"Let there be light"

Just Arrived Joined: Jan 24, 2008 Posts: 7

In order to state "Let there be light", surely light had to already exist, otherwise how could it be referred to ? I mean, this is supposedly an account of light being created, written by God Himself, yet it sounds like he'd done it before. Maybe it should be "Let there be light, again". Or, it could be "And God said: 'let there be something which doesn't currently exist' and that thing came into existence and God called it 'light' (and it was good)". If God had done it before, so that He could refer to light by name, then that begs the question: how did he do it the First time ? I feel silly arguing the internal 'logic' of something I don't even believe in, but it is fun to suspend disbelief and imagine that this is really how things happened. Also, why do things in stages at all ? Why not just create the entire thing at once, complete and starting at the point in time when you want it to run from ?

Resident Joined: Mar 26, 2008 Posts: 359

Apparently god wasn't thinking ahead. Kind of puts fundamentalists in a bind, doesn't it? Their god has to be the three O's, yet he can actually experience something unexpected. If he saw that light was good, why didn't he already know that light was good in the first place? He did create it with purpose in mind, didn't he? So he would already know this. And if he really was omnicient, he would have created the universe all at once like you say.

As for "let there be light", it is theoretically possible to think of something, give it a name, and the refer to it by that name. However I don't see why god would have even created light, him being a perfect being. That's covered in another thread, though.

The Learned Joined: May 21, 2008 Posts: 128

It's common when reading a text that was translated from an ancient language with modern definitions in mind is that the reader misunderstands or misinterprets the texts meaning. Verse 3 uses Strong's# H216 from the root H215 meaning day-light or morning-lumination whereas verse 14 & 15's "light" is Strong's# H3974 which means luminous, luminary, brightness.

H216 is also used in conjunction with God's light or countenance that shines upon mankind. For example:

Psalms 4:6 (KJV)
6 There be many that say, Who will shew us any good? LORD, lift thou up the light of thy countenance upon us. (H216)

The inference of Gen.1 vs.3 is that God is saying in His forming of the sun "let a symbol of My light shine forth upon My creation".

The Hebrew word H7200 rendered as "saw" (as in saw it was good) is used interchangeably in other verses as behold, approval, enjoy, joyfully gaze as opposed to your assumption and subsequent implication of "unexpectedly discovered and saw light for the first time".

The problem stems from a lack of interest in biblical study from a biased predisposition resulting in a lackadaisical academic approach and flawed conclusions and condemnation of God.

Mankind's free will and illusion of utter freedom certainly lends itself to a brazen and flippant attitude of arrogance. The real question begs as to why you don't feel so hostile towards fairies, gnomes, and pink unicorns. Think about it here. Your most hostile attitude is reserved towards God, not the silly imaginary characters of children's stories.

I'm not provoking you Cygnus except to think and be honest with yourself that your bias and contempt is not directed towards pink unicorns; It's the concept of Creator-God and the implication of responsibility or accountability to Him.

The Learned Joined: May 21, 2008 Posts: 128

cuboctohedron wrote:

In order to state "Let there be light", surely light had to already exist, otherwise how could it be referred to ? I mean, this is supposedly an account of light being created, written by God Himself, yet it sounds like he'd done it before.

Light has existed eternally in and of God. He IS light and life. The absence of God is darkness and death. The light of Gen1 isn't created it is "shown forth" symbolically in the creation of the sun.

Resident Joined: Mar 26, 2008 Posts: 359

Do you believe that god can be anywhere instantaneously, Missionary?

Newbie First Class Joined: Jan 08, 2008 Posts: 27

One could argue that sense the bible is only a recollection of these events that would make it safe to have the name of the invention in a story about it being invented. Light existed when the story was written.

Quote:

Mankind's free will and illusion of utter freedom certainly lends itself to a brazen and flippant attitude of arrogance. The real question begs as to why you don't feel so hostile towards fairies, gnomes, and pink unicorns. Think about it here. Your most hostile attitude is reserved towards God, not the silly imaginary characters of children's stories.

This kind of stuff just kills me. Have you, missionary, ever met someone that believed in fairies and unicorns (or ghosts, leprechauns, angels, sea monsters, anything without evidence) ? because I have, and I can reassure you that debating the existence of these things is just the same. If you believed in them, you would have the same false sense of 'persecution' that you do about your God and belief, as you would for them.
...and second, to say any true atheist has a 'hostile attitude' for God is the most illogical (yet common) remark a theist can make. The one thing all atheists agree on is, there is no god(s). Which means no hate for said god, no love for said god, no fear of said god, NOTHING for this god except a lack of belief.

...just like people that don't believe in fairies, don't hate fairies.

The Learned Joined: May 21, 2008 Posts: 128

Cygnus wrote:

Do you believe that god can be anywhere instantaneously, Missionary?

His omnipresence is cognizant not physical. God's physical presence is upon the throne. His awareness and control of all space-time is omnipresent.

The Learned Joined: May 21, 2008 Posts: 128

Sliced_Bread wrote:

...and second, to say any true atheist has a 'hostile attitude' for God is the most illogical (yet common) remark a theist can make. The one thing all atheists agree on is, there is no god(s). Which means no hate for said god, no love for said god, no fear of said god, NOTHING for this god except a lack of belief.

"The one thing all atheists agree on is, there is no god(s)" actually, most I've talked to say "there is no evidence" as opposed to "there is no god". That latter is a positive assertion of fact.

However, on my original comment, I've met with a great deal of hostility and contempt towards any concept of God and especially towards the God of the bible. This usually takes the form of ridicule, condescending tones, insults, mocking etc. So, I've seen it plenty.

Cygnus' comment here is more passive in its ridicule:"Apparently god wasn't thinking ahead. Kind of puts fundamentalists in a bind, doesn't it? " Which is a slap at God followed by a stab at believers when in fact, it's a basic misunderstanding of Hebrew and no interest in understanding it.

What I find most interesting is that atheists are infatuated with discussing scripture and God. Only the subject matter seems to be more of assuring one another that they're right by collectively slamming misquoted verses and the simpleton Christian idiots. There's really not even that much else being discussed on atheist websites.

I mean, you guys don't spend any energy debunking Hinduism or scientology. There's no Buddhist warning threads or "More evidence against Thor" posts. Nope...it's all about The God of the Bible. For people who don't believe, you talk about Him more than most Christians.

Posted: Tue Jun 03, 2008 10:44 pm

Quote:

I mean, you guys don't spend any energy debunking Hinduism or scientology. There's no Buddhist warning threads or "More evidence against Thor" posts. Nope...it's all about The God of the Bible. For people who don't believe, you talk about Him more than most Christians.

Christianity is usually the target because Christians dominate. Also, religious whacko-dom is dominated by Christianity in the US. Quite honestly I don't care if you believe in god or not. It's the attempt to legislate antiquated morality or forcefeed creationism in public schools that I feel deserves real opposition.

And chatting with crazy person on the internet does not count as REAL opposition.

The Learned Joined: May 21, 2008 Posts: 128

kmisho wrote:

Quote:

I mean, you guys don't spend any energy debunking Hinduism or scientology. There's no Buddhist warning threads or "More evidence against Thor" posts. Nope...it's all about The God of the Bible. For people who don't believe, you talk about Him more than most Christians.

Christianity is usually the target because Christians dominate. Also, religious whacko-dom is dominated by Christianity in the US. Quite honestly I don't care if you believe in god or not. It's the attempt to legislate antiquated morality or forcefeed creationism in public schools that I feel deserves real opposition.

And chatting with crazy person on the internet does not count as REAL opposition.

I don't disagree with you on the legislation or public school debate. It's not within the church's mission to be a gov't. But apparently you do care enough to label faith in God as "whacko-dom" among "crazy person[s]". Is this a result of your belief that science will discover the origin of energy, matter, and life and offer an explanation and demonstration of why and how it came into existence?

Resident Joined: Mar 26, 2008 Posts: 359

Quote:

The Hebrew word H7200 rendered as "saw" (as in saw it was good) is used interchangeably in other verses as behold, approval, enjoy, joyfully gaze as opposed to your assumption and subsequent implication of "unexpectedly discovered and saw light for the first time".

If god was omniscient, he would not need to think "hey, this is really good". He would already know that. Also, to enjoy or joyfully gaze would be to say that there was something unexpected that god did not know in relation of the experience. to enjoy something, there would have to be an unsuspected beauty about the thing. A human creating something would be awed by his final creation, he would enjoy or joyfully gaze at it because while he had a concept in his mind, he did not have complete knowledge and a completely clear picture. a god, especially an omniscient one, would not be limited by this. He would already have a complete vision in his mind.

Quote:

Cygnus' comment here is more passive in its ridicule:"Apparently god wasn't thinking ahead. Kind of puts fundamentalists in a bind, doesn't it? " Which is a slap at God followed by a stab at believers when in fact, it's a basic misunderstanding of Hebrew and no interest in understanding it.

My comment is not a slap at god, but a slap at a kind of god, or a perception. Based on what I have said above, I can still make the same statement. I see how the expressions are different in Hebrew, but the same flaw is shown no matter how you put it. It was not a stab at believers, just in those who follow that particular part of the bible.

Quote:

His omnipresence is cognizant not physical. God's physical presence is upon the throne. His awareness and control of all space-time is omnipresent.

Why would a non-physical being located on another plane of existence be made of light, which is particle in nature? I see what you're saying here. But this doesn't really work with your earlier "God is light" statement. If god was made of physical particles like light, then he would have to travel like light. He would have to conform to physical laws. The speed of light is 300,000 kilometers a second. The farthest known points in our universe are 12 billion light years away. That's 12 billion years going 300,000 kilometers a second.

Quote:

The one thing all atheists agree on is, there is no god(s). Which means no hate for said god, no love for said god, no fear of said god, NOTHING for this god except a lack of belief.

Sliced Bread, you're only reinforcing the stereotype by saying this. I am an atheist, and never once would I say that there is no god. Thr truth is that we really don't know.

Quote:

I mean, you guys don't spend any energy debunking Hinduism or scientology. There's no Buddhist warning threads or "More evidence against Thor" posts. Nope...it's all about The God of the Bible. For people who don't believe, you talk about Him more than most Christians.

There is really no need. Both of these belief systems are so ludicrous and at conflict with science that there is really no need of debunking here. Besides, scientology has already been debunked to hell and back at www.xenutv.net and www.operationclambake.com .

Posted: Thu Jun 05, 2008 1:22 am

Missionary wrote:

kmisho wrote:

Quote:

I mean, you guys don't spend any energy debunking Hinduism or scientology. There's no Buddhist warning threads or "More evidence against Thor" posts. Nope...it's all about The God of the Bible. For people who don't believe, you talk about Him more than most Christians.

Christianity is usually the target because Christians dominate. Also, religious whacko-dom is dominated by Christianity in the US. Quite honestly I don't care if you believe in god or not. It's the attempt to legislate antiquated morality or forcefeed creationism in public schools that I feel deserves real opposition.

And chatting with crazy person on the internet does not count as REAL opposition.

I don't disagree with you on the legislation or public school debate. It's not within the church's mission to be a gov't. But apparently you do care enough to label faith in God as "whacko-dom" among "crazy person[s]". Is this a result of your belief that science will discover the origin of energy, matter, and life and offer an explanation and demonstration of why and how it came into existence?

Again, quite honestly, I don't think the question of origins is very important. It's interesting, yes, but not important. We can do without ever knowing the answer. Do you think you have to know the answer?

The Learned Joined: May 21, 2008 Posts: 128

Cygnus wrote:

Quote:

The Hebrew word H7200 rendered as "saw" (as in saw it was good) is used interchangeably in other verses as behold, approval, enjoy, joyfully gaze as opposed to your assumption and subsequent implication of "unexpectedly discovered and saw light for the first time".

If god was omniscient, he would not need to think "hey, this is really good". He would already know that. Also, to enjoy or joyfully gaze would be to say that there was something unexpected that god did not know in relation of the experience. to enjoy something, there would have to be an unsuspected beauty about the thing. A human creating something would be awed by his final creation, he would enjoy or joyfully gaze at it because while he had a concept in his mind, he did not have complete knowledge and a completely clear picture. a god, especially an omniscient one, would not be limited by this. He would already have a complete vision in his mind.

Quote:

Cygnus' comment here is more passive in its ridicule:"Apparently god wasn't thinking ahead. Kind of puts fundamentalists in a bind, doesn't it? " Which is a slap at God followed by a stab at believers when in fact, it's a basic misunderstanding of Hebrew and no interest in understanding it.

My comment is not a slap at god, but a slap at a kind of god, or a perception. Based on what I have said above, I can still make the same statement. I see how the expressions are different in Hebrew, but the same flaw is shown no matter how you put it. It was not a stab at believers, just in those who follow that particular part of the bible.

Quote:

His omnipresence is cognizant not physical. God's physical presence is upon the throne. His awareness and control of all space-time is omnipresent.

Why would a non-physical being located on another plane of existence be made of light, which is particle in nature? I see what you're saying here. But this doesn't really work with your earlier "God is light" statement. If god was made of physical particles like light, then he would have to travel like light. He would have to conform to physical laws. The speed of light is 300,000 kilometers a second. The farthest known points in our universe are 12 billion light years away. That's 12 billion years going 300,000 kilometers a second.

Quote:

The one thing all atheists agree on is, there is no god(s). Which means no hate for said god, no love for said god, no fear of said god, NOTHING for this god except a lack of belief.

Sliced Bread, you're only reinforcing the stereotype by saying this. I am an atheist, and never once would I say that there is no god. Thr truth is that we really don't know.

Quote:

I mean, you guys don't spend any energy debunking Hinduism or scientology. There's no Buddhist warning threads or "More evidence against Thor" posts. Nope...it's all about The God of the Bible. For people who don't believe, you talk about Him more than most Christians.

There is really no need. Both of these belief systems are so ludicrous and at conflict with science that there is really no need of debunking here. Besides, scientology has already been debunked to hell and back at www.xenutv.net and www.operationclambake.com .

Long story short, God is declaring not discovering. The inference is 'Here I AM, I'm good... everything I create is good". You taking an Engish translation, applying modern definitions and concepts, to what was written in early Hebrew based upon ancient cuneiform whereby one word expresses as many as 15 or more thoughts. They have to be taken collectively to grasp the expressed concept. This isn't an apology but simply a matter of fact concerning Hebrew language. This is the same mistake a fundamental literalist will make when dogmatically standing on a specific English word without considering the original text. Christian cults make this error as well in formulating hard-fast doctrines set in concrete. While some things are clear, others are not so clear.

As for God's substance. What the bible says is that God is Spirit and that He alone is the source of light, life, love and other qualities of His nature. His actual substance is completely unknown. I don't know that we could conceive an intangible-tangible; an entity that possesses all power, energy, life, light, intelligence, knowledge, love etc. yet exists in a nonphysical form. The bible just doesn't say to the specifics.

The Learned Joined: May 21, 2008 Posts: 128

kmisho wrote:

Again, quite honestly, I don't think the question of origins is very important. It's interesting, yes, but not important. We can do without ever knowing the answer. Do you think you have to know the answer?

Well, It's like I wrote in another thread. Everyone at some point asks themselves who am I? Where did I come from? What's my purpose? What will become of me?

It's certainly possible you are indifferent to such questions. I would expect to find that most are not. Hence the majority of the world is religious.

Posted: Thu Jun 05, 2008 2:07 am

Missionary wrote:

kmisho wrote:

Again, quite honestly, I don't think the question of origins is very important. It's interesting, yes, but not important. We can do without ever knowing the answer. Do you think you have to know the answer?

Well, It's like I wrote in another thread. Everyone at some point asks themselves who am I? Where did I come from? What's my purpose? What will become of me?

It's certainly possible you are indifferent to such questions. I would expect to find that most are not. Hence the majority of the world is religious.

I am not indifferent. The question of ultimate origin (if there is any such thing) is interesting. But it's not really important, won't change anything, if we never know.


Create an account	Home · Articles · Downloads · Video Library · Forums · Chat Room · aStore