Let There Be Light

[apple2345]

It is my belief that proving creation would change the world. It has also been my belief that the best way to prove creation as the origin of the world, is to use the first day of creation as the foundation to build upon.
“And God said, ‘Let there be light,’ and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness” (Genesis 1:3-4 NIV).

We know that this light is not the sun because He goes on to say that he created the sun on day four in Genesis 1:14-19.

What I am suggesting is that the light of the first day is what we call atmospheric electricity.

Tesla is know for studying this phenomenon. He said, “Throughout space there is energy. Is this energy static or kinetic! If static, our hopesare in vain; if kinetic - and this we know it is, for certain - then it is a mere question of time when men will succeed in attaching their machinery to the very wheelwork of Nature.
-"Experiments with alternate currents of high potential and high frequency" (February 1892).

What do you think?

Please keep in mind that this is a new subject for me as well. I am only proposing a theory and would appreciate that if you would like to respond, that it will be in a kind and encouraging way and not with the intent of discouraging the entire possibility.

Thank you.

 

[juvenissun]

It is my belief that proving creation would change the world. It has also been my belief that the best way to prove creation as the origin of the world, is to use the first day of creation as the foundation to build upon.
“And God said, ‘Let there be light,’ and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness” (Genesis 1:3-4 NIV).

We know that this light is not the sun because He goes on to say that he created the sun on day four in Genesis 1:14-19.

What I am suggesting is that the light of the first day is what we call atmospheric electricity.

Tesla is know for studying this phenomenon. He said, “Throughout space there is energy. Is this energy static or kinetic! If static, our hopesare in vain; if kinetic - and this we know it is, for certain - then it is a mere question of time when men will succeed in attaching their machinery to the very wheelwork of Nature.
-"Experiments with alternate currents of high potential and high frequency" (February 1892).

What do you think?

Please keep in mind that this is a new subject for me as well. I am only proposing a theory and would appreciate that if you would like to respond, that it will be in a kind and encouraging way and not with the intent of discouraging the entire possibility.

Thank you.

Light is a show of energy. Without energy, there is no substance.
It is ultimately incredible that a caveman could say such a thing that fits perfectly with a 20th century idea.

If I were the author, I would say: at the beginning, God says, let there be rocks; water; air; stars; sun; moon; ... anything, but light.

 

[frogman2x]

Light is a show of energy. Without energy, there is no substance.
It is ultimately incredible that a caveman could say such a thing that fits perfectly with a 20th century idea.

If I were the author, I would say: at the beginning, God says, let there be rocks; water; air; stars; sun; moon; ... anything, but light.

Light in the Bible is a symbol for many things, including knowledge. The light in Gen 1:3 is the knowledge of the gospel of Christ and of the glory of Christ(2 Cor 4:4-6).

God sarted with light because knowledge of Him is essential for man's salvation.

Rocks, water, etc are necessary for our existence, but not for our salvation.

It also assures Christians of their realtionship with God. James 1:17 calls God the "Father of lights. As we all know, to be a father one must have children. Christians are called children of God(I Jn 3:1 & Rom 8:16-17).

Jesus is the Light of the world and so are Christians making us brothers of Jesus and He is not ashamed to be our brother(Heb 2:11). Being a kinsman to Jesus qualifies Him to be our kinsman redeemer.

What makes you think the earliest men were ignorant cavemen. There is no evidence that most men ever lived in caves.

In fact the sons of Cain started metalurgy and music(Gen 4:21-22).

Man did not start out ignorant as may would have us beleive.

So you see, God did it the best way for all of mankind but especially for His children.

kermit

 

[apple2345]

Right and so what I am saying is that atmospheric electricity is the light on the first day. Electricity is a form of energy to, hypothetically, use to create with afterward. Like electricity is a paint brush that God made on the first day. Example, light stimulates life as can be seen by watching flowers grow in sunlight. Also, through seeing how much more we create and how fast technology progresses with electricity. Think of how dependent we are on electricity.

 

[gluadys]

What I am suggesting is that the light of the first day is what we call atmospheric electricity.

Just curious.

"atmospheric electricity" suggests the existence of an atmosphere.

This suggests the creation of an atmosphere prior to the creation of atmospheric electricity which you identify with the light of the first day.

An atmosphere suggests the existence of a mass with sufficient gravity to hold it in place, such as a planet.

This suggests the creation of such a mass prior to the creation of the atmosphere, prior to the creation of the light of the first day.

How does this square with the idea that the first creation was the creation of light?

 

[apple2345]

Well I am glad you asked. Scripture says, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters" (Genesis 1:1-2 NIV). Indicating that before there was atmospheric electricity there was a mass with, I would assume, sufficient gravity to hold it in place.

The scripture actually say that there was a planet that existed prior to creation and water.

 

[ChetSinger]

It's an interesting idea. But how does that fit in with the creation of the expanse in v1:6?

Russell Humphreys, in Starlight and Time, proposes that the light came from the initial ignition of the universe. He begins with a ball of water containing the mass of the universe (v1:2). It's about two light-years wide and, due to it's mass, collapses upon itself. The center then ignites (v1:3) and the whole thing explodes outward, providing the material for the stars and galaxies.

 

[apple2345]

It's an interesting idea. But how does that fit in with the creation of the expanse in v1:6?

Russell Humphreys, in Starlight and Time, proposes that the light came from the initial ignition of the universe. He begins with a ball of water containing the mass of the universe (v1:2). It's about two light-years wide and, due to it's mass, collapses upon itself. The center then ignites (v1:3) and the whole thing explodes outward, providing the material for the stars and galaxies.

That is very interesting as well. I think it would depend on the state the water was in. If the water were in a gas state, I don't see how there would be a problem with this as there is always moisture in the atmosphere along with electricity.

Then in creating the expanse and gathering the waters, the molecules accumulate and lower the temperature of the earth, which was causing it to exist in a gas form before. With the mass of water molecules collected, the temperature drops that changes its form to liquid. Thus, we have oceans.

I suggest this because finding the other end of the expanse would seem to be an easy indicator of creation as well. Although, we have not found it so it either doesn't exist or our expectation of what to look for is off.

 

[n2thelight]

Genesis 1:4 "And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness."

Genesis 1:5 "And God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day."

It will be on into another day that the sun, and moon, and stars were created. What does it mean then when God said, "Let there be light"?
When the Holy Spirit of God, the "Ruach" in the Hebrew, moved upon the face of the earth; there is light, for He [the Holy Spirit] is light. Without the Holy Spirit there is total darkness, so the Holy Spirit of God, on the first day started His work.

Within the first chapter of Genesis God reveals His entire plan of God. Verses three through five are NOT dealing with the sun and moon, for they come later. But it is dealing with the presence of the Holy Spirit of God that is to be present throughout this earth age. That "Ruach" or Spirit is the first, and most important part of the creation, for without The Holy Spirit there is only darkness.

This is also the start of God's plan, which includes you and I, and all of God's children. The choice is choosing between the "Light", which is the Spirit of God", and darkness. Ezekiel 28:12-19 declares Satan, "the King of Tyrus", to be that darkness in the world. Then if your choice be darkness, verse 18 declares your destination after judgment: "I will bring thee to ashes upon the earth..."

All prophecies in the entire Bible that refer to God's elect, or the children of God; those that happen to be in God's will, are called "children of light". This also applies to prophecies that are given in days, or solar years. [see Daniel 12:11]

In turn, all prophecies dealing with Satan, his wickedness, and his children are given in months, or moons. Satan's children, then are called the "children of darkness", or "of the night". [see Revelation 13:4, 5] Satan is the darkness that is the negative part of God's plan. Satan was here from the beginning of this earth age, and God allowed it.

genesis1

 

[Fascinated With God]

This "atmospheric electricity" phrase is going to really turn off anyone that knows anything about science. You will impress them much more if you use the term Vacuum energy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Vacuum energy sounds to me like exactly what Tesla was referring to in your quote, and you will get a more receptive ear from people with a scientific background if you use that phrase instead.

 

[Fascinated With God]

I'm surprised that no one has mentioned the CMB (cosmic microwave background). It is the thermal radiation leftover from the big bang. It exists in every direction not blocked by a star, galaxy or nebula. It happened a mere 400,000 years after the big bang, and represents the moment when the universe cooled off and thinned out enough for the plasma to turn into ordinary matter and become transparent to light. (Note: plasma is a 4th state of matter, after solid, liquid and gas, which exists in the Sun and in lightning bolts.)

When these trapped photons were suddenly freed they were not microwaves, it was initially visible light and infrared energy. The CMB is enormously red-shifted so it does not appear as visible light today, but when it was first emitted the entire universe was lit up with an ambient glow in every direction.

 

[apple2345]

This "atmospheric electricity" phrase is going to really turn off anyone that knows anything about science. You will impress them much more if you use the term Vacuum energy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Vacuum energy sounds to me like exactly what Tesla was referring to in your quote, and you will get a more receptive ear from people with a scientific background if you use that phrase instead.

Thank you.

 

[GenemZ]

It is my belief that proving creation would change the world. It has also been my belief that the best way to prove creation as the origin of the world, is to use the first day of creation as the foundation to build upon.
“And God said, ‘Let there be light,’ and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness” (Genesis 1:3-4 NIV).

We know that this light is not the sun because He goes on to say that he created the sun on day four in Genesis 1:14-19.

What I am suggesting is that the light of the first day is what we call atmospheric electricity.

Tesla is know for studying this phenomenon. He said, “Throughout space there is energy. Is this energy static or kinetic! If static, our hopesare in vain; if kinetic - and this we know it is, for certain - then it is a mere question of time when men will succeed in attaching their machinery to the very wheelwork of Nature.
-"Experiments with alternate currents of high potential and high frequency" (February 1892).

What do you think?

God himself provided the light of the first few days in Genesis. It also teaches in Revelation that the eternal city will have no more sun. And, no more night. That the glory of God will be its light.

Revelation 21:22-24

I saw no temple in it, for the Lord God the Almighty and the Lamb are its temple.
And the city has no need of the sun or of the moon to shine on it, for the glory of
God has illumined it, and its lamp is the Lamb. The nations will walk by its light,
and the kings of the earth will bring their glory into it.
​

God in the previous creation had created angels originally to be light bearers. Lucifer used to herald in the morning (Isaiah 14:12), and certain angels were called 'morning stars.' (Job 38:7)

The sun as we know it was made for this current creation because after their fall, the light bearing angels were denied their use of such power.

Note: Lucifer is a name seen in certain translations as a name given for the pre-fallen Satan. Lucifer means bearer of light. Bearing light had only to do with the previous prehistoric creation, not the one we currently find ourselves living in which has the sun, moon, and stars.

 

[apple2345]

I ran across another interesting piece of information the other day that would provide more substance to my OP. Apparently, a scientist before Tesla, experimented in applying electricity to chemicals, which resulted in growing bugs.

"In a paper which he wrote for the London Electrical Society in that same year of 1837, Andrew set down this account of his experience.
He wrote "On the fourteenth day after the commencement of this experiment, I observed through a small magnifying lens a few small whitish specks clustered around the middle of the electrified stone. Four days later these specks had doubled in size and had struck out six or eight fine filaments around each speck . . . the filaments longer than the hemisphere from which they projected.
"On the 26th day of the experiment, the objects assumed the form of perfect insects, standing erect on the bristles which they were growing. Although I regarded this as most unusual I attached no singular significance to it until two days later, the 28th day of the experiment, when the magnifying lens showed that these things were moving their legs. I must say now that I was quite astonished. After a few more days they detached themselves from the stone and moved about through the caustic acid solution."

If you are interested, you can read more at The Tom Bearden Website

I think researching the connection between electricity and creation would provide us with a much better answer for the hope that we have (1 Peter 3:15), in an age of advanced technologies.

 

[Calminian]

It is my belief that proving creation would change the world. It has also been my belief that the best way to prove creation as the origin of the world, is to use the first day of creation as the foundation to build upon.
“And God said, ‘Let there be light,’ and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness” (Genesis 1:3-4 NIV).

We know that this light is not the sun because He goes on to say that he created the sun on day four in Genesis 1:14-19.

What I am suggesting is that the light of the first day is what we call atmospheric electricity.

Tesla is know for studying this phenomenon. He said, “Throughout space there is energy. Is this energy static or kinetic! If static, our hopesare in vain; if kinetic - and this we know it is, for certain - then it is a mere question of time when men will succeed in attaching their machinery to the very wheelwork of Nature.
-"Experiments with alternate currents of high potential and high frequency" (February 1892).

What do you think?

Please keep in mind that this is a new subject for me as well. I am only proposing a theory and would appreciate that if you would like to respond, that it will be in a kind and encouraging way and not with the intent of discouraging the entire possibility.

Thank you.

I'm of the opinion that that expanse of day 2 was a cosmological expanse rather than an atmospheric expanse. Many creations are coming to this same conclusion, so I don't think atmospheric energy could be in mind here. The earth's atmosphere was likely not formed until day 3 after the land and sea were formed. That's the day I see planet earth being formed out of water.

Regarding proving creation, I'm of the opinion that only God can do this. That's not to say we don't work to persuade men, but God has to be in the middle of it, working through us. I think the fist step is a reformation in the church. We need to go back to believing Genesis and trust God's word as He wrote it. After that, we can proceed to revival in the world.

Just some thoughts.

 

[GenemZ]

I ran across another interesting piece of information the other day that would provide more substance to my OP. Apparently, a scientist before Tesla, experimented in applying electricity to chemicals, which resulted in growing bugs.

"In a paper which he wrote for the London Electrical Society in that same year of 1837, Andrew set down this account of his experience.
He wrote "On the fourteenth day after the commencement of this experiment, I observed through a small magnifying lens a few small whitish specks clustered around the middle of the electrified stone. Four days later these specks had doubled in size and had struck out six or eight fine filaments around each speck . . . the filaments longer than the hemisphere from which they projected.
"On the 26th day of the experiment, the objects assumed the form of perfect insects, standing erect on the bristles which they were growing. Although I regarded this as most unusual I attached no singular significance to it until two days later, the 28th day of the experiment, when the magnifying lens showed that these things were moving their legs. I must say now that I was quite astonished. After a few more days they detached themselves from the stone and moved about through the caustic acid solution."

If you are interested, you can read more at The Tom Bearden Website

Why has this not ever been duplicated in a lab today? Evolutionists would have it on the cover of every magazine they could find! Why did he not repeat the experiment over and over again? I know if that happened to me? I would not stop with one result only. I would have taken it to my peers and shown them what I had discovered. How phoney it sounds to say others duplicated it, but kept their silence. Silence? How do we know they made such experiments then? Sounds like a junk email of its day.

 

[apple2345]

Why has this not ever been duplicated in a lab today? Evolutionists would have it on the cover of every magazine they could find! Why did he not repeat the experiment over and over again? I know if that happened to me? I would not stop with one result only. I would have taken it to my peers and shown them what I had discovered. How phoney it sounds to say others duplicated it, but kept their silence. Silence? How do we know they made such experiments then? Sounds like a junk email of its day.

See, I would be skeptical of saying that if it were true evolutionists would be all over it because evolutionists seem to be allergic to what is true and discredit anything that threatens their atheistic views. Ben Stein did a great documentary called Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, where he shows their persecution of intelligent design science. One theory in particular was really interesting about a concept called irreducible complexity. Unfortunately, science isn't really after what is true or even following the scientific method that would allow research to be done on ideas that differ from evolution. But, unfortunately, you cannot become more mainstream than the theory of evolution as seen in the case of Dover vs. Kitmiller.

The experiment would not benefit the evolutionists because Crosse actually shows that creation requires a designer anyway.

 

[GenemZ]

See, I would be skeptical of saying that if it were true evolutionists would be all over it because evolutionists seem to be allergic to what is true and discredit anything that threatens their atheistic views.

What? If it were true? And it proved the evolutionist's point of view? They would be all over it! They are only anti-truth when the truth opposes their intellectual snobbery.

Ben Stein did a great documentary called Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, where he shows their persecution of intelligent design science.

Excellent movie. I actually bought a ticket and watched it in a theater. I rarely go to the movies these days.

One theory in particular was really interesting about a concept called irreducible complexity. Unfortunately, science isn't really after what is true or even following the scientific method that would allow research to be done on ideas that differ from evolution. But, unfortunately, you cannot become more mainstream than the theory of evolution as seen in the case of Dover vs. Kitmiller.

The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. (Rom 1:18-20)
​

The experiment would not benefit the evolutionists because Crosse actually shows that creation requires a designer anyway.

The experiment would not benefit evolutionists, because it would not work. Its a fake premise. I am surprised you appear not to realize this.