gen 1:3 Light

rho2 said:

1:3 God said,“Let there be light.” And there was light! 1:4 God saw that the light was good, so God separated the light from the darkness. 1:5 God called the light “day” and the darkness “night.” There was evening, and there was morning, marking the first day.

Ok what light is this talking about?

Click to expand...

The Bible doesn't say exactly. We know it is not the sun since that wasn't made until later. The light may have came from God himself or it could have been just one big light shining down on earth until God created the sun, other stars and other planets.

I believe that the light mentioned is the light from the event of the 'big bang', in which all space, matter, time and dimension came into being.

Scientifically, this makes sense from what we know from basic chemistry. When an electron is 'excited' it moves to a higher energy state, when it falls back to its ground state within an atom, it gives off light. I think this light was the formation of elements on a massive scale within the first few seconds after the creation of the building blocks of the universe. The very first element to be formed with any abundance was hydrogen, which is the most common element in the universe.

rho2 said:

Ok what light is this talking about?

Click to expand...

Probably the same light as in:

Rev 21:23 The city doesn't need any sun or moon to give it light, because the glory of God gave it light, and the lamb was its lamp.

Rev 22:5 There will be no more night, and they will not need any light from lamps or the sun because the Lord God will shine on them. They will rule forever and ever.

rho2 said:

1:3 God said,“Let there be light.” And there was light! 1:4 God saw that the light was good, so God separated the light from the darkness. 1:5 God called the light “day” and the darkness “night.” There was evening, and there was morning, marking the first day.

Ok what light is this talking about?

Click to expand...

Welcome to CF!

While I'm not a creationist for the purposes of this sub-forum, I do have this thought to share:

Regardless if you take the Genesis account as historic/scientific and story or as mythology, keep in mind that it is still a story either way (story meaning a tale to be told in order to convey meaning, not necessarily fiction.)

Remember that darkness covered the face of the deep (watery chaos). God's breath (divine wind/Holy Spirit) then sweeps over (covers) the darkness.

THEN God says "Let there be light."

Perhaps there was physical light. Whether there was or not, the Light represents God's divine power to overcome the darkness. Not only that He names the darkness. Having the power to name things is a demonstration of dominion (think ahead to Adam a little later on in Genesis).

What one witnesses when one reads those verses of the creation account is the triumph of God over the unknown through the assertion of His divine strength.

God is light. He can make light.

The bible does not specify what this light was. As it allowed days to occur until the sun was created, I assume it was light falling on the earth from one side, while the earth rotated causing days & nights.

God may have had many reasons for creating light before the sun, we won't know why until we can get to heaven and ask Him. However one possible reason is because He knew that in future people would worship the sun as a god, and He was showing that He was greater than the sun, and did not need it to produce light. Just a possibility. Maybe it was simply to confuse everyone enough so they would discuss Him!

Lion of God said:

Probably the same light as in:

Rev 21:23 The city doesn't need any sun or moon to give it light, because the glory of God gave it light, and the lamb was its lamp.

Rev 22:5 There will be no more night, and they will not need any light from lamps or the sun because the Lord God will shine on them. They will rule forever and ever.

Click to expand...

Jadis40 said:

I believe that the light mentioned is the light from the event of the 'big bang', in which all space, matter, time and dimension came into being.

Scientifically, this makes sense from what we know from basic chemistry. When an electron is 'excited' it moves to a higher energy state, when it falls back to its ground state within an atom, it gives off light. I think this light was the formation of elements on a massive scale within the first few seconds after the creation of the building blocks of the universe. The very first element to be formed with any abundance was hydrogen, which is the most common element in the universe.

Click to expand...

So do you believe in the big bang? I note that this is a creationist area of the forum, and would be very interested in your branch of theology if you believe the big bang and creation, but that is just an aside.

In Genesis 1:1, God created the heavens and the earth (space and matter). In Genesis 1:3, God created light. In the big bang, would not light have come into existance before or at exactly the same time as space and matter?

Furthermore, this light lit the world for three days before the sun was created, and this light was mild enough to support plants for one day without killing them before the sun was created. Would not the "light" and other radiation from a big bang either kill all plants, or exist for such a brief moment it would not be able to light the earth for three days? How would days occur with explosive light all over the place, rather than a steady light source from one side of the earth?

sjdennis said:

So do you believe in the big bang? I note that this is a creationist area of the forum, and would be very interested in your branch of theology if you believe the big bang and creation, but that is just an aside.

In Genesis 1:1, God created the heavens and the earth (space and matter). In Genesis 1:3, God created light. In the big bang, would not light have come into existance before or at exactly the same time as space and matter?

Furthermore, this light lit the world for three days before the sun was created, and this light was mild enough to support plants for one day without killing them before the sun was created. Would not the "light" and other radiation from a big bang either kill all plants, or exist for such a brief moment it would not be able to light the earth for three days? How would days occur with explosive light all over the place, rather than a steady light source from one side of the earth?

Click to expand...

I'd be happy to answer your questions as to how I've come to my beliefs...

First and foremost, I reject the idea that we live in a self-existant universe. This is simply because of how complex our universe is, along with the 1st law of thermodynamics which states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed, only transferred from one system to another. Since man doesn't have the ability to create matter out of nothing, then the universe had to have a beginning. I believe that God, who exists outside of time, space, and the material world as we see it on earth and in space is the creator of the universe, and spoke the universe into being at the moment of the big bang - billions of years ago.

I think the universe is a testament to the glory of God, and shows his creative powers.

Romans 1:19-20 "For the truth about God is known to them instinctively. God has put this knowledge in their hearts. From the time the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky and all that God made. They can see clearly his invisible qualities - his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse whatsoever for not knowing God." (New Living Translation)

As far as the sun being created on the 4th day - I think it helps to keep in mind WHEN Genesis was written, Moses didn't know anything about astrophysics or earth science so he had a very limited knowledge of how/when things were actually created. I believe that the sun was actually formed first, with the planets following.

The link below is a fairly simple description of how our solar system was formed, but it's rather informative too:

http://burro.astr.cwru.edu/denise/Spring03/Mar27/Mar27.htm

Read carefully the part about young T tauri stars. If the sun was created after the formation of the earth, then the radiation from the solar wind could possibly have lead to the radioactivity frying the plants. Again - keep in mind that Moses was writing this narrative from a limited knowledge of the nature of the earth and sky, so he didn't know that the stars he saw were actually distant balls of gas light years away. As a side - it probably would have been quite a sight to see - no interference from city lights, etc. I think the view of the band of the milky way would have been breathtaking.

Now, do I believe that sin has been in existance ever since the time of Adam? Yes, all one has to do is read the paper

I have a few insights. As a background though, I reject the Big Bang outright. It is another outgrowth of naturalistic science, which is a farcry from being purely objective and observational. It is also a farcry from fact--and it is not very compatible with Scripture.

In the english language, the word "light" has many meanings. It can mean a "light source" (note, 'source' is really my word for lack of a better) or a the "light" it gives off. In the Hebrew, though, these are different words:

On the first day, God created "light". In the Hebrew, the word is 'or. This Hebrew word refers not to a light source (e.g. the sun), but rather to what I assume to be "electromagnetic" light. Or, in my previous example, the "light given off".

Now, I do not believe that this is 'the light given off by God since He is light...' as some are arguing. For if He was this light, then why did He have to create it out of nothing? Nonetheless, I do have to agree that the Bible offers no explanation as to the nature or purpose of this light (other than to mark the first day).

It was not until Day 4 that God created ma'or--or light "sources." This includes the Sun and stars. The moon was also here created--though not of itself luminescent, its reflection is inarguably a source of light in the darkness of night.

Unlike the previous poster, I think that Scripture is sufficient and (scientifically) accurate. It is inspired and alive. I trust that God created things in the way that He said He did.

In conclusion--I don't know exactly why or what the light of the first day was, but I'm sure God had his reasons. Perhaps it was to warm the ground in preparation of the vegetation of Day 3. Perhaps it was to make His creative works visible to someone (the angels?)...But I do stand by the Scripture.

God Bless.

Chief117 said:

I have a few insights. As a background though, I reject the Big Bang outright. It is another outgrowth of naturalistic science, which is a farcry from being purely objective and observational. It is also a farcry from fact--and it is not very compatible with Scripture.
God Bless.

Click to expand...

So are you arguing that all 'science' is naturalistic? I guess that invalidates all the research done by both scientists who hold to a "old-earth" model and "young earth" scientists as well. The observable, pysical world and universe is all we have...it takes a leap of faith to believe in God, which I do. I just differ from you on how/when the creation came in to being. The difference is, I'm not going to throw science out the window when it doesn't necessarily line up with the Genesis account. I believe that 'days' can refer to more than just a 24-hour period of time.

I'm not the only one who holds to that view - William Jennings Bryan believed the same thing:

[In 1925, at the famous Scopes Trial1 in Dayton, Tennessee, William Jennings Bryan was cross-examined - part of the transcript follows:]

Clarence Darrow (the ACLU lawyer) [D]: ‘Mr Bryan, could you tell me how old the Earth is?’

Bryan : ‘No, sir, I couldn’t.’

[D]: ‘Could you come anywhere near it?’

: ‘I wouldn’t attempt to. I could possibly come as near as the scientists do, but I had rather be more accurate before I give a guess.’

[D]: ‘Does the statement, “The morning and the evening were the first day,” and “The morning and the evening were the second day,” mean anything to you?’

: ‘I do not think it necessarily means a twenty-four-hour day.’

[D]: ‘You do not?’

: ‘No.’

[D]: 'Then, when the Bible said, for instance, "and God called the firmament heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day," that does not necessarily mean twenty-four-hours?’

: ‘I do not think it necessarily does.’ ‘I think it would be just as easy for the kind of God we believe in to make the Earth in six days as in six years or in six million years or in 600 million years. I do not think it important whether we believe one or the other.’

[D]: ‘And they had the evening and the morning before that time for three days or three periods. All right, that settles it. Now, if you call those periods, they may have been a very long time.’

: ‘They might have been.’

[D]: ‘The creation might have been going on for a very long time?’

: ‘It might have continued for millions of years.’
Source: The World’s Most Famous Court Trial, Second Reprint Edition, Bryan College, Dayton, pp. 296, 302–303, 1990.

So are you arguing that all 'science' is naturalistic?

Click to expand...

Nope, and that is not what I meant at all. Like I said, I reject naturalistic science (deliberately referring to a "sub-group" of science). By its very definition, naturalism seeks to explain away the world with the assumption that no higher being exists or is needed.

One cannot be both a Christian and take this approach.

Thankfully, not all science is like that. Science is observational, testable, etc and so on like we all know. Making the assumption that God does not exist is superfluous and unnecessary. Many scientists understand that "science" is really delving into the Lord's creation and understanding his ways better. This is the opposite of what most "scientists" today do--which is try to explain away God. They're failing miserably to the informed public.

I guess that invalidates all the research done by both scientists who hold to a "old-earth" model and "young earth" scientists as well.

Click to expand...

Only if we buy into your strawman.

The observable, pysical world and universe is all we have...it takes a leap of faith to believe in God, which I do. I just differ from you on how/when the creation came in to being.

Click to expand...

It takes a much larger leap of faith to deny God, in my opinion. In any case, I agree that the physical world is a powerful testimony. In addition, though, we have God's word. God's word is clear about what, when, and how he created the universe.

The difference is, I'm not going to throw science out the window when it doesn't necessarily line up with the Genesis account. I believe that 'days' can refer to more than just a 24-hour period of time.

Click to expand...

I suppose you're welcome to believe that. I personally don't see the point in adding to the Bible. The Bible is sufficient and I trust that our God is capable of making the universe the way that he said he did.

In addition, I don't need to "throw out" any scientific facts. Maybe some interpretations of them. But I deny nothing. Unlike you, I do not compromise God's word and science--I recognize their harmony.

God Bless.

Chief117 said:

I suppose you're welcome to believe that. I personally don't see the point in adding to the Bible. The Bible is sufficient and I trust that our God is capable of making the universe the way that he said he did.

In addition, I don't need to "throw out" any scientific facts. Maybe some interpretations of them. But I deny nothing. Unlike you, I do not compromise God's word and science--I recognize their harmony.

God Bless.

Click to expand...

In another thread you admitted that the single biggest problem that YEC has is the transit of light from galaxies that are millions of light years away...

Quick rundown of some definitions -

A light year is the distance that light can travel in a year, so pretty simple so far...also, pulled this up from wikipedia:

A light year (or light-year, or lightyear), symbol ly, is the distance light travels in one year: about 9.461 × 1015 metres (9.461 petametres), or about 5.879 × 1012 (nearly six trillion) miles.

And, by definition, the speed of light is -

Since the speed of light in a vacuum is exactly 299 792 458 m/s (which is exactly 670 616 629 537/1397 mph) by the definition of metre, one light year is exactly equal to 9 460 730 472 580 800 m (which is exactly 5 878 625 373 183 849/1397 mi).

If we accept a literal 24-hour 6-day interpretation of Genesis 1-2, we shouldn't even be able to see the galactic center, much less light from the furthest galaxies that have been observed using the most powerful telescopes.

Some quick facts:

When we see the sun, we're seing as it was 8.3 minutes ago.

The nearest known star, proxima centauri is 4.2 light years away.

The center of our galaxy is about 26,000 light years away, while the diameter is 100,000 light years.

The Triangulum Galaxy http://ftp.seds.org/messier/m/m033.html
is estimated to be around 2.6 million light years away.

The Andromeda Galaxy http://www.seds.org/messier/m/m031.html
is estimated to be around 2.52 million light years away.

The nearest large cluster of galaxies - the virgo cluster
http://seds.lpl.arizona.edu/messier/more/virgo.html
is approximately 60 million light-years away.

Also, if God had created the universe and our planet earth only 6,000 years ago, we shouldn't even be able to see the remnants of stars that lived through their entire lifespan, like the crab nebula, which was first observed in 1054 A.D.

http://www.seds.org/messier/m/m001.html

Since we both accept that God cannot lie, I believe that the heavens themselves stand as silent testimony that the universe is older than 6000 years.

The church has been wrong before in it's interpretation of scripture - two case in points being that the earth isn't flat and that the sun is the center of our solar system.

Chief117 said:

It takes a much larger leap of faith to deny God, in my opinion.

Click to expand...

Just for the record, exactly who is denying God here? As far as I'm aware everyone in this thread is a Christian.

Jadis40 said:

In another thread you admitted that the single biggest problem that YEC has is the transit of light from galaxies that are millions of light years away...

Click to expand...

Yes it is. We only have conjectures. And the rest of what have stated in this thread about distances, etc. is correct insofar as I am aware.

Nothing I have to combat it has yet stood the test of time. However, the newest theory relates to time in the speed/distance relationship, and appears to be explained by Einstein's General Relativity. But like I said, this is still a new theory that needs further testing. We all know that this is how science works, however, so I'll keep an eye on it.

If we accept a literal 24-hour 6-day interpretation of Genesis 1-2, we shouldn't even be able to see the galactic center, much less light from the furthest galaxies that have been observed using the most powerful telescopes.

Click to expand...

Again, this is exactly my difficulty. We're working on it.

Since we both accept that God cannot lie, I believe that the heavens themselves stand as silent testimony that the universe is older than 6000 years.

Click to expand...

There are many things in the Heavens as well that testify to a very young universe. This is the case in nearly all areas of science--from biology to astronomy/cosmology. From the smallest detail to the largest, there are things YECs cannot explain and things naturalistic/evolutionary sciences cannot explain. I'm sure both sides are working hard.

In the end, since God cannot lie, it must mean that fallible man's interpretation of facts, and not the facts themselves, that are in conflict.

The church has been wrong before in it's interpretation of scripture - two case in points being that the earth isn't flat and that the sun is the center of our solar system.

Click to expand...

I'm assuming you mean the earth is the center of the solar system, since the sun actually is the center of it. But yeah, you're right.

However, I was never part of that church. They believed scientists, and because of the theological implications held to them dogmatically. So dogmatically in fact, that questioning it meant certain death.

These views do not stem from Scripture. No where does it say the earth is flat, that I am aware. In one place (Daniel?) a man claims it is flat but it certainly does not suggest that God or Chiristians believe so. IN fact, the Bible says the earth is round--and the Hebrew word means "sphere" as I understand it.

I have no idea why they believed in geocentricism. NOt Biblical.

Interesting stuff though--I enjoyed your post.

God Bless.

Jadis40 said:

I believe that 'days' can refer to more than just a 24-hour period of time.

I'm not the only one who holds to that view - William Jennings Bryan believed the same thing:

[In 1925, at the famous Scopes Trial1 in Dayton, Tennessee, William Jennings Bryan was cross-examined - part of the transcript follows:]
...

Click to expand...

I don't think the Scopes trial is a particularly good reference to back up the claim that "days" may be more than 24 hours. Whatever one person thought back in 1925 really doesn't matter - what matters is what the Hebrew text of the Bible clearly states.

Before I explain this, I would like to point out something. There are three major theories of origins that claim to fit in with the bible - YEC, the Gap theory, and the Day-Age theory. YEC and the Gap theory both have fairly convincing arguments from scripture, however on close examination the arguments for YEC appear more conclusive to myself. The scriptural backing for the Day-Age theory however rests on the translation of one Hebrew word, "yom". As far as I know no serious scholar of Hebrew believes that the text means this - it is a serious twisting of the meaning of the text. Most serious scholars of Hebrew to my knowledge (correct me if I'm wrong) argue for either YEC or Gap. Please bear this in mind. The day-age theory is not believed on the basis of scripture, rather scripture is twisted to fit in with it, but scripture does not support this interpretation.

The Hebrew word for day is "yom". The primary argument is whether "yom" in Genesis 1 means a day as we know it of around 24 hours, or a long period of time. "Yom" can mean a number of different things - consult any lexicon. However "yom" in Genesis 1 is generally translated to mean a 24 hour day, for many reasons.

1) Contextual meaning.
When a word is used for the first time, it may sometimes be defined. In Genesis 1, verse 5, God "called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night". He created light, then defined the word Day (yom) as meaning the period of light, followed by a period of darkness. God defined yom as meaning a 24 hour day.

Then, through the rest of the chapter, God uses this word He has just defined to describe the following days. "and the evening and the morning were the _ day".

2) Evening and morning
The words "evening and morning" are used along with "yom" do describe every day in the Genesis account. The word "evening" is the Hebrew word "ereb", which is defined as "evening" and sometimes as "night" - it has no other meaning. The word "morning" is the Hebrew word "boqer". It's definition is "morning", "dawn", or sometimes it refers to the "morrow", or next day.

These two terms clearly can only mean a literal day. Used in conjunction with "yom" they clearly restrict it's meaning to a literal day.

3) Figurative or literal usage?
The word "yom" can be used figuratively, just as the word "day" in English can be used figuratively - most words can be used figuratively. We must determine whether it is used figuratively or literally in Genesis 1. In Genesis 1 the word is always qualified by the words "evening", "morning", and a number. It is very clear these words speak about literal days - they would not make sense if the days were only figurative.

The number is very important - in Hebrew it is a numerical adjective, ie "yom ehad" (one day), "yom seni" (second day). Throughout the old testament, wherever "yom" is used in conjunction with a numerical adjective, it ALWAYS refers to a literal day.

This is a very brief summary, however I hope it illustrates how scripture clearly says in Genesis 1 that creation took 6 days, as is believed by YEC and Gap believers. One further point is that if the days are taken as periods of time to accommodate evolution, the order is clearly wrong. Evolution says marine life before plants - Genesis says plants before marine life. Evolution says land reptiles before birds - Genesis says birds before land reptiles. In order to believe Evolution could occur within the six days, you need to discard not only the time period but the order of the days. If you go this far, why believe Genesis at all? Why not throw it out completely?

Remember 2 Peter 3:8 "... with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day". One day of our time is plenty of time for God to create heaps of stuff. He is outside our timescale. He is not limited by our time. It is perfectly reasonable to believe God could have created within the period of six days - He is God! He is all-powerful! He can do anything.

You could equally well ask "why did He take so long?", as He could have done it all in an instant. The fact is, He chose to take six days. Why? Probably to set us an example of our working week, but apart from that who knows? God is God, and He can do whatever He wants.

rho2 said:

so God separated the light from the darkness. 1:5 God called the light “day” and the darkness “night.” There was evening, and there was morning, marking the first day.

Ok what light is this talking about?

Click to expand...

Theistic Evolutionists want to pin the Bible to false doctrine of Atheists and claim that this light was the Big Bang. And, you can bet that when the day comes that the scientifically absurd Big Bang is abandoned by scientists, Theistic Evolutionists will do their best to bring blame to Christians and the Bible that the Big Bang was ever dogma.

According to Genesis, the earth and water existed before the light. The TEs don't bother themselves with such details.

The Bible says what the light was. It was day, as in the daytime period of a literal 24-hour day. The Bible just doesn't say where the light came from.

I find it very interesting that I can post a refutation of the day-age theory from scripture on a very busy forum, after which the discussion immediately stops for 20 days, and 23 days later there has been no post to the contrary. What's up day-agers? What are your thoughts on it?

I'm not saying you have to argue with me, the point of my post was to point out the errors with the day-age theory. After reading my post, what do you now believe? Are you reconsidering the theory? Or do you have other thoughts on the scripture that you could post here? I don't like to kill the discussion!

Theistic Evolutionists want to pin the Bible to false doctrine of Atheists and claim that this light was the Big Bang.

Click to expand...

May I remind you that the first person who conceived the Big Bang was the Jesuit priest Lemaitre. Hardly an atheist. http://space.about.com/cs/astronomerbios/a/lemaitrebio.htm

shernren said:

May I remind you that the first person who conceived the Big Bang was the Jesuit priest Lemaitre. Hardly an atheist.

Click to expand...

Shernren, I didn't say nor imply anything about Atheists.

sjdennis said:

I find it very interesting that I can post a refutation of the day-age theory from scripture on a very busy forum, after which the discussion immediately stops for 20 days, and 23 days later there has been no post to the contrary. What's up day-agers? What are your thoughts on it?

Click to expand...

Congratulations, it looks like the point goes to you.