ChristiaNet MallWorld's Largest Christian MallChristian BlogsFree Bible QuizzesFree Ecards and Free Greeting CardsLoans, Debt, Business and Insurance Articles

Let There Be Light Created What

What exactly did God create when He said: "Let there be light"? The sun, moon and stars were created on the fourth day. So what is the "light" from the first day?

Join Our Christian Singles and Take The Vision Bible Quiz
 ---Letitia on 4/28/06
     Helpful Blog Vote (8)

Post a New Blog

In a spiritual sense it is a type and shadow of the light of life in Christ coming into a world darkened by sin and void of the counsel of God.
Simply put, the renewing of man by the Spirit of God.
---Frank on 4/8/08

Each of the six days begins with the announcement, "let there be light," and there was light. He called the light day, and the darkness He called night. Let us acknowledge God in the constant succession of day and night. And consecrate both to His honor, by working for Him everyday and resting in Him every night. The first day of the world, the first day of the week.
---catherine on 4/7/08

now this is just my point of view.light scripturally means to be able to see, to be able to comprehend ,to walk in the knowledge.perhaps god when he said let there be light meant perceivable righteous,his glory,his perceivable presence.scripture talks about how men loved the darkness and avoided the light so there deeds might not be seen.light is spiritual awareness. maybe god created the ability to be spiritual aware of him??? or maybe his just let his glory light the unuverse.
---tom on 4/7/08

I do agree MikeM... human *like* beings did live hear before the earth was destroyed. But they were not human and there is no evidence that links them to humanity. Therefore humans did NOT evolve from them, they went extinct. Humanity began with Adam in the recreation of the earth or restoration. The fossil record is God's way of preserving a history of the preadamite earth that existed before it was destroyed.
---tofurabby on 9/1/06

Neanderthals lived, died out 35,000 years ago, before the last Ice Age. They are known to have fire, and used tools. Mitochondrial DNA confirmes they were not related to cro-magnon man, who co-existed with them in Europe. They were under thae same sun, that lights the planet as Adam.
---MikeM on 8/31/06

danie9374, You seem like the type that will investigate a theory before you pass judgement so I would like to ask your honest opinion on something. I dont know if you have time, but if you get a chance, google search the phrase "christian geology" and the first site that comes up is one that has a version of the gap-theory. I believe it fits my mode of thinking with about 95% accuracy. Please dont shoot it down without checking it out first. I would really like to hear your thoughts about it.
---tofurabby on 8/30/06

I assume that you believe that satan fell after god created man because you believe he was created after the earth? Which would be difficult considering the angels were there when god first began creation.
Read Job 38:4-7 and you will see that morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy. When? When God laid the foundations, the measures thereof, stretched the line upon, laid the corner stone of the earth.
---tofurabby on 8/30/06

you didnt like the fact that Isaiah is speaking of satan because of the reference to a man. That is why I posted the scripture about the "men" Abraham met with... who went on to Sodom (wich you chose not to comment on). It was to show that angels can be referred to as men... doesnt mean they were humans.
---tofurabby on 8/30/06

danie9374, You said "I'll read Genesis 1 just as it clearly states: God created everything, including the first man, within SIX days (earth-rotations)." My Bible does not say that therefore it is nothing but adlib to me.

I never said that the angels were human... I do think they were human-like physical beings at one point. cont.
---tofurabby on 8/30/06

+_4_+ whether or not 'sin' existed anywhere in the Universe before Adam sinned, but simply because he (as head of the human race) did so that the earth and then all of us became corrupted! In answer to your question: 'When did satan sin?' Although I believe it doesn't matter to us, I happen to believe it was after God created man. Scripture does not tell us exactly when satan and his angels fell. It may have been the same day he tempted Eve.
---danie9374 on 8/30/06

+_3_+ vv.21-22: "For since by a man came death, by a man also came the resurrection of the dead. (22)For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive." (And Paul isn't speaking merely of becoming alive in the spirit while on earth, but of a life AFTER physical death! So, all humans must die physically due to Adam's sin; not just spiritually.) I will believe God's words in Scripture. Therefore, tofurabby, it's not a matter of... [cont.]
---danie9374 on 8/30/06

+_2_+ But if that were true, wouldn't that make (our) Adam something like the millionth or whatever 'Adam' if you're correct? Don't forget that 'Adam' simply means 'man' in Hebrew?! Yet Paul says in 1 Corinthians 15:45: "So also it is written, 'The first MAN [prOtos anthrOpos], Adam, BECAME A LIVING SOUL.'..." So, the simplest [and really only] way to understand
Gen.1 is that no humans existed before Adam!
V.45, of course, follows after... [cont.]
---danie9374 on 8/30/06

+_1_+ tofurabby: First I have no idea why you would say I've "adlib"-ed verses in Gen.1; how, where? Isn't it you who wants to add a whole race of people before Adam was created?! Speaking of which, God said (v.26): "Let Us make man [Hebrew='adam']... and let them rule over..." so God was speaking of at least Adam and Eve, but more likely the whole human race to follow from them (IOW, 'mankind'). Does anyone see God saying here, 'Let's make man AGAIN!?' [Cont.]
---danie9374 on 8/30/06

I think we're done arguing over it danie9374. You and I will go on believing different things, lets accept that much and move on.
---tofurabby on 8/28/06

danie9374, even you said that you believe Ezekiel 28:12-16 to be speaking of Satan... which gets back to the point that you misdirected us from. Within these scriptures it says "and thou hast sinned". Let me ask you, when did Satan sin? Do you believe it was after creation?
Ps, if you are going to adlib scriptures like you did with Gen. 1 then we have no need talking.
---tofurabby on 8/28/06

#1# Furthermore, tofurabby believes 'Lucifer' to be a proper name of satan, though Scripture never says that! Let's look at what's effectively a list of all his names in Revelation 12:7 ff.: "The dragon and his angels," "the serpent of old who is called the devil and Satan," "who deceives the whole world" (the Deceiver),... [cont.]
---danie9374 on 8/28/06

Read These Insightful Articles About Distance Learning

There is a crippling myopia some call faith. 'Light' is very often a metaphor in scripture. Twisting scripture to try to say the earth is 6,000 is a divorcement from reality. The scripture says do not suffer a witch to live, no one takes that literally. It seems its a matter of pick and choose.
---MikeM on 8/28/06

#2# "the accuser of our brethren." Also note: The Hebrew word "Satan" means 'the Adversary' (in English). Revelation 20:2,7 mention some of these yet again; but no where is the word 'lucifer' (in any translation or original) found in the book of Revelation! It is, however, found in 2 Peter 1:19, but you'll have to read my discussion on that here: Must Only Read One Bible (6/13-15/06).
---danie9374 on 8/28/06

Some BACKGROUND for OTHERS to understand why 'tofurabby' won't even consider Is. 14:12-17 is *not* all about satan: It's one of his main 'prooftexts' (albeit, out of context) that sin and death existed on earth BEFORE Adam and Eve were created! Apparently, he doesn't even care this whole section of Isaiah is prophecy about a time when Israel would fall to some FUTURE (for Isaiah) king of Babylon, but also that Babylon itself would be defeated later on!
---danie9374 on 8/28/06

tofurabby: Then you say "common sense... it works." Those are your human thoughts; what's 'pragmatic' in your own eyes, not Scripture! Back to the main subject: Talk about 'crazy tangents' and 'hidden meanings'; that's what your 'Gap Theory' ideas (of there being numerous sinful people BEFORE Adam and Eve) are! I'll read Genesis 1 just as it clearly states: God created everything, including the first man, within SIX days (earth-rotations). To believe otherwise is foolish.
---danie9374 on 8/28/06

Read These Insightful Articles About Education

*2* the thoughts of satan, his refusing to acknowledge God as Creator, even considering himself God's equal, etc. But that's very different than saying all of Isaiah 14:12-17 (as tofurabby claims; others limit it to only vv.12-14) speaks directly of satan alone! No, the prophecy was about a real human king of Babylon.
---danie9374 on 8/28/06

*1* tofurabby, there's a big difference between what a man, Abraham, thinks when he sees the FORMS that the angels/LORD have temporarily taken to appear to him, AND when Isaiah, a PROPHET SPEAKING FOR GOD, says of a particular person, "the man" (apart from also calling him the king of Babylon)!

I'll add: I agree with those who say they see this king as being 'energized' (possibly even possessed) by satan; therefore, the prideful attitude of this king comes from... [cont.]
---danie9374 on 8/28/06

I will repeat what I said here months ago, and never received a straight answer. If you take the Bible literally you are in a bind. Take this verse,

Joshua 10:12: "Then spake Joshua to Jehovah in the day when Jehovah delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel; and he said in the sight of Israel, Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon."

Or "Do not suffer a witch to live."

To be consistant, are literalist willing to take those verses lterally?
---MikeM on 8/28/06

Have you ever wondered why your interpretations are in conflict with centuries of common interpretations? A very very small percentage of Christians would agree with you here, that tells me something is wrong with your version. I dont believe God would have confused us all on this and then given you some divine inspiration.
---tofurabby on 8/27/06

Send a Free Inspirational Ecard

common sense... it works. The description of what "Lucifer" did, accurately describes satan's fall. Therefore it is obvious it is Satan. Why make the scriptures hard? You have to go off on some crazy tangents that no one else understands to get to your interpretation. Simple reading will give a simple answer. No need for hidden meanings, God is clear.
---tofurabby on 8/27/06

danie9374, it is your traditions or study notes that bring you to a conclusion that angels cannot be referred to men.
"And the men turned their faces from thence, and went toward Sodom: but Abraham stood yet before the LORD." Gen. 18:22
The angels that appeared to Abraham are referred to as men.
---tofurabby on 8/27/06

tofurabby: You haven't answered my questions! How can you apply (Is.14:15-17) to satan, when they refer to the person as only a "man"? You're also ripping phrases out of context: How can you think Isaiah is speaking of God's heaven, when the same verse mentions him sitting on a mountain (of assembly) and being the same place?! Don't rely on some tradition you've grown up with or found in some study notes, but rather on the whole of Scripture in context!
---danie9374 on 8/26/06

tofurabby: I think you had better ask yourself a very important question! How do you know that the LATIN word, lucifer, has anything at all to do with satan?! Be honest with yourself, then please explain it to me. NOTE: since I'm questioning the relevance of Isaiah 14:12-14 as having anything to do with satan, you obviously must look elsewhere in Scripture to do so, since no where in these verses will you find any statement like: one of satan's names is lucifer.
---danie9374 on 8/26/06

Read These Insightful Articles About Home Equity Loans

I see, so "Oh Lucifer" is not referring to Satan but the King of Babylon? The heaven it referred to is not God's heaven? even though it is "above the stars of God"? Sorry, plain sense tells me it is about Lucifer... you mention that you are more willing to accept that the Ezekiel passage is, even though the name given was "king of Tyrus"... Isaiah plainly said Lucifer. Both passages about the man behind the King.
---tofurabby on 8/26/06

The Bible must be read literally. Once again I believe that "If there's no clear indication one of its authors intended for us to take it any differently than literal, then we shouldn't." (your words) Figures you'd follow up a statement like that by explaining away scripture as hyperbole (without any indication that the writing was intended for any meaning other than exactly what was written).
---tofurabby on 8/26/06

[4] "I will sit on the mount of assembly In the recesses of the north" shows it can easily refer to a mountain site where the Babylonians believed their gods lived, and the king of Babylon boasted he would also. Vv.16-17 speak of earthly power and "prisoners!" A human king, and earthly burial. The chapter closes with Assyria taking over Babylon, and then also Assyria's demise.
---danie9374 on 8/26/06

[3] E.g., John A. Martin in Dallas Seminary's Bible Knowledge Commentary) see in these verses ONLY an earthly king! [NOTE: Many (myself included) do however, believe that Ezekiel 28:12-16 makes reference to satan, since many of its comments cannot apply to any human being!] The language here in Isaiah is hyperbolic, thus, although at first glance, "I will ascend to heaven" (v.13) may seem to speak of the heaven of our God,... [cont.]
---danie9374 on 8/26/06

Read These Insightful Articles About Interest Rates

[2] In 14:1-3, God takes pity on Israel. Before continuing, everyone should understand an important rule for reading ANYTHING: The plain sense should be taken as the only sense, UNLESS it doesn't make sense! In 14:4, it specifically states "taunt against the king of Babylon," so when we get to vv.12-14, theres no reason to conclude ALL of this must for sure be about satan! In fact, most Bible commentators (and I mean those who truly believe in God;... [cont.]
---danie9374 on 8/26/06

[1] tofurabby: You are assuming Isaiah 14:12-17 can ONLY be speaking of satan and no one else! WHERE does Isaiah say that?! Let's study it in context: Isaiah 13 begins very clearly, stating it's about Babylon! Isaiah's prophecy against Babylon continues all the way through to Is.14:27. 13:10-13 may also apply to the 'End Times' as can 14:1-3, but first they had more immediate references to Israel in their Babylonian Captivity. 13:17-22 concerns the Medes overthrowing ancient Babylon. [Cont.]
---danie9374 on 8/26/06

tofurabby in '=2=' said: "Is this the man that made the earth to tremble,..." etc. So now you're calling satan a "man"? How could he be anything but an angel (and of course, the first of many fallen angels after sinning)? I can understand those who see Is.14:12-14 as a reference to satan, but not vv.15-17 as well! That's obviously a forced interpretation to support your theology that the earth was populated before Adam and Eve were ever created.
---danie9374 on 8/26/06

=2= "For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven" ASCEND INTO heaven... from where? "I will ascend above the heights of the clouds" Wherever he is must be below the heights of the clouds. "Is this the man that made the earth to tremble, that did shake kingdoms;" hmmmm... what did his sin cause? the earth to tremble and kingdoms to shake? "That made the world as a wilderness"
---tofurabby on 8/25/06

Read These Insightful Articles About Internet Marketing

=1= danie9374, you are making assumtions that Lucifer was created to worship God in heaven as a sole function. Isaiah 14:12-17 explains perfectly that his actions had an affect on the earth and that his sins destroyed more than himself. Here are excerpts: "How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer... which didst weaken the nations!" he lost his place heaven (not that he lived there) because of his sin and it weakend nations as an effect.
---tofurabby on 8/25/06

tofurabby: satan wasn't created to dwell on earth! As an angel, he was supposed to worship God in heaven; so did heaven become corrupt by his sin?!!! Obviously not! No where in Scripture does it clearly say his actions had any affect on the earth; it was only by Adam/Eve's sin that "sin entered the world." YOUR 'BOLDed' words are UNDUE EMPHASIS that Scripture's authors never intended. What verse teaches that satan's sin had to destroy anything but himself?! You simply assumed that.
---danie9374 on 8/24/06

how can we know sin existed before adams transgression, where did it occur and by whom? See Ezekiel chapter 28:12-19. Here are excerpts:
"Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God..." Ez. 28:13
"and thou hast sinned:" Ez. 28:16
Which world did this sin destroy?
---tofurabby on 8/24/06

Yes danie9374, "by one man sin entered into the world."
but which world?
" whom also he made the worlds;" Heb. 1:2
"world" as in eon or a defined age.
"Who gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver us from this present evil world..." Gal 1:4
Sin existed prior to the 6 day Genesis account.
---tofurabby on 8/24/06

Read These Insightful Articles About Life Insurance

=4= If that isn't literally true (and Paul surely meant for us to believe it was!), how could we believe anything else Paul wrote as speaking for God?! Either Eve (the first woman) was created after and from Adam, or she wasn't; there's no 'wiggle room' in that statement.
---danie9374 on 8/24/06

=3= have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse."), indicates a short time (an almost singular 'event,' when ref. it as "the creation"); not some 'long process God set in motion' and had to wait for it to finally get to Adam! A verse about Church doctrine is based on Creation too: What did Paul say in 1 Timothy 2:13? First Adam was "created" and then Eve from Adam's rib! [Cont.]
---danie9374 on 8/24/06

=2= into something symbolic! Do humans, or do we not, all physically die because sin entered the world when man disobeyed God in the Garden of Eden?! Unless you take Genesis chapters 1-3 as literal, you'll have problems with many other passages of Scripture! How do you think all the Prophets of God understood Genesis? Even a simple verse such as Romans 1:20 ("For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature,... [cont.]
---danie9374 on 8/24/06

=1= Tofurabby: Just when you were about to get at the Truth, you give up?! YES, for each subject mentioned in any one book of Scripture that may cause someone to be somewhat unsure of how to understand it, they should def. look at what the whole Bible has to say in relation to it! E.g., for those who want to believe not only animals, but also some kind of men lived and died for millions of years before Adam and Eve ever sinned, Romans 5:12-14 must be twisted from its normal sense... [cont.]
---danie9374 on 8/24/06

Read These Insightful Articles About Make Money

I agree Alan, God gave us what we need to know, anything outside of what is written is speculation. Now, there are some instances where other scriptures in other places may refer back to say, the 1st 3 verses of Gen. as an example, that may help further define what is written. ... ok, I am starting to confuse myself now. ... I know where you are coming from now and I do agree with you... :)
---tofurabby on 8/21/06

Yes Tofurabby. Those are the fixed core definite statements about what happened.
My point as always is not to argue that the Bible is not True, or is contradictory, but to suggest that those who insist on certain interpretations of it may harm our Mission. After all, does it matter whether the the heavens were made on that First Day or before? Yet there are those who say that to hold one of the views means we call God a liar. Whichever is correct, the Bible remains True ... God made it.
---alan8869_of_UK on 8/21/06

Alan (on my 'generalities of Proverbs' comment): 'Does the Bible actually say they are generalities? I suspect not ... you have made yuor assumption.' No. I'm reading them as authors intended! It's only someone who thinks they would be stupid enough to say things which contradict each other if taken as being mathematically or logically true ALL THE TIME (rather than generally true), who may say I'm making an assumption about this; Proverbs speaks for itself in how we should understand it.
---danie9374 on 8/21/06

I take back what I said Alan, I am still not sure that there can be much room for disagreement with reading literally. As for the 1st 3 verses, the only literal truth here is:
1. In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth
2. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
3. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
Anything else is our own opinions.
---tofurabby on 8/20/06

Read These Insightful Articles About Rehab Treatments

I get what you're saying Alan, I guess I agree that even literal readings can still cause different opinions. I still think we are better off reading literally until it is obvious that it is figurative.
---tofurabby on 8/20/06

Tofurabby ... But there are numerous areas where people disagree as to what the literal meaning is!!
The first three verses of the Bible is one case. I think you think like me about these ... but you will know that the majority of the strict Bible literalists here say that the whole Universe was created duing those 6 days.
It show me that we should not condemn those who have a different view
---alan8869_of_UK on 8/18/06

Daniel ... Now you refer to the generalities of Proverbs. Does the Bible actually say they are generalities? I suspect not ... you have made yuor assumption.
---alan8869_of_UK on 8/18/06

Exactly danie9374, if there is an indicator that it is not meant literally then I know to look at it as a figure, otherwise, i take it as literal.

Alan, If you find disagreement with the first 3 verses then you are finding people that are not using a literal reading, even if they think they are. Most of the time, I hear people tell me that certain words were mistranslated so the literal meaning should be something else. But people cant go changing words just to support their doctrines.
---tofurabby on 8/18/06

Read These Insightful Articles About Stocks

Alan: To be very clear about your question, "Who decides when [words in the Bible] should be [taken as literal (or not)]?" The answer should be: 'Scripture does!' If there's no clear indication one of its authors intended for us to take it any differently than literal, then we shouldn't. The words 'parable(s)' are used 52 times (mostly in the NT), but there is much poetry in the OT (note, e.g., the words 'like' and 'as' in the Song of Solomon); not to mention the generalities of the Proverbs.
---danie9374 on 8/18/06

Daniel ... You point to the issue very well, because different people take different views as to what has to be taken literally and what is not.
For example, is Job a summary of the discussions between Job & his friends & God, or did they actually make those long perfectly constructed speeches exactly as recorded?
I've been told I can't be a Christian because I beleive it does not matter!
---alan8869_of_UK on 8/18/06

-2- I did not mean every author must say 'this is literal' for it to be so. I, as everyone should, consider Scripture's contents as being literal; unless there's good reason to believe otherwise. There are, however, many types of literature in Scripture which are not literal, and we know so, because it often tells us! My concordance isn't handy right now, but look up 'parable,' that's only one special example which relates events/people, etc. we cannot take for sure as being 100% literal.
---danie9374 on 8/17/06

-1- Alan and tofurabby: First, everyone, including me, not just the Bible, must be read in context! In my reply to Alan, when I said: "I have no problems with the various genre (poetry, history, parables, etc.) in Hebrew or Greek. I don't take a writer's words as liter[a]l unless they should be." I was emphasizing that I do understand sections in Scripture are not always literal; note my "unless they should be." By that... [cont.]
---danie9374 on 8/17/06

Read These Insightful Articles About Diabetes

Tofurabby ... both views have some validity! But even taking your view of everything is absolutely literal, different interpretations can arise. For example in the first three verses of the whole Bible.
I say that taken literally, these verses say the "First Day" began when God said "Let there be Light" Others say the literal meaning is that the universe was created on Day One.
And that's in the first three verses of the Bible!
---alan8869_of_UK on 8/17/06

I agree Alan, I am exactly opposite. I take the writers words literally unless the writings give a reason not to.
---tofurabby on 8/17/06

Daniel ... I have only just come back to this blog, having missed its continuation whilst I was away.
I am not wanting to argue with your scientific explantions, but would like to query your statement" "I don't take a writer's words as literl unless they should be"
Who decides when they should be?
Can you give some examples of things in the Bible that you regard as not being literal?
---alan8869_of_UK on 8/17/06

Mike, I think you're looking in a Jewish Bible (or some similar version) where the Psalms are 'off by 1' compared to the commonly accepted chapter number scheme used by most of us. What Bible is that? You'll have to be more specific if you want us to really deal with the Scriptures!
---danie9374 on 5/30/06

Read These Insightful Articles About Depression

[=3=] At the end of time though, God will cause 'shaking' in the heavens and on earth, and destroy earth as we know it. Unfortunately a few still believe the Bible teaches 'physical geocentrism' (for the whole universe or just the solar system) WHEN such verses really relate to how much God wants us to praise and love Him; we're still the centerpiece of His creation, without having to live in some physical center of the universe. His providing a way of salvation for earth's fallen people shows that!
---danie9374 on 5/30/06

[=2=] comments in another blog on this: The KEY here (apart from its contextual emphasis on the LORD, *not* earth) is the verb "move" (#04131 Heb: mot) which really means to "totter or shake"; it does *not* necessarily imply no movement whatsoever! Ps.93:1b says in effect: God established the earth (in its orbit) in such a way that it will *not* wildly go off course, neither too close nor far away from the sun. (Neither does it imply there won't ever be 'earth quakes' where I live.)
---danie9374 on 5/30/06

[=1=] Mike, You seem to have things backwards! Genesis makes some rather straightforward statements about God creating the universe in 6 days (ch.2 giving details about things summarized in 1; same author!), *but* Psalms is one of the most POETICAL books in the Bible; you cannot take everything there as literal fact. The ref.s you list are mostly examples of 'APPARENT motion' we still use them ('sunrise/set' etc.) in our own songs today! I think you meant Ps.93 (not 92); you must have missed my [cont.]
---danie9374 on 5/30/06

Eccl 1:4 and 5: -The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to its place where it ariseth.
Psalms 92: "He has made the world firm, not to be moved."
Psalms 103: "You fixed the earth upon its foundation, not to be moved forever."
And how about in Joshua 10:12: "Then spake Joshua to Jehovah in the day when Jehovah delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel; and he said in the sight of Israel, Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon."
---MikeM on 5/29/06

Read These Insightful Articles About Bible Study

Psalms 73 and 104:5.
---MikeM on 5/29/06

As I said below, by creating earth first, God made sure those who believed in Him would have no misgivings about the place of the sun, moon, stars or PLANETS in our lives (unlike those who believe in astrology even today!). And being the Creator of literally 'everything' had no problems rotating earth for its first few days, nor in placing it into orbit around the sun after creating it. Earth is not some 'spin off' from the sun!
---danie9374 on 5/28/06

Alan, RE-READ my first (4-part) answer here! Your questions are almost as ridiculous as MikeM's comments; no, I don't believe earth is the center of our solar system, neither is that what Scripture teaches! I have no problems with the various genre (poetry, history, parables, etc.) in Hebrew or Greek. I don't take a writer's words as literl unless they should be.
---danie9374 on 5/28/06

The earth is about 4.5 billion years old. The creation story is somewhat symbolic. The division between light and dark may be the initiation of duality, light/dark good/evil, etc. If you look at the pre-KJV to the Hebrew this is clarified. There are two seperate creation stories. You cannot take such things literally as then you would have to believe the sun and stars go around the earth, as thats what the Bible states several times, in several places. Literalism is a trap.
---MikeM on 5/28/06

Read These Insightful Articles About Bible Verses

Daniel ... If God created Earth beforethe sun, what do you think of the current generally accepted view that the Earth and other planets rotate round the Sun, and are gravitationally bound to it? Do scientists lie even about this?
---alan_do8869_of_UK on 5/28/06

Does not anyone know there are two seperate creation stories in Genesis? the E and the Y How can you take it literal? It is the story of creation, with love God took a brush and created this earth as part of His grand plan of salvation this magestic planet. Literlaism is so stripped of beautyits like saying a tear is salt carbon and water, not joy, sadness, and love. The light is the light of knowledge, a metaphor.
---MikeM on 5/28/06

As to God's created 'light' being anything but literal, READ THE CHAPTER! As soon as you read verse 5, it's very clear what's meant: day/night and evening/morning! And then especially when verse 8 says "And there was evening and there was morning, a second day." God created light (and plants!) BEFORE the sun/stars, so He could say 'evening and morning' as 'normal days' and shut the mouths of those who attempt to say these 'days' are very long ages! (Plants don't live long without sunlight!)
---danie9374 on 5/28/06

tom and others, you all seem to be completely missing the point! The way God created earth and the whole universe as described in Genesis was to show everyone WHO READS it (and the angels) just how great He is and how much He deserves our praise as His creatures! At the time of Moses, many worshipped the planets, sun and moon that Genesis shows God created AFTER He created light, so believers would never mistake them as being anything but created things!
---danie9374 on 5/28/06

Read These Insightful Articles About Arthritis

when jesus spoke about it he said does a man place a light under or hide it so men can,t see,so let your light shine so they might.light in many situations does not literally mean the opposite of can be in a dark room and speaking about jesus and shining your light all around the place obliterating darkness.
---tom2 on 5/27/06

sdripture,let there be light,i,am sure god did,nt need to be able to see before he created the sun,moon, and stars on the fourth day.maybe he did, or maybe it,s just a mystery.god will only reveal enough about himself to give faith a chance to grow within you by his word.not concerned with what was made on what day. when we get to heaven lets ask.
---tom2 on 5/27/06

tom: The problem with what you said is there's no Scripture to back it up. Genesis clearly states God created something (He did *not* just 'reveal' it) and at the time He did, there weren't even any humans to 'see' that light. Vaguely saying that some verses using light symbolically but written hundreds (if not more) years later than Genesis mean this verse can't be literal is def. not studying to find an accurate interpretation (2 Tm. 2:15).
---danie9374 on 5/27/06

Copyright© 1996-2015 ChristiaNet®. All Rights Reserved.