January 18, 2005
by: jovial_cynic
The english bible is a terrible substitute for the hebrew. The "God said, 'let there be light', and there was light" is actually literally translated "God said: LIGHT, and LIGHT WAS." It doesn't indicate that God created light at the moment He stated it. How could water on the planet exist before there was any light in the universe at all? Water implies heat to keep it from freezing, and heat implies either external (solar) or internal (rock-crushing gravity) energy. If solar, there is a star in space, providing light. If by gravity, we have the law of gravity in place, which implies that the earth is probably orbiting something, and is very likely a star.

So light was there. And when God said it, it wasn't the creation of light in general, because what use is the light if there is no sun? The sun and moon aren't even specifically identified until Genesis 1:16, and the notion of creating a planet before the creation of a sun (which is required for a gravitational orbit) is lunacy.

If it is true that God said: LIGHT in Genesis 1:3, and we agree that the source of that light has to already exist, the statement is not about the creation of light. It is about the revelation of light. If we take it from the point of view of a person standing on the planet and watching the atmospheric debris clear out, it would make sense that light became visible, and then some stuff on the planet became visible, and as the atmosphere cleared more and more, details like the actual sun and moon and stars finally become visible.

I believe the creation account is revelatory.
np category: theology


add comments. you are limited to 5,000 characters:

<< your name
<< your email (won't be displayed)
<< your website / location
<< type these numbers: 219762 (plus 0NE)

(html -enabled- / no scripts)

<< Comments temporarily disabled >>

Rules: Don't spam. Don't harrass. Don't be a jerk. Your IP address ( will be logged.