Genesis 1: 3 Commentary

Gap creationism is a tiny bit better than YEC, but it still doesn’t make any sense:
1. It solves the problem of the age of Earth, but it doesn’t solve the problem of the age of the sun and the other stars.
2. It still leaves the order of creation intact, i.e. the sun and stars are still created after Earth.
3. It still leaves the days of creation at 24 hours apiece, so we still have entire forests forming in just one 24-hour day.
4. It still doesn’t accept the scientific reality that creation is not a one-time thing. New species are still being created while others die off; new stars are still being formed, etc. etc.
5. It still doesn’t make Earth round.

Young Earth Creationism, Day-age creationism, Gap Creationism… the more we fiddle with the words of the Bible the more meaningless we make it.

By Charles (wrote 1421 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 5/10/2011 02:58 am

Lately I did some research on Genesis and I consider myself a Gap creationist. I believe that the events in Genesis 1:3 took place after a gap of millions of years from the events of the previous two verses. This makes more sense to me than for example Young Earth creationism.

Definition of Gap creationism:
***Gap creationism, is a form of Old Earth creationism that posits that the six-day creation, as described in the Book of Genesis, involved literal 24-hour days, but that there was a gap of time between two distinct creations in the first and the second verses of Genesis, explaining many scientific observations, including the age of the Earth. In this it differs from Day-Age creationism, which posits that the ‘days’ of creation were much longer periods (of thousands or millions of years), and from Young Earth creationism, which although it agrees concerning the six literal 24-hour days of creation, does not posit any gap of time.***

By Harry Rutherford (wrote 1 Bible Commentary - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 5/10/2011 01:00 am

RdeV: For post #134. Pls. adm. just 1 last comment…

Bin Laden was not deceived by the Big Big Lie on MARRIAGE….but he was deceived by his own wrong interpretation of their Holy Koran….Koran 29:46 tells true believers in God (Allah..Eli…) not to dispute/ fight with true Jews and true Christians…and that they should believe on the Bible…but what do we see some Muslims do?

And regarding MOhammad, adding more than four wives…it was a necesary thing for him to do. Do you know why? There was a war. and the husbands of the women he later married died from that war…in order to help the households of those dead but faithful men, he married their wives…though many of those women were quite old…and were not attractive physically…judge righteous judgement, we just don’t jumped to conclusions…

By TIUCHE (wrote 2759 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 5/6/2011 17:29 pm

Yes Charles, according to Islamic scholars Mohammed had between eleven and thirteen women (among them a six year old with whom Mohammed slept for the first time when she was nine or ten {sick})…

I searched how many wives Osama bin Laden had. The answer: 6 (so he was half as bad as the ‘Prophet’ Mohammed).

In the summer of 2000, weeks after his fifth marriage to 15-year-old Yemeni Amal al-Sadah, Bin Laden gave an interview to a jihadist publication in which he talked about the importance of keeping his family close despite the risks to them. “It is my desire that my children grow up in an atmosphere of jihad and absorb Islam in its true spirit,” he said. “Believe me, when your children and your life become part of your struggle, life becomes very enjoyable.”

This same wife, Amal al-Sadah, appears to have tried to protect Osama bin Laden by rushing the American Seal team as they stormed into his room. Amal was shot in the leg and remains under guard in a Pakistani military hospital as the US fights to try to access her.

By R de Velliers (wrote 9 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 5/5/2011 20:55 pm

Re post 134: “Note that a muslim man may not take more than four wives.” Just an aside… don’t mean anything much by this observation. But it is my understanding that the 4-wife limit was established by Mohamed himself, who then went on to have about a dozen!

By Charles (wrote 1421 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 5/5/2011 20:39 pm

Matthew19:5

By Cleopas (wrote 61 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 5/5/2011 19:07 pm

TUICHE
Can you come to matthew19 and discuss the issue you have raised

By Cleopas (wrote 61 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 5/5/2011 19:04 pm

R d V:

Thanks for the information…I am not aware that some Muslim societies does that.But doing that prohibiting men to marry another wife…would violate Gods will. for God did not say all should have many wives. God did not say all should have no wife like eunuch for the Kingdom of heaven. He did not say that all should have only one wife. God is silent, and had given individual person to decide how many wife one wishes. when government or religion prohibit that which God did not prohibit…we know that they have made themselves higher than God. They made the Word of God void through their traditions and commandments of men. Such prohibition is describe in 1 Timothy 4:1-6..especially verse 1 and verse 3…

By TIUCHE (wrote 2759 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 5/5/2011 17:17 pm

Tiuche, you wrote: “have you seen some of my comments about the BIG BIG LIE on marriage? I always repeat my warning regarding it…since it had engulfed almost the entire world except for those in the muslim society…big deception…wrecking havoc upon Christendom…” You refer to the taboo on polygamy. Osama bin Laden wasn’t deceived - according to your conviction - he was married to plenty of women…

Note that a muslim man may not take more than four wives. A muslim woman may, before marriage, make a stipulation that the husband is not allowed to marry any other women. A subsequent second marriage by the husband invalidates his first marriage.

In muslim countries like Azerbaijan, Tunisia and Turkey, for example polygamy is not legal!

By R de Velliers (wrote 9 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 5/5/2011 16:59 pm

Marek:
It was more or less about 4158 B.C. when God created our first parent. I believe the very first to lie was the serpent and the lie the serpent made was if they ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, they will not surely die,instead their eyes would be opened and would be as gods, knowing good and evil (Genesis 3:1-5). The serpent have mixed truth and lie to poison the mind of the mother of mankind. The serpent said their eyes would be opened and they will become as gods..and indeed their eyes did open and they became as gods(see Genesis 3:7 22)…the only problem was the penalty of death for eating (Genesis 2:17; 3:22-24).

Some say that Eve was the first to lie (Genesis 3:2-3), but she was not lying. The instruction of God was not to eat (Genesis 2:17)…but note what Eve answered the serpent in Genesis 3:2-3. She added to God’s Sure Words- she said that God have instructed not to eat and also NOT TO TOUCH IT…the woman was deceived for she did not listen carefully but Adam was not. He ate the fruit thereof with full knowledge…most probably because of her love for his wife. He could have asked God for another mate…but their togetherness and camaraderie…so he opted to go to death with her…such love…

This was the LIE….why the lie? Some say because the serpent-personifacation of the devil, wanted to go against all that God had planned…some say the devil is envious of human because of our potential to become the children of God…personally, I cannot decide yet which is which or if there are other answer. Hope others would show us from the scripture any insight about this. One thing of note here…the devil always works through the woman in getting his evil plan to succeed….have you seen some of my comments about the BIG BIG LIE on marriage? I always repeat my warning regarding it…since it had engulfed almost the entire world except for those in the muslim society…big deception…wrecking havoc upon Christendom…

By TIUCHE (wrote 2759 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 5/5/2011 16:38 pm

Tiuche,
Looking through my other translations of the Holy Scriptures I have came across a very interesting reference.

In The New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures by the New World Bible Translation Committee of 1984 of the Jehovah’s Witnesses on the page 9 in the Bold text font, there are 3 subtitles:
Woman created. First lie. Origin of sin.

They 3 relate to the text below of the book of Genesis between chapter 2 verse 9 and chapter 3 verse 6.

The questions are about the subtitles and the responding texts in the book:

1. who was the first to lie? and
2. what was the lie about and why?

Any appropriate and reliable comments please?

By Marek Zielinski (wrote 15 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 5/5/2011 12:56 pm

Jeremy S:
Yeah I know their reputation among Christians…some accusations are right …some are wrong…I don’t judge them…I get what is good, what is honorable, what is virtues…the things I consider wrong I throw away…If I say: that I am better than them and I am wrong in the sight of God, where would that put me? So it is better to esteem all others better than ourselves….I have also a KJV Bible from the Latter Day Saint with concordance…hehe..I bought it only for 20 pesos…it benefited me a lot….I consider them our equal in God sight….although many calls them cults!

By TIUCHE (wrote 2759 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 5/3/2011 16:00 pm

Tiuche, I don’t have anything against individual Jehova’s Witnesses, but please be careful with their publications. They are notorious for translating the Bible in a way that suits their sectarian belief-system.

By Jeremy Sündholm (wrote 45 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 5/3/2011 15:36 pm

Marek:
I use the KJV…I also use a Diaglott (New Testament Greek w/ English Word for Word Translation) from the Watchtower Society…i bought it for 50 pesos only…good that you show interest on God Word…remember one thing important…your study of the Book should lead you into all GOODNESS & TRUTH….not doubt, not lost of love for people & God….the study of God’s pure Words will lead you into sincerity and more faith in Him….if your study leads you to…bad things…be aware that your /our enemy had sidetracked you…May the Lord our God paint your life with zeal in your walk with Him…

By TIUCHE (wrote 2759 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 5/3/2011 15:18 pm

Tiuche,
I thank you for link to Online Etymology Dictionary, very handy indeed.

By Marek Zielinski (wrote 15 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 5/3/2011 14:08 pm

Hi Tiuche,
I have bought myself a fabulous the Brown’s Self Interpreting Bible with numerous additional notes by the Rev. J.B.Patterson and the Rev.A.J.Patterson.
On the web, an average price of the book is £200, I paid slightly less.

Just about to start to read it and judging by the first its notes and references, it is a very good and reliable translation of KJV.
Looking forward to share my observations based on this book.

What translation are you using at present Tiuche, please?

By Marek Zielinski (wrote 15 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 5/3/2011 14:06 pm

ETYMOLOGY OF BEHOLD…

Bihalden…behealdan…meaning to give regard to…to hold in view….to keep hold of….you can see this in the “Online Etymology Dictionary”…I asked if you were a Jew for salvation is of the Jews and I thought you were translating from a Hebrew Bible…one Jew who I have a high regard to is Bob Dylan…he had become a follower of Jesus Christ too…if you are not a Jew it is okay…most of us here are not…

By TIUCHE (wrote 2759 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 5/2/2011 13:50 pm

Hi again,
Do you have any knowledge about the word ‘Behold’ its etymology etc.
I would appreciate your share about it, please?
Marek

By Marek Zielinski (wrote 15 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 5/2/2011 12:57 pm

Marek:
Correction please I did not say that a lot of Bible translation is corrupted…although that maybe true…I have not examined all Bible translation…what you maybe referring was my statement in post#114…pls read it again…I do not know of a reliable Bible translations …since childhood I have relied on the KJV..it had taught me all I knew…I know it is not perfect as all of us are but I just think of the Lord Jesus statement about imperfection… He said:suffer it to be so now!
But you might like to visit sites regarding bible Prophecies: one I recently visited was “www.the trumpet.com” using Google…I hope we remember that our study of the scripture should lead INTO ALL GOODNESS…for if our study leads us to jealousy, doubts on God and the Bible then someone/something sidetrack us…either our deceitful heart or the prince of the power of the air..anyway thanks for the encouragement and kind words…

By TIUCHE (wrote 2759 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 5/1/2011 15:18 pm

For some reason the message cannot be delivered, copy below:
Delivery to the following recipient failed permanently:

webmaster_vbvbc@yahoo.com

Technical details of permanent failure:
Google tried to deliver your message, but it was rejected by the recipient domain. We recommend contacting the other email provider for further information about the cause of this error. The error that the other server returned was: 554 554 delivery error: dd This user doesn’t have a yahoo.com account (webmaster_vbvbc@yahoo.com) [0] - mta1253.mail.ac4.yahoo.com (state 18).

—– Original message —–

Received: by 10.227.197.83 with SMTP id ej19mr2967500wbb.105.1304260005802;
Sun, 01 May 2011 07:26:45 -0700 (PDT)
Return-Path:
Received: from [192.168.1.4] ([92.25.4.160])
by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id o6sm2826579wbo.54.2011.05.01.07.26.44
(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER);
Sun, 01 May 2011 07:26:45 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: [Verse by Verse Bible Commentary on every Bible Passage] New Comment On: Genesis 1: 3
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
From: Marek Zielinski
X-Priority: 3
In-Reply-To:
Date: Sun, 1 May 2011 15:26:05 +0100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id:
References:
To: VBVBC.org follow up commentaries notification
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084)

Hi TIUCHE,

Does it really matter whether am I a Jew or a Gentile?

I am who I am and if you struggle with my posts, the simplest thing is to ask.

My Father used to say:
‘Asking does not cost money but you might receive the answer!’

I am looking forward to talking things through with you

Marek Zielinski

By Marek Zielinski (wrote 15 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 5/1/2011 15:04 pm

TIUCHE,
I agree with you what you’ve said above that a lot of translations are corrupted. I use them, compare them, to acknowledge the subject of discussion and usually conclude with my personal observation.

Yes, the link is about the name of Eashoa, Joshua, Jesus and how the name is used in various translations.
Please do find the main link to this particular translation of the most of the Bible:
http://www.v-a.com/bible/index.html.

As said, I research on any available material around the net and with the support of a meditation I come to realization and conclusions I humbly offer to others to acknowledge.

If that is not too much to ask you, can you share with me any links to good and reliable translations of the Bible, unfortunately I do not read or speak Hebrew but I use this link: http://bible.ort.org/books/torahd5.asp?action=displaypage&book=1&chapter=1&verse=26&portion=1 as translation of the Torah.

Looking forward to further cooperation and exchanging ‘glances’.

By Marek Zielinski (wrote 15 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 5/1/2011 14:53 pm

Marek, what you wrote about Zechariah in Post 119 are not your words. You copied everything from http://www.v-a.com/bible/zechariah.html. This website claims that in the 6th century BC Zechariah prophesied Jesus. It also claims that all Bible translations are a “deliberate distortion of the Scriptures”, as you also copied. That would include the KJV, which is the standard chosen by VBVBC.

The website that you copied is (a) deceptive, and (b) not relevant to Genesis 1:3. I would gladly debate you on it if you start a thread in its appropriate verse (Zechariah 3:1), but not here. Genesis 1:3 is about the first day of creation and belongs to the Pentateuch whereas Zechariah puts us in the 6th century BC and belongs to Prophesy – two totally different subjects.

By Charles (wrote 1421 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 5/1/2011 14:18 pm

Hey Marek are you a Jew? I cannot attain to your explanation…it is wonderful…but I have to study it further…

By TIUCHE (wrote 2759 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 5/1/2011 10:06 am

Re: Post 110, Post 111. TIUCHE, Charles. Let dispel all your doubt by proposing this below, please:

1. El as in the first state of the existing, everlasting God in the pre - existing form of
the Zygote. All in One, One in All.

2. Elohim is as the plural image of the one God, there must have been someone else to complete the duality in the Zygote and after. Genesis 1:27 27. And God created the human being to resemble* His own visage; He created them male and female.*
*1:27.1 Lit. Aramaic word: “Adam.”
*1:27.2 Lit. Ar. idiomatic construction: “And there created God to Adam with His visage, in the visage of God He created him, male and female He created them.

Visage - noun [usu. in sing. ] poetic/literary
a person’s face, with reference to the form or proportions of the features : an elegant, angular visage.
• a person’s facial expression : there was something hidden behind his visage of cheerfulness.
• figurative the surface of an object presented to view : the moonlit visage of the port’s whitewashed buildings.
ORIGIN Middle English : via Old French from Latin visus ‘sight,’ from videre ‘to see.’

3. Jesus was NOT purposefully left out of the OT. He is always there. He is only wearing different name.
This is it: the Book that prophesies about the Coming of Eashoa (Jesus) by name! This is the major breakthrough of this translation project.

This is a translation of the Book of Zechariah from the Ancient Aramaic Scriptures of the Ancient Church of the East.

The name of Eashoa (Jesus) appears in the 3rd chapter of the Book of Zechariah. In all the other English language translations, the name used is “Joshua.” There is no such name in the Hebrew language. The name of Eashoa Bar Nun is also transliterated in error in the English language Bibles. It should not have been “Joshua Barnun”, but “Jesus Barnun”.

Therefore, here in this Book, in the Book of Zechariah chapter 3, verse 1, the name is not “Joshua” or “Joshua Bar Nun”; the name is Eashoa (Jesus). There is no Bar Nun. If this verse was about Eashoa Bar Nun, it should have appeared as “Joshua Bar Nun” in all the English language Bibles. But it did not; therefore, it is clearly a deliberate distortion of the Scriptures. Link to: http://www.v-a.com/bible/zechariah.html

Jesus Christ or Eashoa Msheekhah

[Eashoa Msheekhah in Syriac Aramaic script]

In the Ancient Aramaic language, the name of Eashoa (Jesus) is spelled “yeh-sheen-waw-ein.” (These are four consonants. In Aramaic the vowels are not in the form of letters of the alphabet. The vowels are added by dots and symbols to make pronunciation of the all-consonant words possible.) In English the “yeh” becomes “J,” the “sheen” becomes “s,” the “waw” becomes a “u,” and the “ein,” becomes an “s.” This makes “Jsus”; but according to English grammar, a vowel has to follow the “J” otherwise the name cannot be pronounced properly, so in the transliteration of the name, they added the “e” after the “J” and they ended up with “Jesus.”

Now, this might not sound like the same name, but since three of the four letters in the name don’t have English language equivalents, the English pronunciation had to be modified. Eashoa’ and Jesus are the very same name in fact, albeit the transliterations are of two very different languages, with four thousand years of divergent evolution.

The name of Christ comes from the Greek word for “The Anointed” or “Χριστός.” The English language is based on the Latin, which in turn is based on the Greek. The word “Msheekhah” is the original word for “The Anointed.” Another good choice for “Christ” is the Messiah — again from “Msheekhah.” This is the same word in all the languages, designating Jesus as the Messiah prophesied by the Old Testament.

4. I do not think that NT is as confusing as OT is. When you read NT plainly without any interpretation, just plainly like it happens on the first rehearsals in any theatre, usually text is read without any intonation or interpretation. Something like bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, bla bla, bla based on one musical note. It sounds sometimes very funny but it is like it goes.
The same though with all the text of Genesis, NT especially the Book of Revelation. The secret and magic about it is when one reads it as a simple references to the happenings which occur at present and believe me there is no need for any interpretation because the text is self-explanatory.

5. Returning to the very beginning of El, the first God, do not forget about this passage in John 1:1 and 2.
1. In the beginning [of creation]
there was the Manifestation*;
And that Manifestation was with God;
and God was [the embodiment of] that Manifestation.
2. This was in the beginning with God.
————–
Footnotes:

1:1 “Milta,” in Aramaic: the essential connotation for a person or thing.
There is no true English equivalent for this concept. [So far.]

‘Milta’ as a concept of a person or thing, there is a concept of the energy, E.

[ E ], El without the letter ‘l’, E.
The potential of this energy of E is such a magnificent power accumulated there, released then sand there and still being in motion of existence there and here, from the very beginning in manifestation, the manifestation of everything what exists in the entire universe without the limit.

No matter how small it is, the one, the remaining half shall always be able to divide into two, to infinity. Therefore E=MC2 does not exist because is limited.
Therefore e

By Marek Zielinski (wrote 15 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 5/1/2011 03:32 am

I agree with Tiuche. God, the Second Person of the Godhead Three, existed in eternity past. By Him all things were created. He is the Word. The Word became flesh, that is, God, the Second Person of the Godhead Three, incarnated becoming fully God and fully man. At birth, He was named “Jesus.” Believers often refer to “Jesus” as having lived in eternity past. Indeed, believers are correct. Except that, God, the Second Person of the Godhead Three, was not named “Jesus” before birth as He had not yet taken on a human nature. So, The God-Man, Jesus Christ can no longer be separated because He took on a dual nature. So, whether believers refer to Him as God or Jesus is OK with me. I understand what they are trying to say.

By Roland G (wrote 1416 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 4/30/2011 01:10 am

TIUCHE, for you a square can be round and a globe can have corners! And the light of a star that is millions of light years away can reach Earth in 6,000 years! And dinosaurs can live 70 million years before they are created! All this is “possible” for you. So am I surprised that in your mind Jesus is both God and a creation of God? Of course not. Blessed be your bewildered state of fantasy.

By Charles (wrote 1421 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 4/29/2011 19:06 pm

CHARLES DON’T YOU GET IT?
Jesus had a beginning… He is the ALPHA - the firstborn/ beginning of creation…does this then mean that because Jesus was a created being, that He is not God? He is God…the MIGHTY GOD the son, the image of the invisible God. while the only true God- the Almighty God is the Father…for us we have God the Father and one LORD Jesus Christ though there be many so called gods…the misunderstanding you have regarding Jesus that He is not God is liked that of the Jews when they tried to stone Jesus for saying He is God (John 10:33-36)….we are here to learn from one another,..to the believers who donot know what they are teaching and shall teach men so…what will happen to them? They shall be least in the Kingdom…but remember the very least in the Kingdom will be greater than John the Baptist…

By TIUCHE (wrote 2759 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 4/29/2011 18:13 pm

TIUCHE, I have no hope of ever making you accept the truth, but let me just tackle one of your contradictions for now. In Post 110 you said that “Jesus was created” and that “He had a beginning”. These are your words. Then in post 114 you said “Jesus is God”. Now in the Greek, Roman and other mythologies we find many instances where gods were created. But the Christian mythology only accepts ONE God with NO beginning. So can you tell me which mythology you believe in?

By Charles (wrote 1421 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 4/29/2011 16:07 pm

Charles:
Of the four (4) report regarding the fulfillment of the 1st Phase of God’s Redemption Plan…the Gospel of John is to my opinion the most informative on who Jesus is! Jesus is God, do you know why? Because He had never & will never sin! Even angels sinned. But Jesus is the Lamb of God…in Him dwelt the full Godhead! Tell me now if He was not God…what was He, just a man? To make people doubt one of the books of the Bible, to make people doubt some scriptures, is like telling people that what they drink had dirt in it…not pure!

A Globe can have four corners even eight corners mind you, imagine a glove with a cube inside! Well the Holy Scripture say that the earth have four (4) corners (Revelation 7:1) and you won’t believe that? So you are the authority over the Bible?

What proof positive of early humans? Cro-magnum and neanderthal were humans? What is a human, a human is one created after God’s Kind in His image! Just because some scientist wrote that neanderthal and cro-magnum were men, you believe that than what is written in the scripture? The scripture states that the first human were created only about 4158 B.C., you won’t believe it? You rther believe men’s word over God’s infallible word?

They are proven science alright, geology, archaelogy & etc…..but you seem to imply that the Bible is not the proven word of God! There is no problem with all Sciences…for Science is a TOOL- the methodical study of all things….the problem is to believe every statement of men who use THIS TOOL… just because several scientist claim he use the Scientific method, then begin to write that there were humans before Adam and Eve, you believe it as though it is the Words of God….And no I am not right….nor is science wrong…..what I am stating is the writing of Scientist
that there were humans before Adam and Eve is wrong…I am not ashamed of being a believer of the KIng of Books- for HIS WORD IS TRUTH! AND THE WORD IS GOD! the HOLY BIBLE IS THE AUTHORTY OVER US, AND NOT US THE AUTHORITY OVER IT; THAT IS WHY WE STUDY IT HERE!

By TIUCHE (wrote 2759 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 4/29/2011 13:51 pm

Re Post 112. TIUCHE, two reasons why I doubt the authenticity of the Gospel of John. 1. It was written too long after the death of Jesus. At the time of writing John was probably long dead himself (obviously he was not the real author.) 2. John seems so different from the other gospels. It s the only one, for example, that deifies Jesus (”Whoever has seen me has seen the Father”, “I am in the Father and the Father in me”, and several other such verses). That’s why I say that denying the deity of Jesus is contrary to the Gospel of John.

Re squares and circles, yes you can draw a square inside of a circle and vice versa. So!? You keep confusing yourself perhaps because you keep imagining a flat circle instead of a globe, which is what Earth is. And a globe can’t have corners, period.

And, finally, ok, now I know that you are a YEC. Well, we know from the story of creation that the Bible is certainly no authority on cosmology. We have proof positive and physical evidence of the Cro-Magnon and other early humans as well as dinosaurs and other animals that lived 70 million years before God created them (sic), so the Bible is no authority on archaeology either. Or on geology, evolutionary biology, and many other branches of science. But all this proven science is wrong and you are right, huh!!

By Charles (wrote 1421 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 4/28/2011 19:51 pm

Charles:
Why do you say that believing that Jesus was a the beginning of God’s creation contradict John gospel? Would you know that the writer of Revelation is also John, although some scholars would deny this? And why have doubt about the book of John when it is written by the beloved disciple of jesus Christ?
Cant you draw a square inside a circle? Who would constrain you?
Who said that there were humans before Adam and Eve our first parent. God created Adam more less in 4159 B.C….i made in a mistake in stating it was 4058. Review secular history books and archaeology! Don’t you rely too much on Science that state that there were already humans thirty thousand years ago…such as the Cromagnum man, neanderthal man…The Bible should be the authority not science books! If one bookof the Bible is unrelaible…then it will cause a toboggan slide…all scripture is inspired of God!

By TIUCHE (wrote 2759 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 4/28/2011 17:43 pm

Re: Post 109. John, what is your basis for thinking that Jesus was purposefully left out of the OT in order not to confuse the Israelites? Does Jesus or Paul tell us that or are you just making it up? The Israelites did in fact have more than one god. It was only when their political power waned that they became serious about monotheism. And do you think that we in the NT are not just as confused?

Re: Post 110. TIUCHE, let me make sure I answer all your points:
1. I KNOW elohim is plural. I know the Bible acknowledges several gods.
2. Ok, so you believe that Jesus was created, that he had a beginning, and that he is lesser than God. I have no quarrel with your beliefs. I will just state that your beliefs contradict the Gospel of John. (And I don’t mean that in a bad way because I have serious reservations with the Gospel of John myself.)
3. Isaiah 40:22 does NOT state that the Earth is round. If you ever stood on a hill, as Isaiah did, you would see a circular horizon. Isaiah was not seeing the whole world. Far from it! If you want to believe that this “circle of the earth” literally meant a round planet, then you’d have to also believe that the “four corners of the earth” literally meant a flat one. You have to be honest with interpretations and not pick and choose according to the argument at hand.
4. I think you confused yourself with your geometry example. The four (or eight or sixteen) directions of the compass are NOT corners. You can not have corners on a circle.
5. If God made our first parents in 4058 BC, then who made all the other humans that lived before that time?

By Charles (wrote 1421 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 4/28/2011 17:24 pm

Charles:
God (Elohim in Hebrew is plural) that is why in other scriptures it states that Hear O Israel the LORD our God (plural-Elohim) is One(meaning united) LORD (DEUTERONOMY 6:4).That is why Jesus asked: Is it not written I said you are gods (note plural)?And He said further Father I pray thee that as WE are ONE, let this that You have given be ONE as we are ONE….God calls us to be a member of God’s Family…is He not our Father?

Where in the Bible that it says that Jesus had no beginnings? Jesus was created…is that not clear yet in Rev. 3:14? He was before Abraham but He had a beginning!His Father is His God and the Father is greater than Jesus the Scripture says so….

Where in the Bible does it say that the earth is flat? The planet earth is ROUND as stated in Isaiah 40:22 .Scot nor I have not said there was four A C T U AL CORNERS…

In geometry class: let say you were told to make a circle and then set up four corners on it according to the dictate of your compass…THE NORTH, THE SOUTH, THE EAST & THE WEST.. we czn even make eight corners on it …would that be a contradiction? You just misunderstood our words…

Whether angels pre-existed creation of all things I donot know…what I believe is that when God created the Earth to be habitable,
and then at about 4058 B.C. made our first parents in their (note plural) image….God the Father, God the Son and the angels were responsible for that …
All our belief now is looking through the dark glass…but when Jesus returns in the future then God’s mystery will be finhished (Revelation 10:7)..

By TIUCHE (wrote 2759 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 4/28/2011 15:55 pm

Charles the name Jesus is the only absent in the OT. Jesus said in john8:58 I was before Abraham. He was not stated because this might have confusion to the Israelites they might end up saying they a 2 Gods.

By Cleopas john (wrote 61 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 4/28/2011 14:51 pm

I’m sorry TIUCHE, but this is a matter of pure logic now. To say a round earth can have corners IS a contradiction. A huge one! Now, in my opinion, the Bible portrays the world as flat, but this opinion has nothing to do with any reference to the four corners. That reference could very well be a mere figure of speech, as Scott Dale pointed out in Post 105. However, to say that a round world can have four ACTUAL corners is to make a mockery out of geometry.

In the same manner you can treat the words ‘Jesus is the beginning of God’s creation’ as a figure of speech. But for anyone to believe that Jesus has no beginning and yet is the beginning of God’s creation is not only a contradiction in terms but also a statement that would put Jesus in a very inferior position vis-a-vis God. I am glad you do not believe this to be the case.

You said you believe that God, Jesus, and probably angels created everything together. This is a valid article of faith when considered in conjunction with the gospel of John. I respect any faith that doesn’t contradict itself or go against the grains of truth. My issue with this view of creation is that Genesis does not in any way, shape or form indicate any involvement by Jesus. Jesus is totally absent in the entire Genesis and the entire OT. All indications are that the OT authors were not aware at all of Jesus’ existence (other that some of them were waiting for a Messiah who had yet to have any sort a beginning).

Also, are you suggesting that Angels also pre-existed creation (as Nukwa did in Gen 1:1 Post 173)? That would be consistent with several other Bible passages extolling the powers of other Elohim but would make the field of Gods too crowded for what is supposed to be a monotheistic faith.

By Charles (wrote 1421 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 4/28/2011 13:58 pm

Charles & Scot Dale:
I agree with Scot about his explanation on the round earth& the 4 corners via post #105 to correct Charles post #103 however Isaiah 40:22 gives us a hint that the earth is round…to say a round earth have four corners is not a contradiction!

Jesus is the BEGINNING of God’s creation- the FIRST among God’s creation…meaning God had created Him…Jesus was there before all others were created…the FIRST (the Alpha) before all things created…

Alpha, can be compared to the letter A of the alphabet.is there any letter before letter A? there is none…but letter A is the beginning…

On Jesus being the light mentioned on Genesis…I don’t believe He is that light because God (Elohim-plural, that means the Father & Son & probably with their Angels) spoke the Word Let there be light!

Yet please note that although God (Father & Son…) SPOKE the Word…the WORD was before them (See John 1:1)…note too that THE WORD LATER ON BECAME GOD (John 1:1)! wHERE DOES this leads us…

That God has magnified HIS WORD above all His Names (Psalm 138:2)…& Jesus the beginning of creation had become that WORD INCARNATE! HE ALONE IS WORTHY TO OPEN OUR UNDERSTANDING ON THE WORD (the Record/the Book) -Rev. 5:5.

By TIUCHE (wrote 2759 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 4/28/2011 11:42 am

1 thing i have noticed is that the a some thing which a not written in the bible. Why? 1 may ask. Its because other things are not much naccessary for us to know. Even other miracles & other dids Jesus did a not written in the bible. John21:25 this verse applies to the whole bible.

By Cleopas john (wrote 61 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 4/28/2011 11:20 am

For the record, the Bible nowhere directly says that the earth is round; but of course, we know for a fact that it is. However, the earth, though it is round, actually DOES have corners when understood in the way the bible indicates. The words “four corners” or “four winds” are always and only given in reference to direction thereby disecting the earth into four quadrants relative to the axis of the sunrise and sunset. These axis points form actual “corners” of direction. It is never a reference to the actual terra firma.

By Scott Dale (wrote 496 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 4/28/2011 05:14 am

“Through him (Jesus) all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.” John 1:3

By Scott Dale (wrote 496 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 4/28/2011 04:55 am

TIUCHE, that’s exactly my point. It’s a contradiction. It’s like believing that Earth is round and also believing that it has four corners. Can’t! Either you believe that Jesus is the Alpha and the Omega (i.e. he was there BEFORE creation), or you believe that Jesus is the light of Genesis (i.e. he was CREATED). You have to choose one or the other. You can’t defend two contradictory statements.

By Charles (wrote 1421 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 4/27/2011 17:17 pm

Charles:
Jesus is the Alpha and Omega-the BEGINNING …although MADE an high priest forever after the order of Melchizedek..having NO beginning OF DAYS nor end of life yet Jesus IS THE BEGINNING OF the creation of God (Revelation 3:14)…

By TIUCHE (wrote 2759 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 4/27/2011 16:46 pm

Nukwa, I have been through this before (see for example my post # 75 in this thread). The idea that Jesus is the light of Genesis has absolutely no basis. Tell me, in which verse does Genesis imply in the slightest that Jesus had anything at all to do with creation! Not only is Jesus totally absent from Genesis, he is not even mentioned in the entire OT. Not once! Now you can of course believe whatever you want but if Jesus is the light of Genesis it means he was created. It means he had a beginning. Is this what you believe? Do you believe that Jesus was created?

By Charles (wrote 1421 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 4/27/2011 03:02 am

In response to Charles (post #96): Oh Yes Light is an object… Jesus is THE Light… The true and absolute nature of light may not be fully discussed now but even for scientific purposes Light as a form of energy is directly related to matter as the equation E=MC2 demonstrates. When we see objects, physical particles (of light) are actually bombarding our retina. Your retina could be physically damaged should the light become too intense! And beloved, bulbs do not produce light as such they only convert energy from one form to light. As in any of God’s creation, We cannot create(produce) light although we can play around, explore, subdue,transform and use it. Yes indeed light is physical and can destroy physical objects in much the same way as sound can. (or heat can etc.)

By Nukwa Yeshua (wrote 7 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 4/27/2011 01:36 am

This verse should be understood in the context of the previous verses…and the next verses.

It simply means that when the earth was created (verse 1) it was at first unoccupied,it was still useless (see the meaning of void) and its face was dark and murky (verse 2) probably covered with thick mists or clouds,the counting
for God’s Day did not start yet…

Then God through His Word (verse 3) created the light by preparing the earth and clearing the mists and the clouds which in a way cleared the face of the earth-this was the start of counting it was the FIRST DAY…

…then later to permanently fixed the day(w/ light) and night (small light) He made the lights from His created sun and moon, with the STARS (see verse 16) to pass through earth atmosphere and now viewable through spaceship earth… this was finished and it was the 4th Day (see verse 14-18)…

All of these are mere conjectures…but the Word of God is the word of God…it is the authority…that is what we should remember always. The Bible is over science and logic…but we must study if methodically and logically…

By TIUCHE (wrote 2759 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 4/26/2011 15:31 pm

I enjoyed jim t’s scientific explanation of light (post 97), but his last paragraph is a non-sequitur. The Biblical story of creation barely mentions the stars or anything that is not readily visible by the naked eye, so I doubt that the light of Genesis had anything to do with photons or any invisible light. Genesis 1 is a story of the PHYSICAL creation of Earth and its contents, with scant mention of anything else. The creation of light was a day’s work for God, as was the creation of the waters, trees, and so forth. Earth with its plants, animals, creeping creatures, and Adam and Eve are all PHYSICAL creations. There is nothing symbolic or invisible about them. Why are we making an exception with light?

Light was not even the first thing that God created. God created light AFTER he had already created the heaven and the earth (which is scientifically impossible, but that’s another argument!) If light is this something “pure, beautiful, and beyond human understanding”, as jim t tells us, then why did God create heaven without it? If we are to interpret God’s creation of light in the terms that “God is light”, then did God create himself? If light is “the opposite of darkness”, then did God also create darkness? Did God create evil?

I understand all this conjecturing about the meaning of the Genesis light. It’s an effort to understand something that doesn’t make any scientific sense. But creating our own unscientific interpretations only muddles the issue.

By Charles (wrote 1421 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 4/26/2011 14:05 pm

What is light?

Light has both particle-like properties and wave properties. That is, light sometimes behaves like invisible particles called photons.

These photons can collide with other particles such as electrons, and be deflected like microscopic marbles. At the same time, light also displays wavelengths which can act similar to water waves or sound waves. Scientists accept this unusual dual nature of light without completely understanding it.

We are familiar with visible light, of course. The sun produces the dramatic colors that brighten our day. Rainbows, blue skies, red sunsets all result from the separation of sunlight into its spectral colors. However, this visible light is only a small part of the total picture. The sun and other stars also emit many kinds of light that our eyes cannot see. You have heard of some of these forms of light: radio waves and microwaves, ultraviolet and infrared, x-rays and gamma rays. All of these strange varieties of light flood our sky continually. If we could see them, the heavens would appear to be bright with energy. Although this sounds dangerous, it should be noted that the microwaves from space are just a whisper, much weaker than those produced inside a microwave oven. Also, most of the ultraviolet and x-rays are safely absorbed by the earth’s atmosphere. In recent years, instruments have been designed to detect and learn from these invisible kinds of light. For example, infrared telescopes show us many new details of stars and galaxies, and receivers for the radio waves are built in the form of huge dishes. There is obviously much more light in space than “meets the eye,” and each variety of light, visible or invisible, has its own story to tell about the heavens.

Light was part of the initial creation, the opposite of darkness (Gen. 1:3). God is called “light” (1 John 1:5) and “Father of the heavenly lights” (James 1:17). This is a fitting title because light is pure, beautiful, and beyond human understanding. Christians are expected to be part of this image, since we are told to let our light “shine before men” (Matt. 5:16).

By jim t (wrote 1 Bible Commentary - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 4/26/2011 10:03 am

Light is not an object. Everything else that God created – the planet Earth, the trees, the animals, Adam - these are all objects. Light is not. Light is a product of other objects - such as a star, a battery, or a light bulb. So how could God create light before first creating the objects that produce it?

By Charles (wrote 1421 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 4/25/2011 23:55 pm

Light was first determined in the mind of God then God SAID it should be and it became a reality in this other dimension he was creating.

By Nukwa Yeshua (wrote 7 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 4/25/2011 22:49 pm

I was thinking the same thing about the light being Jesus then he would be with God at the beginning of creation. And Jesus says I’m the light of the world. It’s fun to ponder

By Ashley (wrote 1 Bible Commentary - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 2/21/2011 21:40 pm

Reason or faith? Even when reason fails, Jesus enjoins us to have faith: “Believe me that I am in the Father , and the Father in me; or else believe me for the very works’ sake.” (John 14:11)

By Jayant Christian (wrote 287 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 12/14/2010 16:35 pm

Charles,

A not-so-brief response to your post #86: “I hope you agree with me that faith doesn’t mean shutting oneself to reason.”

I agree wholeheartedly. But I also believe the converse is true: “reason doesn’t mean shutting oneself faith.”

Faith and reason are funny things sometimes. Here’s a personal experience to illustrate what I mean:

As a skeptic by nature, I used to have little affection or confidence in chiropractors. Then, one day as things go, I had a GREAT physical need. My normal doctor had me going to physical therapy. After 10 or 12 sessions: no improvement. Someone suggested their chiropractor and after 22 bone-cracking adjustments I was WORSE! By this time I was losing much business because I was simply unable to work. In my distress and pain I got very desperate for God to intervene. Not much later I was at a church function and overheard someone singing the praises of their chiropractor. My pride wanted me to ignore it but my pain told me to inquire. I obeyed my pain and asked the man to tell me about his experience. He explained how his chiropractor had set him free from all his maladies and then went on to describe to me each and every symptom that I myself was experiencing! The skeptic in me asked him; “What does your chiropractor do that mine doesn’t?” He told me and I was impressed enough to investigate for two hours that night on the internet. My pain was driving me to go but I still needed to satisfy my REASON. I needed to understand how this doctor was different.

As the story goes, I went to his chriopractor EAGER to be healed! After the very first painless adjustment, improvement began and I knew I was on the road to recovery. After three weeks I was nearly completely healed. Three more weeks of treatments and I was. That was 5 years ago and I have come to trust this man’s judgment completely. I don’t need to satisfy my understanding anymore when he tells me something about my body. I have learned to trust him FIRST even though my reason for doing so has not been fully satisfied; then, eventually, I come to understand.

Before I knew Dr. Johnson, my faith took a back-seat to reason. But after knowing him; reason now takes a back seat to my faith in him.

I have known the Lord a lot longer now than I’ve known my chiropractor Dr. Johnson. I don’t understand everything in the Bible but I can tell you that the skeptic in me is long gone. What I don’t understand, I wait on. What I DO understand is way more than enough to keep me occupied and believing! But I don’t second guess it anymore. Concerning the two points you raised about executing gays and the creation story, there are certainly reasons to be skeptical; but in my own personal studies of these two issues over the years, I’ve come to a sea-change of understanding.

By Scott Dale (wrote 496 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 12/14/2010 14:27 pm

Regardless of how I feel about some passages of the Bible, I remain fascinated by the wonderful example that Jesus set for us.

By Charles Fiott (wrote 1421 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 12/14/2010 13:57 pm

I may add here what Catherine Booth, the co-founder of the Salvation Army said about the Gospel; If it is not true, be done with it; if it is true act upon it”

By Jayant Christian (wrote 287 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 12/14/2010 06:29 am

Thanks Charles, I like the way you write, very frankly! I am glad to come to know that you at least accept that the gopsels are believable. Believe on Jesus just for the sake of what he is, and live!

By Jayant Christian (wrote 287 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 12/14/2010 06:26 am

Jayant, reason is a by-product of knowledge. If you place yourself between a mother grizzly and her cubs it would be quite reasonable for mama bear to pounce on you. But if she knew that you posed no harm to the cubs the reasonable thing for her to do would be to leave you alone.

Humans have gained a lot of knowledge since their thinking was dominated by religious writings like the Torah, the Rig-Veda, and the Greek mythological accounts. I was once on a night train in a valley north of Athens and, with darkness all around me, I witnessed a sudden stream of light in the sky far above. An early morning ray of the sun had just pierced the top of Mount Olimpus. It was an unforgettable sight. If this happened 3,000 years ago I would probably have found it reasonable to believe that Mount Olimpus was the abode of the sky god Zeus, as Greeks then did. But if I told you that even today I believe this to be true wouldn’t you find such a belief unreasonable?

Likewise the Bible has passages that must have made sense 3,000 years ago, but not today. When we admire a starlit night we now know (or should know!) that the lights we see are not lights that turn themselves on and off but lights that took millions of years to reach us – some a few million more years than others because stars are not of the same distance, nor are they of the same age. But according to the Bible all stars were created in a single day a mere 6,000 years ago. Obviously, this isn’t a belief that can satisfy my reasoning.

But if one excludes the first books of the Bible and get into more contemporary records it is reasonable to assume that much of what is written in the Bible is true. For example the Gospels are pretty much in agreement with one another and they are not contradicted by other historical records. They are therefore much more believable than some of the earlier accounts.

By Charles Fiott (wrote 1421 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 12/13/2010 23:31 pm

Charles, I read you with interest, although with a firm faith in the Bible as the word of God, irespective of reason. You say that faith does not mean shutting oneself to reason.Do you find anything at all that satisfies your reason and therefore to believe it? Can we learn from you something reasonable and therefore beleivable from the Bible?

By Jayant Christian (wrote 287 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 12/13/2010 16:41 pm

Ok, Scott, here’s where I’m coming from. I was raised in a strict Christian family that demanded adherance to the Bible, but when I read the Bible I found out that some parts of it are out of whack. For example I can’t support the execution of gay people like the Bible wants us too. And I’m smart enough to realize that the creation story is no more realistic than the idea of Santa Claus climbing down my chimney. I hope you agree with me that faith doesn’t mean shutting oneself to reason.

By Charles (wrote 1421 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 12/8/2010 14:16 pm

Charles,

I haven’t read enough of your posts to know where you’re coming from, but your comment about stars and “biblical ignorance” is difficult to ignore. It seems you’re trying to discredit the biblical narrative in some way. Of course, that’s your perogative; however, just one point about your remark concerning the star falling to earth in Revelation 9. Do you not consider the personification of the “star” in vss. 1 and 2 to be a significant detail? In several biblical instances a star is used metaphorically for positions of power or authority having to do with rule and is vested in individuals; not gigantic fiery orbs in space.

By Scott Dale (wrote 496 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 12/8/2010 02:15 am

Re Post 77: I find interesting the comment that “Genesis is about the creation of the WORLD, our habitat”. Interesting because even though God created a seemingly infinite UNIVERSE the emphasis of the creation story is on us and on our own little habitat. The way Genesis is written makes you think that the stars are nothing but minute additions to our all-important world. There is no indication whatsoever how tremendously big they are or that they are millions of light years away. Mark Twain parodies such naïveté in an entertaining way, as in this quotation from Eve’s Diary: “When [the stars] first showed, last night, I tried to knock some down with a pole, but it didn’t reach, which astonished me.”

The biblical ignorance about stars persists through the very last book of the Bible. In the Book of Revelation John speaks of stars falling down as if they were a bunch of little lights barely beyond the reach of Eve’s pole. In one case (chapter 9) he even watches a star fall on Earth and then tells us that not even one tree was damaged by such a catastrophic (and impossible) event!

By Charles (wrote 1421 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 12/8/2010 00:50 am

Re. Post 82: Scott, I joined this debate because I had issues regarding the creation story, but the absence of Jesus was NOT one of them. I always knew that Jesus does not belong in the Old Testament, period. That’s why we have a New Testament!

So I was surprised when other contributors started putting Jesus in Genesis first by claiming him to be the light created in the first day and then by claiming his involvement in the Genesis story of creation. Neither of these claims made any sense to me and I believe I have now adequately countered both of them.

Now you can believe what you want. Faith does not require proof. But when you claim something that is untrue or untenable expect someone like me to jump in and set the record straight.

By Charles (wrote 1421 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 12/5/2010 23:30 pm

Charles,

The “liberty” I took to insert the name of Jesus was not liberty with the text. It was for the convenience of space. If you are going to question the veracity of just who these verses are talking about, I welcome you to do so and I’m sure we will have a lively debate; however, if you do I recommend that you do so at those specific verses and not on this thread.

To your point:

“The biblical story of creation simply does NOT have Jesus in it despite all your wishful thinking.”

Perhaps your point is accurate; however, the absence of something does not prove non-existence. I’m sure you’re aware that fundamentally, a negative can never be verified. I personally believe that Jesus shows up a number of times in the OT (but that’s a discussion for another time).

You also said:

“Jesus is totally absent from Genesis and from the entire Old Testament.”

Again I say; so what? It does not prove that he wasn’t involved. There is MUCH that is totally absent from the OT that we do not see until the NT. The Bible is an ever unfolding revelation of the eternal character and kingdom of God or it is nothing at all. There is MUCH glory that is yet to be revealed.

By Scott Dale (wrote 496 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 12/5/2010 20:03 pm

Brothers, the old testament is the precedence of the coming Christ…Everything that transpired or happened in the old testament pointing to the coming of the savior into the world. Although, His name was not even mentioned in the old Testament verbatim, He was with God and was God in the beginning…But i would agree with Charles that Christ is not the light that is mentioned in the Old testament. The earth was created for the delights of His Son..see below passage..

PROVERBS 8:22-31

The LORD possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old.
I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was.

When there were no depths, I was brought forth; when there were no fountains abounding with water.

Before the mountains were settled, before the hills was I brought forth:
While as yet he had not made the earth, nor the fields, nor the highest part of the dust of the world.

When he prepared the heavens, I was there: when he set a compass upon the face of the depth:
When he established the clouds above: when he strengthened the fountains of the deep:

When he gave to the sea his decree, that the waters should not pass his commandment: when he appointed the foundations of the earth:
Then I was by him, as one brought up with him: and I was daily his delight, rejoicing always before him;

Rejoicing in the habitable part of his earth; and my delights were with the sons of men.

By ernie (wrote 5 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 12/5/2010 16:49 pm

Scott, in both your quotations (post 79) you took the liberty of inserting Jesus in parenthesis because Jesus is NOT in them. Neither John nor Paul tells us outright that Jesus was the creator. They intertwine God (the Father) and Jesus in the process, which makes a good case for the Trinity (well… two-thirds of it!) That is why I said that the only way to link Jesus to the creation is through the belief of the Trinity.

Please note that any mention of Jesus as the creator or co-creator comes solely in the New Testament. Jesus is totally absent from Genesis and from the entire Old Testament. The biblical story of creation simply does NOT have Jesus in it despite all your wishful thinking.

By Charles (wrote 1421 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 12/5/2010 14:05 pm

“The only way one could link Jesus with the story of creation is through the belief in the Trinity..” Post #78

Whether or not someone believes in the “Trinity” seems to have very little to do with the clear evidence of the following scriptures which declare that Jesus most certainly IS linked with the reality of the creation.

He (Jesus) was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. John 1:2-3

For by him (Jesus) all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. Col. 1:16-17

By Scott Dale (wrote 496 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 12/5/2010 04:18 am

As I said before, Jesus is nowhere to be found in the entire Old Testament. The only way one could link Jesus with the story of creation is through the belief in the Trinity, by which one could say that God the Father created everything and Jesus created everything and the Holy Spirit created everything. However, there is no Trinity in the Bible. Not in the Old Testament and not even in the new one.

Incidentally, nobody has come up with the suggestion that the light of creation had anything to do with the Holy Spirit!

By Charles (wrote 1421 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 12/5/2010 03:49 am

John/Tamara, Symbolically or spiritually speaking, Jesus is indeed the light of the World and in same manner, can be consider parallel to this event but this verse is creation and part of such is giving light since it was mentioned in V2 that “darkness is in the surface of the deep”. Jesus was not mentioned here but He was with God and He was God in the beginning (Jn 1:1-5).Jesus is not a created being. keep in mind that Genesis is about creation of the WORLD, our habitat, not the creation of Christ…

By ernie (wrote 5 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 12/4/2010 18:23 pm

Paul has in 2 Corithians 4:6 states that God hath shined in our hearts- the very God who had commanded the light to shine out of darkness. So a symbolical interpretation of light may be given in the case of Jesus as the light of the world, But Jesus is not the light that is talked about in Genesis 1. Well, Jesus is seen there as the Word of God in Genesis 1, (as personification).

By Jayant Christian (wrote 287 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/9/2010 17:00 pm

Yes, Tamara, I am afraid you and John are proposing a new religion. You say “Genesis 1:1-2 Distinctly refers to the creation of the earth and heaven and not the Light at this point. Genesis 1:3 states ‘Let there be Light or Light come Forth!!!’ And you continue to affirm that this light, or a capitalized Light, is Jesus. (Most versions of the Bible do NOT capitalize the word ‘light’, and NOBODY knows how it was written originally.)

Your words: “NOT THE LIGHT AT THIS POINT”. The light (Jesus, as you say) comes forth later, with the line “Let there be light”. So you are saying, insisting really, that Jesus was created. This goes against the most basic of Christian beliefs, i.e. that Jesus has no beginning and no end.

By Charles (wrote 1421 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/9/2010 04:26 am

Look at the verse again. Genesis 1:1 reads In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Genesis 1:1-2 Distinctly refers to the creation of the earth and heaven and not the Light at this point. Genesis 1:3 states” Let there be Light or Light come Forth!!! It should not read that It was Good rather (He) being Jesus was Good! Light is capitalized and in this case is a proper name indicating personification or ownership. Jesus is being proclaimed through out creation as the Light of the world and He is good! Jesus often refers to Himslef as the Light of the world. Light illuminates and darkness depraves mankind’s ability to become his true identity in Christ which is to become as light as Christ is the Light! Look at these scriptures. This is not a new religion, yet it is simply illumination within itself! I agree with John in his statement that Jesus was being proclaimed as the Light of the world from the earth’s beginning.

John 8:12

Jesus Is the Light of the World
12Then Jesus again spoke to them, saying, “(A)I am the Light of the world; (B)he who follows Me will not walk in the darkness, but will have the Light of life.”

Cross references:
A.John 8:12 : John 1:4; 9:5; 12:35
B.John 8:12 : Matt 5:14

5″While I am in the world, I am (A)the Light of the world.”

Cross references:
A.John 9:5 : Matt 5:14; John 1:4; 8:12; 12:46

1 Peter 1:20

Listen to this passage
View commentary related to this passage

1 Peter 20 He was foreknown before the foundation of the world but(A) was made manifest(B) in the last times for the sake of you

Hebrews 1: 2 but(A) in these last days(B) he has spoken to us by(C) his Son, whom he appointed(D) the heir of all things,(E) through whom also he created(F) the world.

Hebrews 1: 8-10 But about the Son he says,

“Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever;
a scepter of justice will be the scepter of your kingdom.
9 You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness;
therefore God, your God, has set you above your companions
by anointing you with the oil of joy.”[e]

10 He also says, “In the beginning, Lord, you laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands.

46″(A)I have come as Light into the world, so that everyone who believes in Me will not remain in darkness.

Cross references:
A.John 12:46 : John 1:4; 3:19; 8:12; 9:5; 12:35

By Tamara (wrote 1 Bible Commentary - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/9/2010 03:43 am

John, my point is that we know from the Bible what the light was, and it wasn’t Jesus (FYI Jesus was totally unknown thoughout the entire Old Testament). The Bible says: AND GOD CALLED THE LIGHT DAY. Now I don’t believe that Jesus was “Day”, but you can believe what you want.

By Charles (wrote 1421 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/3/2010 23:41 pm

Charles,

I have believed this since I read this verse. It has to be Jesus. Due to Gods Spirit was already hovering above the earth before it was offically formed. Then the light was called into place which would indicate that God has just introduced the Trinity before calling anything else into existance. The light which we refer to the sun was not called into existance until later. What else could it be?

John

By Johnny (wrote 8 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/3/2010 23:29 pm

Re post 70:

If Jesus was the light that was set apart from the darkness in Gen 1-4, that would mean that Jesus was created, i.e. he wouldn’t be eternal. I think that such a belief would constitute a new religion!

It would also mean that Jesus is synonymous with ‘daytime’ (”And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night…”) Another aberration!

In short, if you believe that Jesus is God then he can’t be the “day” or the “light” of Genesis.

By Charles (wrote 1421 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/3/2010 21:52 pm

I have not read all of the comments on this verse. In fact this is the first time I have been to this site. I am here because I am trying to figure out if Jesus could be the “light” that was set apart from the darkness. This set-apartness would correctly idntify the character of Christ, while proving that He was the first creation written about by Paul. Suprisingly, I find that “light” was created twice in the first chapter of Genesis. When Jesus was transformed in the NT, he was seen as light. I would love to hear your thoughts.

By Luke Oakes (wrote 1 Bible Commentary - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/3/2010 19:50 pm

“And God said”
God issued a command.

“Let there be light:”
The singular form of “light” implies a singular heavenly luminary.

“and there was light.”
God exercised authoritative control or power.

By Roland G. (wrote 1416 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 5/10/2010 01:44 am

Light means illumination in the hebrew. It does not mean colour.

By shawn (wrote 9 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 3/7/2010 05:08 am

Brian, I actually agree wholeheartedly with most of what you said in post 66 (is this a miracle?) Yes, you’re about possibilities and I’m about facts.

Possibilities are endless. Since everything is possible with God isn’t it also possible that he created the sun twice (in the first and in the fourth day, as the Bible indicates)? Or that he created the world twice? I’m not just making these up. The first Earth that God created did NOT rotate around the sun, so it obviously wasn’t the one that we’re living on today. So you can see I am basing this possibility on solid ground, if you excuse the pun. As you said, everything is possible with God. If you REALLY AND TRULY believe that God is all-powerful then you have to believe in ALL possibilities, not just the ones you come up with.

There are gazillion of possibilities. Every person in the world can make up his or her own possibilities. And many do. Which is why they don’t mean anything.

So maybe now you can understand why I stick with the facts.

It’s not a question of whether you believe or not. Everybody believes in something. The atheist believes that there’s no God. That’s a faith because it is not based on sience and cannot be proven, just like your faith and my faith cannot be proven either. Your faith is not more or less important that that of the Atheist or the Hindu or the Confucian or the Pagan.

Questioning your own faith or somebody else’s faith is a actually a sign of maturity. We would have fewer wars and more peace and happiness if we all learned how to question more and condemn less.

By Charles Fiott (wrote 1421 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 1/13/2010 02:28 am

you know what charles you fail to miss my point every post.
It is about possiblity not about fact.
but you keep stating fact, which you cannot produce either.
It will only be speculation from any humans point of view.
You either believe it or you do not.
If you cannot accept that with God everything is possible, then it is a pointless discussion due to you limiting God’s power and making Him into just some simple almost a pagan type deity.
Hope you find the answer that will suit you but I cannot give you the answer nor will i ever agree with your stand about the sun being created first.
the light could have been a thousand things. I just stated color simply because its a possibilty. Energy is a possiblity.
But to you only a limited possiblities are logical and that seems to be human error.
The Jews were very strict when translating the bible.
In order to know what was really meant, one would have to get a hold of the original document that Moses wrote on and ask Moses himself or God Himself what they meant.
If anything the bible centers on Jesus Christ. He is the only light we really need to be looking at anyway.
He died for us so we were no longer seperated from God by sin. He is our redeemer. Now we can choose to believe Christ was the only begotten son of God or believe Jesus Christ was just another martyr or prophet or just a silly crazy guy.
I pray God helps you search for your answer but I will not longer respond to a redundant argument.
I see your point but it is almost like you cannot believe God IS powerful and with Him everything can be created.

By Brian (wrote 11 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 1/12/2010 22:33 pm

Brian, you are free to assume that the authors should have said “color” instead of “light”. Let me know if you ever find anyone who agrees.

But now you’re changing from “color” to “energy”. Energy makes more sense, but energy by itself does not sustain the growth of trees. You are fond to say that trees survived for only one day without sunlight, totally missing the point that they didn’t just survive the third day; they were CREATED on that day! But let me ask you once again to read Genesis 1:11-12:

11. Then God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.” And it was so.
12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.

Now does this seem like a one-day miracle to you, or an entire biological process?

God did not create all the plants we have today in a single day. If that were the case we would still be in Day 3 of creation because new species are still being created. So what God created was not a finite set of trees and fruits but a biological process. A process that would ensure the regeneration of trees and fruits for millions of years to come. A process that depends on the sun. So do you really think you’re being logical when you suggest that God created trees and fruits without the sun somehow and then changed the whole system the next day?

When logic fails you, you always resort to the “everything-is-possible-with God” line. Sure! But if the system of creating trees and fruits was subsequently changed then the creation of trees as we know them did not happen on the third day but at some point later!

Ponder!

And don’t forget that it’s not just trees that can’t exist without the sun. The world can’t either. The world doesn’t spin without the sun. It is with the sun that “there was evening and there was morning”. Or is this another one of “everything is possible with God” things!?

~Charles

By Charles Fiott (wrote 1421 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 1/10/2010 14:16 pm

To follow up on this:
When God made the light he could of filled the void with a great light and once He had no need for the light any longer he used space to seperate the light to create the sun and the stars.
God did create elements which would mean He also created the unstable elements and gases that would just need oxygen to explode or what ever elements he decided to bring forth. since the sun is nothing but gases that are combusting then what i stated and the previous post stated could make sense that the light was either an explosion (the big bang) or the light was just one great white light that was then seperated to create the sun and the stars.
Now if you cannot see any logic to this, then i do not see any point of discussing this issue with you because then i will know for a fact that no matter what i type you will just simply disagree with me because you can.

By Brian (wrote 11 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 1/10/2010 05:18 am

Charles,
Since you cannot accept other possibilities then i see no point of contesting with your “logic”.
You find it logical the author errored on on the day the sun was created, but you do not find it logical that the translation of color was turned into light.
You do not seem to find it logical that light could have been energy as someone posted previously.
You do not seem to find it logical that since God is God that He can do what would seem impossible to us.
You do not seem to find it logical that plants can survive for 1 day without sunlight.
So it seems, to you, the only logical explanation is your own personal theory that the authore errored on the creation of the sun.
So if that is the case then what would that make you?
No matter what anyone ever post it seems your answer is the only answer to you because it is “logical”
Well based on your logic that you do not even follow, since the author errored only on the creation of the sun and not the translation of a word that means no other possibility is left in your mind.
So in your mind only you can be right.
Well when you show me your proof, since you love to state how all i have is suppositions, then i will agree with you without the sarcasm.
But until then you are just as guilty as me by just only assuming what MIGHT have happened not what actually happened.
I happen to find that light could have been energy very believable, simply because that is all light is when it comes down to it, just energy.
But that will probably be illogical to you.

By Brian (wrote 11 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 1/10/2010 05:05 am

Brian, you’re getting too agitated now. And, no, “dude”, I really don’t care if you agree with me or not. I’m just basing my opinions on logic and I wish you could debate me on logic instead of all your could-be-this and could-be-that. Sure everything “could have been” with God, but God made a world that consistently relies on the laws of physics and my logic tells me that it’s more correct to assume that the authors got it wrong than to assume that God got his own laws wrong.

You started post #57 with this sentence: “If you state that authors can make mistakes and God does not then you would have to concede that the author made the mistake of translating color to light.” You restated this type of faulty logic in post #59.

Ok, so let me use your logic for once (and, believe me! It’s only going to be this one time If the authors make mistakes then you have to concede that they made a mistake when they said that there is brightness in heaven.

See, Brian, this is how you think! I don’t think like that. I think like a human (as you have quite correctly accused me of). Apparently you think that thinking like a human is base. Well, Brian, I was created a human and I am happy to think and feel and act like one. Apparently you are a god and can’t understand lowly creatures like me!

By Charles Fiott (wrote 1421 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 1/9/2010 13:03 pm

we as humans can create so much, look at our modern marvels. if you had pulled a human being from the early 19th century or even pres washington and told him that will be a device called a DROID that will speak to you and show you a live feed of video of anywhere in the world (Google earth for example) and also is able to have you contact anyone in the world even in china etc(you get the point with other high tech inventions) they will not believe you simply because the laws of common sense and science even back then will not support this claim in HIS time and to his possible knowledge, hell they are working on ionic transports of inanimate objects! Hovercrafts? Flying vehicles LOOK UP: M200G Volantor, Things that defy gravity and carry a human being on distances and refuel?

My point here is without the knowledge of how to, one cannot comprehend the facts to its fullist and would have to reject the idea of creating such things in that way or one would have to rely on belief untill that knowledge is revealed. I mean even the genius would simply theorize and experiment to prove a THEORY of the facts as to how to create or make, look at albert einstein! He theorized to the brinks of madness! Not comparing einstein to God or anything like that more like comparing one human to another to show a clear point. Maybe God has his own methods or devices to “create” that if he reveals would over power our simple minds even. I mean look what knowledge would do to masses of humans? Riots, panic, violence? Maybe the truth of how existence came about technically speaking is such powerful knowledge that it contains the truth of our own ending? Whether be is in a peaceful bedrest of oldage end or violent horrifying way?
Simply it could be an act of mercy, however the fact that our curious wandering minds need something so it was written in the simplest of ways” Let there be light” to spare us consequences of such knowledge? But then again in the afterlife our end will not matter if we are in heaven? Will it not? Then logically this knowledge maybe revealed to us. Yet our curious minds ponders such as this discussion overcomplicating simple truth and overanalyzing scriptures that were perhaps meant to be in that simple to the point way.

That is all.

By anonymous (wrote 1 Bible Commentary - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 1/9/2010 08:40 am

Perhaps God/dess made the science of light and made her/himself light so thus good is light. I’ve always wondered why light is good. It’s so simple though because you can see in light, it is miraculous to behold, and not one candle can be put out by all the darkness in the world. ^^ So perhaps, God/dess was making the law of light.

By allykakally (wrote 1 Bible Commentary - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 1/9/2010 03:35 am

Dude whatever. You do not know. you just ignore everthing else and you WANT someone to agree with you.
You stated yourself authors make mistakes but you won’t accept that light could have meant color, no instead you insist that the sun HAS to be there when the sun doesnt appear til the third day.
You will not accept that God being all powerful could allow the plants to live without the sun.
You limit the power of God.
I even gave you scripture stating heaven has no sun because the glory of God is bright.
This is not enough for you.
You keep thinking like a human.
If God IS God then I will not rule out He CAN make light without the sun.
but if you cannot then why even bother posting a question or even make posts when you just want to tell others they are wrong and you are right.
You continue to say nope you just have suppositions, nope that cannot be possible.
I can see why the other guy quit.
Because you just want me to say you are right.
Well i will give it to you
You are right. End this post and I’ll see you in the sunless heaven that somehow manages to have light

By brian (wrote 11 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 1/9/2010 01:07 am

Bryan:

The idea that God created color in the first day is purely and completely yours. I congratulate you for such originality. But if you want to be taken seriously you need to have a stronger basis than that the author “could” have made a particular mistake or that there is a “possibility” of this or that. All you have is a bunch of far-fetched suppositions.

No matter how hard we try to disguise the words of the Bible, the light of Genesis 1:4 could only come from the sun. Color does not change the evening into the morning. The sun does. Holy light does not grow plants and fruits. The sun does. And Jesus is absent from the entire Old Testament, so putting him in the first chapter of Genesis is just a figment of the imagination. Only the sun makes any logical sense with Genesis 1:4.

By Charles Fiott (wrote 1421 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 1/8/2010 21:12 pm

If you state that authors can make mistakes and God does not then you would have to concede that the author made the mistake of translating color to light.
If God is truly God then God could possibly make light without needing light producing objects.
And the city had no need of the sun or of the moon to shine in it, for the glory of God illuminated it, and the Lamb is its light.”
(Rev. 21:23)
So the possiblity that Christ is the light i will not rule out.
Also God spoke things into existence considering He said “let there be a light” and there was a light.
So speaking light into existence could mean He asked Jesus to come forth or His glory became so great that light simply appeared.
There is so many possiblities with the beginning, only because God’s power is unlimited.
I do not know since i was not there so all my post are simply theory as yours are too.
Like you stated authors make mistakes, but I do not beleive God would let so many bibles go published that are deceiving every single christian on the earth.
I enjoyed this discussion, but you might be trying to answer this question for the rest of your life.
I figure when we get to heaven we will see and understand why God can do the impossible.

By Brian (wrote 11 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 1/8/2010 01:43 am

Jason, what has this got to do with Genesis? My reference was to the “evening and the morning” sequences which we find in Chapter One of Genesis. ANY light source (a light switch, a flaslight, a fire, etc) can make a difference between darkness and light but ONLY THE SUN can make the transition from the evening to the morning. I don’t know how to explain this in any simpler terms.

By Charles Fiott (wrote 1421 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 12/30/2009 01:38 am

RE: “Only, I repeat ONLY the sun separates day from night.”

Ac 26
13 At midday, O king, I saw in the way A LIGHT FROM HEAVEN, ABOVE THE BRIGHTNESS OF THE SUN, shining round about me and them which journeyed with me.
14 And when we were all fallen to the earth, I heard a voice speaking unto me, and saying in the Hebrew tongue, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.
15 And I said, Who art thou, Lord? And he said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest.
16 But rise, and stand upon thy feet: for I have appeared unto thee for this purpose, to make thee a minister and a witness both of these things which thou hast seen, and of those things in the which I will appear unto thee;
17 Delivering thee from the people, and from the Gentiles, unto whom now I send thee,
18 To open their eyes, and to turn them FROM DARKNESS to LIGHT, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me.

By Jason Elder (wrote 314 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 12/30/2009 01:15 am

Ok, my friend. Let’s follow the scriptures.

Does Genesis 1:3 say “Let there be color”? Sure there is relationship between color and light but they are NOT the same thing and therefore your argument is not germaine. Either we’re going to follow the scriptures or we’re not.

1:4 He divided the light from the darkness and he referred to the evening and the morning, that is to say day and night. Only, I repeat ONLY the sun separates day from night. So God has already created the sun by now. God does not make mistakes. Authors do.

1:16 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.
You said “You’re telling me plants cannot survive whatsoever without light during the night?” No, I’m not saying that. I’m saying that plants could not be CREATED in the first place without the sun being there first.

What you’re trying to say - that God created the seeds and let them germinate overnight until he created the greater light - is in direct contradiction with the scriptures. The scriptures tell us that there was grass and trees and fruit before the greater light came into existence. Please read Genesis 1:12 again. This line blows your photosynthesis theory totally away.

I am following the scriptures. You aren’t.

By Charles Fiott (wrote 1421 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 12/28/2009 14:51 pm

ok dude lets follow scripture one step at a time
Genesis 1:3 - God said let there be a light ( i say God was referring to color since prior to that it was dark)
1:4 He divided the light from the darkness (The way i look at is this: He separated white from black)
White is day black is night
that was all the first day
Genesis 1:6-1:9 the second day He separated the waters and brough forth the land… no need for sun yet
The third day He created the plants.
Ok now think about it He created the plants for one day.. they already got soil and water and all that is lacking is light… well lets continue on shall we?
the fourth day is this here: Genesis 1:16 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.
Ok so lets do a summary. You’re telling me plants cannot survive whatsoever without light during the night?
Considering light does exist just in its purest form of white and darkness exists already in its purest form of black.
So the plants what color were they? Were they brown dull looking plants or black or were they green already? You see He had to have color already and the photosynthesis process was going to happen the very next day.
I do not know what your actual argument is.
I can simply see that without God it probably would not be possible but we are talking about God creating all this, so i am pretty sure if God IS God then surely the plants stayed alive soley of His power or since they were so pure already they did not neccesarily need light immediatley, but seeing that they did needed light right away God made the sun (which if you read it correctly, they bible simply says ” a greater light and a lesser light” so it is never actually written He made “the sun or the moon” it is all reffered to lights.
So still people who say sun or moon are not reading the bible correctly.
Now notice after the plants do its photosynthesis, notice He creates the animals who have to BREATHE?
Notice God created land for the plants?
Notice God created the water first basically saying the Earth was round and in a bubble and then brough forth land?
You are missing key components of the bible and trying in a very reaching way to say plants cannot exist without the sun whatsoever FOR ONE DAY. Dude what about plants that are in houses for days then planted outside later?
Do an experiment take a plant and just leave it in a dark room for ONE DAY then put it outside. If the plant dies in one day well then i concede but if the plant somehow still is alive then maybe it is possible for God to let the plants absorb water first so when He made the light photosyntheis could occur immediately.
I really do not think you will see it any other way but yours so it seems like a pointless argument.
Respond if you like but, to me, you will look at anthing else to avoid the actual truth.
You seem to think the sun HAS to be there for earth to exist when the first time the sun has to actually exist is for the plants which God creates the very next day. Not like God created all life first then was like “woops forgot the ol sun” and throws it in there for life to sustain.
He created the sun the very next day for the plants to photosythensize and create oxygen for the world then creates the very animals that breathe the air and eat the grass.
oh well believe what you want.
Brian

By Brian (wrote 11 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 12/28/2009 01:11 am

Brian, you’re missing a very basic fact. And this is why at first I couldn’t follow what you were trying to say. You’re missing the fact that the sun is a physical object without which Earth cannot exist. So, contrary to what you said, God HAD to create the sun. And he had to create it BEFORE there could be Planet Earth.

Whether he had to or not, he DID create the sun specifically. That happens in Gen. 1:16 Problem is he creates it out of sequence - after Earth and before the other stars! The authors didn’t even know that the sun was just one of the stars, or that the other planets were not stars. They just didn’t know anything in those days. No surprise they got it all wrong.

By Charles Fiott (wrote 1421 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 12/21/2009 00:03 am

No God did not have to create the sun… He just had to create the spectrum of which the sun is. If you look at wavelengths you have radio waves microwaves xrays gamma rays and between all that you have the color spectrum
So if God just adjusted the wavelength such as gamma rays to be the color blue then adjusted all the other primary colors to get green and everything else then all He would have to do is combine the wavelengths to create the color white.
I believe he just made color (light) in the darkness. so the waters were no longer black but turned blue. if you put the color red in the middle of space which that wavelength is about 650nm.
If God wanted red in the universe He surely could just make the universe red instead of black or he could make it white and keep just the earth black.
Either way a God that is powerful enough to create heaven and earth surely could just create light without the sun or without stars.
We humans only associate the sun with light but what color do we see the sun? we see it as yellow. but what created the yellow?
even meteors are gray in space. everything is a color for a reason. God’s spirit did move along the waters so He could have just created a rainbow in space. No one knows how God did it. but the ways i explained seems rational enough to me to think its is possible.
anyway this is the last post.
thanks for hearing me out.
Brian

By Brian (wrote 11 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 12/20/2009 21:50 pm

Thanks, Brian, for that clarification.

It is true that you do not need the sun to have white walls, but you do need light to notice that the walls are white. When you’re fidgeting in total darkness you do not discern color.

When God divided the light from the darkness and called it day and night he had to speaking of the sun. That’s the only light that separates day from night. So, according to Genesis, God created the sun twice!

Charles

By Charles Fiott (wrote 1421 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 12/16/2009 13:53 pm

But God divided the light from the darkness and called it day and night.
So in context the bible is not talking about Christ. Christ is first mentioned metaphorically when speaking to the serpent.
As for light, you do not need the sun to have white walls do you?
So what I am saying is God created white light from the darkness.
That is simply changing the wavelength to get that to happen.

By Brian (wrote 11 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 12/16/2009 12:21 pm

Brian,

I am sorry that I did not respond to your answer. God in my opinion did as the word tells us but your description of bending the light is not what I would call revealing what I believe is the light of his Son Jesus. If we as believers cannot believe the supernatural power of the almighty God then what we read in the Bile is nothing more than a fiction novel. There is no other explanation in my mind that God revealed His Son according to that verse. He reveals the Holy Spirit in verse 2 and being the God of order He has to reveal His Son from the start to reveal what He will use as a metaphor to explain the existence of our Savoir.If we cannot believe that God almighty can reveal what He wants to reveal when He wants to reveal it, then we have completely lost any chance of knowing who God really is and know Gods will for our lives. Maybe we it is all semantics. But this is how we as people searching for answers find those answers. By asking questions and revealing what we think is the answer according to answers we get from the questions we asked. Np argument and no animosity from me. I use strong language because that is all I know how to do. Please forgive me if I offended any one from my commentary. But that commentary is my belief that I get from reading the scriptures and from the answers I get from my questions.

By John (wrote 8 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 12/13/2009 04:10 am

Brian, I did not ignore you. I read your post 39 over and over agan but could not make out what you were saying. Same with post 46.

My issue is that without the existence of the sun the first three days of creation could not have possibly occurred the way the Bible describes them. The evening could not have transitioned into the morning without the sun. Plants could not have grown without the sun. Earth itself could not exist without the sun.

And my pet peeve is people who keep trying to read things into the Bible that are simply not there. If the Bible is wrong let’s for God’s sake admit that it’s wrong and not try to reword and reinterpret everything it says.

I’ll be happy to debate you if you can be kind enough to clarify your position. I promise I won’t bicker

By Charles Fiott (wrote 1421 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 12/12/2009 20:13 pm

and also to reply to you saying “Jesus is the light” contradicts the bible by these to scriptures.
Genesis 1:1 IN THE BEGINNING GOD CREATED THE HEAVENS AND THE EARTH.
John 1:1-1:5 IN THE BEGINNING THERE WAS THE WORD. THE WORD WAS WITH GOD, AND THE WORD WAS GOD. HE WAS MADE WITH GOD IN THE BEGINNING. ALL THINGS WERE MADE BY HIM, AND NOTHING WAS MADE WITHOUT HIM. IN HIM THERE WAS LIFE, AND THAT LIFE WAS THE LIGHT OF ALL PEOPLE. THE LIGHT SHINES IN THE DARKNESS , AND THE DARKENSS HAS NOT OVERPOWERED IT.

What you are saying when God seperated DAY FROM NIGHT is the same as seperating Jesus from Satan.
When both those verses clearly state together that Christ was with His Father in the beginning.
God seperating day from night is completely different and as i stated before it is God controlling the waves of colors.
Anyway you two probably ignore this comment and still bicker about something that seems so obvious

By Brian (wrote 11 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 12/12/2009 18:15 pm

i do not get the point to you two arguing.
Neither one of you are even talking about the subject you are talking about the authenticity of the bible which is impossible to prove since none of us were there and none of us have the original copy.
You both take it by faith that what you read is true and what you read is not leading you astray or false doctrine (i hope).
I answered the stupid question about light and you both ignored it and still bicker about something that seems so pointless if you are christian.
i pray for both of you to end this nonsense and JUST STICK WITH THE SUBJECT.
anyway i just want to know if my answer is stupid, , makes sense or did it change somebodys mind. -_-

By Brian (wrote 11 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 12/12/2009 18:05 pm

John, you know you’re not telling the truth. If someone really had the original books of the Bible he or she would be famous. You’d be able to give me his name or tell me which museum or church has them. If there is a legitimate translation of the originals tell me the name of the publisher or give me the ISBN number. You can’t just keep making things up and call people who disagree with you fools. This is irresponsible and rude. Only people who are in the wrong resort to name calling. Jesus didn’t teach us to behave like this.

My statement about the scribes commiting many errors is far from being unfounded. If you want documeneted examples of some of these errors read the book “Misquoting Jesus” by Bart D. Ehrman, ISBN-13:978-0-06073817-4.

You totally misunderstood what I said about the original Hebrew language that some of the books of the Bible were written in. But you’re getting so belligerent now that I see no point in further trying to discuss anything with you. Your mind is closed.

By Charles Fiott (wrote 1421 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 12/11/2009 11:43 am

Charles,

There you are agian trying to put words into peoples mouth that are not true. The original Bible is still in the hands of Israel along with the Dead Sea Scrolls that back up what the original Bible has said. The originators who were inspired by the Spirit of God knew that people as yourself would doubt the word of God so they kept it and have it in Israel. They also have used there own Language to write the Bible because of the exactness of the language. The lack of vowels that you talk about are only utilized in the translation from the original language to the English language by King James in 1500 AD. You have you facts all backwards. I can’t believe you are compairing the English language to the Hebrew and Greek language by saying there are no vowels in there language. Apples and Oranges.

Your statement about the scribes commiting many errors in the transcription of the Word of God is unfounded unless you have read the transcripts and can prove that they are not correct. They have been proven time and time again that they are true and are accurate. You spout words and accuzations about the Bible and from what I hear from you, you have not even read the word or even used it as a referance for anything other than your disgust for it. You do not believe in the God but do you believe in Satan? You do not believe that Jesus was the Light in Gen 1:3 and I can understand your argument due to your lack of Faith in the scriptures but Satan blieves in Jesus. But the real phenomenon is that you actual believe that the Scribes who translated the Bible to different languages actually had to guess at what God was saying in the original language. Only a fool can stipulate that as if it were true. That is almost on the verge of Blastfamie. There was no need for guessing. They transcribed exactly what God wrote in the original language but you are correct in stating that the Bibles of Today may be different because of the specificity of the priginal language. I.E. The word Love in the English language means a number of different things but we use the same word. The word love in the original is specific I.E “Agape” means Love between Husband and Wife, God and you, “Philashio” is brotherly love.

Your question is only unanswered because you have not researched it hard enough to actually find it. Gods word has and never will disappear. He states it through Jesus in the Bible. Plus the Bible has been on the best sellers book list longer than any other book in the history of the world. not bad for a book that you stated had disappeared.

By John (wrote 8 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 12/11/2009 02:42 am

John, you seem unable to separate belief from fact. You keep defending the Bible as the word of God but you have not denied the fact that the original Bible is no longer in existence. You can’t maintain that “Gods word never disappeared.” or that “the accuracy of the Old Testament is phenomenal” without being able to produce God’s word (the true, original one) and prove its accuracy. You are making unsustainable claims.

Perhaps your argument is or should be that even though the originals are gone, we can still rely on the copies we have around. Well, no, we really can’t. Contrary to what you indicated, scribes have committed many errors. We’re talking about changes, deletions, additions and omissions; some minor, some major; some unintentional, others intentional. And if the bibles of today are different from those of the 4th century one can only imagine how much more different the original books must have been, especially when you consider that some of the books were written in a language that had no vowels and reading/translating them involved a lot of guesswork.

The original Bible has disappeared. That’s a fact. My question remains unanswered: Why did God allow his word to disappear?

By Charles Fiott (wrote 1421 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 12/10/2009 14:43 pm

thank you

By ISRAEL (wrote 1 Bible Commentary - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 12/10/2009 09:55 am

Charles,

Gods word never disappeared. The Bible is comprised of 66 separate writings or books. It was written over a period of approximately 1400-1800 years by more than 40 authors from various walks of life. While many of the authors are identified some remain unknown. All Scripture is inspired by God (2 Timothy 3:16). Men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God (2 Peter 1:21) The Greek word for inspired, THEOPNEUSTOS, means “God-Breathed” The Holy Spirit carried men along, moving and guiding them as they wrote in their own words what God wanted them to say. Thus we have verbal inspiration, because the words of the original text were inspired by God. And because all Scripture was given by inspiration we have plenary inspiration which means total or complete inspiration. Every part of the Bible is inspired. The Bible does not merely contain the words of God, but it actually is the word of God. Thus the original writings, often called autographs are infallible, without error. This concept is called the verbal, plenary inspiration of the autographs. In the early history the writings were done on stone, clay tablets, leather (animal skins), and papyrus scrolls. The New Testament autographs were probably written on papyrus. Papyrus was made from the inner bark of a reed plant, was formed into a paper like material which was glued together and rolled into a scroll. The scrolls were kept in a cylindrical box called a capsa. According to the Jewish Talmud the Scriptures were to be copied only on the skins of clean animals such as sheep, calves and goats. Eventually the scrolls were replaced by the codex. The codex was made from folded sheets, quires, which were stitched together like a book. Copies of the Old Testament were transcribed by hand under the strictest measures. The men who copied the manuscripts were called scribes. If one error was found the entire copy was destroyed. Thus the accuracy of the Old Testament is phenomenal. This accuracy has been confirmed by the Septuagint and by the Dead Sea Scrolls.
Charles, the word has never been silenced. The Bible is the only book to maintain it’s doctrinal accuracy over the centuries. Tyrants have tried to destroy it but they have not succeeded. The Bible is written in 2 Primary Languages, Hebrew and Greek with a few phrases in the New Testament in Aramaic because that was the vernacular of the people of Israel. The word has never been silenced but it has been the thorn in the side of many a people that have not wanted to following Gods teachings. The word has never disappeared. It has and always will be here and is spreading to places where they have to teach and preach in underground churches like in China. (Reference The New Inductive Study Bible).

By John (wrote 8 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 12/10/2009 08:19 am

ok i dunno if this will make sense or if someone typed this already.
First we have to look at what is light. Light is a wavelength varying the wavelength makes it brighter or darker, so in essence God created the heavens and the earth but everything was created in darkness meaning darkness existed in a sense what is black?
Black is lack of color, what is white, white is all the MAIN colors combined. notice when you make color it eventually either goes to black or white.
So what God did was adjust the wavelength to get a brighter color for everything so really God did not need the sun He just need to adjust what He had already created from long ago when He made Heaven.
Think about it we get the history of a little bit of Heaven from the bible but we do not know how long Heaven was there so really God could have created the blackness long before because He knew Lucifer would rebel against Him.
Anyway I hope this clarifies how light can exist without the sun.
Look at color wavelengths and you will see what i mean
Thank you and God bless

By Brian (wrote 11 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 12/10/2009 00:38 am

John:

The Bible’s narration of the creation story moves from one day to the next with the words “the evening and the morning”. Now I’ve never been to heaven (and you probably think I never will:) It may be that in heaven you have to wait a thousand years for a morning. But heaven was already created on or by the very first day. The creation of the sea and the fruits and the trees happened on Earth, not in heaven. Therefore the evening and the morning were EARTHLY days. I can’t understand why you want to shift the seven days of creation from Earth to heaven.

But even if each day on Earth lasted 1000 years, how would that advance your argument? You arrived at the (logical, in your view) conclusion that the plants grew by the light of Jesus. But it is YOUR conclusion. It’s not what the Bible says or indicates. I have a (very logical) conclusion of my own, which is no doubt anathema to you: the Bible writers simply made a mistake.

I know I’m pushing the envelope with you now, but NOBODY knows what the “original” text of the Bible said. The original Bible books are long gone and the earliest copies we have date from around 400 AD - long after Jesus came and went. We know for a fact that many changes and errors were made as the Bible was copied and rewritten over the centuries, so we can only surmise how many changes and errors had already occurred between the originals and the earliest surviving copies. So here’s a question for you. This is a question I have posed before on this forum but nobody gave me an answer. If the Bible is the word of God, why did God allow his word to disappear?

Charles

By Charles Fiott (wrote 1421 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 12/8/2009 13:56 pm

Charles,

We are still talking about the Creation of Earth. One day in Heaven is as if 1000 years on Earth. So the plants and all that were created on it at that time were still in the light that God greated without the Sun as we know it. There is no other explanation. If you read the Old Testiment you are correct that Jesus was not mentioned, but through out the Old Testiment the they reference the Light that will save and give life. Isaiah, Jeramiah, Lamentation and so on. They all refer to the light but not the Sun in the sky. I am in agreement with you that you have to take the Bible word for word, but you cannot explain in Gen 1:3 why there is light in the world but God had not created the Sun as we know it yet. And you still cannot explain how the vegitation lived for 1000 years on this earth before God created the Sun as we know it. This is not a misprint because the original Language in Hebrew refers to the same text that God revealed the light before he created the sun. Jesus said that He is “The Way, The Truth and the Light and no man comes to the Father except through Him. Please get discernment Charles because you sound like a man who is refered to in
1 Corithians 2:14. You cannot understand the word of God without being Spirit Filled by God.

By John (wrote 8 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 12/8/2009 05:47 am

John, again, you are changing the Bible to your own purposes. Genesis says nothing at all about Jesus. You just keep making things up.

As far as one year in heaven being worth 1000 on Earth… well, ok, but we’re talking about the creation of Earth, not heaven. So one day is still one day.

God may have supernatural powers, but you don’t. You do not have the power to interpret things in any way you want. You have to stick with the words of the Bible. Who are you to put Jesus and the Trinity in Genesis where none exists? If you really believe in the Bible you should accept it as it is written. With all its wonders and with all its flaws.

By Charles Fiott (wrote 1421 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 12/5/2009 16:04 pm

Charles,

Fact: Day and Night were created before there were the Sun and the Moon. Gen 1:5 God had created the day from night without the Sun as we know it but yet there was light to seperate the darkness, the light of the Son Jesus, how else could God have created the first day.

Fact: You are correct when you say that the Sun needs to be there first to keep the plants and trees alive. God created the plants and tress and vegitation first a full day before he created the Sun Gen 1:11. Now if we can believe what the Bible says about One day in Heaven as if a 1000 years on Earth 2 Peter 3:8, Then we can summize that the vegitation that God created was on Alive via the Light that was revealed by God for a a full day or a 1000 years before the Sun was created. You are basing your assumtions and putting God back in a box that you have in your finite mind that tells you that God could not have created the vegitation before the Sun because they al would have died. Now there you go again making assumtions on science as we know it today and gives not validity to the word of God and his super natural power. Just your finite mind that limits you to believe that the almighty God could not make vegitation life without the sun we know today. The Bible tells you he did and you don’t believe it. That also leads me to believe that you do not believ that the Bible is the true and inherent word of God. It also leads me to believe that you only believe what you see and not what you don’t see. Remember what you don’t see is eternal. 2 Cor 4:18.

By John (wrote 8 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 12/5/2009 05:22 am

John, there are beliefs and there are facts. The two are not the same. Actually these two terms are exclusive of each other. Beliefs are by definition NOT facts.

What you believe and what I believe is important to you and me but does not carry any weight in a debate. We can and should expound and defend our beliefs and disbeliefs, but at the end of the day only facts matter.

Fact: The transition from the day into the night and the night into the day can only occur as a result of the sun’s movement. No other light can do the trick. Do you agree with this simple truth?

Fact: Forests do not proliferate without sunlight. Artificial lighting can keep some plants alive, but the creation of trees around the world required the sun to be there first. Do you agree with this simple truth?

Based on the above Genesis’ account that the sun was created after the days and nights had already been established and after the world had already been populated with plants is false. Q.E.D.

You can believe what you want, but you can’t treat your beliefs as truths. If they become true (i.e. you’re able to prove them) they are no longer beliefs. They become facts. If they become false (as shown above) you have a choice: modify your beliefs to comply with reality or mock your own intelligence by ignoring it.

One more fact: There is no mention at all of the Trinity in Genesis. You have to admit you made that up.

By Charles Fiott (wrote 1421 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 12/4/2009 14:42 pm

Charles,

Look at what you are saying. If you believe in the power of the one true God then limiting His power to just what you can see is the mockery. This light will be there even after the stars and the moon and the sun are taken away by God in Revelation. There will be no need for it due to the light that comes from within. Now when God said “let there be light” There was no sin on the earth so the need for the sun to grow plants and see was not needed at this time.

Your rebutle of my commentary shows that you limit God in His power and who He is. You mock God and limit who He is to your finite mind. When you can come to grips with who God is and that there is nothing, not one second that has gone by or will go by with out His knowledge or approval then and only then can begin to understand how much he loves you with all your sin.

John

By John (wrote 8 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 12/4/2009 05:36 am

I keep having a problem with people who try to read things into the Bible that are absolutely not there. John sees the creation of light in the first few lines of Genesis as revealing the Holy Trinity: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. Now, seriously John!! Genesis revealing the Trinity now!? How far can your imagination take you?

Let us recap this debate a little. Ths question is how was it that God created light first and then waited three days to create the sun? How did the day turn into night and back into day without the sun? How did the plants and trees grow without the sun? John, are you saying that the plants grew by the light of the Holy Trinity for a while and then evolved into getting their light from the sun later?

When you try to change what the Bible says you only make a mockery of it.

By Charles Fiott (wrote 1421 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 12/3/2009 14:33 pm

In Gen 1:1,2 We see that the Earth was without shape and form and the Holy Spirit was hovering over the water. But where is the Trinity? Does this happen to take place in verse 3 where God commands “Let there be Light” but from where did this originate if the moon, stars and sun were not created yet but we had light? The Soverign Will of our Father is to have Light where there is no Light and to be the Light in the Darkness. Through his power we see that the Trinity was always there even in the darkness until Gods perfect timing when the Light was called to be revealed. The Trinity God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit has been revealed to the world since the beginning of time.

By John (wrote 8 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 12/3/2009 06:13 am

Genesis 1:3 says,”And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.” Like I said on Genesis 1:2 the Word of God is what created this whole thing. Notice the word light. It comes from the Hebrew word “rwa” or ore and one of its uses is to cause to shine or give light. So out of the vast darkness and chaos of Genesis 1:2, we have God giving His light to the situation. Oh how we need God’s light in this old sin troubled darkened world! As one getting ready to go to Bible college and to go into full time ministry, I pray for God’s direction. I seek to do His will for my life. May we see His light in our lives.

By Jordan Haskins (wrote 4 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 10/18/2009 05:31 am

Word Up:
Think of the Book of Genesis as a movie script. Up until now the narrator (Moses) has been speaking. Now the first character utters the first line. The character is God, the same ‘Elohiym in verses 1 and 2.. However since He is speaking, we can assume that we are now introduced to the Word. The Hebrew term is dabar (masculine noun) while the Greek is usually logos. John makes the connection between God, Word, and Jesus in his Gospel. So now we have ‘Elohiym, Ruwach, and Dabar. The Trinity is implied as the agent in Creation. (Three is a Magic Number.) Logos was a buzz word for concepts such as order and reason. For the Hebrews there was power in the word, therefore praying out loud, oaths, and insults were taken seriously. (The Hebrew use of wisdom (chokmowth; feminine noun) can also be compared with logos.) The Word is the agent that brings discernable order out of chaos. The first pattern is light. I plan on discussing the nature of this light in later verses. I think it is also implied that space is now separated from matter, but I’m not dogmatic on that point. Some people may believe that the light was created from nothing. I think it was called out of the pre-existing chaos, similar to forming man from dust.

By Terik Q (wrote 65 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 2/11/2009 21:51 pm

1)Interesting comments indeed!Phil Johnston,I wish to say something & to repeat something I’ve said earlier.
2)”And the earth was without form and void,and darkness was upon the face of the earth…”.Gen.1:2.There was no order or form.Emptiness & darkness existed before Day 1.
3)On Day 1,the dark chaos began to disappear.Order has appeared.There was progress on each day of creation & perfection was reached on Day 6,when all the creative acts were completed after the creation of man & woman.
4)”And God saw the light that it was GOOD.” Gen.1:4.-God’s approval of First Day’s creative act.
“…and God saw that it was GOOD.” Gen.1:10,12,18,21,25)-God’s approval of creative acts of Day 3 to day 6.
And God saw everything that he had made,and behold it was VERY GOOD.” Gen.1:31.-God’s final & complete approval after all the creative acts were completed.
5)We can find that the words “God said” are mentioned 10 times in Genesis 1.
“For he spoke,and it was done;he commanded,and it stood fast.” Ps.33:9.
“For God,who commanded the light to shine out of darkness…” 2 Cor.4:5.
6)True Light:”There it was-the true Light(was then)coming into the world
(the genuine,perfect,steadfast Light)that illumines every person.[Isa.49:6]
-John 1:9(Amp).
Jesus said:”i am the light of the world;he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness,but shall have the light of life.” John 8:12.
7)”For ye were sometimes darkness,but now are ye light in the Lord;walk as children of light.”Eph.1:8.Read Isa.9:2.
“….who hath called you out of darkness into his marvelous light.”
1 Pet.2:9.
There must be progress in the spiritual life of every individual believer.
The final destiny of the believer in Christ is to be conformed to the image of Jesus Christ.Please read 2 Cor.3:18;Rom.8:29.

By Alex (wrote 499 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 2/3/2009 11:06 am

Interesting discussion if at times a tad tetchy lol…
I have substituted the word ‘order’ for ‘light’ as illumination carries that connitation and it links with the creation of the sun, moon stars which are spoken of in 1:14 in a context of government or bringing order to the natural world. It also fits if you substitute ‘order for light’ in John 1 & the desciption of Jesus as being light not understood by darkness or IN Ephesians where christians as to live as chuildrfen of light/ order.
Interestingly the Hebrew word for darkness which carries an ‘opposite’ meaning can be translated ‘misery, destruction, death, ignorance, sorrow,’ wickedness which could further add to the suggestion that God was bringing order to the chaos of an unformed universe on Day one.

By Phil Johnston (wrote 1 Bible Commentary - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 2/2/2009 19:14 pm

1)Actually,light is a form of energy.In a dynamo,mechanical energy is converted into light energy.
2)Apostle Paul has cited this reference in 2 Cor.4:6.He is a great scholar.
“for God commanded the light to shine out of darkness hath shined in our hearts…..”
3)Jesus Christ is the light of the world.John 8:12.He was the true Light, which lighteth everyman that cometh into the world.John 1:9.Read Isaiah 9:2;49:6;Luke 2:32.

By Alex (wrote 499 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/6/2008 03:23 am

1)Yes.Let us note the acts of creation in Genesis Chapter 1.It is significant to note that each creative act is introduced by the phrase “And God said.” See the verses 3,6,9,11,14,20,24,26.
2)The writer of Hebrews tells that by faith we understand that the entire universe was formed at the command of God.Heb.11:3.
3)God spoke & things happened.Ps.33:6,9.There is the creator.The world did not come into existence by accident.God created everything in the world.

By Alex (wrote 499 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 10/27/2008 08:12 am

And God said . Moses now, for the first time,
introduces God in the act of speaking,
as if he had created the mass of heaven and earth without the Word. Yet John testifies that
‘without him nothing was made of the things
which were made,’ (John
1:3.)
And it is certain that the world had
been begun by the same efficacy of the Word by which it was completed.
God, however, did not put forth his Word until he proceeded to originate light; because in the act of distinguishing his wisdom begins to be conspicuous. Which thing alone is sufficient to confute
the blasphemy of Servetus. This impure caviler asserts, that the first beginning of the Word was when God commanded the light to be; as
if the cause, truly, were not prior to its effect. Since however by the Word of
God things which were not came suddenly into being, we ought rather to infer the
eternity of His essence. Wherefore the Apostles rightly prove the Deity of
Christ from hence, that since he is the Word of God, all things have been
created by him. Servetus imagines a new quality in God when he begins to speak.
But far otherwise must we think concerning the Word of God, namely, that he is
the Wisdom dwelling in God, and without which God could never be; the effect of which, however, became
apparent when the light was created.
Let there be light . It we proper that the light, by
means of which the world was to be adorned with such excellent beauty, should be
first created; and this also was the commencement of the distinction, (among the
creatures. )
It did not, however, happen from inconsideration or by accident, that the light
preceded the sun and the moon. To nothing are we more prone than to tie down the
power of God to those instruments the agency of which he employs. The sun an
moon supply us with light: And, according to our notions we so include this
power to give light in them, that if they were taken away from the world, it
would seem impossible for any light to remain. Therefore the Lord, by the very
order of the creation, bears witness that he holds in his hand the light, which
he is able to impart to us without the sun and moon. Further, it is certain from
the context, that the light was so created as to be interchanged with darkness.
But it may be asked, whether light and darkness succeeded each other in turn
through the whole circuit of the world; or whether the darkness occupied one
half of the circle, while light shone in the other. There is, however, no doubt
that the order of their succession was alternate, but whether it was everywhere
day at the same time, and everywhere night also, I would rather leave undecided;
nor is it very necessary to be known.

By John Calvin (wrote 19 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 10/22/2008 11:31 am

Even Dr. Black’s quotation does not mention or indicate energy in any way whatsoever. This “energy” is a figment of his imagination. It does not come from the Bible. The writers of the Bible had no idea what energy was.

By Charles Fiott (wrote 1421 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 9/28/2008 22:00 pm

There is no evidence because the story is a myth. At the time they wrote it theyt didnt even know what energy was. It is a myth, and nothing more. A fictional story.

By Mike (wrote 4 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 9/28/2008 21:32 pm

Dr. Black, I asked for evidence, not from quotations from the Bible.

By Charles (wrote 1421 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 9/28/2008 13:54 pm

“Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good; and God divided the light from the darkness. God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. So the evening and the morning were the first day.” (Genesis 1:3-5).

God then endowed energy into His creation by the power of His Word. Matter was energized and gave forth light. God separated the energized matter from the dark matter and that constituted the first day. Scripture tells us that he later created the sun, moon & stars as ‘HOLDERS’….which would harness that ENERGY. You can read the Word, but unless it is ENERGIZED by the Holy Spirit….

I’d love to continue but am on my way to Service. May God Richly bless you in the reading & understanding of His Holy Word

By Dr. Black (wrote 3 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 9/28/2008 13:46 pm

Dr. Black. how do you know that the light of Genesis is actually energy? What evidence do you have?

By Charles (wrote 1421 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 9/28/2008 11:48 am

That ‘LIGHT’ being referred to is actually ENERGY. The energy that set the world in motion….spinning on its axis if you will.

By Dr. Black (wrote 3 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 9/28/2008 11:31 am

Ah I understand. Well in the next few verses that is explained. Basically they’re saying that even though God created light, there was still darkness. They didn’t get much more technical than that. Once you begin discussing the rotation of the earth, then you get into scientific stuff.

By Mike (wrote 4 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 9/27/2008 22:20 pm

Mike, my point is that if they want to say that light didn’t come from the sun they would need to explain how it got dark at night.

By Charles (wrote 1421 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 9/26/2008 10:05 am

No, actually the opposite. The writers were leaning towards the idea that God created light from nothing, it was just there, and that shows that he is all powerful. There was light, it just didn’t come from the sun, but from God, as he created. But a warning: Genesis should not be taken literally, until after Noah, when Abraham begins. None of it actually happened, rather it is a myth that is used to express the Catholic belief of Creation.

By Mike (wrote 4 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 9/25/2008 01:59 am

That’s an interesting hypothesis, Mike, but it still doesn’t explain how there could have been three days and three nights without the sun. Was God a blinking light?

By Charles (wrote 1421 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 9/24/2008 23:13 pm

Actually, the meaning of this is simple. When the ancient Hebrews wrote this section of the bible, and I believe this was written by the Priestly Writers, they were monotheists. They were alone in religious aspects by this characteristic. Most other religions involved polytheism. Now the most important god in any pantheon of the day was the sun god. The hebrews did this to show that God was more powerful than any other god, and by giving god the power to introduce light, and thus stripping that power from the greatest god in the eyes of the polytheists, the sun god, they are able to take a stab at the other relgions, and say that their god, in essence, is the most powerful.

By Mike (wrote 4 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 9/24/2008 22:29 pm

Can someone explain the following: “God creates light and separates light from darkness, and day from night, on the first day. Yet he didn’t make the light producing objects (the sun and the stars) until the fourth day (1:14-19). And how could there be “the evening and the morning” on the first day if there was no sun to mark them?”. Some mentioned this before, but I haven’t read a satisfactory answer yet.

By Edward N. (wrote 3 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 6/25/2008 11:35 am

Ok, Dr. Black, first of all I am sure you have the wrong translation because the words “let there be light” are followed by a description of the difference between light and darkness and between day and night. Energy does not account for such a distincton.

But let’s for a moment assume that you are right. That all there was at first was energy. That Earth was in virtual darkness for the first three days of creation. That light was not created until the sun came along in the fourth. So how do you explain the existence of grass, herbs, trees and fruit before the creation of the sun? Don’t you agree that it is scientifically impossible for these things to grow without light?

By Charles Fiott (wrote 1421 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 6/22/2008 12:46 pm

That ‘light’ listed first is actually ENERGY….if you’ll look up the word in your Hebrew lexion & Dictionary. Everything was created IN ORDER….things that were made relied on the things made the day before. The ‘ENERGY” is what started the world rotating on its axis which is what was necessary

By Dr. Black (wrote 3 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 6/22/2008 02:33 am

Stupidest thing I’ve ever seen. So this “temporary sourceless light” behaved exactly like the sun - it shut itself off during the night and was even called “day” by God - and yet it was not the sun? If it walks like a duck and squawks like a duck …

If you are so literate you should have picked up that the Bible writers created the sun twice by mistake. There is no other logical explanation. The Bible doe not say the light was temporary or that it was sourceless. This is all a baseless and irresponsible fabrication.

Again I understand why you’re having such a hard time trying to explain the Bible. It’s way too flawed.

By Charles Fiott (wrote 1421 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 4/22/2008 01:36 am

The sun separates day from night NOW, but not then. Then there was no sun, as a literate person will see if he keeps reading a few verses on. This light created here was a temporary sourceless light that did then what the sun does now.

By jk (wrote 36 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 4/21/2008 20:55 pm

Dear JK, I understand that you have a problem digesting the actual words of the Bible but, by creating your own account of creation, you are actually giving the Bible a vote of no confidence.

The actual words of the Bible are “Let there be light: and there was light.
And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.”

There is of course only one thing that distinguishes the day from the night, and that is the light from the sun. The Bible couldn’t have been clear about this: the light that God made in the first day is the light that separates the day from the night, not some mysterious rays or energy or anything else that creationists fabricate. It amazes me how people who profess belief in the Bible go out of their way to remake the holy words.

By Charles Fiott (wrote 1421 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 4/19/2008 22:21 pm

I don’t mean that light preexisted his saying “Let there be light.” When he said that, light was created for the first time. But light, being made of rays that are absorbed and turned into heat, is by its nature impermanent. It will always exist as energy, but not always be light. The light that he created there by saying “Let there be light” was no permanent source of light but was transient light (raw light separated from source) that was converted upon abortion and therefore is no longer around, at least not as light.

“For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.” (2 Cor 4:6) Note that the apostle gives us the inspired interpretation of Genesis 1:3, which is not (as you seem to be saying) that God created a permanent light source, but rather that he commanded raw light to shine out of nowhere, having no source other than himself. In otherwise, this “Let there be light” did not create anything like a star, but God called forth mere and raw light out of non-existence into existence without creating any source whatsoever.

By jk (wrote 36 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 4/19/2008 21:17 pm

“Let there be light” is a straightforward and unequivocal statement of a permanent creation. Contending that this was “a mere ambient light to temporarily exist until the creation of the sun” is taking unreasonable and excessive liberty with the written word of the Bible. God went through a methodical process, creating one permanent thing after another. Why would he adopt a two-step process to create light as opposed to everything else? Why would he need to? What logical sense would it make? Why would it be part of the creation story if nothing was in fact created yet?

By Charles Fiott (wrote 1421 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 4/19/2008 18:14 pm

Since God created the Sun, moon, and stars later, this light could not be light from any of them. In fact, why assume that this light was projected from any body at all rather than mere ambient light to temporarily exist until the creation of the sun? Catching this fact that God created light before the sun, the apocryphal book of 2nd Esdras (also called 4th Esdras) says in 6:40 (Revised Standard Version) “Then thou didst command that a ray of light be brought forth from thy treasuries, so that thy works might then appear.” A ray of light is light itself and not the body that projects the light, which I assume is what the apocryphal writer is saying. He is interpreting this light as just that, light, without any body that is projecting it.

By jk (wrote 36 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 4/19/2008 17:32 pm

God created light in the first day but didn’t create the sun till the fourth, where the Bible tells us that the sun is the source of light. So what was the source of light in the first three days?

By Charles (wrote 1421 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 10/8/2007 16:18 pm

When God said :”let there be light”, it hit the universe running at 186,000 miles per second, and it has not stopped.

By michael meurett (wrote 6 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 9/23/2007 12:35 pm

God spoke light into existence - nothing grows without light - he created light as the next step to survival. Just as Jesus came to be the light of the world for our salvation.

By Sharon Corea (wrote 5 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 6/6/2007 06:41 am