Genesis 1:1 What is your interpretation?

All things were created by Him and for Him. So how can you say God is not "obviously the source of the light"?

Do you think I meant light was shining out of Him as if He were a light bulb? .

Do you think I meant light was shining out of Him as if He were a light bulb? Yes, that is what you claimed.

Not really. But even if that is what is meant, why would you dispute it? God is the source.

Are you thinking there was something external to God providing the light?

Even so, He is still the source.

He is the creator, but not the source. The Bible clearly doesn't say that.

Again, what is the source of the light?

Well, as you say, the Bible is silent about the source. So why are you hammering on about it? .

I wasn't the one who brought it up. You are the one who wants to continue discussing it. If you're done, fine.

Asking "exactly how does He do without without a source?" doesn't mean I have the answer. It's a question -- to someone else.

Asking "exactly how does He do without without a source?" doesn't mean I have the answer. It's a question that you never answered.

Is there something you don't understand about "it's a question -- to someone else"?

The discussion was about light having a source. Of course, God created light but what is the source of the light in Genesis 1:3-5, "And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day."

So God saw the light. Did He see Himself?
God divided the light from the darkness. Does God have darkness?
Is God's name "Day"?

If I build a fire in my fireplace, wood is the source of the fire. I may be the creator, but I am not the source. So, what is the source of the light in Genesis 1:3-4, "And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness." God is the creator, but He clearly is not the source. And if He divided the light from the darkness, does God have darkness? Obviously not!

So again, what is the source of the light?

..You're kidding, right? You keep asking what the source is. I did not bring it up.

I get it now. You are an unrepentant liar. <ignored>

He is the creator, but not the source. The Bible clearly doesn't say that.

Again, what is the source of the light?

I get it now. You are an unrepentant liar. <ignored>

You are now initiated as a member of the SUPER ELITE <ignored> CLASS!!

Welcome!!

How did you come to the conclusion that God is not the actual source?
I don't understand why He could not be...?

As I explained above, if I build a fire using wood, the wood is the source of the fire. I am the one one who creates it, but I am not the source of the fire.

Again, in Genesis 1:3, " God said, “Let there be light.” And there was light!" What in your opinion was the source of that light? What was the medium that emitted the light?

Now, to me, it is best understood that Genesis 1:3-5 is about the creation of day and night. Genesis 1:5, " God called the light “day” and the darkness “night.” There was evening, and there was morning, marking the first day. "

Here are the NET notes...

God called. Seven times in this chapter naming or blessing follows some act of creation. There is clearly a point being made beyond the obvious idea of naming. In the Babylonian creation story Enuma Elish, naming is equal to creating. In the Bible the act of naming, like creating, can be an indication of sovereignty (see 2 Kgs 23:34). In this verse God is sovereign even over the darkness.

and

Another option is to translate, “Evening came, and then morning came.” This formula closes the six days of creation. It seems to follow the Jewish order of reckoning time: from evening to morning. Day one started with the dark, continued through the creation of light, and ended with nightfall. Another alternative would be to translate, “There was night and then there was day, one day.” The first day. The exegetical evidence suggests the word “day” in this chapter refers to a literal 24 hour day. It is true that the word can refer to a longer period of time (see Isa 61:2, or the idiom in 2:4, “in the day,” that is, “when”). But this chapter uses “day,” “night,” “morning,” “evening,” “years,” and “seasons.” Consistency would require sorting out how all these terms could be used to express ages. Also, when the Hebrew word יוֹם (yom) is used with a numerical adjective, it refers to a literal day. Furthermore, the commandment to keep the sabbath clearly favors this interpretation. One is to work for six days and then rest on the seventh, just as God did when he worked at creation.

While I won't disagree with anything that you've posted, nor the logic behind it... they are very decent considerations in fact. It's a good thing for us to think about the things that you've mentioned.
Still, I've always considered another option when thinking about God, especially in regard to "scientific thinking"/physics or even normal vs. paranormal/miraculous issues.

While I do believe that God most often uses observable, objective, methodical means to "do" things (science) in our world, I do not think that He's necessarily confined to that. So, in the case of light, I don't believe that He needs a source (other than His own will and decree). That is, He doesn't need a Sun in order that light shone on the planet. While it might seem absurd, He could simply cause Himself to glow/emit light, or He could simply have light "there" without a causal agent. In the same way, He could cause the day/night cycle to "just be".

I think that the human mind is just too small and primitive to consider all the things God can do... IDK? When we consider one of the oft mentioned aspects of the Creation story... many say, God merely spoke it into existence, much like the naming/creating idea which you mentioned. From a purely human point-of-view, that's absurd, isn't it? And yet, with God.... why not?

How did you come to the conclusion that God is not the actual source?
I don't understand why He could not be...?

I think there must be different definitions of source, first dictionary definition I looked at is

noun
noun: source; plural noun: sources

1. 1.
   a place, person, or thing from which something originates or can be obtained.
   "mackerel is a good source of fish oil"
   

What is the source of Light? Jesus
What is the source of wood? Jesus
What is the source of the stars? Jesus
what is the source of grass? Jesus

What is the source of everything? Jesus

All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.

How was there light when there was no sun, no moon, no stars?

How was there light when there was no sun, no moon, no stars?

How can you say God is "obviously the source of the light"? As I wrote earlier, if I build a fire, the wood used is the source of the fire's heat and light. So who/what is the source of the light (not who created it)?

Do you think I meant light was shining out of Him as if He were a light bulb? Yes, that is what you claimed.