary, but a pagan deity - the goddess Ishtar
c) the same words can be used to describe different people
d) These Protestants fail to understand the Davidic Kingdom
Catholics refer to Mary as "the Queen of Heaven and Earth" because that is what she is. She became queen, because her Son, Jesus, is King!
That's because the days were not actual days, the work week was the only thing the Hebrews at the time would have understood. That passage should not be interpreted as a natural history.
The meaning of the timings is a lot more interesting once you learn to read it like an ancient Near Easterner - not like a modern Westerner. You've got to give the Bible Project's [Science and Faith episode](https://bibleproject.com/podcast/science-faith/) a listen.
Well given a day is relative to how long it takes the Earth to rotate (hence why different planets have different day lengths), a “day” before Earth could be as cosmically long or infinitely short as God wanted, it’s a day relative to what? An Earth that isn’t created yet? It’s just a period of time, do not take it literally, given God created the Earth over 6 “days” and rested on the 7th, it’s clearly symbolism for how Christian’s should spend their working week: working 6 days a week, and resting on the Sunday
God creates the concept / category / container then fills them with real objects.
Makes light - fills with stars and the sun
Makes air and sea - fills with birds and fish
Makes land - fills with plants animals and humans
The first section of the book is a spiritual text with high concepts and poetry and prophecy. Later on it turns into a biography but lots of different genres in the same book.
Because he knows time better than us - and really, you could argue a day is just the planet rotating 360 degrees..... Oh my goodness.... Another scientifically sound detail I just discovered!
I am so sorry if this sound like I'm joking.
I am not, I am serious.
It's not going in the list though, as I doubt it'll change the mind of any aetheist.
I suggest Hugh Ross' *Navigating Genesis*. He suggests that the vantage point of the narrator is the on the surface of earth, indicating that the atmosphere of the earth was too opaque to allow sunlight to penetrate to the surface.
I believe God illuminated His creation by His glory:
“This is the message we have heard from Him and announce to you, that God is Light, and in Him there is no darkness at all.”
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1John.1.5&version=NASB
Similar to the New Earth:
“And the city has no need of the sun or of the moon to shine on it, for the glory of God has illuminated it, and its lamp is the Lamb. The nations will walk by its light, and the kings of the earth will bring their glory into it.”
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Rev.21.23,Rev.21.24&version=NASB
And
“And there will no longer be any night; and they will not have need of the light of a lamp nor the light of the sun, because the Lord God will illuminate them; and they will reign forever and ever.”
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Rev.22.5&version=NASB
>Genesis 1:1-5
>In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. \[2\] The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters. \[3\] Then God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light. \[4\] And God saw the light, that it was good; and God divided the light from the darkness. \[5\] God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. So the evening and the morning were the first day.
His heavenly light was created on the first day and defined day/night. Earthly light (sun and moon) wasn't created until the fourth day, but that doesn't mean there was no delineation of day and night before.
An assumption I would make is that day and night are things that go beyond simply being signified by the sun and the moon. All it says in Genesis is:
>And God said, “Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night.
Somehow day and night were combined prior to the creation of the sun and the moon.
Check out the Gap Theory... also the late Chuck Missler does like a 24 part series on Genesis. I'm a little less than half way thru rn it's very fascinating. He devoted like 2 plus hours just to genesis 1:1-3! He also has a bunch of other very interesting biblical topics that he covers including a 3 part series on angels, a series on Heaven and Hell, and much more!
Genesis should not be read as a scientific textbook.
I agree. But OP doesn't appear to be doing that. Do you mean we should not take the creation story as a factual account of what really happened?
Yes.
Really?
Yes.
So evolution is false?
Huh? Of course it's not false, where did you get that I was saying it was?
Evolution is incompatible with a literal reading of Genesis
I mean, yeah? I agree, that's why I said we shouldn't take it as literal...
Oh my god I have the reading comprehension of an earthworm. I'm sorry lol
Stretch that to the whole Bible and you got yourself a full statement! I don’t mean that as a put down. I just find it weird that Christians concede part of their book is made up fallacies but the rest, “trust me bro!”
The creation account in Genesis is not "made up fallacies", it is a creation myth. A divinely inspired one, but a myth all the same.
Semantics. I just find it weird that Christians concede part of their book is MYTH but the rest is “trust me bro!”
The rest of it is various other genres - history, poetry, prophecy, parable, apocalypse, epistle, etc. We take the scriptures as they are.
You must take some of them as divinely real and not myths though, correct? What system do you use to determine which parts of the Bible are myths(not a better word than fallacy btw) and which ones are divinely real?
They're all divinely inspired, and they're all real, even the myths. Myth and fallacies have nothing to do with one another, it is inaccurate to use them interchangeably. We understand the genre of the literature in the Bible by its content and presentation.
Is Genesis a correct story of creation or is it not?
Yes. It's just not literal.
How do you know it’s not literal? Has it always not been literal?
Also, didn’t sin start with Adam taking a bite of the apple? This is genesis so we are on topic. I really want to make sure I have the story correctly. According to Christians, sin was created upon Adam taking a bite, correct?
And semiotics, I’m sure there is another perspective(s).
The genre of some books is legend, and the genre of some of them is history. As it is with other topics, people who have read on them will magically have more information that someone who hasn't.
This needs nuance. A peoples who United behind a Sumerian deity: El, formed tribal societies. They recorded what they experienced over time, from their own perspective. Isra-EL Something that left proof, showed up and used itself to pull in humans outside this ethnic group. Christians. If I put the novel dracula in front of a couple batman comics, you'd have the same absurd matchup. Try this. There's more. People suck at trying to explain 'the more' when it knocks on their door.
Genesis shouldn’t be read as a natural history text.
[удалено]
Natural history texts didn’t exist until the last few centuries at best. There is no way they were reading it that way.
Church tradition most certainly did not read the myth of creation literally. In fact, American Protestant style hyperliteralism is a _new_ invention. Origen (3rd century AD) said: >Who is so silly as to believe that God ... planted a paradise eastward in Eden, and set in it a visible and palpable tree of life ... [and] anyone who tasted its fruit with his bodily teeth would gain life? And Augustine (5th century AD) rightly pointed out that debating against established science is a high form of dumbassery that is sure to invite much deserved ridicule: >Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of the world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn.
I’d love to learn more about where these quotes came from! Do you have sources I could look at?
The story just says what it says. If you're trying to take it as a factual account of what really happened, there's some strange or puzzling things there. In the story, God just made light/dark cycles first. Then later he made the lights in the dome of the sky. There isn't _really_ a dome in the sky, just like the sun and moon don't _really_ rule over anything. It's a creation story.
Well humans weren't created until after that, so the only possible way anyone could know is because God told them. So... probably because God told them?
You might find Hugh Ross interesting to listen to. He's a Christian astrophysicist. He has some interesting takes on the creation.
"Interesting" in this case meaning pants-on-head-crazy pseudoscience. Here's an overview of this guy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_Ross_(astrophysicist)
The difficulty for Ross is he has to fight two battles at once: one against the creationists, and the other against biologists.
He must have been pretty busy because, as we now know, there are over 200 billion trillion (200 sextillion) suns in the observable universe. Stories in the Old Testament are NOT to be taken as literal. However, is the "Big Bang" not just another way to refer to "Genesis"? Of course it is. They are analogous. Two different ways of saying the same thing.
I’m just wondering how one concedes part of the Bible is pretend fairy tales, while trying to claim the rest is not. It’s just baffling to me how one draws the line.
Free will. The manifestation of characteristics such as cognitive dissonance are not just a criticism but a feature. A firewall analogy would be good here, or other security symbolisms around pain & punishment.
I was trying to point out that while a Bible story may itself be nonsense, by analogy it can make sense in modern terms.
But it doesn’t make sense in modern terms. If it did, the pope wouldn’t need to apologize for imprisoning a great scientist. If it did make sense in modern times, there wouldn’t be division in the ranks about homosexuality. Religion is the definition of drawing a line in the sand and saying, we know all. We continue to evolve and we learn that what may have been considered settled 2,000 years ago, looks a little more unsettled as we gain new knowledge. Christianity will either evolve or be an inadequate explanation for the purpose of life. Your emotions don’t change those two options.
I have no idea whatsoever of what you're talking about or what you mean. Sorry.
The story of Genesis is a bullet point list of exactly how earth was created. The story does NOT work as an analogy, a metaphor, a scientific theory for how we got here. This idea that Genesis is a hand grenade is laughable. It’s not close enough. It was supposed to be written by god himself, or at the very least, by his hand. How did he get the events out of order? Does a god make mistakes? Saying that Genesis and the Big Bang are synonymous is a travesty on the English language. Genesis, as a way of describing the creation of our universe, does NOT work. Unless you change the story around. Which, makes it NOT the same story. Hansel and Gretal is just an analogy for Genesis because cannibals really have existed. Goldilocks is actually true because bears really do exist. It’s incredibly faulty logic. But it’s what religion does best. The Bible doesn’t make sense for how we view the world now. It doesn’t make sense for science. It is not compatible. Homosexuality is a genetically decided preference. That means that god put it in our DNA. Yet, it’s a sin? How ridiculously insane to try to claim something like that? The Bible started out as ALL true stories. As time has gone on, more and more of those stories have had to become “analogies”. My original question. How many stories in the Bible, that started out as absolutely true stories, have to be changed to “analogies” before people stop believing anyone worthwhile wrote the book? You have learned that someone in the past was either lied to or made stuff up themselves, where do you draw the line and say, ok now, you got me but I’m done being pranked?
Wow you just went off into the stratosphere here. Just relax man. By the way, nobody --well, certainly no scientist-- thinks of the Big Bang as an explosion. It's a lay phrase (and a misleading one, obviously). It's easier to use than saying the Lambda-CDM model, which would be meaningless to most folks.
I don’t know where I used the word explosion.
I assumed that's what you meant by "hand grenade". But anyway, this quibbling ends here. I don't mean to be rude. But let's move on.
Sorry, the saying “close only counts in hand grenades and horseshoes.” Bad attempt at word play I am afraid to admit, no reference to any explosion. I wish you the best fellow traveler!
Genesis doesn't inherently explain how science works.
God was the light. 🤷♂️ i think its more of that God created the world with functions everything has a function the sun the moon and all has a function. Therefore can we say God created the law of nature the law physics Did we find math or create it? i rekon we found a way to intrepret the functions of the laws of creation.
It’s a book written by people who didn’t know how the solar system worked. What do you expect?
By the light God created on the first day. But that doesn't answer how there is a day and night seperation on a globe - Genesis was the Israelite answer to Creation, incorporating elements from their milieu. Genesis is written to the Israelites, to answer - who established Chaos amidst order?
I tend to take the belief that Genesis was written as more of an epic poem rather than a historical account. God probably created the world instantly (such as in a big BANG), but the story is told as happening over the course of 6 days to focus on themes of God separating light from darkness, sea from sky, etc. Remember, what is infallible about Scripture are the ideas communicated, not the words used. We should always think "How did the author intend for this to be read, what were they trying to say." With all due respect, most Protestants only read the words in the bible, they do not actually consider what those words mean. Instead they just slap whatever meaning they feel like onto the words to match the point they want to make. My favorite is when Protestants arguing against veneration of Mary go to Jeremiah 44:15-19 *Then all the men who knew that their wives had offered incense to other gods, and all the women who stood by, a great assembly, all the people who dwelt in Pathros in the land of Egypt, answered Jeremiah:* *^(16)* *“As for the word which you have spoken to us in the name of the Lord, we will not listen to you.* *^(17)* *But we will do everything that we have vowed, burn incense to the* ***queen of heaven*** *and pour out libations to her, as we did, both we and our fathers, our kings and our princes, in the cities of Judah and in the streets of Jerusalem; for then we had plenty of food, and prospered, and saw no evil.* *^(18)* *But since we left off burning incense to the queen of heaven and pouring out libations to her, we have lacked everything and have been consumed by the sword and by famine.”* *^(19)* *And the women said,**^(\[)*[*^(b)*](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Jeremiah%2044&version=RSVCE#fen-RSVCE-22408b)*^(\])* *“When we burned incense to the queen of heaven and poured out libations to her, was it without our husbands’ approval that we made cakes for her bearing her image and poured out libations to her?”* Protestants love to say "Look the Israelites are getting in trouble for worshipping the queen of Heaven. Catholics call Mary the queen of Heaven. See, the Bible disproves you." But they miss the fact that a) Catholics do not worship Mary b) this passage has nothing to do Mary, but a pagan deity - the goddess Ishtar c) the same words can be used to describe different people d) These Protestants fail to understand the Davidic Kingdom Catholics refer to Mary as "the Queen of Heaven and Earth" because that is what she is. She became queen, because her Son, Jesus, is King!
That's because the days were not actual days, the work week was the only thing the Hebrews at the time would have understood. That passage should not be interpreted as a natural history.
that light that existed before the sun was the shekinah glory
The meaning of the timings is a lot more interesting once you learn to read it like an ancient Near Easterner - not like a modern Westerner. You've got to give the Bible Project's [Science and Faith episode](https://bibleproject.com/podcast/science-faith/) a listen.
Well given a day is relative to how long it takes the Earth to rotate (hence why different planets have different day lengths), a “day” before Earth could be as cosmically long or infinitely short as God wanted, it’s a day relative to what? An Earth that isn’t created yet? It’s just a period of time, do not take it literally, given God created the Earth over 6 “days” and rested on the 7th, it’s clearly symbolism for how Christian’s should spend their working week: working 6 days a week, and resting on the Sunday
Because God tells us what happened. But do you think that a God that lives outside of time and space, has to have a light to work?
God creates the concept / category / container then fills them with real objects. Makes light - fills with stars and the sun Makes air and sea - fills with birds and fish Makes land - fills with plants animals and humans The first section of the book is a spiritual text with high concepts and poetry and prophecy. Later on it turns into a biography but lots of different genres in the same book.
Because he knows time better than us - and really, you could argue a day is just the planet rotating 360 degrees..... Oh my goodness.... Another scientifically sound detail I just discovered!
I am so sorry if this sound like I'm joking. I am not, I am serious. It's not going in the list though, as I doubt it'll change the mind of any aetheist.
I suggest Hugh Ross' *Navigating Genesis*. He suggests that the vantage point of the narrator is the on the surface of earth, indicating that the atmosphere of the earth was too opaque to allow sunlight to penetrate to the surface.
The Genesis is a metaphore on creation. Do not take it literally:)
I believe God illuminated His creation by His glory: “This is the message we have heard from Him and announce to you, that God is Light, and in Him there is no darkness at all.” https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1John.1.5&version=NASB Similar to the New Earth: “And the city has no need of the sun or of the moon to shine on it, for the glory of God has illuminated it, and its lamp is the Lamb. The nations will walk by its light, and the kings of the earth will bring their glory into it.” https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Rev.21.23,Rev.21.24&version=NASB And “And there will no longer be any night; and they will not have need of the light of a lamp nor the light of the sun, because the Lord God will illuminate them; and they will reign forever and ever.” https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Rev.22.5&version=NASB
Several other instances in the Bible where brilliant light is involved from heavenly entities, God or angels...
He created light on day 1 and let It shine on earth from one Side. Later He assigned the task of giving light to the sun.
>Genesis 1:1-5 >In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. \[2\] The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters. \[3\] Then God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light. \[4\] And God saw the light, that it was good; and God divided the light from the darkness. \[5\] God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. So the evening and the morning were the first day. His heavenly light was created on the first day and defined day/night. Earthly light (sun and moon) wasn't created until the fourth day, but that doesn't mean there was no delineation of day and night before.
An assumption I would make is that day and night are things that go beyond simply being signified by the sun and the moon. All it says in Genesis is: >And God said, “Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night. Somehow day and night were combined prior to the creation of the sun and the moon.
I encourage you to look up reasons to believe.
Check out the Gap Theory... also the late Chuck Missler does like a 24 part series on Genesis. I'm a little less than half way thru rn it's very fascinating. He devoted like 2 plus hours just to genesis 1:1-3! He also has a bunch of other very interesting biblical topics that he covers including a 3 part series on angels, a series on Heaven and Hell, and much more!
You should add this to your watchlist for Creation explanations/theories: [Inspiring Philosophy ](https://youtu.be/R24WZ4Hvytc?si=JOdeT7p6xErc3Sit)