I have a theory!

[Goldberg208]

My hypothesis, the amount of visible light energy falling on the earth is inconsistent with the radiated visible light energy from the sun, in short, the earth receives more visible light than the sun should produce.

erm...How in the world did you ever arrive at this "hypothesis"???? Can you cite any previous work this hypothesis would have been based on??

Extremely far-fetched, I'd say, since you also seem to be suggesting that Jesus exists at a constant "body temperature" in excess of 10,000-100,000's(!) degrees fahrenheit!! :o

I'd really tone-down the literalism on this one for sure, and just stick with scriptural "LIGHT" equating to personal, or group "ENLIGHTENMENT".

 

[juvenissun]

I have a theory that will surely stir up a hornets nest, but none the less it has been on my mind for some time now.

My theory is that Jesus is the light of the world, not just metaphorically, but the physical light of the world.

There are examples given in the Bible of light being reconciled to Jesus, Genesis 1 light before sun, darkness during crucifixion. I do realize I will get blasted from both sides on this, but it is an interesting postulation none the less.

My hypothesis, the amount of visible light energy falling on the earth is inconsistent with the radiated visible light energy from the sun, in short, the earth receives more visible light than the sun should produce.

To test this hypothesis, a statistical analysis would need to be performed based on light output received weighted against the calculated value for solar light output per fissile reaction. Given the solar mass, solar density, rate of fusion, and solar gravitational effect on light, a value for predicted of visible light output should be achieved in order to allow analysis against the value of received light.

Anyone in for this?

Following your hypothesis, I would like to see that the light of Jesus takes a much larger portion of the light on the earth. For example, at least 50% or more. If Jesus only contributes a fraction of light when compared to the sun, would then the model also say that the light of Jesus is insignificant?

 

[rcorlew]

erm...How in the world did you ever arrive at this "hypothesis"???? Can you cite any previous work this hypothesis would have been based on??

Extremely far-fetched, I'd say, since you also seem to be suggesting that Jesus exists at a constant "body temperature" in excess of 10,000-100,000's(!) degrees fahrenheit!! :o

I'd really tone-down the literalism on this one for sure, and just stick with scriptural "LIGHT" equating to personal, or group "ENLIGHTENMENT".

I am not saying that Jesus is the sun or that he is in the sun.

The equation I have been using for this is simple:
e=mc^2, the same equation that gave us the atom bomb by releasing the energy locked within the atom also gives us matter from energy. Jesus, according to Scripture, is the source of all "raw' energy per John 1 and Luke 8.

I have also noted that the energy radiated from the sun, both visible and invisible, is not constant; there are great fluctuations in the output both on a cyclical level and time enclosed level. This is also in conjunction of the speed of light decreasing over time with a slope of -.11; these are all very interesting finds so far and may aid in my overall hypothesis.

Remember that God first created light, so it is my endeavor to find this light.

 

[shernren]

erm...How in the world did you ever arrive at this "hypothesis"???? Can you cite any previous work this hypothesis would have been based on??

Extremely far-fetched, I'd say, since you also seem to be suggesting that Jesus exists at a constant "body temperature" in excess of 10,000-100,000's(!) degrees fahrenheit!! :o

I'd really tone-down the literalism on this one for sure, and just stick with scriptural "LIGHT" equating to personal, or group "ENLIGHTENMENT".

Aw c'mon, that's exactly what happened during the Transfiguration!

Now if only someone had brought a spectrometer along so that we could've used the Stefan-Boltzmann law to determine Jesus' body temperature.

 

[juvenissun]

I am not saying that Jesus is the sun or that he is in the sun.

The equation I have been using for this is simple:
e=mc^2, the same equation that gave us the atom bomb by releasing the energy locked within the atom also gives us matter from energy. Jesus, according to Scripture, is the source of all "raw' energy per John 1 and Luke 8.

I have also noted that the energy radiated from the sun, both visible and invisible, is not constant; there are great fluctuations in the output both on a cyclical level and time enclosed level. This is also in conjunction of the speed of light decreasing over time with a slope of -.11; these are all very interesting finds so far and may aid in my overall hypothesis.

Remember that God first created light, so it is my endeavor to find this light.

Both Genesis and Revelation say that there is "light" in Heaven without any star. This could put God's light in a different category from the EM light. But I don't know in what nature they could be.

I think instead of focusing on the nature of light, one could also consider the nature of the eyes. It is possible that our current eyes could not see the light of God, but only see the light of stars.

Would it be proper to think that God's light is in a different wavelength? May be in the microwave or radiowave range, or even longer.

 

[Assyrian]

No, it must be visible wavelengths.
Matt 4:16 the people dwelling in darkness have seen a great light, and for those dwelling in the region and shadow of death, on them a light has dawned.

 

[juvenissun]

No, it must be visible wavelengths.
Matt 4:16 the people dwelling in darkness have seen a great light, and for those dwelling in the region and shadow of death, on them a light has dawned.

If we are not sure what the light is in Genesis or in Revelation, then we could not be sure what the light is in the verse of Matt. According to this verse, these people obviously "see" the light through their hearts, not their eyes. Otherwise, how do you tell the "shadow of death" from the "shadow of light"?

Hey, literalism is not as simple as you thought.

 

[shernren]

If we are not sure what the light is in Genesis or in Revelation, then we could not be sure what the light is in the verse of Matt. According to this verse, these people obviously "see" the light through their hearts, not their eyes. Otherwise, how do you tell the "shadow of death" from the "shadow of light"?

Hey, literalism is not as simple as you thought.

 

[Assyrian]

If we are not sure what the light is in Genesis or in Revelation, then we could not be sure what the light is in the verse of Matt. According to this verse, these people obviously "see" the light through their hearts, not their eyes. Otherwise, how do you tell the "shadow of death" from the "shadow of light"?

Hey, literalism is not as simple as you thought.

Literalism is easy. It is consistency that bites you in the neck.

 

[juvenissun]

Literalism is easy. It is consistency that bites you in the neck.

Look at it another way. If we define literalism properly, then consistency is not a problem at all.

The OP treated the word "light" in a simple literal way (the first def in a dictionary). Examine the Scripture with the wisdom of God, is applying a different system to literalism.

 

[juvenissun]

This is a good example.

Simple literalism sees the idea of this image.
A better literalism examines the evidence of Photoshop modification. (hint: the geometry of the body shadow may not fit).

 

[Assyrian]

Look at it another way. If we define literalism properly, then consistency is not a problem at all.

The OP treated the word "light" in a simple literal way (the first def in a dictionary). Examine the Scripture with the wisdom of God, is applying a different system to literalism.

By different system, you mean metaphor?

 

[juvenissun]

By different system, you mean metaphor?

Much more strict than that. A good illustration is to use other (not the first) definitions of a word in a dictionary. May be, if necessary, add one or two more definitions to it. But that is all, no more than that.

So, "light" here could be taken as any nature of radiation, which can be detected by a proper receiver. Thus it does not have to be EM wave, as long as the receiver (eyes? brain?) can sense it under a specified conditions.

So, if the sixth sense existed, then it could be described as be transmitted by "light", until a better term is used.

That is the high-level literalism.

 

[Greg1234]

If we are not sure what the light is in Genesis or in Revelation

It's beyond modern science atm

 

[Assyrian]

Much more strict than that. A good illustration is to use other (not the first) definitions of a word in a dictionary. May be, if necessary, add one or two more definitions to it. But that is all, no more than that.

So, "light" here could be taken as any nature of radiation, which can be detected by a proper receiver. Thus it does not have to be EM wave, as long as the receiver (eyes? brain?) can sense it under a specified conditions.

So, if the sixth sense existed, then it could be described as be transmitted by "light", until a better term is used.

That is the high-level literalism.

Wow Juv, literalism really is the gift that keeps on giving. You prefer to think of light as a non EM waves we pick up telepathically rather than understand a simple metaphor? What do you make of 1Thess 5:5 For you are all children of light, children of the day. We are not of the night or of the darkness. If light is non EM wavelength, how can we be its children? I don't remember if you ever did say how you interpret day in Genesis, but do you think it is a 24 hour day that we are children of here?

 

[shernren]

What do you make of 1Thess 5:5 For you are all children of light, children of the day. We are not of the night or of the darkness. If light is non EM wavelength, how can we be its children?

Thetans!

 

[Assyrian]

Thetans!

 

[juvenissun]

Wow Juv, literalism really is the gift that keeps on giving. You prefer to think of light as a non EM waves we pick up telepathically rather than understand a simple metaphor? What do you make of 1Thess 5:5 For you are all children of light, children of the day. We are not of the night or of the darkness. If light is non EM wavelength, how can we be its children? I don't remember if you ever did say how you interpret day in Genesis, but do you think it is a 24 hour day that we are children of here?

1. In IThess 5:5, the light is used as an adjective, not a noun.
2. It would be the same argument as saying that we are the children of God. Whatever you think God is, we are not the same as Him. (Spell it out: we are children of light, but we are not light)
3. I did not say light is not EM radiation. I said, if it were not, I do not know its nature. It is no more than saying that I do not understand God.
4. The problem of "Day" in Gen 1 is too big for me to have an interpretation. I know all the existed ones. But I don't like all of them. And I do can put off this question without affecting all other understandings.

Here is a question related to the OP: If you know what "dark" or "darkness" is, please tell me. There could be two dozens of metaphoric interpretations of this word. But literally, there is only a very simple one. And in my theology, it is not even the one found in the dictionary (but is related, of coarse).

We can not understand light, if we do not understand dark.

 

[Assyrian]

1. In IThess 5:5, the light is used as an adjective, not a noun.

Literally it is a noun, but it is being used in a Hebraism, a Hebrew idiom, which cause all sorts of problems if they are taken literally.

2. It would be the same argument as saying that we are the children of God. Whatever you think God is, we are not the same as Him. (Spell it out: we are children of light, but we are not light)

The problem is not thinking we are God, or light, but thinking we have light as a parent. If you take it literally.

3. I did not say light is not EM radiation. I said, if it were not, I do not know its nature. It is no more than saying that I do not understand God.

But you think it is radiation of some sort.

4. The problem of "Day" in Gen 1 is too big for me to have an interpretation. I know all the existed ones. But I don't like all of them. And I do can put off this question without affecting all other understandings.

Fair enough, though I would say that should make you question your view that everything can be taken literally if you just find the right dictionary definition.

Here is a question related to the OP: If you know what "dark" or "darkness" is, please tell me. There could be two dozens of metaphoric interpretations of this word. But literally, there is only a very simple one. And in my theology, it is not even the one found in the dictionary (but is related, of coarse).

We can not understand light, if we do not understand dark.

It is pretty simple. We know what natural light and darkness are, just follow the way the bible uses them as metaphors. Do we love goodness and truth, are we willing for our actions to be seen and judged by God, do we listen to the Spirit of God when he convicts out hearts about what we have done. Do we want to learn the truth about ourselves and about God. Or do we prefer evil and selfishness, do we hide behind lies, deceiving others and deceiving ourselves, and shut our ears to the conviction of the Holy Spirit?

John 3:19 And this is the judgement: the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their deeds were evil.
20 For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed.
21 But whoever does what is true comes to the light, so that it may be clearly seen that his deeds have been carried out in God."

That is the problem with literalism, if you try to turn 'light' into some sort of radiation, you completely miss the point God is teaching through metaphor.

 

[juvenissun]

Literally it is a noun, but it is being used in a Hebraism, a Hebrew idiom, which cause all sorts of problems if they are taken literally.


The problem is not thinking we are God, or light, but thinking we have light as a parent. If you take it literally.

Light as a parent. What is wrong with that? (God as a parent. Does that make you feel better? I think there is no difference.)

I am interested to learn what other problems it might cause. Thanks.