What did "Let there be light!" actually do?

Tumah said:

How do you make an evening and a morning without a sunrise and a sunset?

Click to expand...

The sunrise and sunset are fine, from day-to-day perspective and the geographical location of where you live...OR, if people are religious or spiritual followers.

But if you were learning or teaching astronomy, then sunrise and sunset, really don't mean much.

Say for example, you were observing through a telescope and researching another star system (eg Sirius star) with some other planets, is it really important to know the sunrise and sunset of Sirius on those other planets?

I don't think astronomers would need to know this sort of information, unless they were living in one of those planets.

DavidFirth said:

I think Genesis is 100% accurate.

We aren't told the answers to your questions in Genesis. Do you think you could possibly understand anything from the Creator's point of view? I sincerely doubt it.

Click to expand...

Genesis was written, and edited, and reedited, by humans. Subject to the quality of the translation, understanding what humans have written is something I haven't always failed at.
.

gnostic said:

The sunrise and sunset are fine, from day-to-day perspective and the geographical location of where you live...OR, if people are religious or spiritual followers.

But if you were learning or teaching astronomy, then sunrise and sunset, really don't mean much.

Say for example, you were observing through a telescope and researching another star system (eg Sirius star) with some other planets, is it really important to know the sunrise and sunset of Sirius on those other planets?

I don't think astronomers would need to know this sort of information, unless they were living in one of those planets.

Click to expand...

My question was that you were using the context of the "evening/morning" to prove that yom in this verse means a 24 hour period and not some other unspecified amount of time. I am saying that contextually, how can evening and morning mean an actual evening and morning either, since those are defined by the rising/setting of the sun and moon and neither of which the creation account described as being created until the third day?

gnostic said:

Yes, SB, it is perspective-based language.

But the fact is, the sun is not traversing across the sky. It only seemed that the sun is moving, but the fact is, it is really the Earth spinning.

Click to expand...

Gnostic - I agree. In fact, I think we all agree on that. The scriptures do not say anything different; that was my point. I have not seen any evidence that would soundly support a claim that the Bible teaches or advocates a geocentric cosmology, but I'm open to hearing about evidence that shows otherwise.

Perspective-based language was used during Biblical times, and at other times and in other cultures, just as it is today in our modern Western society. When I talk to one of my children about a beautiful sunrise, I am not passing on the idea of a geocentric model anymore than the passages that you cited are meant to "teach" a geocentric cosmology.

I think we are being intellectually dishonest when we try to make more out of passages than is there. For example, when Isaiah 55:12 notes that "the mountains and hills will burst into song before you, and all the trees of the field will clap their hands," I am confident that the Bible is not teaching about a Disneyland experience in the ancient Near East. This is poetic language (as opposed to perspective-based langauge). Do you agree?

blü 2 said:

Genesis was written, and edited, and reedited, by humans...

Click to expand...

Blu - Can you explain this comment a little more? I respect your opinion--it is not an uncommon one--but this was a common argument before the Dead Sea scrolls were found in the (circa) early 1950s. At that point, scholars confirmed that the texts we have today match up incredibly well with texts from that long-ago time, despite the repeated transcribing and translation that it has undergone.

Thief said:

ok....I see the gesture of thought

I AM! .....is a statement of being
Let there be light.....a statement of creation

how about?...... simultaneous

the event is sooooooo tightly related
I don't separate the two

how to have creation?....without a Creator

Click to expand...

If there is not creator, then the universe is not a creation. Simple as that. The term "creation" is nothing but an english term created by human beings. So, it doesn't act as evidence for anything.

blü 2 said:

Genesis was written, and edited, and reedited, by humans. Subject to the quality of the translation, understanding what humans have written is something I haven't always failed at.
.

Click to expand...

You have failed in that you fail to understand the Holy Spirit or believe Him or even believe in Him. This is your error.

Tumah said:

My question was that you were using the context of the "evening/morning" to prove that yom in this verse means a 24 hour period and not some other unspecified amount of time. I am saying that contextually, how can evening and morning mean an actual evening and morning either, since those are defined by the rising/setting of the sun and moon and neither of which the creation account described as being created until the third day?

Click to expand...

You mean fourth day, don't you?

The sun, moon and stars weren't created until the 4th day.

But I understand your point, that the author of Genesis, whoever he may be, thought that evening and morning exist without the Sun, which we know to be ridiculous and astronomically inaccurate.

So clearly, the author don't understand the nature of the Earth and Sun.

But my point is not about the scientifically inaccuracy of Genesis, but the contextual meaning of yom means "day", when it talk of a cycle of evening and morning.

I know what you are saying, Tumah, but it is not science, but the contextual of linguistics, that I am addressing.

I actually could go on and on, about Genesis, not being accurate science and history, but I would like to focus one thing at the time.

Socratic Berean said:

Blu - Can you explain this comment a little more? I respect your opinion--it is not an uncommon one--but this was a common argument before the Dead Sea scrolls were found in the (circa) early 1950s. At that point, scholars confirmed that the texts we have today match up incredibly well with texts from that long-ago time, despite the repeated transcribing and translation that it has undergone.

Click to expand...

Bart Ehrman has written a number of books on biblical texts, such as Forged: Writing in the Name of God ─ Why the Bible’s Authors Are Not Who We Think They Are, and Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why and more. He's an authentic academic scholar, and the books present plain arguments and informative research.

Outside of that, you may already know of the hypothesis that Genesis can be attributed by textual analysis to five authors, referred to as J, who calls god Yahweh, E, who calls god Elohim, P who concentrates on priestcraft, D, who wrote Deuteronomy, and R, who brought those four versions together.

And to such NT things as the added resurrection scene at the end of Mark, not present in earliest copies; and 1.1 to 1.18 of John, which uniquely mentions the logos; and ch 21 of John with its yearning Jesus and off tiff scene; and so on.

So yes, the copying skills of the ancients have been confirmed from examples, but that's not the whole story.
.

DavidFirth said:

You have failed in that you fail to understand the Holy Spirit or believe Him or even believe in Him. This is your error.

Click to expand...

I don't have to believe in the Holy Spirit to understand the notion of a Holy Spirit.

And if you wish to say I'm mistaken, it would be helpful if you specified the factual errors you attribute to me.
.

Socratic Berean said:

I think we are being intellectually dishonest when we try to make more out of passages than is there.

Click to expand...

I agreed.

That's why when I did pick up the bible again in early 2000, after 14 years hiatus, my view have changed considerably. I went from being a believer to being agnostic.

Back when I was teenager, I didn't question the bible or that of the church teaching.

What I mean, since re-reading the bible in 2000, I no longer accept church interpretation of the bible. Perhaps because of the years between 1986 and 2000, I had the chance to grow up, learn some new things, pick up some new skills, etc. Whatever it was, I no longer take any thing that I might read, at face value.

The problem with creationists of today, is that they are trying to put modern context into ancient writings, where ancient authors might or don't have the necessarily education of astronomy, of earth science, of mathematics, etc.

That's a mistake, and it is a mistake that I, myself, have learned not to do.

For instance, I took the gospel of Matthew on sign of the virgin birth for granted, and without question, when I read it the first time as a teenager. At that age, I didn't bother to double-check the gospel's claim, by comparing with Isaiah 7.

Once I did check it, I came to realise both the author (whoever he may be) and the church have taken Isaiah's passage on the sign, completely out of context. The original sign had nothing to do with the virgin birth or with the messiah.

That made doubt a lot of the so-called messiah's prophecies, which the New Testament claimed come from the Old Testament.

Believe me, I know that people take the scriptures out of context for whatsoever reasons they may be, just as the NT authors did with the Hebrew Scriptures.

Socratic Berean said:

I think we are being intellectually dishonest when we try to make more out of passages than is there.

Click to expand...

I agreed.

That's why when I did pick up the bible again in early 2000, after 14 years hiatus, my view have changed considerably. I went from being a believer to being agnostic.

Back when I was teenager, I didn't question the bible or that of the church teaching.

What I mean, since re-reading the bible in 2000, I no longer accept church interpretation of the bible. Perhaps because of the years between 1986 and 2000, I had the chance to grow up, learn some new things, pick up some new skills, etc. Whatever it was, I no longer take any thing that I might read, at face value.

The problem with creationists of today, is that they are trying to put modern context (like modern science) into ancient writings, where ancient authors might or don't have the necessarily education of astronomy, of earth science, of mathematics, etc.

That's a mistake, and it is a mistake that I, myself, have to learn from.

gnostic said:

You mean fourth day, don't you?

The sun, moon and stars weren't created until the 4th day.

But I understand your point, that the author of Genesis, whoever he may be, thought that evening and morning exist without the Sun, which we know to be ridiculous and astronomically inaccurate.

So clearly, the author don't understand the nature of the Earth and Sun.

But my point is not about the scientifically inaccuracy of Genesis, but the contextual meaning of yom means "day", when it talk of a cycle of evening and morning.

I know what you are saying, Tumah, but it is not science, but the contextual of linguistics, that I am addressing.

I actually could go on and on, about Genesis, not being accurate science and history, but I would like to focus one thing at the time.

Click to expand...

Yes, I meant the 4th day.

The text calls the sun and moon "me'or". That literally means "luminary" - thing that give off light. The big luminary and the small luminary. The sun and moon. I don't think its reasonable to assume that they didn't understand that the sun gives off light.

Tumah said:

The text calls the sun and moon "me'or". That literally means "luminary" - thing that give off light. The big luminary and the small luminary. The sun and moon. I don't think its reasonable to assume that they didn't understand that the sun gives off light.

Click to expand...

Perhaps, but I don't see how there can be evening and morning without the sun, for consecutive days before the 4th day.

But contextual-wise, evening and morning do equal to 1 day.

For 1:3-5 to describe creating light to divide night from day, without the Sun is a problem, where the author don't understand the Sun.

blü 2 said:

Bart Ehrman has written a number of books on biblical texts, such as Forged: Writing in the Name of God ─ Why the Bible’s Authors Are Not Who We Think They Are, and Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why and more. He's an authentic academic scholar, and the books present plain arguments and informative research.

Click to expand...

I am familiar with Ehrman and his popular works drafted for the layman--the books you cite. I have not read his published academic work. He is an entertaining storyteller.

I am also familiar with the criticisms and weaknesses of his popular works (the books). (The biggest challenge to his books is that he tends to make broad and significant claims on relatively limited evidence.) Much of what he has written about were topics of debate (often within the Church itself) long before he came along, and they remain unresolved. He brings flavor to the broader conversation, but I hesitate to consider him the defining authority on the issue.

Outside of that, you may already know of the hypothesis that Genesis can be attributed by textual analysis to five authors...

Click to expand...

Yes. It is one of many interesting hypotheses regarding the scriptures.

And to such NT things as the added resurrection scene at the end of Mark, not present in earliest copies...

Click to expand...

I assume that you are referring to the Codex Sinaiticus. It is a popular narrative that the resurrection is altogether missing from this, the oldest version of Mark that we have discovered so far, but that is not a wholly accurate description. The text has all the initial hallmarks of other texts (tombstone rolled away, an angel figure that says Jesus has risen), but it stops there (no account of appearances after the resurrection). It begs the question, "Why?," but only time will tell (one way or another). (The Codex also includes early writings that were excluded from the canonical Bible for various reasons, like the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas...another topic for another thread another day).

I am not familiar with problems in the John examples that you cite, but I'll look into them. (Bibliology and textural criticism of the scritpures are, after all, robust and varied fields with a lot of differing opinions).

Thank you for your clarification and information.[/QUOTE]

gnostic said:

Perhaps, but I don't see how there can be evening and morning without the sun, for consecutive days before the 4th day.

But contextual-wise, evening and morning do equal to 1 day.

For 1:3-5 to describe creating light to divide night from day, without the Sun is a problem, where the author don't understand the Sun.

Click to expand...

Alternatively, since the Author establishes later a recognition that the sun is providing the light by calling it a luminary, the evening and morning described here aren't meant literally and by extension neither is yom. They're all just following the same metaphor.

As a further possible proof, I'll point out that even assuming a limited understanding that light and darkness are disconnected to the sun and moon, if you follow the creation narrative, it was first dark and then G-d created light. The verse though says, "it was evening and it was morning". Evening is the light receding. But if the darkness was there before the light was created, that means, morning - or the coming of light - came first.

gnostic said:

I agreed.

That's why when I did pick up the bible again in early 2000, after 14 years hiatus, my view have changed considerably. I went from being a believer to being agnostic.

Back when I was teenager, I didn't question the bible or that of the church teaching.

What I mean, since re-reading the bible in 2000, I no longer accept church interpretation of the bible. Perhaps because of the years between 1986 and 2000, I had the chance to grow up, learn some new things, pick up some new skills, etc. Whatever it was, I no longer take any thing that I might read, at face value.

The problem with creationists of today, is that they are trying to put modern context (like modern science) into ancient writings, where ancient authors might or don't have the necessarily education of astronomy, of earth science, of mathematics, etc.

That's a mistake, and it is a mistake that I, myself, have to learn from.

Click to expand...

Thanks for sharing. Yours is not an uncommon journey or position. I hear you.

Your comments open up a lot of new material for discussion, and mayhaps we can dilogue on this in some detail elsewhere, but I'll throw out a few thoughts for general consumption.

Unlike other tomes, a collection of 66 books written by at least 40 authors on three continents in three languages over a period of circa 2,000 years cannot be casually read and still well understood by modern people working through modern languages. The art and science of textual criticism is required to mine the Bible for all it is worth, and sound exegesis must be employed to do it accurately. (Sadly, this is not the case when we talk about most lay readers, some theologians, and many churches today.)

You have heard the old saying "don't judge a book by its cover." I'd also counsel that you not judge the validity of a book's teachings by some men's inadequate or maligned efforts to understand and use it's content. Learn how to exegete, study some foundational bibliology, and use your new skills and knowledge to follow the evidence where it leads.

I'll stop there.

leibowde84 said:

If there is not creator, then the universe is not a creation. Simple as that. The term "creation" is nothing but an english term created by human beings. So, it doesn't act as evidence for anything.

Click to expand...

so much for cause and effect
and any reference you might hinge on science

Thief said:

so much for cause and effect
and any reference you might hinge on science

Click to expand...

You are missing my point. The term "creation" is nothing more than a human created word. Assigning it to the universe does not magically create evidence for a creator. If the universe was created, then there was a creator. If the universe was not created, then there is no creator. Simple as that.

leibowde84 said:

You are missing my point. The term "creation" is nothing more than a human created word. Assigning it to the universe does not magically create evidence for a creator. If the universe was created, then there was a creator. If the universe was not created, then there is no creator. Simple as that.

Click to expand...

and that would require substance to be 'self motivated'

without a 'self'