Genesis 1: 16 Commentary
On this page you will find Verse by Verse Bible Commentaries on Genesis 1: 16 .
You can also rate, read and study the Bible PassageGenesis 1: 16 .
Genesis 1 verse 16 is part of The Old
Testament.All Bible Verses on VBVBC.org are taken from the King James Bible (KJV). 
Read this Bible Passage in its Context 
Loading ...And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
23 Bible Commentaries on Genesis 1: 16
Carla of course it is you. You are carlo er Charles el Paloy: Me angry? LOL! I am just imitating your ignoble attitude…of appearing like an angel of darkness…you have a BAKUKANG MOUTH! How i wish Jesus Himself would rebuke you and teach you a lesson you will never forget!
By
TIUCHE
(wrote 2759 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on:
10/5/2011 14:29 pm 
Angry, angry Tiuche!! Tsk. tsk tsk. Who’s this Carla who is getting so much under your skin? Now you be a good little boy and go confess your anger. Jesus will forgive you.
By
Charles
(wrote 1421 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)Posted on:
10/5/2011 14:18 pm
Carla: You are an illogical scientist w/o common sense trying to discredit the Bible which is our textbooks here. You say this is not a religious class, even an elementary kid would tell you this is religious. You are wasting your time trying to convince yourself about a book you already have judge as a useless book…
Why waste your time here? Is it not because you are a BIBLE HATER! You try to pretend that you want to be convince that all the Bible is inspired , but by the way you speak i can tell that you want to destroy the faith of many here in the Holy Bible! You wan’t to play the devil’s chaplain!
By
TIUCHE
(wrote 2759 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)Posted on:
10/5/2011 14:09 pm
For once you’re half right, Tiuche (post 18). I am a wanna-be scientist. It would be the ultimate honor for me to see the creation of God through a telescope and GET IT RIGHT!
With regard to the part about teaching religion, I hope this is not a religious class because your 1,600 commentaries would have students learn everything backward.
By
Charles
(wrote 1421 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)Posted on:
10/5/2011 13:58 pm
Charles: Is a wanna be scientist trying to teach in a religious class; i doubt if he had good in science and logic, what more in religion?
By
TIUCHE
(wrote 2759 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)Posted on:
10/5/2011 13:04 pm
CREATION OF THE UNIVERSE
There is something that both creationists and scientists agree upon (yay!) It’s that the universe had a beginning. Of course there is a li….ttle bit of time discrepancy between 6000 and 13 billion years, but what’s a few billion years among friends.
See: http://www.harvardhouse.com/Scientific_Evidence_for_Beginning.htm
One of the arguments I hear a lot is that scientists can never prove how the universe came to be because they weren’t there. This premise may be unfounded. Astronomers are already looking into 25% of the past (about 3 billion years), and I mean that actually. Because light from the outer stars take billions of years to reach Earth, we are now actually looking at 3 billion years in the past. With the new ALMA telescope in the Atacama Desert that just went into operation astronomers hope to get deeper into the past than just a mere 3 billion years. With improved technology we will no doubt go ever deeper and we hope one day to actually WITNESS the birth of the universe. Isn’t that an exciting thought?
See: http://truthdive.com/2011/10/05/alma-radio-telescope-observatory-in-the-atacama-desert-chile.html
By
Charles
(wrote 1421 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)Posted on:
10/5/2011 04:50 am
Thanks, Alex. Good luck to you.
By
Charles Fiott
(wrote 1421 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)Posted on:
3/11/2009 12:39 pm
Charles,
Thank you for your comments.Actually I enjoyed discussing with you.But as I have to attend some personal & family works and because of my present health conditions,I think I may not not be able to continue our discussion for
Gen.1:1,as it involves much time & energy.
But I look forward to continue in future.
But all I want to say to you personally is this:Don’t give up the attempt to seek the TRUTH with sincere heart & open mind.I hope you will find it.
Thank you.I pray for you.May the Lord richly bless you.
Alex, in that case please accept my apologies. You probably know more about measuring space distances than I do. I know they use a lot of Geometry, such as triangulations where the known distance betweeen two objects is used to measure distance from the third object. Of course, it’s much more complicated than that. My knowledge here is very limited and I used to be sceptical. But the space program has proved that it can be done quite accurately. After all Erathostenes was able to measure the circumference of Earth without ever leaving Egypt, so why shouldn’t we be able to measure space distances without leaving Earth? Amazing stuff!
By
Charles Fiott
(wrote 1421 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)Posted on:
3/11/2009 01:14 am
Charles,
Thank you for the comments.Don’t mistake me.I studied Mechanical Engineering & got degree.Really I appreciate the good works done by the Astronomers.Lot of developments have been taken place in the area of Science & Astronomy since I have completed my study.Really I wanted to know the methods employed by the Astronomers to measure the distances of the stars.I collected some details regarding the numbers of stars,galaxies etc.As you are interested in Science & Astronomy ,I thought you may be having some updated details and so I asked for it.Thank you.
Alex, I think you have misread post 7. I didn’t say that the Bible gives credit to the fact that the earth is round. My words were as follows: “I know that the world is round and that it has been around for millions of years longer than the Bible gives it credit for.” Perhaps I confused you by using the words “round” and “around” in the same sentence.
You also asked me for some “brief details” about the universe. I suspect your purpose may be to discredit the astronomical data we have today. Like doctors and archaeologists, astronomers are learning from day to day. They do not have all the answers, but they already know many things which the Biblical writers did NOT know. For example they know that there is a difference between a planet and a star, and this difference is in the magnitude of several million light years.
Science is the future. If we stick with the astronomers and challenge them (as we do when we send a specefract into space or when we ask them to predict where the next galaxy is likely to be found), our knowledge will continue to grow and someday - many, many generations from now - we may begin to understand the origin of the universe.
The Bible is the past. If we stick with the Bible and don’t challenge it, then…well… we will never grow. And we will never know.
By
Charles Fiott
(wrote 1421 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)Posted on:
3/10/2009 20:00 pm
Charles,
You have mentioned that the Bible gives credit to the fact that the earth is round in Post#7.
Please refer post#46 for Genesis 1.
http://www.vbvbc.org/bible-verse/genesis1-1/
Charles,I’ve not made a detailed study in astronomy about the methods employed by astronomers to measure the distances of the stars & about the link between the distance of the stars with their age & life and relevant matters.With insufficient facts,I am not in a position to answer your question in the above post.I didn’t find enough time also to make a detailed study.Will you please give brief details on the following?
1)Details of numbers of stars in the visible universe.
2)Details of the distances of the farthest stars
3)Connection between the distances of the stars & their age &life.
4)Reliability of the methods of measurement of stars.
6)Have the distances of all the visible stars been measured?
The greater light . I have said, that Moses does not here subtilely descant, as a philosopher, on the secrets of nature, as may be seen in these words. First, he assigns a place in the expanse of heaven to the planets and stars; but astronomers make a distinction of spheres, and, at the same time, teach that the fixed stars have their proper place in the firmament. Moses makes two great luminaries; but astronomers prove, by conclusive reasons that the star of Saturn, which on account of its great distance, appears the least of all, is greater than the moon. Here lies the difference; Moses wrote in a popular style things which without instruction, all ordinary persons, endued with common sense, are able to understand; but astronomers investigate with great labor whatever the sagacity of the human mind can comprehend. Nevertheless, this study is not to be reprobated, nor this science to be condemned, because some frantic persons are wont boldly to reject whatever is unknown to them. For astronomy is not only pleasant, but also very useful to be known: it cannot be denied that this art unfolds the admirable wisdom of God. Wherefore, as ingenious men are to be honored who have expended useful labor on this subject, so they who have leisure and capacity ought not to neglect this kind of exercise. Nor did Moses truly wish to withdraw us from this pursuit in omitting such things as are peculiar to the art; but because he was ordained a teacher as well of the unlearned and rude as of the learned, he could not otherwise fulfill his office than by descending to this grosser method of instruction. Had he spoken of things generally unknown, the uneducated might have pleaded in excuse that such subjects were beyond their capacity. Lastly since the Spirit of God here opens a common school for all, it is not surprising that he should chiefly choose those subjects which would be intelligible to all. If the astronomer inquires respecting the actual dimensions of the stars, he will find the moon to be less than Saturn; but this is something abstruse, for to the sight it appears differently. Moses, therefore, rather adapts his discourse to common usage. For since the Lord stretches forth, as it were, his hand to us in causing us to enjoy the brightness of the sun and moon, how great would be our ingratitude were we to close our eyes against our own experience? There is therefore no reason why janglers should deride the unskilfulness of Moses in making the moon the second luminary; for he does not call us up into heaven, he only proposes things which lie open before our eyes. Let the astronomers possess their more exalted knowledge; but, in the meantime, they who perceive by the moon the splendor of night, are convicted by its use of perverse ingratitude unless they acknowledge the beneficence of God.
To rule . He does not ascribe such dominion to the sun and moon as shall, in the least degree, diminish the power of God; but because the sun, in half the circuit of heaven, governs the day, and the moon the night, by turns; he therefore assigns to them a kind of government. Yet let us remember, that it is such a government as implies that the sun is still a servant, and the moon a handmaid. In the meantime, we dismiss the reverie of Plato who ascribes reason and intelligence to the stars. Let us be content with this simple exposition, that God governs the days and nights by the ministry of the sun and moon, because he has them as his charioteers to convey light suited to the season.
By
John Calvin
(wrote 19 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)Posted on:
10/22/2008 21:05 pm 
Dear OldMessenger, with all due respect I have to say that I do not get your point. If you’re trying to say that the light of the genesis is not the sun, I would have to say that you are trying to reinvent the Bible. But perhaps that’s not your point. What IS your point?
By
Charles
(wrote 1421 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)Posted on:
9/17/2008 03:35 am
The “greater light” is a type of Christ, the “Sun of righteousness” Mal 4:2. Jesus Christ will take this character at His second advent. Morally the world is now in the state between Gen 1:3-16 Eph 6:12 Acts 26:18 1Pet 2:9. The sun is not seen, but there is light. Jesus Christ is that light Jn 1:4,5,9 but “shineth in darkness,” comprehended only by faith. As “Son of righteousness” He will dispel all darkness. Dispensationally the Church is in place as the “lesser light,” the moon, reflecting the light of the unseen sun (Jesus Christ). The stars Gen 1:16 are individual believers who are “lights” Phil 2:15,16 Jn 1:5.
By
OldMessenger
(wrote 2 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)Posted on:
9/16/2008 18:23 pm 
In commentary no. 4 David says “The key to understanding Genesis chapter 1 lies in looking at the account as communicating in terms understandable to persons living in the Middle East many centuries ago and as focusing on what they needed to know.”
I can’t agree more. So why is the Bible relevant to me? I know that the world is round and that it has been around for millions of years longer than the Bible gives it credit for. Why should I be guided by an inaccurate account meant for people of a different place and time?
I suspect that the Biblical account of creation is inaccurate NOT because it needed to be understsood by the people of the time but because the writers were also a product of their time and didn’t know any better.
By
Charles
(wrote 1421 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)Posted on:
10/9/2007 13:50 pm
That the Hebrew word yom does not have to be restricted to mean 24 hours is apparent from Genesis 2:4, where the entire creative period is designated as “day.” “These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens.” (KJV) In Genesis 1:5, we read that God called the light “day” (yom) and the darkness he called “night,” indicating that the word yom does not in itself always mean 24 hours. There are those who insist that the six days of Genesis chapter 1 are 24-hour days, and there are those who do not understand them to be 24-hour days.
The focus on Genesis chapter 1 is on God as the Creator, and the Israelites were the ones who first heard the words in their language. So it can be very beneficial to initially think in terms of aspects relating to them to avoid drawing wrong conclusions. Just how individuals from various backgrounds will regard Genesis chapters 1 and 2, and what conclusions they may draw as to the purpose or purposes of the account will vary. Of necessity, comments in this kind of format are limited in scope. One may, however, reasonably conclude that there would be general agreement that Genesis chapters 1 and 2 identify God as the Creator and that he is the One to be worshiped, not the creation. This, however, would not preclude the validity of additional insights respecting the account.
By
Hans Werner
(wrote 3 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)Posted on:
7/7/2007 04:52 am 
That’s a very thought-provoking commentary, Hans. It certainly brings up some ideas that warrant further thought and discussion.
Two things, however, aren’t quite accurate. First, the Hebrew word in Genesis 1 that is translated as “day” is the word “yom” which does mean a literal 24-hour day. This usage is consistent everywhere else it is used throughout the Old Testament; to presume it does not indicate a 24-hour day here has no exegetical basis.
The other point I’d like to clarify is the implication that this was directed solely at the ancient Hebrews. The book of Genesis is part of the Bible, the inspired Word of God. The nature of this Book is that it is a timeless record of God’s interactions with His Chosen People. As such, it would have to have been understandable and applicable not only to the ancient Hebrews but also to us today as well as to those who will come after us.
While I believe your point that the creation should not be worshipped is an extremely valid one, to limit Genesis 1 to that sole purpose is to limit God Himself. Genesis 1 is the foundation upon which the rest of the Bible is built. Its importance and purpose extends beyond any single purpose; it is a conglomeration of purposes, all pointing to the glorification of God.
The key to understanding Genesis chapter 1 lies in looking at the account as communicating in terms understandable to persons living in the Middle East many centuries ago and as focusing on what they needed to know. The earth as a rotating planet and the vast universe with its billions of galaxies was unknown to the ancient Israelites. To them, the earth was land. Aside from the rivers, streams, and lakes, they were familiar with the Great Sea, the Mediterranean. When they looked at the cloudless sky above, they saw a blue dome or vault, and the sun appeared to be traveling from east to west across that vault. At night, the moon and the stars appeared against the backdrop of the black dome.
To this day, our language reflects what appears to our eyes and not what we know to be the reality. We speak of sunrise and sunset, but the sun does not rise nor does it set. On account of the daily rotation of the earth, the sun only appears to rise, travel across the celestial dome, and then to set.
In Genesis, we are told that light came to be on the “first day” (the length of that day not being specified but represented as starting in evening darkness and ending in morning light). The creative period is portrayed as a week of six working days followed by a day of rest. This gave the Israelites a reason for observing the Sabbath, imitating God thereby and thus ennobling their faithfully keeping the Sabbath.
If we had been human observers floating on the water that covered everything, we would, on what Genesis calls the “first day,” suddenly have been able to see as if coming out of a dark cave. Although light now reached the surface of the water, we would not have known the source of that light, how it came to be, the manner in which it reached us, nor about the existence of a vast universe.
On the “third day,” we would have been able to stand on land in the midst of lush vegetation, thriving because each day, about half of the time, there was light. Then, on the “fourth day,” we would have seen a change in the dome above us. For the first time, we would have seen a brilliant orb moving across the dome. At night, we would have seen another orb (not as bright) and many smaller specks of light all over the celestial vault.
Accordingly, from the standpoint of the human observer, a big light, a lesser light, and the stars had been set, placed, or made in the celestial dome. Similarly, in Genesis 1:4, we are told that God separated the light from the darkness, calling the light day and the darkness night. While such a separation appears to exist because of the daily rotation of the earth, there is no literal separation of light and darkness.
As humans, we possess mental capacity, and it is up to us to explore, investigate, learn and discover. Divine revelation is not needed for us to grow in knowledge about our planet, the great variety of plant and animal life, and our vast universe. To interpret Genesis 1 as meaning that everything took place within a period of six 24-hour days is going beyond the purpose of the account. Genesis chapter 1 has God as its focus. The Israelites did not need to be given a detailed record about the actual process of creation, the manner in which the visible universe came into existence, or the time that passed. These were not aspects they would have been able to understand and for which an adequate vocabulary did not even exist. What they did need to know is that the earth, the plants and animals, the sun, moon, and the stars were not objects for worship (as they were among other peoples, tribes, and nations). Everything had come about through the word of God, the expression of his will, and in an orderly, progressive manner. What a powerful message Genesis chapter 1 provided in helping the Israelites to see how wrong it would have been for them to worship the creation!
The collection of ancient writings making up the Bible primarily deals with matters of faith and unbelief. It is a mistake to use any part of the Bible as if it had been written to miraculously accelerate growth in knowledge respecting the earth and the material universe. Being reverential does not require giving up one’s capacity to think and to reason, but should further that capacity, with a resultant increase in godliness and a compassionate concern for fellow humans.
By
Hans Werner
(wrote 6 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)Posted on:
6/6/2007 19:56 pm 
In fact the sun does rule night and day, because the sunlight is reflected on the face of the moon (as al children nowadays know). And if you take it all literal, it’s true what John S said: “how was there day and night with no sun, for day one and two?” The writer of Genesis had no
understanding as to the nature of stars (if The Bible were inspired by God, he should!) because the sun is in comparison with many stars a much lesser light.
By
Albert Michael
(wrote 1 Bible Commentary - permalink to this Commentary)Posted on:
6/4/2007 21:38 pm 
The lesser, presumably the moon was supposed to ‘rule’ the night. Why is it only visible some nights?
The stars also. Perhaps the (other) stars were an after thought. Or perhaps the writers were unaware that the Sun is a star and that the stars are all significantly older than the moon.
But God already said “let there be light” in 1:3-so there was light before the sun and moon? Why? God is supposed to be omnipotent, did he need a cosmic flashlight to work by, before getting around to creating the sun and moon? What happened to the first light then, and what was it? Also, we’re up to the third day now…how was there day and night with no sun, for day one and two?
Help spread The Word! Dear Bible Commentator, if you have a Facebook account and you like vbvbc.org please click the like-button below:
Tiuche (post 22) you are as angry as a bakukang stuck in bird’s throat. You’re always insulting me and wishing me evil. I think you should become a Christian.
I put my post 17 here because, as far as I know, this is the only place in the entire Bible where the creation of stars is mentioned, and only as an afterthought. They are not even mentioned in the second story of creation in chapter two of Genesis (which some mistakenly describe as a detailed version of creation but is actually a shorter and different version). Today, of course, we know that stars comprise 99.999…(almost infinite nines) percent of God’s creation.