You seem to be missing that Genesis was written by a pre-scientific people who thought that the sky was a solid dome emitting its own light and that the Sun was a separate light source.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Genesis question regarding light.
- Thread starter stevecanuck
- Start date
rational experiences
Veteran Member
The sun as O exact one position is holy as one.
O exact place the sun is hell self consuming.
Earth got given rock back by the sun said scientists. Exact wisdom.
Cold sun mass frozen in holy womb as rock of sun. That froze stopped rushing it's burning but still is disintegrating owning no atmosphere...moves.
So cold suns asteroids give us burning light fuel above. Not a self consuming sun mass. Gives us stone rock particles... particles to earth burn above only. Natural light now says scientist thinkers.
So if you want it at the ground to use as resources mass....first sign human attack by burning gas. Then burning mass falls in just for you. So it equals machines melt first one position Satanists. First title scientist known. Thoughts from star fall.
Otherwise we'd be burnt to death if it was the one sun origin mass.
Taught and exact known advised.
O exact place the sun is hell self consuming.
Earth got given rock back by the sun said scientists. Exact wisdom.
Cold sun mass frozen in holy womb as rock of sun. That froze stopped rushing it's burning but still is disintegrating owning no atmosphere...moves.
So cold suns asteroids give us burning light fuel above. Not a self consuming sun mass. Gives us stone rock particles... particles to earth burn above only. Natural light now says scientist thinkers.
So if you want it at the ground to use as resources mass....first sign human attack by burning gas. Then burning mass falls in just for you. So it equals machines melt first one position Satanists. First title scientist known. Thoughts from star fall.
Otherwise we'd be burnt to death if it was the one sun origin mass.
Taught and exact known advised.
rational experiences
Veteran Member
Men said immaculate earth gas was nothing to do with a sun.
Law in space is cold not burning.
Only hell still outwardly burnt.
Why earth is lucky to still exist. But proves it's planet size mass is gone.
As men quote amount of mass a planet should own by cosmic law theory is not planet earths size.
Law in space is cold not burning.
Only hell still outwardly burnt.
Why earth is lucky to still exist. But proves it's planet size mass is gone.
As men quote amount of mass a planet should own by cosmic law theory is not planet earths size.
RestlessSoul
Well-Known Member
RestlessSoul
Well-Known Member
Sedim Haba
Outa here... bye-bye!
So far, no one has suggested the obvious.
Big Bang, creation of everything. At first just energy so I guess you can say 'light'.
Big Bang, creation of everything. At first just energy so I guess you can say 'light'.
Hermit Philosopher
Selflessly here for you
A mystic might say that what you “are missing” is that terms of “light” and terms of “darkness” refer to concepts of “understanding” vs. “being ‘lost’ ”.
As go for terms like “blind”/ “with sight”, “lost”/ “found”, “eyes shut”/ “eyes open”.
In Scripture, such terms are symbolic. They’d represent spiritual states of being; not physical ones.
Humbly
Hermit
exchemist
Veteran Member
The stock answer, if you are a mainstream Christian (I don't know about Judaism), is that the Genesis accounts of creation are allegorical and not something one has to take literally. This was understood by religious scholars like Origen (and, I think, his Jewish contemporaries) as early as 200AD.
The point is to establish the idea of a monotheistic God as creator of the universe, the Earth and everything including mankind and moreover a God that has a personal relationship with Man. These fundamental ideas set the scene for everything that follows in the bible.
wellwisher
Well-Known Member
The first light is when EM radiation, of extreme frequency, first appears; the Big Bang! The light of the sun is connected to nuclear fusion reactions from hydrogen that occur within our sun. Both give light, but of different wavelength.
The universe was initially formless and void. Void means empty of light and matter. Science is not sure how to do this since they still start with something. Maybe a worm hole appears in the void, to release matter and energy, i.e. light.
Our sun, is thought by science, to be a second generation star, that formed about 5 billion years ago, from the debris left by a first generation star.
The first generation stars formed very early in the universe, less than one billon years into the universe. It is not clear which class of stars the Bible refers to. One simple solution is our sun had two lives and formed twice, first with the earliest stars; first generation, and then again from its own debris, to create our modern sun. This could explain the gap between our sun and the nearest star.
For this to be possible we need a new theory for solar core dynamics that can take this possibility into account. I just so happen to have one.
If you look at the earth, its iron core is assume to be due to asteroid bombardment and the density of the iron causing the iron materials to sink to the core. Something similar is also assumed true for the sun, with heavy materials from first generation stars, also collecting in the core; gravity and density.
The problem for this density theory for solar formation, is this does not take into account how the density of atoms change when they are ionized by the heat of solar fusion. Small atoms will become fully ionized, while larger atoms, like iron, may retain some of their inner electrons. Even a few inner electrons will cause the atom to take up a lot of space, compared to the naked nuclei of any small atom. The result is iron, with a few electrons, will be less dense and will float on top of a densely packed hydrogen core.
The analogy is a chunk of iron, placed in a tank of water, will sink since it is denser. But if I fabricate the iron into the hull of the ship, it will now float on water, since it now takes up more volume; dead space, compared to liquid water that is fully packed together without any gaps.
The fusion core of the sun is more than likely a hydrogen core with a shell of heavy ionized atoms that form around the core, due to pressure and temperature. If solar fusion was to slow and cool, the heavy atom shell will gain more electrons, fluff out eve more; larger hull, allowing more hydrogen to diffuse inward. The sudden fuel surge gives us a local solar flare.
If the core gets too hot, the extra electrons in the shell, will become more ionized, making the heavy metals denser thereby sealing off the core, from easy hydrogen diffusion until it can cool; sun spot.
The shell of heavy atoms provides a natural way to control the fusion, by controlling the flow of fuel via density changes. This is how a star avoids run away fusion. Solar flares and sun spots reflect the state of the shell at any given time.
In the case of the first generation stars, the fusion caused the shell to got thicker and thicker, causing diffusion problems for the hydrogen diffusion into the core. Lack of fuel would cool the shell even more so it could fluff up the thicker shell for hydrogen diffusion. This resulted in larger swings of fuel surge; huge solar flares.
One affect would be what I call fusion hammer. This when the hydrogen fusion core surges in heat and energy, the materials and energy of fusion will bang against the shell. This results in atom smashing to form even heavier atoms.
One fine day, the our first generation sun, underwent a catastrophic fusion hammer affect, that clean out the pipes and blow out a substantial portion of its heavy atom shell, along with the entrainment of upper level material. This material would become our solar system, with the sun not quite full nova, able to reform as a second generation star.
Binary stars are fairly common due to directional fusion hammer. But our sun was somewhat unique in that formed a range of materials that would become the planets. The heavy shell materials stays closer to the center of activity would form the inner planets, while the lighter upper sun materials would move farther and form the outer gas planets.
Altfish
Veteran Member
Not a very good plan, if the special light was there but the righteous weren't??
Audie
Veteran Member
I wanna hear about the circulatory system of bronze scorpions.
You have strange desires.
BilliardsBall
Veteran Member
God IS light and when Jesus appeared as Creator in our timespace, there was light. Later, stars and celestial objects were created. Good question you asked!
Well, the Jesus of Paul and the Jesus of John created the material universe, as you say and contradicting Genesis, but the Jesus of Mark, the Jesus of Matthew and the Jesus of Luke certainly didn't.
That's to say, Paul and the author of John were gnostic Christians and saw Jesus as the demiurge; the authors of Mark, Matthew and Luke were not and did not.
Bathos Logos
Active Member
Aren't you on your own quest for a "gotcha" with this very post?Folks like to toss theological gotcha's into the forum in the guise of presumably innocent rhetorical questions.
Even if the question was asked with the intent of exposing an error or misunderstanding already found - do you feel that the idea that the questioner knew the answer before asking somehow excuses The Bible from containing the error in the first place? It doesn't. The incredibly obvious error/misunderstanding speaks for itself. As pointed out "Day and Night" in place before the sun? Even an understanding hundreds of years old puts this into erroneous territory. Any and all rebuttals to that idea can literally be nothing but excuse making.
firedragon
Veteran Member
Rashi is a respected commentator.
How about the Bible speaking of vegetation? Do you think vegetation survived prior to the sun being created? What is your view on it?
Thanks.
No.
No.
So there!
And yet the OP asks "What am I missing?".
Damn! That would suggest that Genesis is not God-authored astrophysics. I'm shocked.
And that would be clearly inexcusable! Thanks for sharing.
Bathos Logos
Active Member
Did I say or even imply that I believed it wasn't rhetorical?
Why'd you worry so much about defending it if you're being facetious here I wonder? If you simply understood that it was a blatant mis-conception of actual reality then why not reply that this was just very old news, and that everyone knows that it isn't an accurate of how the reality we experience actually works? I suspect there is certainly some kind of bias that would have prevented you from admitting that or discussing it outright, and instead had you waiting until the overwhelmingly obvious evidence was presented such that it made it very difficult for you not to simply admit to it. That's usually how I see these things go. Defense until defense has one putting their foot square in their mouth.
No... it isn't "inexcusable" - just comedic is all. Something to shake one's head over and a walk away from those who clearly do not have "the answers".And that would be clearly inexcusable! Thanks for sharing.
Audie
Veteran Member
Call it a savage lust
Audie
Veteran Member
Ya can't play gotcha with someone who tells the truth