Agree, but another point: We're told that in heaven and the new earth there will be no need for the sun. Why? Because God will be our light!

@Greg_M

5 ай бұрын

If God was the source of the light. Was he present on one side of the earth to make it day and absent on the other side to make it night

@elshuku1

23 күн бұрын

@@Greg_Mright! Another point is why would he say let there be light if he was already there

@vitus.verdegast

4 күн бұрын

Why would you need light if you had no eyes?

"we don't know" that should be your title to all your videos

@johnoffiong359

7 ай бұрын

Thank you! Religious people can NEVER EVER admit to not knowing. They will rather rant on, short of not making sense just to be seen as having answers to life’s questions.

@Greg_M

5 ай бұрын

Sure, just say I don't know

These quotes are priceless: starting at 6:09 "...this one requires you to read into the text of the Bible, things that the Bible doesn't say. When we let the text speak for itself, and we try to understand, in context, we can see that the Bible can be trusted from cover to cover." That's incredible! I am kinda amazed that I used to believe this kind cosmic mental gymnastics. Creationists seem to want to say that the universe of the Bible is not Earth-centric - that they believe the earth orbits the sun, but they also want to believe that Earth was created first, orbiting... nothing I guess... and then there was light.. but not the sun, then the sun was added even though there was already light... and the moon too gave light (although it just reflects light from the sun), oh... and all the stars were made too, with light already in transit to us from billions of light years away. Yeah. Got it.

@GC-Christ.

5 ай бұрын

Look up "the cosmic axis of evil" . Science has proven the Earth is in the center of the universe. But scientists won't accept the findings over the last 30 years.

“This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.” - 1 John 1:5 (KJV)

@drumaster2011

5 ай бұрын

Are you saying that God was the light? Then, if so, would God call himself into existence? If he is light, then why speak it? Wouldn't he have the light already?

@billxenakis6623

4 ай бұрын

That is just a metaphor. God is NOT physical light - photons and waves, etc.

Best explanation..

God is Light & in him there is no darkness, He is The Father of Lights, The Light of the World. A Light shone from Heaven & that would be The King of Glory Jesus. This Light comes into us when our eyes & ears are opened & hearts softend to recieve The Truth, Its Amazing!

Best answer I've seen on this.

Agree! Clues in Revelation 21v23 ("the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof") & 22v5 ("they need no candle, neither light of the sun; for the Lord God giveth them light"). Same shining God as in Genesis.

If God made the sun,moon and stars and placed them in the firmament and he used the firmament to separate the water above from the water below (sea) are you saying that there is water beyond the height of the sun and moon?

Disagree. Why create the Sun if light already existed? Why not create the Sun in the beginning? Why would God need his own light source that essentially did the same thing as the Sun ("He called the light "day" and the darkness "night"") thus creating four distinct days for only God? Furthermore, There are several times a year that the Moon is not visible at night, so the Moon definitely does not rule the night as scripture reads. Finally, we know that the rest of the Universe is older than our Solar System, but according to scripture it should be only days younger.

@LRibeiro97

4 жыл бұрын

He made the sun after to show that He doesn't need the sun. He Himself is light. That's why people shouldn't worship the sun (like many did and do) but worhsip the God who created the Sun. "There are several times a year that the Moon is not visible at night, so the Moon definitely does not rule the night as scripture reads. " This is laughable at its stupidity. That's like saying that the Sun doesn't rule the day because there are solar eclipses. Or that a father doesn't rule his house because he is out of the house 8 hours working. "we know that the rest of the Universe is older than our Solar System," Yeah, right. The same people whoe "know" stuff in the ground is millions of years old. God made an "adult" Universe, that is in expansion. Light millions of light-years away was placed that by God. This accounts for everything we see in astronomy. What doesn't make sense is the millions of years theory, because that would place the moon close together with Earth at some point, since it's slowly distancing itself. Or the galaxies spyrals and so on...

@bluecrownvic

4 жыл бұрын

​@@LRibeiro97 If God himself is light, then why did he need to create it on the first day? The Moon is far more absent from the sky than the Sun ever is. Yes there are eclipses, but with the lunar phases the moonlight is cast FAR far less than sunlight. So again, it hardly rules the night sky the same as the Sun. Not sure how far you want me to get into how we know that the age of the Universe. There is a lot to unpack there since there are a lot of dating methods. Google is your friend if you know how to use it. Placing light from distant stars at their halfway point to make it appear that the light has came all of the way from the starting position is textbook deceit, and according to scripture, God would never do that. Just like he would not place dinosaur bones in the ground to deceive us.

@LRibeiro97

4 жыл бұрын

@@bluecrownvic God is transcendent (by the way, I'm not even talking religion here. This is just basic metaphysics). So, God is by definition transcendent. Anything that we see in our phisical world, God is beyond all of that. So when the Bible says that God is light, clearly it is not equating God with some phisical thing he created. He created photons (light). That's a phisical thing. And He made that to reflect "whatever it means" the way He is. So God made phisical light on Day 1. Ok, first, no one (not even the bible) says it rules "the same" as the Sun. Just that it does. So I'm glad we agree. Second, following your thinking, where do we draw the line? How much presence is ruling and how much is not? Do you get to decide that line? And seriously, I actually didn't think you were going to stand up for this argument. It is by fear the weakest one, and my metaphor of the dad ruling the house, even beaing absent from it (which you did not commented on) completely destroyed your reasoning. Yeah, and every SCIENTIFIC evidence LIMITS the age of the earth to 10,000 years or so... yeah. You're right, God didn't "place bones in the ground to deceive us". They are there because ~4,400 a world wide flood happened, quickly buring all of those animal in an instant (and there is PLENTY of evidence for that).

@arthur6157

4 жыл бұрын

God created creature kingdoms (domains) in the first 3 days and then created creature kings to rule over those domains in the next 3 days. Light (Day)/Darkness (Night) (domains) > Sun/Moon and Stars (domain rulers) Firmament/Waters Under the Firmament (domains) > Birds/Fish (domain rulers) Dry land/Vegetation (domains) > Beasts of the field/Man (domain rulers) Sabbath (domain) > God (uncreated domain ruler) Man was created king over the domain of vegetation (a gardener, vinedresser, or farmer) and was commanded by his suzerain King Yahweh to become a suzerain king himself ("take dominion") over the birds (kings) of the air (domain), the fish (kings) of the sea (domain), and the beasts (kings) of the field (domain). This understanding **requires** the existence of the domains of light and darkness **before** there were appropriate domain rulers.

@abelincoln8885

2 жыл бұрын

lol. You have been fool by fake science. The Universe & Life are thermodynamic systems with increasing entropy. All thermodynamic systems ... are functions with set purpose, form, design & properties ... and ... originate from the SURROUNDING system(s) which must provide the matter, energy, space, time & Laws of nature for a thermodynamic System to exist & to function. Only an intelligence ( like Man) makes, maintain, improves, fine tunes, evolves Abstract & physical Functions. All Functions are processes ... that posses & require ... INFORMATION in order to exist & to function. The Laws of Nature/physics are descriptions of common INFORMATION of every Function in the Universe. Only an intelligence ( like Man) can extract information from a Function ... & ... make Functions with information such as design, form, properties & purpose. Natural Functions & thermodynamic systems ... prove the Universe & Life .. have an UNNATURAL origin by an intelligence ( like Man). Abiogenesis, Evolution and a 13.7 billion year old Universe is complete nonsense from fake science. Nature & natural processes can never make & operate a simple mechanical & electrical machine. A machine is a physical Function. The three types of Machines are mechanical, electrical & molecular ( LIFE ). And these idiots insist nature can make a "living" machine. So the fact & sciences clearly prove a very very powerful intelligence ( like Man) made the Universe & Man. Either all of the religions are wrong ( eg Evolution & Abiogenesis) or ... there is one that has correctly identified the intelligence ( like Man) who made Man in His likeness( intelligence)? Hmmmm? lol. God created the Universe over 4 days ... starting Day 1 with the Heaven ( space of the Universe), Earth .... and ... Light "sphere" ( energy & matter of the Universe). The dark space of the Universe was called NIGHT ... and the bright energy & matter of the the Universe was called DAY. The Day & Night from Day 1 ... is not an Earth Day & night. The Earth Day & Night ... began on Day 4 ... after the Hollow Light Sphere expand away from the Earth forming all the cosmic bodies, the then God made the Solar System & put Earth in its orbit producing the Earth night/day, month, year & seasons. It was never a big bang ... but simply a vast bright hollow energy sphere with little Earth at its center. The Universe is less than 6 000 years old ... because it's a NATURAL SYSTEM ... that began & is expanding in ... an UNNATURAL SYSTEMS, with unnatural laws & unnatural intelligence. All Systems ... are FUNCTIONS.

I agree. We can not assume it was the sun and before the sun was created we know that God is light. There is something deeper going on here I believe 🤔

Only God knows what that original light was. My question as a believer is why does it say God made TWO great lights when the Moon is not said to be a light source but a reflector of light...according to science. Anyone?

And how would you explain how/why God made vegetation before making the sun.

@YinkaOlakanye-un3gu

Ай бұрын

Perhaps the other light was used temporarily or the vegetation was sustained for a short while before the sunlight, just like your plant will survive overnight before sunlight resumes.

@user-vo1fu7tm1r

22 күн бұрын

Don't know. That's how he chose to create it

What if the light is big bang?

Read Revelation 22:5 no night, the Lord God gives them light.

@Greg_M

5 ай бұрын

If that was the case in Genesis 1 then there would not be day and night

Agree, God can do anything from nothing. That's why he was God.

That’s the real question.... what was the source of that light??

Jesus said I am the way the truth and the light... Jesus also said when he ask the Father to restore his glory he once had with him before the foundations of the world.

He talks to job about creation, gives a few hints. Job 38. I believe in every word in the blibe. The angels were praising his greatness of creation in job 38. No contradiction.

@sydfreed9818

4 жыл бұрын

@GoodRiddanceGooglePlus did you actually read it because I did and I didn't see any contradictions so I don't know what your talking about and I read it 10 times and still read it every day.and if you dont beleave just go away and never come back.

Note also that the Holy Spirit is hovering over the waters - this is the vantage point for all the rest of the narrative. Job 38:9 highlights that the Earth was covered: "when I made the clouds its garment and wrapped it in thick darkness" Thus the light of the already created sun was shining through the cloud cover to start day one. Hence morning - daytime - then evening - then morning - day one - this makes a 24 hour day. Just evening and morning - is only 12 hours.

@drumaster2011

5 ай бұрын

God was hovering, not the Holy Spirit!!!

Facepalm! I wish I never had kids..

The point that is missed is that the Hebrew bara is not the same as the Hebrew word asah. Bara is create - used for the "heaven and the Earth". The word asah is translated make - a forming, not a creating. In the first day (starting at verse 3 because all the days start off with "and God said") it says let there be light (not create light). To assume a temporary light that supplies heat, light, and reference for the start and end of each day - how is that not an assumption that could easily be replaced by the sun (created inside of the heavens of the "heavens and the Earth")? Thus the sun was created in verse one - sometime before day one. Does this give macro-evolution the time that it requires? No, not if the six days are normal 24 hour days and are consecutive. Also the geologic column would be the result of Noah's worldwide flood. This view is called Young Biosphere Creation (YBC)

I believe that there is a genuine / legitamate answer to this question that may have been in the word when genesis was first written. The scriptures says ( Rev 22:18-19 ) do not add to or take away from the holy scriptures ) If the Vatican remove 44 other books of the original bible, then surely they may have taken away the original scripturs thatwould explain the first 3 days without the sun and moon. GOD is omnipotent and is capable of doing any and all things. HE is also omnipresent. HE is a illuminating light that needs no sun. We may never know the true answer to this, which could be the Vatican's way of discrediting the word of GOD..

If Sun was only existed or created on the fourth day then does it mean that the planet earth was older than the Sun?

@creationtoday

Жыл бұрын

Yes, Earth is made first. Sun made on Day 4 of Creation Week.

It doesn't actually say this first light was "created". It simply says "let there be". Which puts a possible spin on what was going on. Could be an eternal light that was for some reason restrained from the earth until this command

@creationtoday

Жыл бұрын

I don't believe the Bible leaves room for there being an "eternal light". "Let there be..." implies it was not in existence.

@Benjamin-rp4hq

Жыл бұрын

@@creationtoday God is light, not sure if that divine attribute has always manifested with physical or aesthetic properties, but I think we can confidently say there has eternally been light in God most likely always radiating from God as the Son also has eternally been the brightness of the Fathers glory. I think Peter saw a glimpse of this eternal light when the face of Jesus shined like the sun in the transfiguration, Peter then can't help but say "it is good" like God said the light is good, then a cloud overshadowed them and the light is no longer seen which is similar to what God did to the earth when he shrouded the new earth with clouds and darkness (job 38:9), but day one God does a partial elimination to the darkness when he says let there be light, that continues physically and metaphorically till God gives complete light and removes night Rev 22:5. that light then seems to continue forever. So that's the eternal light emitting from God that I may be referring too. It's just interesting day one does not include Hebrew word for "make" or "create" when declaring light to be.

The light is different from the sun. The sun light is more yellow but the day light is more of a light blue. You can see it when rain is falling and the sunlight is not visible

@amjadsuleiman2908

8 ай бұрын

Are you serious? No way are you fucking serious

I think that the sun was made on the first day. If God was the light, why would he have to say anything? It would have just been there. Also, why is SUNday the first day of the week? Shouldn't it be fourth in the week?

Examples of contradictions in the bible- Matthew2 vs Luke2/ Matthew28 vs Luke24.

That was a great answer and very clear. Personally, I believe God was the light for His creation because Jesus says “(KJV) I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life.” In John 8. He is the light that shines in the darkness. Amen!

The Earth does not rotate. If it did stars seen on the East side of the Earth at evening, would be on the west side twelve hours later. The Sun goes around the Earth Psalm 19:1-6.

@TheBaxHead

4 жыл бұрын

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA thanks for that

How did plants survive without sun

@roypierce2049

Жыл бұрын

House plants grow without Sun light, with just a light bulb. There are different forms of light, and if God's light was lighting the earth for the first 3 days, those seeds could have started germinating due to God's light and the warmth of the earth, until the Sun was created on day 4.

@sukunaitadori2037

Жыл бұрын

@@roypierce2049 so sun is not the source of light?

@lyratrenchlyngdoh1105

Жыл бұрын

​@@sukunaitadori2037God is light, the ultimate source of light. in Gensis, God creates the sun to govern or rule the day and the moon to rule the night. So no, the sun wasn't the only source of Light, because God was that source in the first 3 days. indicating that everything is dependant on Him. He is the sustainer of everything in this world and universe. furthermore, in the book of Revelation, the sun will not exist anymore because God Himself with be the ultimate source of life. and since we all will become vegetarian (because there will be no murder in heaven), plants will derive their source of light from God.

@lyratrenchlyngdoh1105

Жыл бұрын

​@@sukunaitadori2037 the sun is another, lesser source of light apart from God, being the ultimate source of light.

@sukunaitadori2037

Жыл бұрын

@@lyratrenchlyngdoh1105 😂😂😂

Light created on the first day were the Angels, psalms 148:2-5. Details are not given as what happened fall of satan, but from the next line we know that light was separated from darkness. Good Angels were separated from Bad angels. Sun and moon were created much later. This view is held by Jews and church fathers too.

1 John 1:5. God is light and in him is no darkness at all. The only way to interpret apparent contradictions in the Bible is to use the Bible itself because in it is written every possible argument anyone could imagine against the word of God.

The light before the sun was the light in heaven, God's thrown room......🤔

The very idea that one must read more into the bible than what it says is pure proof that it is not Gods word but instead books written by men who were trying to figure things out. Then as time went on, other men had to translate what they thought was Gods word. Day one clearly speaks of a morning and evening, with light as a "day" and darkness a "night". There is nothing more to read into this Eric. It's not Gods spirit, it's not some background light. There is simply two accounts of sunlight and moonlight being created. These men who wrote these verses knew nothing of the sun and moon other tan what they observed. It is that simple. A all-knowing God would have had it written much more clearly than this puzzling way. Think about it....hard. If you were all-knowing, how would you explain your creative days to a simple species like man.

@TheBaxHead

4 жыл бұрын

if you're all knowing and all good, how poor of a deity do you have to be for the best creation you can come up with, made in your light and your image would be soo bad that he has to use magic to wipe out all the men, women and children on a global level also all the plants and animals.. To wipe the earth clean of sin and have it FAIL.. lol what an amateur...

@fistbump8550

4 жыл бұрын

@GoodRiddanceGooglePlus don't you find it interesting though.....that the Bible can not be disproved, can explain the nature of the universe and life on earth? Example. The Bible states "universe, then earth, ocean, fish , land animals and finally man.". And Science, though with Evolution, states the same order. Pretty good for some 7th century farmers and fisherman.

@TheBaxHead

4 жыл бұрын

@@fistbump8550 nah its not

@TheBaxHead

4 жыл бұрын

@@fistbump8550 I wrote a book a long time ago, it had my dad aged 13 eating breakfast, then lunch then flying around bumping into buildings and getting caught in trees finally before dun dun duuuuh the evil dark version of my dad came and battled till the whole planet Earth was destroyed and rebuilt with a wizards spell.. Then he had dinner. ISN'T IT FUNNY THAT MY BOOK CAN'T BE DISPROVED!! FIST BUM YOU WEREN'T THERE!!! WERE YOU??? ALSO ISNT IT FUNNY HOW SCIENCE SAYS BREAKFAST/LUNCH/DINNER. IN THAT ORDER!!!! WOW!! Pretty good for some 7year old fishing enthusiast.. Sorry but read your bible, its terrible and definitely not the word of an all powerful GAWD...

@fistbump8550

4 жыл бұрын

@@TheBaxHead what's my Bible? Who said I am even religious. I'm just pointing out that the Genisis story of which days things were made is correct. Scientists confirm that animals, for example evolved in that order. I find that interesting. That's it. Breakfast, lunch and dinner is the known way of society before you wrote that. But , no. I can't disprove your story

The sun is a source of light. Not light, itself.

Are the old earthers your brothers in Christ or just friends?

The source of the light in Gen 1:3 is God Himself. This light was not created but brought forth and shone in the darkness.

Day one ,let there be light ,light where? On the face of the deep that’s where the text say’s where the darkness was.The Spirit of God was hovering over the FACE of the deep,and God said let there be light,once again light where ?on the SURFACE of the deep. Just maybe the atmosphere was so thick light couldn’t penetrate.Job 38:9. Notice day 2 God starts separating water and sky,now more light is able to penetrate the atmosphere and by day Three dry land appears and more water separating,land water and sky now are ready for vegetation.vegetation plays a role in the atmospheric conditions by day four the atmosphere is now transparent for the sun moon and stars to be visible from earths soon coming inhabitants (creatures who use the sun moon and stars for there biological clocks.

Having a bad weekend and being resurrected as ruler of the universe is not a sacrifice.

@danielpech6521

3 жыл бұрын

Point taken, but with serious reservations. For, it obviously is a show of solidarity and empathy. Had God not lived and died as human, surely that would have implied cold-heartedness on His part.

Don't drink the kool-aid

God created the sun on the first day and because he created the stars and the moon on the 4th day the narrator states that God made two great lights on the 4th day. God didn’t say anything about making the sun on the fourth day but what he actually said “ let there be lights in the ferment of the heavens”. That’s what God actually said. The narrator words can mislead you into thinking that God created the sun on the first day but he didn’t. Also, God made something on every day and if you believe that God made light and then took it away and replaced it with the sun then that annulus what he did on the first day. He saw the light and said it was good. That means nothing else needs to be added to it.

@creationtoday

15 күн бұрын

Genesis 1:14-19 clearly states that the sun was created on the fourth day. "And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so. And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good. And the evening and the morning were the fourth day."

The objection assumes what has not been proven, namely it assumes naturalism. The creation account is the account of **miraculous** **supernatural** creation., so the existence of **miraculous** supernatural** light until natural light-bearers are created to provide natural light is not a problem. Christianity is a supernatural religion which by definition accepts the existence of a supernatural Creator and his miraculous works. Only a naturalist would have a problem with this. Unfortunately, we seem to be up to our armpits in naturalist Christians - a contradiction in terms. Make up your minds. Are you naturalist idolators (creation worshippers) or Christians. You can't be both. Choose wisely.

The light is a cosmic body as this is the first Day of Creation. Remember Day 1 is ... in the beginning God created the heavens & the Earth, then He said "Let there be light." And he called the "Light" Day and the the "Darkness" Night. Just as the Light is not Sunlight ... the creation Day & Night are not an Earth Day & Night. And there is no actual time in the spirit realm, and the 6 day creation & the 7th for God ... was because God knew Man would fall ... and it would take 7 000 years for the last Child of God to be conceived by Man. Man will rule for 6 x 1000 years then God will rule for 1000 years then judgement Day( where there is no time). Note that Day 2 & 3 and 5-6 were all about Earth and everything on it. And by Day 4 we then had all the stars & moon in the NIGHT and the Sun in the DAY. Again. Day 1 God created the Heaven ( DARK SPACE) and the Earth then created ... all the energy & matter of the Universe on Day 4 in the form of a vast bright "hollow" sphere with Earth at its center. It was never a Big Bang ... but simply a Big LIGHT(Day .. and over 4 days this sphere of energy & matter rapidly expanded outwards forming all the cosmic bodies in the Universe. The space of the Universe is completely dark and is called NIGHT. The energy & matter of the Universe is a "bright" hollow sphere millions of light years in diameter and it is called DAY. Earth was at the center of this LIGHT as it expanded expanded away from Earth forming every comic body over 4 days. And as it did so, God made the Atmosphere on Day 2 ... formed the Land & waters, then made all the flora on day 3 ... to then on Day 4 complete the Universe, and then make the solar systems setting the Earth into its orbit, creating the Earth Day/Night, month, year and the seasons. Then Day 5 God made the birds and water life and finally on Day 5 made the land life & Man. Again, it all began with God creating the Heaven, the Earth, & the Light. Apart from Day 4, everything else was about the Earth & everything on it. The Heaven is clearly the Universe, and the Bible never says the Universe was completed on Day 1, but did say the lights for the NIGHT ... and the Light for the DAY were made ( or completed ) on Day 4. God chose to create the Universe with Day 1 and Day 4. He could have completed the Universe on Day 1 but He wanted to start creation with Earth all alone in the dark space of the Universe.

My my my people just don't understand what God is saying here in these first 3 verses. He is defining who GOD is. Verse one "the Father", verse two "the Holy Spirit", verse three " The Son Jesus". See Gospel of John especially verse 8:12...."I am the light of the world".

Yes, there can be light, as such, apart from the Sun. So, what? Brain's question is not phrased in that regard. His question is phrased concerning why *Genesis chapter 1* tells us of light and flora prior to telling us about the Sun. His question is as to the *narrative logic* of the account in this regard. His concern is that the account seems to have an unnatural, or inconsistent, narrative logic. You, Eric, in this video, have not addressed that concern. In fact, your apologetic merely *presupposes* that that IS the account's narrative logic. Brian's question is about the fact that the account seems to have a natural narrative sequential buildup of naturally expected semantic confirmational dynamics concerning the *source* of the light of v. 3. That is, the most sensible natural reading of Genesis 1:1-13 is that for which the luminaries are implied in 'the heaven' of v. 1. Thus, from v. 1 to v. 13, the 'unwary' reader is led to expect that the source is the Sun. Brian wants to know why the account allows this, only to go on, in vs. 14-18, to seem to say that the luminaries are created on Day Four. Brain wants an explanation for this, but you do not give him any. Instead, you miss his question entirely, and brush it off as hermeneutically irrelevant on the basis of computational semantics. But it was just such a shallow semantics upon which the Pharisees believed justify their legalism. The Hebrew has three features that must be taken into account. One, it was a common usage of ancient Hebrews to use the words 'dark' and 'darkness' to imply dense cloud (ex: Job 3). Two, Hebrew has no pluperfect form of verb, relying on natural sense of context to help determine relative chronology. Three, 'Let there be' is not 'bara', nor is it 'asah'. And there are at least two different Hebrew words in the account that are translated as 'Let'. Only one of these 'Let's words is used in the portion of the text that deals with the four factors of the water cycle (thermal input, rotational distribution, envelop, and thermally binary surface). Also, Hebrew is a natural language, not a specialized lingo. That is, it is not in accord with computational semantics. Rather, it is a function, like all natural languages, of the universal self evidence of Divine Design, or what may be called humans' everyday most natural broad sense of things. Indeed, it is that sense alone that is confirmed by the most advanced modern instrumental modes of empirical inquiry have confirmed. Those modes have shown, in their own ways, that the entire cosmos, from humans and the Earth to the 'basic' physics of it all, appears to be very finely tuned for sake specifically of: (I) water based life, (II) Earth's cosmically unique role in the support of that life, and (III) a Biblically compatible kind of human physical and metaphysical cosmological virtue. Even the account's central portion, which is the only portion to specify the luminaries, specifies the luminaries not in their own terms only, but, rather, in terms of life on Earth. In other words, an actual, values-oriented reading of this central portion shows that its subject is not the luminaries. Rather, its subject is the life-affirming relationship which the luminaries have to the Earth. This is the same relationship which v. 2. implies for the light of v. 3. And v. 1 is the foundational verse, meaning that it determines the meanings of the verses following it. But, in your video here, you allow compromise v. 1 by both (a) taking some following verses as the proper contextual control of v. 1 (namely vs. 14-18), and (b) taking other verses as mutually dissociative to v. 1 (namely vs. 2-5, by centering on v. 3 as supposedly a stand-alone verse in regard to its 'light'). So you treat vs. 1-18 not so much as a properly building narrative, as a kind of semantic jigsaw puzzle. Specifically, you reason that, despite that this puzzle comes to you authoritatively already-assembled, some of its pieces must be rearranged, and in a particular other way, in order for its authoritative picture to be revealed. You render the account as so much randomly associable, and unfamiliar, bits, despite that its topic self evidently is the one most familiar topic to all humans. The fact is, Genesis 1 appeals to our own most natural values and knowledge. That is how it can be clear to the average person. Genesis 1 reflects the nature of our everyday simple sets of statements on a single natural valuable topic. In these sets, there is lot of ambiguity. But that ambiguity is not there to allow our meaning to be obscure. Much less is that ambiguity an effort, on our parts, to be sure that many in our audience twist our meaning due to many of our terms' equivocal nature. The ambiguity in our language efforts is simply a 'side effect' of our addressing our audience 1) on a universally known topic 2) in a powerfully brief way. Firstly, our topic is so naturally evident to our audience that we let that be the main guide for our audience's interpreting our natural statements on that topic. Secondly, we know that our audience is not a logically extreme version of Complete Idiots, much less 'dutifully' passive 'recipients of our words. Our audience, we know, are humans, who have a lot of implicit natural knowledge on that topic. So our sets of everyday simple statements on a valuable natural topic self evidently shows a simple, and forwardly building, flow of information that is powerfully brief. And these sets are touched only with whatever emphases that serve that topic, including even sequences of mention. So, to repeat: Genesis 1 reflects the nature of our everyday simple sets of statements on a single natural valuable topic. To think otherwise is to admit that the account either (a) is a flawed effort at plain communication or (b) is a less or more esoteric body of...whatever. Christ was a case of (a): He actually lived a human life in solidarity with humans, actually died for that same reason, and actually rose from the dead, all to fulfill the historical hinge of history which is the Edenic Promise (Genesis 3:15). The point is, humans have an everyday most natural broad sense of things, and this sense is solely foundational to all human concerns: It centrally is about the Earth, and about the Sun's relation to it (Genesis 1:28; Psalm 19:4-7; Isaiah 45:18). Indeed, without the universal self evidence of Divine Design, humans would be reduced to irremediably senseless idiots. One self evident fact is that the function of natural language is that for affirming Divine Design, not for expressing selected mere logical possibilities according to the standards of computational semantics. It seems it is logically possible for an alternate 'everything' to be designed for purposes deeply obscure to, or even physically far removed from us. But that would preclude our having any everyday natural knowledge of its design. And, in such an alternate 'cosmos', we could not naturally understand anything that God tells us. Instead, we would have to rely on God's outright telling us every nuanced detail of His meaning. But it is not of foundational importance that God merely created. It is foundational that God so designed what He created that it all self-evidently speaks of the pure goodness of His character, wisdom, and power. Yes, God created. But God is a relational God, not an all-powerful, polemical idiot. As prime evidence of His relational nature, He created according to the one chronological unit that is uniquely central to our biology: the water-cycle affirming terrestrial day-night cycle. Purifoy (2020) observes that it is the 'incomprehensible interconnectivity and mutual reliance of everything in the' natural 'world' that 'is an extremely compelling argument for creation in six normal days. God' brought about 'everything' as actually 'functional, and' as 'working together as interdependent systems and structures and communities.' That is, in order for the Earth's ecology to be (1) created specially, and (2) by a chronological process that abides each dependent level of its hierarchy, then, (3) the assembling must begin with the most basic level first, and proceed to the next, and so on, and all this in short order. This implies that Genesis 1 presents the natural ecosystem of life-support as being comprised of a cross-like, or holistic, hierarchy of basic parts: at once vertically and horizontally interdependent. Such a cross-like hierarchy does not so deeply exist in man-made artificial systems. An automobile, for example, does not require being made in any particular sequence. This is simply because its engine does not naturally require being run in order for it to be made. The main subsystems of the Earth's ecology are not just machines, they are living organisms. Each naturally require being run in order to be assembled one to another. This is especially the case for the global flora system and the two fauna systems. And they have no natural 'off' mode. Beyond the Earth's ecology is the life-affirming fine tuning of the hosts of other factors of the cosmos, from the particular strength of gravity to the distance from the Earth to the Sun. (((((((( Purifoy, T. Jr. (2020): How Do We See Intelligent Design in Nature?. Is Genesis History? isgenesishistory.com/intelligent-design-in-nature/ ))))))))

DISAGREE The moons does not have its own light...just another contradiction in the bible

@phadrus

4 жыл бұрын

Roberta Paley it’s not reflected light. It’s lit like a bulb. Spheres don’t reflect light by lighting up like a bulb. Especially spheres said to be gray dust. Also the moon’s light is cold light. You can observe this yourself by using a thermometer gun and measure the temperature of a surface in full moonlight vs shadow under moonlight. You’ll see the direct light from the moon is colder than the shadow. I’ve done this experiment many times. Also, you’ll note that when astronauts supposedly went to the moon and took photos on the moon’s surface it’s not a glowing ball beneath their feet. Not to mention their photos of the earth from the surface of the moon show the earth on the horizon of the moon instead of directly overhead where it belongs. Things have not been explained to you as they actually are. There are also other issues with the moon like it’s translucency. Best regards!

@bluecrownvic

4 жыл бұрын

@@phadrus You are ridiculous. If the moon is lit like a bulb, how do you explain the lunar phases? The moon was absolutely lit under the astronauts feet. The camera exposure was super low which is why you can't see stars in the same photos. Direct light from the Sun has UV-A and UV-B along with most visible wavelengths. The moon absorbs those UV wavelengths, but reflects visible light thus your difference in heat produced from that light.

@TheBaxHead

4 жыл бұрын

@@phadrus He's GOT to be trolling or Americas education system is much worse than we thought..

@Joshua-dc1bs

2 жыл бұрын

@@phadrus lol WTF?

Why will god use 7 days for creation ? Doesn’t make sense .. God can create the world in a second :.. whoever wrote the book got it all wrong ... till date we don’t know where Cain got his wife and how the Chinese came to being

Th3se people are not interested in truth, they are only interested in having a fantasy that makes them feel good.

@creationtoday

5 күн бұрын

On the contrary. We love the truth and want to make the truth know. We even know the capitol T "Truth". His name is Jesus! You can read about His gift to mankind here: CreationToday.org/Gift

@vitus.verdegast

4 күн бұрын

@@creationtoday Religious fundamentalists are waging a culture war against science and education. They want to isolate themselves a bubble of myth because they feel threatened by the outside world. Lying to yourself is a bad habit to get into-- it attracts con-artists like Trump who exploit your gullibility.

@vitus.verdegast

5 сағат бұрын

@@creationtoday A Creationist reacts to truth the way a vampire reacts to sunlight-- by running for cover.

Come On, are you kidding me? It was 100% the Sun, no negotiation about it.

God was so powerful that everything was His word. Only eve became created from Adam's rib. 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

Completely agree, great job Eric, those who disagree are just looking for an excuse not to believe, they are blinded and want to continue to live in sin supported by their silly theories. Yes, of course God himself was probably the source of light but like you said, the Bible doesn't say so. A++++

@Joshua-dc1bs

2 жыл бұрын

So God emits photons which can photosynthesise plants?

@verysimple77

2 жыл бұрын

@@Joshua-dc1bs yes

@Joshua-dc1bs

2 жыл бұрын

@@verysimple77 and he had a location in spacetime so that one side of the planet was in day, the other, night? Wouldn't that make him local?

@verysimple77

2 жыл бұрын

@@Joshua-dc1bs am sorry, you lack perspective

@Joshua-dc1bs

2 жыл бұрын

@@verysimple77 What perspective do I lack? Do you have scientific evidence to put forward to trump the current models in cosmology? Are all of the models in star formation, nebula formation wrong? Did they all pop into existence in a single day through no antecedent event? Do you have evidence of this to present to a panel of cosmologists? Do you have a model to out forward about how the sun was made, or did it just magically snap into existence?

I don't know but seems to me light in day one refers to all the logic and scientific laws that enables us to understand how things work. Considering human beings when we get an idea, we put light bulbs over our heads, I don't think that's by accident. I think the source of science, aka knowledge, is what God refers to as light.

The earth is flat and stationary not a ball spinning on an imaginary axis.

An atheist challenged me on this the other day. Well how could plants be there before the sun? I told her that the answer is in the text. God provided a light source in the days prior. Either it was a temporal source or He himself was that light. She then countered that the Bible is stupid and there are thousands of gods and creation stories. So apparently my answer was so reasonable she had to shift the discussion. Meaning she really didn't want an answer and really rejects God out of her own biases.

@harshfodo7970

4 жыл бұрын

No, your argument was akin to other creation stories of other religions not backed by any empirical evidence. Far from reasonable.

@Joshua-dc1bs

2 жыл бұрын

Where's your evidence that a non-sun source of light caused day and night and allowed photosynthesis? Do you have scientific papers to back up this cosmological model -- one to present to a panel of cosmologists to overthrow the current model of star formation and lifecycle?

You live in a tiny boring universe.

Disagree

Disagree!!

Genesis contradicts science. The star of the star system forms first. Planets, moons and other object form after. You cannot have a planet (earth) before there is a star (sun).

@fistbump8550

4 жыл бұрын

I know this is a month ago. But can you explain this?

@vwisse

4 жыл бұрын

@@fistbump8550 What would you like to know? How stars and planets form or why it contradicts with the genesis account?

@fistbump8550

4 жыл бұрын

@@vwisse both honestly. And if you don't mind.. why a planet can't form without a star.

It's flat

@CNCmachiningisfun

4 жыл бұрын

Yeah, flattards are pretty stupid!

@strongholds12

4 жыл бұрын

CNCmachiningisfun (Yawning) How is being a fake ass working out for you? Both Pythagoras and Eratosthenes where freemason occultist. #EquationTrumpCar Globe theory completely #nullified Applying Math to reality is not really your strong suit? kzread.info/dash/bejne/Y4yTttlrZ9q9ppM.html

God himself was the source of light, specifically God the Son.

Interesting. I always thought the light in the first verses was God creating His Son Jesus. That Jesus was that light.

@deathwarrioification

4 жыл бұрын

Mary and Joseph were simply stoners and had sex but couldn't remember cause of the of the substances they took there for "Jesus" was brought up as a stoner thats a realistic story

@anniegaddis5240

4 жыл бұрын

@@deathwarrioification Hahaha! No.

@deathwarrioification

4 жыл бұрын

@@anniegaddis5240 yep

@cmdrterrorfirma4244

4 жыл бұрын

wait... God created Jesus? and Jesus is God too? uhhh

Disagree