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

Commentary by Charles Fiott
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.

Commentary by Brian
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.

Commentary by John
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

Commentary by Charles Fiott
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

Commentary by Brian
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. -_-

Commentary by Brian
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.

Commentary by Charles Fiott
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.

Commentary by John
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?

Commentary by Charles Fiott
Posted on: 12/10/2009 14:43 pm

thank you

Commentary by ISRAEL
Posted on: 12/10/2009 09:55 am