Genesis question regarding light.

[rational experiences]

That's not what "interpret" means. The bible CLEARLY states that the sun and moon were CREATED on day 4. You can't just substitute "became visible" for "created". The linearity issue will just not go away - no matter how hard you try to substitute what the bible says with what you "interpret".

If a man said witnessing as he was life changed body mind once again.

First position unsubstantiated feelings owned by star fall brain change the theist himself....said some strange man beliefs as a brain changed humans did.

Day four he probably said I created the sun and moons change. Thinking.

As to know a sun it has to be exact.

To differentiate as I know a moon. Exact existed.

As a moon is historic a suns asteroid stopped.

Stated you cannot count a day unless you live as a human aware counting it.

He talks about causes.

The man meaning of I created what I hadn't created. Man said moon had not hit earth.

Scentist created change which was what he was discussing.

As a moon was once moving ignited he suggests how dangerous the choice to change suns saviour asteroid as a cold asteroid.

Why the moon he said he ignited too. Which is a big close to earth asteroid that could hit us type of warning. The saviour.

Why did you want to know moon mass to gas types for? As you follow your own old man's science reasoning yourselves!!

 

[Suave]

That won't allow the stars to be attached to it so that they can fall to earth on cue. Or meanwhile sing together, for that matter.

Sorry, but that's what it says.

Meteorites are commonly referred to as falling stars. They appear to be a point of radiating light in the night sky similar to how stars appear to be a point of radiating light in the night sky, however in contrast to stars, meteorites fall from the sky as they descend through the Earth's atmosphere., In the sky does not mean attached to the sky. In the sky means either in the atmosphere or in outer space.

Singing stars are obviously not intended to be taken literally. this is obviously some sort of metaphor similar to how a talking snake has some sort of allegoric symbolic meaning not intended to be taken literally as being an actual snake vocalizing its thoughts.

 

[blü 2]

Meteorites are commonly referred to as falling stars. They appear to be a point of radiating light in the night sky similar to how stars appear to be a point of radiating light in the night sky, however in contrast to stars, meteorites fall from the sky as they descend through the Earth's atmosphere., In the sky does not mean attached to the sky. In the sky means either in the atmosphere or in outer space.

But the authors of the bible didn't see it that way. They thought the earth was flat, and immovably fixed at the center of things, and so on. They were not fools. They were making as much sense as they could of what they could observe, just as we still do

Singing stars are obviously not intended to be taken literally. this is obviously some sort of metaphor

I don't think it's quite as clear as that. For example, early philosophers took the idea of the "music of the spheres" seriously, rather than metaphorically. How much of such notions has crept into the idea of the bible's stars singing together is arguable. We have the benefit of the Enlightenment behind us, so these days it sounds cheerfully cartoonish, but that was certainly not always the case.

 

[BilliardsBall]

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.

Yet much of Paul is refuting gnosticism! What the Bible says about Gnosticism

 

[blü 2]

Yet much of Paul is refuting gnosticism! What the Bible says about Gnosticism

Paul and the author of John certainly had a view of Jesus that conforms to particular views in gnosticism.

For example their Jesuses, unlike the three synoptic ones, both pre-existed in heaven with God; and despite what Genesis says, each created the material universe, which is what the gnostic demiurge does. The gnostic god is though to be so spiritually pure that it would never cross [his] mind to go near anything so inferior as materiality, hence the necessity for the demiurge. It likewise follows that the gnostic Jesuses, as creators of the universe, must mediate between Man and God. Though this last idea is touched on by the Jesuses of Matthew and Luke, it has nothing like the emphasis that John's Jesus gives it eg (but not only) in John 17.

 

[rational experiences]

If you state mass O the state was held in the past.

Stars hence now as past age are younger by number but very old.

Young by type as not a large numbered mass. Mass by number determined age. Origin.

Larger number older body but less mass makes it a younger body.

Why scientists said they were new. When they are old.

It's the same for humans a baby has far more life in its younger body than old people. Old by age a higher number as older become and are less.

Science counts a future by the high number yet it is by age of inferred a human ...is not a mass number. Aging is removing form.

Reason. No cross add existed first.

Mass in science was a reduction with a humans intention to remove it.

Adding numbers implied it represented mass when the calculus was to remove mass. Science never owned the mass first.

Therefore trying to make sense out of his first theist man intention by a star fall brain changed....it makes no sense.

As the mass he thought about was being removed twice.

As earth hadn't owned sun mass originally. It has been changed by its attack conversion.

Why men saying energy exists in a future .....it never was in any future.

Earths gas mass heavens already equated the none presence of mass. As reference between how much space a gas owns first compared to just mass.

Age as the old of the past a large number. Old gone The future just began again.

Reasoned for recognition of the very young new age term is not a lot of mass.

As human babies aren't even being conceived and die in pregnancy or are born with so many defects they are barely life.

Science had recognised a teaching. What is missing from fixed O should be equal by the law of space. Now just a huge amount of holes.

Why it was reasoned by a new timed theme. Science said it was wrong.

 

[rational experiences]

In life a man said I was taught how to be a scientist.

I wasn't taught how to be a man.

I was taught how a man origin was changed.

Everything existed.

As God was position in thesis all highest positions sealed as cold.

I was taught by falling star how to convert stone as it was entering returning to earth.

Wandering star.

Taught magic. How to first achieve converting mass without actually doing it yourself.

As earth was still natural and intact.

Star mass god sun rock was changing.

It owned more energy than earth mass. As it came from a sun that does not convert in space to be a planet.

One of his first theism mistakes.

Hence you say if O earth is not origin O mass size held body in space....separation would be bringing it's mass origin close to it.

Yet cooling has kept it separate.

A mind would think upon the status. Then advise a thesis why.

So the moon is earths closest origin saviour. The advice a star had saved earth from the sun.

Another thesis.

Yet it's not science. As no body on earth wants a moon to shift. As first origin saviour is common sense advice.

Humans said earth is a living God. As it has a heated blood. Volcanic.

It owns water microbes living in Stone.

Men hence by science murdered the living god. Not a man...the planet.

Is what was taught.

No human ever owned a human theory why life existed.

And were once legally considered evil by inferring they did.

A humans origin self is proven sacrificed. We are no longer origin to a protective earth gods origin.

As men agreed to do evil converting.

Is pretty basic theists advice.

I have said to theists if I owned a machine and pointed it at your body trying to convert life into electricity. Saying I learn by machines and claim first status experimental....
. see how long before you realise it's human science that's evil.

Just by your choice.

Liar.

 

[Bree]

Sorry, that makes no sense. The bible specifically states the light was separated from the dark, and that they were called night and day. It takes the not-yet-created sun to achieve that difference.

setting the earth to spin on its axis would achieve night and day.

 

[stevecanuck]

setting the earth to spin on its axis would achieve night and day.

And so it does. That's simply the mechanism that turns the earth away from the SUN to "separate the night from the day".

 

[Hockeycowboy]

I liked the explanation that God actually glowed when I was a Christian.

God glowed when you were a Christian? But He doesn’t glow anymore though?
What a shame.

Lol. I’m just playin.

 

[Fallen Prophet]

Without doing a deep dive (or any depth of dive for that matter), can some please explain just when god created the sun according to Genesis? If he created light on the first day (and separated day from night), then how does it happen that he also seemed to do the very same thing on day three? What am I missing?

The sun is not the only source of light.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Paul and the author of John certainly had a view of Jesus that conforms to particular views in gnosticism.

For example their Jesuses, unlike the three synoptic ones, both pre-existed in heaven with God; and despite what Genesis says, each created the material universe, which is what the gnostic demiurge does. The gnostic god is though to be so spiritually pure that it would never cross [his] mind to go near anything so inferior as materiality, hence the necessity for the demiurge. It likewise follows that the gnostic Jesuses, as creators of the universe, must mediate between Man and God. Though this last idea is touched on by the Jesuses of Matthew and Luke, it has nothing like the emphasis that John's Jesus gives it eg (but not only) in John 17.

So you ignored the link I sent you regarding their REFUTATIONS of gnosticism?

 

[stevecanuck]

The sun is not the only source of light.

Could you be a little less specific?

The sun is the only source of light that "separates the night from the day".

 

[blü 2]

So you ignored the link I sent you regarding their REFUTATIONS of gnosticism?

No, I simply disagree with them. They think there's only one version of Jesus, for a start.

 

[Fallen Prophet]

Could you be a little less specific?

Of course - but it wouldn't be very helpful.

I was being noncommittal because this topic can be somewhat convoluted.

But I'll give it a try.

The sun is the only source of light that "separates the night from the day".

I had an opportunity to speak with a very well-read Hebrew friend of mine - I wanted to know the Hebrew perspective on this very topic - and I took notes.

I won't go into every detail - but here are the main points as I understood it.

He told me that Hebrews believe that their God transcends time and space - therefore - the Creation account in Genesis 1 should be viewed more spatially - rather than temporally.

The Creation narrative represents a series of seven sequential, linear, non-repeating events in space, not time.

The writer of Genesis 1 was trying to explain the Creation from God's point of view.

So - rather than looking at it as a series of chronological events in time that follow one after the other - He saw all of these events at the same "time" - and my friend explained that it was like looking down at a chessboard.

You could see all the squares - white and black - at the same "time".

Each "day" was like the white boxes of a chessboard - He saw all of them at once - along with the "nights".

God's command that there was to be "light" - was not about natural light like from the sun - because there is no need to "divide" natural light from darkness.

There is no darkness where there is natural light - so no need for division.

What he explained was this was God causing Time to come into being.

If there was no division between "light" and "lack of light (i.e. darkness)" - there would be no change - therefore the process of light and darkness alternating - like from "day" to "night" - began the process that we know as Time.

So - back to the chessboard analogy - God sees light as a white square - and the absence of light as a black one - and they alternate - not temporally - but spatially.

Therefore - the boundary between the white square on the left and the black on the right is the "evening" - and the other boundary - the black square on the left and the white on the right is the "morning" - but not in terms of time - but space.

Basically - these verses have nothing to do with natural light - like from the sun - but the essence of Creation - life and the blessings that are associated with it - often referred to as "light".

The Earth was void - had no essence - life - blessings - nothing upon it - but once God brought the "light" - He brought Time to the Earth - therefore - He could now enact changes upon it.

I believe this understanding compliments the testimony of John at the beginning of his gospel account -

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

The same was in the beginning with God.

All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

In him was life; and the life was the light of men.

And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not." (John 1:1-5)

Obviously, my Hebrew friend would not agree with my understanding - but the idea that the Lord Jesus Christ had "life" within Him - which means the "light of men" - resonates with me just fine.

I believe that the Lord Jesus Christ created the Earth under the authority and direction of His Father.

 

[stevecanuck]

Of course - but it wouldn't be very helpful.

I was being noncommittal because this topic can be somewhat convoluted.

But I'll give it a try.

I had an opportunity to speak with a very well-read Hebrew friend of mine - I wanted to know the Hebrew perspective on this very topic - and I took notes.

I won't go into every detail - but here are the main points as I understood it.

He told me that Hebrews believe that their God transcends time and space - therefore - the Creation account in Genesis 1 should be viewed more spatially - rather than temporally.

The Creation narrative represents a series of seven sequential, linear, non-repeating events in space, not time.

The writer of Genesis 1 was trying to explain the Creation from God's point of view.

So - rather than looking at it as a series of chronological events in time that follow one after the other - He saw all of these events at the same "time" - and my friend explained that it was like looking down at a chessboard.

You could see all the squares - white and black - at the same "time".

Each "day" was like the white boxes of a chessboard - He saw all of them at once - along with the "nights".

God's command that there was to be "light" - was not about natural light like from the sun - because there is no need to "divide" natural light from darkness.

There is no darkness where there is natural light - so no need for division.

What he explained was this was God causing Time to come into being.

If there was no division between "light" and "lack of light (i.e. darkness)" - there would be no change - therefore the process of light and darkness alternating - like from "day" to "night" - began the process that we know as Time.

So - back to the chessboard analogy - God sees light as a white square - and the absence of light as a black one - and they alternate - not temporally - but spatially.

Therefore - the boundary between the white square on the left and the black on the right is the "evening" - and the other boundary - the black square on the left and the white on the right is the "morning" - but not in terms of time - but space.

Basically - these verses have nothing to do with natural light - like from the sun - but the essence of Creation - life and the blessings that are associated with it - often referred to as "light".

The Earth was void - had no essence - life - blessings - nothing upon it - but once God brought the "light" - He brought Time to the Earth - therefore - He could now enact changes upon it.

I believe this understanding compliments the testimony of John at the beginning of his gospel account -

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

The same was in the beginning with God.

All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

In him was life; and the life was the light of men.

And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not." (John 1:1-5)

Obviously, my Hebrew friend would not agree with my understanding - but the idea that the Lord Jesus Christ had "life" within Him - which means the "light of men" - resonates with me just fine.

I believe that the Lord Jesus Christ created the Earth under the authority and direction of His Father.

I hope you can appreciate how absurd that all sounds to a non-believer, but thanks for the effort.

 

[Fallen Prophet]

I hope you can appreciate how absurd that all sounds to a non-believer, but thanks for the effort.

Hmmm - what is your motivation for making this thread?

You ask for an explanation just to say that it is "absurd"?

You are asking people to share their beliefs just so you can make fun of them?

No one said you had to agree - but you don't sound like someone looking for a discussion.

 

[stevecanuck]

Hmmm - what is your motivation for making this thread?

You ask for an explanation just to say that it is "absurd"?

You are asking people to share their beliefs just so you can make fun of them?

No one said you had to agree - but you don't sound like someone looking for a discussion.

The bible blatantly contradicts itself only 4 verses in. I was just curious at the lengths to which believers would go in bending logic and/or mixing the figurative with the literal to pretend otherwise. I have been shown.

 

[Fallen Prophet]

The bible blatantly contradicts itself only 4 verses in. I was just curious at the lengths to which believers would go in bending logic and/or mixing the figurative with the literal to pretend otherwise. I have been shown.

Someone can only believe that it contradicts itself by ignoring context and being ignorant of the scriptures.

You simply don't know what you are talking about, and you seem proud of that fact.

That the scholarly approach.

 

[stevecanuck]

Someone can only believe that it contradicts itself by ignoring context and being ignorant of the scriptures.

You simply don't know what you are talking about, and you seem proud of that fact.

That the scholarly approach.

No amount of ad hom-based denial changes the fact that the bible says night and day were separated from each other three days before the sun and moon were created. The bible is at least as big a mess as the Qur'an because NO deities were involved in the writing of either.