There are some what we may call "household name" Bible commentaries, such as those by Matthew Henry, Matthew Poole, Jameson Fausset and Brown, Halley's and others. These commentaries have much to commend them as they are great helps to those who wish to "grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ" 2 Peter 3.18.
However, for all the intrinsic and manifest worth of these commentaries, I am examining what they say in regard to the creation account as recorded in Genesis, given to Moses on Mt Sinai by the Creator God Himself. In this little study, I am examining what these commentaries say in particular about what God says happened on "the fourth day" Genesis 1.14-19. Until I came to believe in biblical geocentricism (the flat-earth by another name) I always struggled to visualise our 'tiny' earth spinning around at 1000mph orbiting a gigantic fireball of a sun not put into place until four days later! So, if this perplexed me, then I can quite well understand the unsurmountable difficulty Bible scholars and commentators were faced with trying to explain it all from their heliocentric solar-system viewpoint! But all difficulty disappears as a vapour in the night if we would only believe God's word as it is written.
It is a common saying today that "modern science has proved the Bible wrong." (the supposed moon landings et al). But is this so? I am a 100% confident that the moon landing hoax was nothing more than an elaborate satanically inspired American government sponsored perpetration to keep the masses in deception. For more on this, please read "Antarctica, Does It End? Hast thou comprehended the breadth of the earth? Declare if thou knowest it all."
Matthew Henry on Genesis 1.14-19, says "The sun is the greatest light of all, more than a million times greater than the earth".
Certainly Henry is correct to say "The sun is the greatest light", but "more than a million times greater than the earth"? Of the moon, he says it is but a "borrowed light."
The Bible knows nothing of these two assertions of his, for its sacred narrative only says that there are "two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night." (lesser in brightness not 'physical' size). His hypothesis that the sun is "a million times greater than the earth" has absolutely no foundation in the Scripture of Truth; but only in Copernicus's heliocentric deception. And the "borrowed light", we are assured is second-hand from the sun! The sun and moon both emit their own light.
On to that next great expositor Matthew Poole on Genesis 1.16; "The sun which is really and considerably greater than the moon, or any of the stars, or the whole earth." Certainly Poole is correct in saying the sun is greater in intensity of light than that of the moon, but of it's size? And what of "the whole earth"? When I read Genesis 1.1, God's word makes it very clear in no uncertain terms that He "created the heaven and the earth." From that very first verse alone, we learn (if we are not blinded by the theories and 'discoveries' of men) that the earth is the antithesis of the heaven. That is the heaven is above, the earth is below, it is that simple, if only we would believe God's straightforward narrative! From this first verse alone, we can know that the first earth is as long and wide as the first heaven.
Jameson Fausset and Brown's commentary says of "THE FIRST DAY
Whether the sun was created at the same time with, or long before the earth, the dense accumulation of fogs and vapours which enveloped the chaos had covered the globe (my emphasis) with a settled gloom."
On the fourth day in Genesis 1.14, this commentary says "the sun, moon, and stars were for the first time unveiled in all their glory in the cloudless sky; and they are described as "in the firmament" which to the eye they appear to be , though we know they are really at vast distances from it."
In other words, this commentary is saying that the sun, moon, and stars were made at the same time (or "long before"!?) as the heaven and the earth, but only became visible on the fourth day!
Halley's Bible Commentary says of the fourth day: "Sun, moon, stars,. They had been created "in the beginning." On the "first day" their light had penetrated the earth's mists. Now, due to the lessened density of the clouds (a result of the further cooling of the earth), they became visible on the earth.
It should become clear to any unprejudiced mind that the brief extracts quoted above show us that these authors were influenced by the Copernican heliocentric theory, otherwise they wouldn't have employed such language?
Left to God's word alone we could only ever know that the Earth is flat (or at least that it is not a spinning globe), and without the 'help' of Copernicus we would have no need to try and explain away plain statements of God's written word in the foundational book of Genesis.
Is it any wonder that the foundational book of the Bible is ridiculed by the world when some of its best expositors speak thus?
I ask any who happen upon this blog of mine; have the aforementioned done violence to God's word? Have they tried to make the Eternal Word say something that it doesn't? Thankfully, I believe that these Christian writers believed their salvation was only by God's grace alone; purchased through the blood of Christ alone!
Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. Colossians 2.8 KJV.
No comments:
Post a Comment