Light -> Sun in Genesis.

[Gandalf]

Dear people,


In Genesis 1:3 stands:
[SUP]3 [/SUP]And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light.

A bit further stands:

[SUP]14 [/SUP]And God said, “Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years, [SUP]15 [/SUP]and let them be lights in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth.” And it was so. [SUP]16 [/SUP]God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. [SUP]17 [/SUP]God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth, [SUP]18 [/SUP]to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. [SUP]19 [/SUP]And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.

So. First there was the light. Then there was the sun, moon and stars.
That makes no sense to me.
Could anyone explain it?


Bless'
Channa.

BTW; If there's no answer. Could you please just say it?

The Hebrew will give you a better picture in understanding this verse. Iei aur can also be translated as light be. This word aur is a Godley light and not a natural light. One of the mirracles that God did when the Israelites were in Egypt was darkness. The light that was in the houses of the Israelites is from the word aur. A Godley light not candle light. It was as if God “unplugged” the sun light from Egypt and the darkness described in the Bible is “darkness that can almost be touched”.

It was as if God said to the darkness on earth be gone I am working here (my interpretation)

Without God, we will have no light or hope. When He is not with us we will fall into this touchable darkness full of misery.

 

[birdie]

In Genesis 1:3 stands:
[SUP]3 [/SUP]And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light.

A bit further stands:

[SUP]14 [/SUP]And God said, “Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years, [SUP]15 [/SUP]and let them be lights in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth.” And it was so. [SUP]16 [/SUP]God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. [SUP]17 [/SUP]God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth, [SUP]18 [/SUP]to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. [SUP]19 [/SUP]And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.

So. First there was the light. Then there was the sun, moon and stars.
That makes no sense to me.
Could anyone explain it?

I prefer the King James Version instead. Anyway, Psalm 78:2 tells us that the word of God (also called the Bible, the law) is written in parable form. The entire Bible, and Genesis is included, has a surface text with a meaning that is different from the surface text. Jesus explained in Mark 4 how parables work. 'Thorns' in the surface text of the Bible really mean something else. It is parable language for those who hear the word but the cares of this world, deceitfulness of riches, and the lust of other things choke the word so that it becomes unfruitful. 'Good ground', on the other hand, is a parable phrase for those who hear the word, receive it and bring forth fruit. So the two terms, 'thorns' and 'good ground' were really given actual meanings quite a bit different from just physical thorns and ground that you might find outside in the backyard. It is the same with Genesis. Words in Genesis have parable meanings. Sun is Christ, moon is the law, stars are the believers, light is Christ, firmament is heaven which is God's throne (more could be said), day is as long as Christ is with you, and so forth. There is not necessarily any need to say Christ present in one part of Genesis is an indication that he is created before or after this or that time period. After all, Christ is from eternity. However, the presence of Christ is indicated in various scenarios in Genesis, showing the ushering in of Christ into people's hearts in these scenarios. The phrase 'in the beginning' is in itself a parable term and the Bible should be allowed to define it, rather than assuming it means the beginning of physical creation. Further, the term earth is a parable word, and the Bible should be allowed to define that as well. If earth, for example, meant planet earth, then I think that the Bible would say that. However, the Bible calls the dry land earth (that would not include oceans in a physical scenario). However, dry land is more of a spiritual term that needs Bible definition, not man's definition. The land which God intends to give the true believers is a similar parable term, which is spoken of throughout the Bible.

 

[Cycel]

It doesn't look as though you are aware. Like Earth, the Moon shines only by reflected sunlight. Did you think it shined by its own light?

Lol I have heard this theory before, this is what they teach in public school. I believe they are wrong.

LOL! You are pulling my leg, right?

I do believe the Moon gives forth its own light. I pondered this one many years ago when I was out walking and noticed a half moon in the sky...

I'll pretend for a moment that you are as uninformed as you claim. So you've noticed the moon goes through phases. One side of the moon is always lit by the sun, just as one side of earth is always lit. Go into a dark room with a flashlight and a small ball. Shine the light on the ball then walk around the ball. You will observe all the phases of the moon.

How do you propose to explain the phases of the moon? How do you explain why part of the moon is lit and part of it is not, if the light reflecting from the moon is not caused by the sun? Why do you think Venus and Mercury go through phases, as seen from earth, just like the moon? Or perhaps you didn't know this?

... at the same time the Sun was in the sky too, which of course is not possible if the Moon's light is a reflection from the Sun.

Next time you see the moon and the sun at the same time get a piece of paper and draw a top down view of the sun, earth and moon. You will see the phase of the moon matches the angle we are observing the moon from.

This reminds me though, going back to the supposed spin of the earth; how fast you figure the earth spins on its axis if it spins at all? I'll be very up front with you, I do not believe the earth spins at all, and it is a very easy prove it does not.

Okay, I'll bite. How do you prove the earth does not spin. So you believe the sun orbits the earth?

With your thinking you’d feel right at home in the Middle Ages.

 

[JesusLives]

Good Morning - You're up early Cycel.

 

[GodIsSalvation]

LOL! You are pulling my leg, right?


I'll pretend for a moment that you are as uninformed as you claim. So you've noticed the moon goes through phases. One side of the moon is always lit by the sun, just as one side of earth is always lit. Go into a dark room with a flashlight and a small ball. Shine the light on the ball then walk around the ball. You will observe all the phases of the moon.

How do you propose to explain the phases of the moon? How do you explain why part of the moon is lit and part of it is not, if the light reflecting from the moon is not caused by the sun? Why do you think Venus and Mercury go through phases, as seen from earth, just like the moon? Or perhaps you didn't know this?


Next time you see the moon and the sun at the same time get a piece of paper and draw a top down view of the sun, earth and moon. You will see the phase of the moon matches the angle we are observing the moon from.


Okay, I'll bite. How do you prove the earth does not spin. So you believe the sun orbits the earth?

With your thinking you’d feel right at home in the Middle Ages.

As I said before, I was taught the lie that the moon phases and such are cause by the shadow of the earth and that the moon gets light from sunlight reflecting. Yet this is obviously not true if one can see a half moon in the sky at the same time the sun is fully in the sky, elsewise it have to either be a full moon or else not be shown at all.

Second point is indeed I know the Sun orbits above the earth for the earth is indeed stationary. To disprove the fictional spin of the earth is simple, but first I must have some information from you, and thrice I ask you; How fast you think that the earth spins, if it spins at all?

 

[Gandalf]

I prefer the King James Version instead. Anyway, Psalm 78:2 tells us that the word of God (also called the Bible, the law) is written in parable form. The entire Bible, and Genesis is included, has a surface text with a meaning that is different from the surface text. Jesus explained in Mark 4 how parables work. 'Thorns' in the surface text of the Bible really mean something else. It is parable language for those who hear the word but the cares of this world, deceitfulness of riches, and the lust of other things choke the word so that it becomes unfruitful. 'Good ground', on the other hand, is a parable phrase for those who hear the word, receive it and bring forth fruit. So the two terms, 'thorns' and 'good ground' were really given actual meanings quite a bit different from just physical thorns and ground that you might find outside in the backyard. It is the same with Genesis. Words in Genesis have parable meanings. Sun is Christ, moon is the law, stars are the believers, light is Christ, firmament is heaven which is God's throne (more could be said), day is as long as Christ is with you, and so forth. There is not necessarily any need to say Christ present in one part of Genesis is an indication that he is created before or after this or that time period. After all, Christ is from eternity. However, the presence of Christ is indicated in various scenarios in Genesis, showing the ushering in of Christ into people's hearts in these scenarios. The phrase 'in the beginning' is in itself a parable term and the Bible should be allowed to define it, rather than assuming it means the beginning of physical creation. Further, the term earth is a parable word, and the Bible should be allowed to define that as well. If earth, for example, meant planet earth, then I think that the Bible would say that. However, the Bible calls the dry land earth (that would not include oceans in a physical scenario). However, dry land is more of a spiritual term that needs Bible definition, not man's definition. The land which God intends to give the true believers is a similar parable term, which is spoken of throughout the Bible.

Oi, Psalm 76 is written as the parable, not the old testament. Don’t be so easily deceived.

 

[Calminian]

Three Heavens​

​

The Scripture mentions three heavens (2 Corinthians 12:2), not just one!

The First Heaven:

The first heaven is earth's atmosphere where birds fly (Genesis 1:20, Jeremiah 4:25; 34:20,Lamentations 4:19, Zephaniah 1:3). One of the Hebrew words for 'heaven' is shamayim. This same word is translated as 'sky' in the Scripture, as can be seen by comparing Genesis 7:3, "fowls also of the air," with Genesis 7:23, "fowl of the heaven." The word 'sky' and 'heaven' are used interchangeably from the same Hebrew word (Psalm 8:8). So the first heaven is synonymous with 'heights' or 'elevations.'

Here are other examples to illustrate the first heaven. Exodus 19:20 says the Lord was on top of Mount Sinai when he called Moses up there, and God describes Mount Sinai as 'heaven' (Exodus 20:22, Deuteronomy 4:36). Here, everything above the ground is called 'heaven'.

Another example of the first heaven is in Amos 9:1-3, where God states that at the time of this judgment, nobody will be able to flee away (verse 1), even "though they climb up to heaven" (verse 2). This "heaven" is defined in the next verse, verse 3, as climbing to the top of Mount Carmel.

Another example is where the Scripture speaks of the "dew of heaven" (Genesis 27:28,39,Deuteronomy 33:28, Daniel 4:15-33; 5:21). The first heaven, from which dew comes, means the atmosphere, where the clouds and the wind roam. Therefore, everything above the ground is called 'heaven."

Another Hebrew word for the first heaven is 'shachaq.' This same word for heaven (Psalm 89:6,37) is also translated as 'sky' or 'skies' (Deuteronomy 33:26; Job 37:18; Psalm 18:11), and as 'clouds' (Job 35:5; 36:28; Psalm 36:5; 68:34, Pro. 3:20; 8:28).

The Second Heaven:

The second heaven is outer space where the planets and stars exist (Genesis 1:14-17; 15:5;22:17; 26:4, Deuteronomy 1:10; 17:3; Psalm 8:3, Jeremiah 8:2; Matthew 24:29). Usually the term "host of heaven" or "firmament of the heaven" is used to describe this second heaven.

The Third Heaven:

The third heaven is literally called "the third heaven" in 2 Corinthians 12:2. This third heaven is what Christ calls his "Father's house" (John 14:2), and both Christ and the Apostle Paul calls it "paradise" (Luke 23:43, 2 Corinthians 12:2-4, Revelation 2:7). This is where God and the heavenly sanctuary exist (1 Peter 3:22). This third heaven is also known as the "heaven of heavens" (Deuteronomy 10:14; 1 Kings 8:27, 2 Chronicles 2:6; 6:18, Nehemiah 9:6, Psalms 148:4), "The heavenly Jerusalem" (Galatians 4: 26; Hebrews 12:22; Revelation 3:12), the "kingdom of heaven" (Matthew 25:1, James 2:5), the "eternal kingdom" (2 Peter 1:11), the "eternal inheritance" (1 Peter. 1:4, Hebrews 9:15), and the "better country" (Hebrews 11:14,16). The fact that there are more than one 'heaven' can be shown by Psalm 115:16, "The heaven, even the heavens, are the LORD'S." There are obviously two different 'heavens' being addressed in this one verse.

Since Elijah could not have gone to the heaven of God's throne, then to which heaven did he go? He was not taken to God's heavenly throne (as some imagine). He was actually taken into this earth's atmosphere, the first heaven. There could be no whirlwind in any other place but in the atmosphere surrounding this earth.


Source Used:
Elijah, Enoch, and Moses
Important Note: Although I quoted part of this article to help explain the three heavens, I do not agree with their interpretation of on Enoch. I believe Enoch was translated or spiritually taken by God and did not see death (as the Scriptures say). So not all the views expressed at this website reflect my views on the Scriptures.

Yes, you're citing the commentaries that are out there. My point still stands though. All those things are said to be in the heavens, but there is nothing to specify which heavens. Listen to what I'm saying. Yes, there are 3 heavens. We just don't know how they are divided. Look at all the references you listed in the first heavens. Do any of them say, "these things are in the 1st heaven"? Look at all the references in the 2nd heavens you listed. Do any say "these are in the 2nd heavens"? No! So how do you know what particular heaven they are in? You don't. You can only speculate, and that's exactly what the commentaries are doing that you're citing.

 

[GodIsSalvation]

Well Moses died, so he is most likely in Abraham's bosom.

As for Enoch and Elijah, are they not the two witnesses who stand as two lampstands before the throne of God?

 

[Calminian]

It doesn't look as though you are aware. Like Earth, the Moon shines only by reflected sunlight. Did you think it shined by its own light?

Cycel, how is an acknowledgement of moonlight akin to saying it generates its own fusion?

 

[GodIsSalvation]

Cycel, how is an acknowledgement of moonlight akin to saying it generates its own fusion?

Lol he was addressing my earlier comments, and he is correct that I do indeed think the Moon generates its own light. Surely it does not reflect off the Sun as that is an impossibility for I have seen a half moon and the sun sharing the same sky at the same time lol.

 

[Calminian]

As I said before, I was taught the lie that the moon phases and such are cause by the shadow of the earth and that the moon gets light from sunlight reflecting. Yet this is obviously not true if one can see a half moon in the sky at the same time the sun is fully in the sky, elsewise it have to either be a full moon or else not be shown at all.

Second point is indeed I know the Sun orbits above the earth for the earth is indeed stationary. To disprove the fictional spin of the earth is simple, but first I must have some information from you, and thrice I ask you; How fast you think that the earth spins, if it spins at all?

I sense a troll.

 

[GodIsSalvation]

I sense a troll.

Then you may want to get your senses checked for I troll thee not. Plus my comment and question is for Cycel. Though if you believe in the spinning earth too, you may weigh in on how fast you think it spins too before I slaughter that false theory.

 

[dcontroversal]

The word light in Genesis 1:3-5 is not the same word as found in verse 16...have you studied the words from Hebrew?

vs. 3-5 carries the idea of....luminary or illumination in every sense, bright or clear...

vs. 16 carries the idea of....a luminous body

Seeing how darkness was on the face of the deep maybe it is the following....

1. God wanted to see and the first thing to do is LIGHT up the work...lest we forget the LIGHT is what makes manifest....!

Just a thought or two....

 

[Calminian]

Then you may want to get your senses checked for I troll thee not. Plus my comment and question is for Cycel. Though if you believe in the spinning earth too, you may weigh in on how fast you think it spins too before I slaughter that false theory.

If you're not a troll, it's even worse. I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt.

Guys, this is a troll. I'm pretty sure I've seen in other forums doing similar things. I would suggest ignoring him.

 

[Calminian]

The word light in Genesis 1:3-5 is not the same word as found in verse 16...have you studied the words from Hebrew?

vs. 3-5 carries the idea of....luminary or illumination in every sense, bright or clear...

vs. 16 carries the idea of....a luminous body

Seeing how darkness was on the face of the deep maybe it is the following....

1. God wanted to see and the first thing to do is LIGHT up the work...lest we forget the LIGHT is what makes manifest....!

Just a thought or two....

Yes, there is a subtle difference. ma'or is like saying "light source" where as it's just 'or on day one—"light." These sources didn't come around until day 4 which undermines the idea that the sources were always there for millions of years and only became visible on day 4.

 

[Jason0047]

Yes, you're citing the commentaries that are out there. My point still stands though. All those things are said to be in the heavens, but there is nothing to specify which heavens. Listen to what I'm saying. Yes, there are 3 heavens. We just don't know how they are divided. Look at all the references you listed in the first heavens. Do any of them say, "these things are in the 1st heaven"? Look at all the references in the 2nd heavens you listed. Do any say "these are in the 2nd heavens"? No! So how do you know what particular heaven they are in? You don't. You can only speculate, and that's exactly what the commentaries are doing that you're citing.

It's a logical deduction on looking at the whole counsel of the Word of God. For there are many words that believers use today to describe what the Scriptures talk about (That are not used), like the words "Trinity", or "Bible." In fact, let's look at the word "Bible". We follow the Bible, but there is no verse listing the 66 books sbould be collected into one collection or future book. One makes an inference from Scripture that the Bible is the written Word of God.

 

[Cycel]

Good Morning - You're up early Cycel.

I got up 30 minutes earlier so I could post a bit while having breakfast before leaving for work.

 

[Cycel]

I sense a troll.

I was wondering that myself, though I know there are a small number of flat earthers, and so on, out there.

 

[Cycel]

If you're not a troll, [GodIsSalvation] it's even worse.

Calminian, you gave me a chuckle, but I very much agree.

 

[Cycel]

... my comment and question is for Cycel. Though if you believe in the spinning earth too, you may weigh in on how fast you think it spins too before I slaughter that false theory.

I'll play along with you for now. At my latitude, if I recall correctly, the figure is about 700 miles per hour. It is 1000 miles per hour at the equator.