I agree with Sungenis's criticism (FEFW p. 259) of Fr. Jaki's Modernist claims that "higher criticism" shows Genesis 1 is "post-exilic" (it is Catholic doctrine that Moses authored the Pentateuch), but degree with Sungenis that Fr. Jaki's criticism of "concordism" ("applying proven scientific facts to the Bible") is incorrect, on the grounds that "Geneis 1's separation of the Light of Gn 1:3 and the sun and stars of Gn 1:14-17 is a scientific 'contradiction'". St. Thomas answers Sungenis's objection (Summa Theologica I q. 70 a. 1 arg. 2):

Objection 2: Further, the luminaries are, as it were, vessels of light. But light was made on the first day. The luminaries, therefore, should have been made on the first day, not on the fourth.

by saying (ibid. ad 2):

Reply to Objection 1: In Augustine's opinion there is no difficulty here; for he does not hold a succession of time in these works, and so there was no need for the matter of the lights to exist under another form. Nor is there any difficulty in the opinion of those who hold the heavenly bodies to be of the nature of the four elements, for it may be said that they were formed out of matter already existing, as animals and plants were formed. For those, however, who hold the heavenly bodies to be of another nature from the elements, and naturally incorruptible, the answer must be that the lights were substantially created at the beginning, but that their substance, at first formless, is formed on this day, by receiving not its substantial form, but a determination of power. As to the fact that the lights are not mentioned as existing from the beginning, but only as made on the fourth day, Chrysostom (Hom. vi in Gen.) explains this by the need of guarding the people from the danger of idolatry: since the lights are proved not to be gods, by the fact that they were not from the beginning.

Looks like Geremia is the first to buy the book!

Yes, I was interested in his exegesis, but Sungenis still seems to have some Protestant baggage…

I agree with Sungenis's criticism (FEFW p. 259) of Fr. Jaki's Modernist claims that "higher criticism" shows Genesis 1 is "post-exilic" (it is Catholic doctrine that Moses authored the Pentateuch), but degree with Sungenis that Fr. Jaki's criticism of "concordism" ("applying proven scientific facts to the Bible") is incorrect, on the grounds that "Geneis 1's separation of the Light of Gn 1:3 and the sun and stars of Gn 1:14-17 is a scientific 'contradiction'". St. Thomas answers Sungenis's objection (Summa Theologica I q. 70 a. 1 arg. 2):by saying (ibid. ad 2):

Quote from: St. Thomas Aquinas

Quote

Objection 2: Further, the luminaries are, as it were, vessels of light. But light was made on the first day. The luminaries, therefore, should have been made on the first day, not on the fourth.

by saying (ibid. ad 2):
Quote from: St. Thomas Aquinas:
Reply to Objection 1: In Augustine's opinion there is no difficulty here; for he does not hold a succession of time in these works, and so there was no need for the matter of the lights to exist under another form. Nor is there any difficulty in the opinion of those who hold the heavenly bodies to be of the nature of the four elements, for it may be said that they were formed out of matter already existing, as animals and plants were formed. For those, however, who hold the heavenly bodies to be of another nature from the elements, and naturally incorruptible, the answer must be that the lights were substantially created at the beginning, but that their substance, at first formless, is formed on this day, by receiving not its substantial form, but a determination of power. As to the fact that the lights are not mentioned as existing from the beginning, but only as made on the fourth day, Chrysostom (Hom. vi in Gen.) explains this by the need of guarding the people from the danger of idolatry: since the lights are proved not to be gods, by the fact that they were not from the beginning.

Now this may be out of context with the thread subject, but it came up here so I would like to comment. I have long pondered on the creation of light on the FIRST DAY and the sun on the FOURTH DAY. As I understand it, St Augustine based his instant creation on the fact he could not understand how there could be light on the first three days without the sun.

This order of our world, according to Moses in Genesis I, was like every other system created by God, hierarchic. First created were the heavens and Earth, heaven for His angels and then heavens around the Earth. Next God created light, the material light and ‘the intellectual or angelic light,’ a metaphor for the angels,

‘signifying the angelic nature and mystically the light of their science and grace with which they were endowed at their creation. God created the Earth conjointly with the heavens in order to call into existence hell in its centre; for, at the instant of its creation there were left in the interior of that globe spacious and wide cavities, suitable for Hell, Purgatory and Limbo.' --- The Mystical City of God,

Was St Augustine, who could not cope with light before the sun and so separated himself from the six-day creation of the majority of the Fathers, the only Father who did not hold to a six-day creation? The reason I ask this is because it was this separation that allowed the billions of years to be applied to Genesis.

Now St Augustine was not a pope making an official Church dogma. In other words St Augustine was not infallible. Did St Augustine never see lightning at night? Isn't that light without the sun? Did St Augustine never see light coming from a fire without the sun? If St Augustine were to come back today and find a church all lit up with electric bulbs at night, would he think it a miracle? Light is but one electromagnetic effect.

I am a complete believer in an electric universe based on evidence. I believe when God created light on the first day it was an effect of electromagnetism that, like an electric bulb, gave the physical light described in Genesis. St Augustine, and St Thomas would not have understood that God infused His universe with electromagnetism. Pity, because St Augustine is portrayed as the one who blocked the six-day creation and made it impossible for a six-day creation to be held as dogma.

Geremia is absolutely correct in my mind to disagree that the creation of light before the sun is not a 'scientific contradiction.'

I agree that the universe is electric.  The sun is not a gas ball, but some form of contained electricity.  There are explanations for the light on the first day which was a broader form of light, true light as it were, not yet contained or formed except to be distinguished from darkness.  Some consider that the first created light was a luminescence of sorts, later manipulated into use for the sun, but remaining distinct from it.  Just as the moon's light is different than the sun and the stars.  This first light is not a known thing as stated, just a working theory.    

But Geremia is probably reading the book to confirm his own prejudices about the globe earth lie.

No, I'm only interested in his exegesis.

Dr. Robert Sungenis: "In actuality, the Light of the First Day is the original light, but on the Fourth Day the sun and stars were either formed from it or were created separately....the Bible insists that the original Light that was made on the First Day still exists in the universe today.     There are other people who believe Evolution is a scientific fact.  They believe the universe is at least 13 billions of years old and the Earth is 4.5 billion years.  some of them also believe Genesis is a sacred record of how the world began, but insist that we are not to take every word of it literally.  Hence, although they believe Genesis ! might be read in chronological or a semi-chronological order, they hold that each of the Six Days is actually billions of years long.  This is also an incorrect way to read Genesis.  The word 'Day' in the original Hebrew refers to a 24 hour period, not millions of years.     .....some who hold to the Big Bang theory (which claims that everything in the universe came from a giant explosion some 13 billion years ago) believe that the creation of Light on the First Day refers to an immense primordial explosion which produced light.  This is also an incorrect way to read Genesis.  The first verse of Genesis insists that the Earth came before the Light, while the Big Bang claims that the Light came before the Earth."

A bit long winded...