Did God make a distinction between light and shine?

[tieman55]

Gen 1:3 God said, “I command light to shine! And light started shining. 4 God looked at the light and saw that it was good." CEV

If, God did make a distinction between light and shine it would be wise for men to do the same or at the very least consider it.

Making a distinction between light and shine could shine a new light on subjects like black holes, the double slit experiment, CMB and gravity, just for starters.

Considering God’s creation:

Is it a coincidence that electricity and light are believed to travel at basically the same rate? I think not. That fact alone leads one to think that the tool bag God used to make light possible was the same tool bag used to make electricity possible.

With AC electricity, the wave of electrons hardly move at all, they basically stand up and they set down. Why would it be any different with light… maybe in a wave of light, they stand up and they set down.

Perhaps the shine is like many other waves of energy and the light is the medium similar to a conductor of electricity and is largely stationary. Then light would be found almost everywhere; the shine is the wave of energy that activates/ignites/ ionizes the largely stationary conductor, light. On the surface it may seem just a semantical issue, but I don’t believe it is just semantics. It seems to me–that if true, things look much different in the quantum realm, as you begin to separate light from shine, as God may have given us the clue to do so.

The physical shape of light could be an ever-changing shape due to the loss of entropy from the ever-passing energy waves that organizes the light and or from the quantum pressure that contains it. Light could be what many have coined as their belief in a “quantum foam”. I like the idea of “quantum foam”, but what if we just call it light?

If true, it brings to light new waves of thought on many queries like, the aforementioned, CMB, the double slit experiment, black holes, gravities effect on light, and gravity itself.

Taking into consideration that light and shine may be different… you might come to see things anew…. your new vision will give way to new conclusions that fit, God’s revelations and God’s creation, titer.

Questions like the ones below can be seen in the new light:

In the double slit experiment:

A projectile is shot into the ever-present light... the projectile causes the stationary light to move/shine and then light comes to rest in a new pattern or if you will it takes on a new set. The new light set effects the next projectile path. It is important to note that the changing light sets are little affected by the displacement via the mass of the projectile, it is almost entirely shaped by the loss of entropy of the projectile that moves the light into a largely new set position. Only a loss of entropy, energy wave, would move light to a new set position, or if you will... energizes the light to shine.

The loss of entropy into the light effectively steers both the light and the projectile on both sides of the slit. The light's new set affects the path of the next projectile and so on. The light switching on and off uses the passing energy wave to do that work.

The new light set determines the pattern that is seen in the results. The steering or, if you will, the guiding light determines the place of impact of each projectile.

Turn on a detector to observe the projectiles. The detector affects each new light set. It is akin to grounding an electric motor, shielding a wire or computer chip, installing a capacitor on a collapsing field of a coil or tuning a wave guide to a radio wave of your liking. The detector in this case has tuned out much of the lights shine.

The detector has a grounding/capacitance effect on the light and shine, that tends to reset and or limit the amplitude of the light sets that it is observing and tending to ground it back to a more neutral set. With no ground/capacitor/camera/detector on the oscillation of the ever-present guiding light and the light becomes much more active which changes the impact area of the projectile to a wider pattern/wave.

If true, it is likely falsifiable: By changing the location of the detector. For the detector to have much less affect on the guiding light you could shoot the projectiles directly into the detector. The energy that moves the light is in a wave, that wave will have its greatest movement perpendicular to the energy path that moves the light/projectile, if the detector is directly in front of the projectile the light set will be less attenuated. The capacitance/grounding affect will be in line with the wave/energy flow and will affect the light sets far less.

Black Holes, CMB and Lighting Bolts:

I can think of at least two places where light may not be found; in a black hole and in the center of a lighting bolt. In those two places, the flow of energy is at such a high level, in only one direction and not in a wave, that the quantum pressure forces and sustains the light away from the flow of the one-way energy flow, the light medium is completely pushed out, so, it is pitch black.

Black holes could be a quantum pump that supply their respective galaxies a constant or on demand supply of quantum pressure/pure energy to contain light, and maintain the CMB. Then Black holes are not sucking in light they are pushing it away. It might be the same in the center of a lighting bolt. The one-way flow of energy is pushing light away from its center and it would be pitch black in its center, as there is no light. Is it a coincidence that lighting and black holes have things in common? Maybe the absence of light in the center of a bolt of lighting is falsifiable?

Gravity in anew light:

Does gravity affect quantum pressure? General relativity says yes, but just how?

Mass and dense mass might crowd out/displace some large quantities of light that wants to fill in any and all space absent of light, as light slithers into any and all empty spaces in the mass, and or light is forced out due to internal heat and compression. Both of those could in a general way cause denser light to form around the exterior of that dense mass. Meaning that quantum pressure/light builds around the outside of the densest masses? Could it be that light is influencing the passing energy waves and not gravity?

Perhaps a quantum vacuum or if you will, the absence of light is gravity? Is the density of light inversely proportional to gravity?

I don’t know, but I do know that thinking about God’s creation is edifying and fun I can only imagine just how much fun Johann Kepler must have had, exploring the countless mystery’s that surround our God’s creation–as he, Kepler tried to

 

[Gary K]

Gen 1:3 God said, “I command light to shine! And light started shining. 4 God looked at the light and saw that it was good." CEV

If, God did make a distinction between light and shine it would be wise for men to do the same or at the very least consider it.

Making a distinction between light and shine could shine a new light on subjects like black holes, the double slit experiment, CMB and gravity, just for starters.

Considering God’s creation:

Is it a coincidence that electricity and light are believed to travel at basically the same rate? I think not. That fact alone leads one to think that the tool bag God used to make light possible was the same tool bag used to make electricity possible.

With AC electricity, the wave of electrons hardly move at all, they basically stand up and they set down. Why would it be any different with light… maybe in a wave of light, they stand up and they set down.

Perhaps the shine is like many other waves of energy and the light is the medium similar to a conductor of electricity and is largely stationary. Then light would be found almost everywhere; the shine is the wave of energy that activates/ignites/ ionizes the largely stationary conductor, light. On the surface it may seem just a semantical issue, but I don’t believe it is just semantics. It seems to me–that if true, things look much different in the quantum realm, as you begin to separate light from shine, as God may have given us the clue to do so.

The physical shape of light could be an ever-changing shape due to the loss of entropy from the ever-passing energy waves that organizes the light and or from the quantum pressure that contains it. Light could be what many have coined as their belief in a “quantum foam”. I like the idea of “quantum foam”, but what if we just call it light?

If true, it brings to light new waves of thought on many queries like, the aforementioned, CMB, the double slit experiment, black holes, gravities effect on light, and gravity itself.

Taking into consideration that light and shine may be different… you might come to see things anew…. your new vision will give way to new conclusions that fit, God’s revelations and God’s creation, titer.

Questions like the ones below can be seen in the new light:

In the double slit experiment:

A projectile is shot into the ever-present light... the projectile causes the stationary light to move/shine and then light comes to rest in a new pattern or if you will it takes on a new set. The new light set effects the next projectile path. It is important to note that the changing light sets are little affected by the displacement via the mass of the projectile, it is almost entirely shaped by the loss of entropy of the projectile that moves the light into a largely new set position. Only a loss of entropy, energy wave, would move light to a new set position, or if you will... energizes the light to shine.

The loss of entropy into the light effectively steers both the light and the projectile on both sides of the slit. The light's new set affects the path of the next projectile and so on. The light switching on and off uses the passing energy wave to do that work.

The new light set determines the pattern that is seen in the results. The steering or, if you will, the guiding light determines the place of impact of each projectile.

Turn on a detector to observe the projectiles. The detector affects each new light set. It is akin to grounding an electric motor, shielding a wire or computer chip, installing a capacitor on a collapsing field of a coil or tuning a wave guide to a radio wave of your liking. The detector in this case has tuned out much of the lights shine.

The detector has a grounding/capacitance effect on the light and shine, that tends to reset and or limit the amplitude of the light sets that it is observing and tending to ground it back to a more neutral set. With no ground/capacitor/camera/detector on the oscillation of the ever-present guiding light and the light becomes much more active which changes the impact area of the projectile to a wider pattern/wave.

If true, it is likely falsifiable: By changing the location of the detector. For the detector to have much less affect on the guiding light you could shoot the projectiles directly into the detector. The energy that moves the light is in a wave, that wave will have its greatest movement perpendicular to the energy path that moves the light/projectile, if the detector is directly in front of the projectile the light set will be less attenuated. The capacitance/grounding affect will be in line with the wave/energy flow and will affect the light sets far less.

Black Holes, CMB and Lighting Bolts:

I can think of at least two places where light may not be found; in a black hole and in the center of a lighting bolt. In those two places, the flow of energy is at such a high level, in only one direction and not in a wave, that the quantum pressure forces and sustains the light away from the flow of the one-way energy flow, the light medium is completely pushed out, so, it is pitch black.

Black holes could be a quantum pump that supply their respective galaxies a constant or on demand supply of quantum pressure/pure energy to contain light, and maintain the CMB. Then Black holes are not sucking in light they are pushing it away. It might be the same in the center of a lighting bolt. The one-way flow of energy is pushing light away from its center and it would be pitch black in its center, as there is no light. Is it a coincidence that lighting and black holes have things in common? Maybe the absence of light in the center of a bolt of lighting is falsifiable?

Gravity in anew light:

Does gravity affect quantum pressure? General relativity says yes, but just how?

Mass and dense mass might crowd out/displace some large quantities of light that wants to fill in any and all space absent of light, as light slithers into any and all empty spaces in the mass, and or light is forced out due to internal heat and compression. Both of those could in a general way cause denser light to form around the exterior of that dense mass. Meaning that quantum pressure/light builds around the outside of the densest masses? Could it be that light is influencing the passing energy waves and not gravity?

Perhaps a quantum vacuum or if you will, the absence of light is gravity? Is the density of light inversely proportional to gravity?

I don’t know, but I do know that thinking about God’s creation is edifying and fun I can only imagine just how much fun Johann Kepler must have had, exploring the countless mystery’s that surround our God’s creation–as he, Kepler tried to

That is some very tortured reasoning.

Every time the word light appears in Genesis 1:2-5 it comes from the exact same Hebrew word. And you want to give a different meaning to the same word in the same verse when the context clearly shows the word is used the same way, All of these ideas are based upon one version of the Bible that was designed for kids and the semi literate. That you're trying to use it for serious Bible study shows a lack of wisdom.

 

[Right Divider]

That is some very tortured reasoning.

Every time the word light appears in Genesis 1:2-5 it comes from the exact same Hebrew word. And you want to give a different meaning to the same word in the same verse when the context clearly shows the word is used the same way, All of these ideas are based upon one version of the Bible that was designed for kids and the semi literate. That you're trying to use it for serious Bible study shows a lack of wisdom.

Indeed... the CEV is a terrible "translation".

 

[tieman55]

That is some very tortured reasoning.

Every time the word light appears in Genesis 1:2-5 it comes from the exact same Hebrew word. And you want to give a different meaning to the same word in the same verse when the context clearly shows the word is used the same way, All of these ideas are based upon one version of the Bible that was designed for kids and the semi literate. That you're trying to use it for serious Bible study shows a lack of wisdom.

As far as using a Bible version that is easier to understand (for children) how exactly does that hinder the goal of understanding God's word?

I do not if you are aware of this or not, but mankind is not as smart as we once were, and more importantly, figures of speech change over time. From 1611 when the KJV was written to the present most all figures of speech have changed multiple times, so a thoughtful person might just consider that expressions have changed. A humble person would, without doubt, consider they have indeed changed.

Below are three other translations that seem to make a distinction between light and shine. Are they also bad? Are they also for the children and the illiterate like myself?

ERV 3 Then God said, “Let there be light!” And light began to shine
CEB says God said, “Let there be light.” And so light appeared. ....
MSG 3-5 God spoke: “Light!” And light appeared.

Now I started out by quoted Gen 3, saying "if" God made a distinction between light and shine...
Now, I will close that up tighter by looking at Gen.1:.2 and Gen 1:4

“Gen.1:2 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. “KJV (I am risking that you just might approve of the KJV)

The first unequivocal statement in Gen. 2 is that there was darkness, no visible light. The next is just unambiguous "darkness was upon the face of the deep" and it finishes with "waters" so the deep is referring to deep waters. If there is water and deep waters, there is temperature if there is temperature there is light, inferred light. But God did not see it, as we are made in His image the inferred light is not visible to us or to God as He was creating a place for us, so that He would only want to see what we would see.

Temperature produces light. This is the context for, the CEV saying, let the light shine in Gen 1:2 For you to argue against light existing in Gen 1:2 you must say that heat / temperature can exist without inferred light, talk about tortured reasoning... you have won the noble peace prize for torturing reasoning.... if you are saying heat exist without light.

I know this is extremely painful for you, but if think about it, it is at least possible that light was there for all the first day and then is started to shine in Gen1:3

Then on to Gen 1:4 "And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness." God saw the light, inferring that the light was there and now, He saw it, as He knew we would see it.

It should be noted that in no translation, for kids or adults, does it say that God made light. And it should also be noted that God does say that He made other things, and created other things, but not light.

God did say "Let" I count 9 times in the KJV and each time He is not " exclusively creating" , it seems likely to me that God is mostly rearranging what was already created when He says "let". There are a few other Bible translations that use "commanded" in the place of "let". Are those also bad translations and or for children and the illiterate? The word "Commanded", to me, seems to fit perfectly in place of "let" I am sure that you think that is further proof that I am unwise. It just has to be childish of me to think that over 400 years, from the time of the KJV, that figures of speech could have changed... yet again further proof of just how unwise I must be to think the meaning a word can change.
.
I shall await your ad hominem reprisals.

 

[JudgeRightly]

As far as using a Bible version that is easier to understand (for children) how exactly does that hinder the goal of understanding God's word?

There's a difference between making it easy to understand the Bible, especially for children, and changing the Bible in order to satisfy a particular set of beliefs.

Usually, the latter involves butchering the translation between what the Bible says in the Hebrew/Greek and the English.

For getting a simple understanding of the Bible, there's no problem, but to gain a deeper understanding, one must, repeat, MUST understand what was originally said in the context that it was said. That means going to the Hebrew and Greek, simply due to the fact that just like with translating between any two languages, some things can be lost in translation.

I do not if you are aware of this or not, but mankind is not as smart as we once were, and more importantly, figures of speech change over time.

I am certainly well aware of this fact.

Which is why it's so important that we, as we are "dumber" than our ancestors, we MUST apply our minds, and strive to gain a deeper understanding of what the Bible actually says, rather than rely on poor or even biased translations/interpretations. If we don't, then by continuing to rely on "dumbed down" versions of the Bible, we will lose the original meaning of what is said, which results in poor doctrine and potentially people ultimately rejecting God based on our poor understanding of what is said.

I prefer using the NKJV because, even though it isn't perfect (it does have a few passages that are translated incorrectly, and others that the translation could be improved), it is the closest to the original languages in terms of what is meant by what is said, while still retaining an almost word-for-word translation.

The translation you used above, while it may be easier to understand for some, is a very poor translation, if it can even be called that, more of an interpretation than a translation, and because of that, it misleads the reader to think that light always existed (the CEV does not mention "existence," only "activation") and it misled YOU to believe that there was an argument to be made regarding light shining.

There is no verb "shine" in Genesis 1.

The verb used (twice) in verse 3 is "hayah," which means "to exist."

Translated literally, the verse reads:

"[And said] [God,] [let there be] [light,] [and there was] [light.]"

אָמַר אֱלהִים הָיָה אוֹר הָיָה אוֹר​

In other words: God commanded light to exist, and so it existed.

From 1611 when the KJV was written to the present most all figures of speech have changed multiple times, so a thoughtful person might just consider that expressions have changed. A humble person would, without doubt, consider they have indeed changed.

There is no figure of speech in that verse.

Thus, because your premise is false, your following argument is moot.

God actually, literally, created light, and that action is recorded in Genesis 1:3.

Below are three other translations that seem to make a distinction between light and shine. Are they also bad?

They're certainly not as bad as the CEV interpretation, though I question the ERV's interpretation of the second half of the verse, because "began to shine" implied that light was already in existence and just wasn't shining, where at least with the CEB and MSG versions, light "appeared" which can mean it wasn't there to begin with, which is in line with what the verse actually says.

Are they also for the children and the illiterate like myself?

I wouldn't use any of them to teach my children (if I had any) the Bible, but I wouldn't be against other people using them.

As for the second half of that question, I assert that the only reason you're illiterate when it comes to the Bible is that you are lazy in applying your mind, and you simply lack the motivation to strive to understand the Bible.

To reference Paul's analogy, forget the meat of God's word, you're lactose intolerant, and can't even handle the milk!

ERV 3 Then God said, “Let there be light!” And light began to shine
CEB says God said, “Let there be light.” And so light appeared. ....
MSG 3-5 God spoke: “Light!” And light appeared.

Now I started out by quoted Gen 3, saying "if" God made a distinction between light and shine...

It's a moot question, because "shine" isn't even in the verse.

Now, I will close that up tighter by looking at Gen.1:.2 and Gen 1:4

“Gen.1:2 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. “KJV (I am risking that you just might approve of the KJV)

The first unequivocal statement in Gen. 2 is that there was darkness, no visible light. The next is just unambiguous "darkness was upon the face of the deep" and it finishes with "waters" so the deep is referring to deep waters. If there is water and deep waters, there is temperature if there is temperature there is light, inferred light.

Wrong, simply because there can be heat without light, in a universe where light has yet to be created (as I point out below).

Thus, inferring light where there is no mention of light, and even in direct contradiction to the context of light being created AFTER the creation of the planet Earth, because of an a priori belief which came about as a result of a poor interpretation of what Scripture says, not only leads one to believe that the Bible says things that it does not actually say, but is EXTREMELY dangerous because it opens the door for false beliefs to be shoehorned into scripture that does not actually support such beliefs, such as evolution, for example.

Also, while "invisible" light was not discovered until later, "light" itself encompasses ALL light, visible and invisible to humans. Lets not forget that some animals do in fact see beyond the "visible" (to humans) spectrum of light.

But God did not see it, as we are made in His image the inferred light is not visible to us or to God as He was creating a place for us, so that He would only want to see what we would see.

This is what I mean poor interpretations leading one to believe things that are not only not supported by scripture, but also beliefs that are simply false on their face.

Are you seriously asserting that God cannot "see" the entire spectrum of light? I have "see" in quotations, because God doesn't have literal eyes like we do, since He is spirit (barring Jesus' perfected human body, of course, but that came later...).

Temperature produces light. This is the context for, the CEV saying, let the light shine in Gen 1:2 For you to argue against light existing in Gen 1:2 you must say that heat / temperature can exist without inferred light, talk about tortured reasoning... you have won the noble peace prize for torturing reasoning.... if you are saying heat exist without light.

You would have a point, if it weren't for the fact that we're talking about God creating matter and energy, which cannot be explained by physics, because the laws of physics state that matter nor energy cannot be created or destroyed, only converted from one to the other.

In addition to that, your argument assumes that light already exists, which, prior to verse 3, it does not, as God commanded it to exist in verse 3, and so it existed, in verse 3, and not prior to verse 3.

Or are you asserting that there is a contradiction in the Bible?

I assure you, there is no contradiction between God creating (miraculously) matter (and thus energy) first, and then creating (again, miraculously) light after creating matter to be the output of the movement of that matter.

Verses 1-5 show God setting up the laws of physics. Your argument assumes your conclusion that light existed before God created light in verse 3. This is a logical fallacy.

Talk about tortured reasoning, indeed. You have light existing before it was created by God, because you assume that the laws of physics apply to God.creating matter/energy and light. Such is irrational, and contrary to scripture.

Scripture states that God created the universe and matter/energy, He made the earth which had a single ocean of liquid water on the surface, and then He created light. IN. THAT. ORDER. To claim otherwise is to contradict scripture.

I know this is extremely painful for you,

I realize this post was not directed at me, but here I will respond as if it were:

It's painful for me to read what you say, because it's WRONG, because it's based on a convoluted interpretation of scripture that doesn't align with what scripture actually says.

but if think about it, it is at least possible that light was there for all the first day and then is started to shine in Gen1:3

Except that it's not possible, because the very scripture you cite doesn't allow it to be so.

Then on to Gen 1:4 "And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness." God saw the light, inferring that the light was there and now, He saw it,

Duh, because He just created it, and was examining what He created, and was pleased by what He created.

as He knew we would see it.

More going beyond the text to say things that are not explicitly stated in scripture.

In other words: Stop making stuff up!

It should be noted that in no translation, for kids or adults, does it say that God made light.

This is flatly false.

See above.

God commanded light to exist, and then it existed. Which necessarily implies that light did not exist prior to Him saying "let there be light," and then DID exist AFTER He said "let there be light."

And it should also be noted that God does say that He made other things, and created other things, but not light.

Supra.

God did say "Let" I count 9 times in the KJV

Funny how you jump to the KJV to make your point.

and each time He is not " exclusively creating" , it seems likely to me that God is mostly rearranging what was already created when He says "let".

You would have a point if you completely ignore the original language of Genesis 1...

However, the Hebrew word (yes, it's only one word) that we translate as the phrase "let there be" is the verb that means "to exist," and the first time it is used, it's as an imperfect jussive, which is just another way of saying that it's functioning as an imperative, a command.

In other words, translated woodenly literally, the first half of that verse reads:

"And said God "Exist, light."

He's literally commanding light to exist.

The second time the same verb is used in the verse, it's narrative, "Thus light existed."

Nowhere in that verse is God telling light (which you assume already existed) to "shine." The Hebrew word for "shine" is a completely different word, and the first time it's used is in Numbers 6:25.

There are a few other Bible translations that use "commanded" in the place of "let". Are those also bad translations and or for children and the illiterate? The word "Commanded", to me, seems to fit perfectly in place of "let" I am sure that you think that is further proof that I am unwise.

The point that ffreeloader was making (as far as I'm concerned) is that the CEV is a terrible translation to use for serious Bible study.

It just has to be childish of me to think that over 400 years, from the time of the KJV, that figures of speech could have changed...

Again, as I said above, there is no figure of speech in verse 3.

If you continue to assert that there is, then you need to explain what the figure of speech is, and also what it means, though, that's kind of impossible, considering that actions are not figures of speech...

yet again further proof of just how unwise I must be to think the meaning a word can change.

I shall await your ad hominem reprisals.

You are certainly correct that words can and do change their meanings over time. However, the onus is on you, since you seem to be making the assertion that the meaning of the words in Genesis 1 have changed, to A) indicate which words have had their meanings changed, B) explain what the words originally meant, and C) explain what the words mean now.

I assert, on the other hand, that the words in the Bible have largely retained their meaning throughout the millennia, at least as far as the Hebrew (and by extension, the Greek) is concerned, and that the CEV (among others) is just a terrible interpretation (forget translation) of what was originally said by Moses and the other human authors of the Bible. My evidence is that there are plenty of dictionaries and concordances that give the definitions of the words in the Bible, such as Strong's Concordance, that serve as a record of their usage, and even modern greek is somewhat of a different language (for lack of a better term) than is KOINE Greek, which is the language used in the New Testament, yet we still retain the knowledge of what the words in KOINE mean, despite the fact that if you try to translate KOINE Greek using Google Translate set to "Greek," you'll end up with a jumbled mess (though this might just be Google Translate being Google Translate...).

In the same way, ancient Hebrew is different than modern Hebrew, but that doesn't mean that we use the modern Hebrew meanings for words when reading ancient Hebrew (nor the modern Greek meanings when reading KOINE, for that matter).

Your argument is bad, and you should feel bad. Do better.

 

[Derf]

Thus, inferring light where there is no mention of light

He might have meant "infrared light" rather than "inferred light". If so, he might have a point, if there was any heat at all.

But that's trying to insert a modern definition of "light" into the meaning of the text, where it likely doesn't apply.

Or if photons hadn't been created yet, then there could have been waters in the primordial universe prior to photons and no heat radiation (infrared photons).

 

[Ktoyou]

Mixing scripture with science is a fool's errand.

 

[Right Divider]

Mixing scripture with science is a fool's errand.

It depends on what you mean by science.

 

[tieman55]

There's a difference between making it easy to understand the Bible, especially for children, and changing the Bible in order to satisfy a particular set of beliefs.

Your suggestion that the scholars that translated CEV, wanted to make my point about separating the light from shine, is bizarre.

Usually, the latter involves butchering the translation between what the Bible says in the Hebrew/Greek and the English.

If your saying the scholars are "butchering" the translation, correct? Again Bizarre.

For getting a simple understanding of the Bible, there's no problem, but to gain a deeper understanding, one must, repeat, MUST understand what was originally said in the context that it was said. That means going to the Hebrew and Greek, simply due to the fact that just like with translating between any two languages, some things can be lost in translation.

How is separating light from shine in anyway simpler. It is more detailed, which sounds good to me. Detail is always enlighten. If your are going to bring in Hebrew and Greek, in an attempt to muddy the waters, then sight the errors in the translation, that will clear the water.

Which is why it's so important that we, as we are "dumber" than our ancestors,

Agreed.

we MUST apply our minds, and strive to gain a deeper understanding of what the Bible actually says, rather than rely on poor or even biased translations/interpretations. If we don't, then by continuing to rely on "dumbed down" versions of the Bible, we will lose the original meaning of what is said, which results in poor doctrine and potentially people ultimately rejecting God based on our poor understanding of what is said.

gobbledygook, as you again trash the scholars that can actually read Hebrew and Greek.

I prefer using the NKJV because, even though it isn't perfect (it does have a few passages that are translated incorrectly, and others that the translation could be improved), it is the closest to the original languages in terms of what is meant by what is said, while still retaining an almost word-for-word translation.

Your preference in bibles is not on topic. And you state facts that are now where in evidence and are highly subjective.

The translation you used above, while it may be easier to understand for some, is a very poor translation, if it can even be called that, more of an interpretation than a translation, and because of that, it misleads the reader to think that light always existed (the CEV does not mention "existence," only "activation") and it misled YOU to believe that there was an argument to be made regarding light shining.

Again, how is easier bad? That is nonsensical and again, you make statements that are not proven, "very poor translation? Quote your source for that.

There is no verb "shine" in Genesis 1.

The verb used (twice) in verse 3 is "hayah," which means "to exist."

Translated literally, the verse reads:

"[And said] [God,] [let there be] [light,] [and there was] [light.]"

אָמַר אֱלהִים הָיָה אוֹר הָיָה אוֹר​

In other words: God commanded light to exist, and so it existed.

But we know light existed before as the waters were deep, quick mudding the waters, it adds nothing to the debate.

There is no figure of speech in that verse.

Thus, because your premise is false, your following argument is moot.

What premise is false, state it clear as well as you proof that is indeed false.

God actually, literally, created light, and that action is recorded in Genesis 1:3.



They're certainly not as bad as the CEV interpretation, though I question the ERV's interpretation of the second half of the verse, because "began to shine" implied that light was already in existence and just wasn't shining, where at least with the CEB and MSG versions, light "appeared" which can mean it wasn't there to begin with, which is in line with what the verse actually says.



I wouldn't use any of them to teach my children (if I had any) the Bible, but I wouldn't be against other people using them

As for the second half of that question, I assert that the only reason you're illiterate when it comes to the Bible is that you are lazy in applying your mind, and you simply lack the motivation to strive to understand the Bible.

LOL, ad hominem anyone... so yeah you got me...

To reference Paul's analogy, forget the meat of God's word, you're lactose intolerant, and can't even handle the milk!

Muddy waters when you don't have a good argument.

It's a moot question, because "shine" isn't even in the verse.

The scholars that did the translation would disagree.

Wrong, simply because there can be heat without light, in a universe where light has yet to be created (as I point out below).

Agreed there can't be heat and light are mutually inclusive. And that is why light doesn't always shine.

Thus, inferring light where there is no mention of light, and even in direct contradiction to the context of light being created AFTER the creation of the planet Earth, because of an a priori belief which came about as a result of a poor interpretation of what Scripture says, not only leads one to believe that the Bible says things that it does not actually say, but is EXTREMELY dangerous because it opens the door for false beliefs to be shoehorned into scripture that does not actually support such beliefs, such as evolution, for example.

"extremely dangerous" LOL so, now it is extremely dangerous to think differently than you? Do work for twitter by any chance. LOL

Also, while "invisible" light was not discovered until later, "light" itself encompasses ALL light, visible and invisible to humans. Lets not forget that some animals do in fact see beyond the "visible" (to humans) spectrum of light.

Mudding the waters again.

This is what I mean poor interpretations leading one to believe things that are not only not supported by scripture, but also beliefs that are simply false on their face.

Redundant,

Are you seriously asserting that God cannot "see" the entire spectrum of light? I have "see" in quotations, because God doesn't have literal eyes like we do, since He is spirit (barring Jesus' perfected human body, of course, but that came later...).

Well, He can when He wants to, are you saying you can force God to see things He doesn't want to see?

You would have a point, if it weren't for the fact that we're talking about God creating matter and energy, which cannot be explained by physics, because the laws of physics state that matter nor energy cannot be created or destroyed, only converted from one to the other.

Mudding the waters, has nothing to do with making a distinction between light and shine.

In addition to that, your argument assumes that light already exists, which, prior to verse 3, it does not, as God commanded it to exist in verse 3, and so it existed, in verse 3, and not prior to verse 3.

asked and answered

Or are you asserting that there is a contradiction in the Bible?

asserts things not said.

I assure you, there is no contradiction between God creating (miraculously) matter (and thus energy) first, and then creating (again, miraculously) light after creating matter to be the output of the movement of that matter.

agreed.

Verses 1-5 show God setting up the laws of physics. Your argument assumes your conclusion that light existed before God created light in verse 3. This is a logical fallacy.

State the logical fallacy just don't assert it.

Talk about tortured reasoning, indeed. You have light existing before it was created by God, because you assume that the laws of physics apply to God.creating matter/energy and light. Such is irrational, and contrary to scripture.

Not true and was never stated as you assert.

Scripture states that God created the universe and matter/energy, He made the earth which had a single ocean of liquid water on the surface, and then He created light. IN. THAT. ORDER. To claim otherwise is to contradict scripture.

Water has temperature and therefore is emitting light.

I realize this post was not directed at me, but here I will respond as if it were:

It's painful for me to read what you say, because it's WRONG, because it's based on a convoluted interpretation of scripture that doesn't align with what scripture actually says

There is nothing inherently and or on its face "convoluted" about separating light and shine.

Except that it's not possible, because the very scripture you cite doesn't allow it to be so.



Duh, because He just created it, and was examining what He created, and was pleased by what He created.



More going beyond the text to say things that are not explicitly stated in scripture.

In other words: Stop making stuff up!



This is flatly false.

See above.

God commanded light to exist, and then it existed. Which necessarily implies that light did not exist prior to Him saying "let there be light," and then DID exist AFTER He said "let there be light."



Supra.



Funny how you jump to the KJV to make your point.



You would have a point if you completely ignore the original language of Genesis 1...

However, the Hebrew word (yes, it's only one word) that we translate as the phrase "let there be" is the verb that means "to exist," and the first time it is used, it's as an imperfect jussive, which is just another way of saying that it's functioning as an imperative, a command.

In other words, translated woodenly literally, the first half of that verse reads:

"And said God "Exist, light."

He's literally commanding light to exist.

The second time the same verb is used in the verse, it's narrative, "Thus light existed."

Nowhere in that verse is God telling light (which you assume already existed) to "shine." The Hebrew word for "shine" is a completely different word, and the first time it's used is in Numbers 6:25.



The point that ffreeloader was making (as far as I'm concerned) is that the CEV is a terrible translation to use for serious Bible study.



Again, as I said above, there is no figure of speech in verse 3.

If you continue to assert that there is, then you need to explain what the figure of speech is, and also what it means, though, that's kind of impossible, considering that actions are not figures of speech...



You are certainly correct that words can and do change their meanings over time. However, the onus is on you, since you seem to be making the assertion that the meaning of the words in Genesis 1 have changed, to A) indicate which words have had their meanings changed, B) explain what the words originally meant, and C) explain what the words mean now.

I assert, on the other hand, that the words in the Bible have largely retained their meaning throughout the millennia, at least as far as the Hebrew (and by extension, the Greek) is concerned, and that the CEV (among others) is just a terrible interpretation (forget translation) of what was originally said by Moses and the other human authors of the Bible. My evidence is that there are plenty of dictionaries and concordances that give the definitions of the words in the Bible, such as Strong's Concordance, that serve as a record of their usage, and even modern greek is somewhat of a different language (for lack of a better term) than is KOINE Greek, which is the language used in the New Testament, yet we still retain the knowledge of what the words in KOINE mean, despite the fact that if you try to translate KOINE Greek using Google Translate set to "Greek," you'll end up with a jumbled mess (though this might just be Google Translate being Google Translate...).

In the same way, ancient Hebrew is different than modern Hebrew, but that doesn't mean that we use the modern Hebrew meanings for words when reading ancient Hebrew (nor the modern Greek meanings when reading KOINE, for that matter).

Your argument is bad, and you should feel bad. Do better.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Your suggestion that the scholars that translated CEV, wanted to make my point about separating the light from shine, is bizarre.

No.

If your saying the scholars are "butchering" the translation, correct? Again Bizarre.

If you compare their translation with the Hebrew texts, you might understand why I said that.

How is separating light from shine in anyway simpler. It is more detailed,

Changing the words to make it more detailed is called adding to scripture, something scripture prohibits.

which sounds good to me.

Your opinions are irrelevant here.

Detail is always enlighten.

What?

If your are going to bring in Hebrew and Greek, . . . then sight the errors in the translation, that will clear the water.

Strong's h216 - Lexical: אוֹר - Transliteration: or - Part of Speech: Noun Feminine - Phonetic Spelling: ore - Definition: a light. - Origin: From 'owr; illumination or (concrete) luminary (in every sense, including lightning, happiness, etc.). - Usage: bright, clear, + day, light (-ning), morning, sun. - Translated as (count): light (28), the light (18), and the light (6), for light (5), a light (4), in the light (4), Your light (4), as the light (3), Of light (3), to light (3), as a light to (2), for a light (2), His light (2), their light (2), With the light (2), an light (1), and a light (1), and as for the light (1), and He has given light (1), and light (1), And like the light (1), and your light (1), as a light (1), at light (1), at the light (1), bright (1), broad (1), by His light (1), dawned (1), from light (1), her light (1), His bright (1), His lightning (1), in Your light (1), it is daylight (1), it was light (1), its light (1), lightning (1), lights (1), like sun (1), like the light (1), morning (1), my light (1), shall be light (1), the sun (1), they had] light (1), to the light (1), to your light (1), with a light (1).

Morphology: N-CSPart of Speech: - N: Noun Grammatical Categories: - Gender C: Common - Number S: Singular

To reiterate: There is NO VERB "to shine" in the passage as you have claimed.

. . . in an attempt to muddy the waters,. . .

There is no muddying of the waters here.

gobbledygook,

Saying it doesn't make it so.

as you again trash the scholars that can actually read Hebrew and Greek.

This is an appeal to authority.

Your "scholars" aren't the only ones who can read Hebrew and Greek, nor are they the only ones who have interpreted the passage in question.

Your preference in bibles is not on topic.

It was.

And you state facts that are now where in evidence and are highly subjective.

False.

Again, how is easier bad?

I didn't say it was. Read more carefully please.

That is nonsensical

Appeal to the stone.

and again, you make statements that are not proven,

False.

"very poor translation? Quote your source for that.

Supra.

But we know light existed before as the waters were deep,

Begging the question.

quick mudding the waters, it adds nothing to the debate.

No, that's just your fallacies.

What premise is false, state it clear as well as you proof that is indeed false.

I did, had you actually bothered to read what I said.

LOL, ad hominem anyone...

You called yourself illiterate. I was simply agreeing with you.

"

Muddy waters when you don't have a good argument.

," he says as he ignores the majority of my post.

The scholars that did the translation would disagree.

So what?

Appeal to authority.

Agreed there can't be heat and light are mutually inclusive. And that is why light doesn't always shine.

Supra.

"extremely dangerous" LOL so, now it is extremely dangerous to think differently than you?

Straw man.

Address what I said, please.

Mudding the waters again.

False

Redundant,

You probably don't even know what that means, based on what you were replying to.

Well, He can when He wants to, are you saying you can force God to see things He doesn't want to see?

You would know what I was saying if you would actually read it.

Mudding the waters,

False.

has nothing to do with making a distinction between light and shine.

Light is a noun.
Shine is a verb.

The word used (as shown in the image above) in Hebrew is a noun, not a verb.

asked and answered

It wasn't.

asserts things not said.

It was a question. Are you?

State the logical fallacy just don't assert it.

I did, but you didn't bother to read what I said, so you wouldn't know that.

Not true and was never stated as you assert.

You said:

Temperature produces light. This is the context for, the CEV saying, let the light shine in Gen 1:2 For you to argue against light existing in Gen 1:2 you must say that heat / temperature can exist without inferred light, talk about tortured reasoning... you have won the noble peace prize for torturing reasoning.... if you are saying heat exist without light.

I was responding to that.

Water has temperature and therefore is emitting light.

Repeating what you said won't address my response to it.

There is nothing inherently and or on its face "convoluted" about separating light and shine.

You're the one insisting that the passage says "shine." I'm not.

----------

Now address the rest of my post.

 

[tieman55]

Mixing scripture with science is a fool's errand.

I think Kepler would disagree.

Johann Kepler coined a phrase that became a motto that was adopted by many Christian scientists, indicating that scientific research, ideas and discovery were “thinking God's thoughts after Him.

 

[tieman55]

No.



If you compare their translation with the Hebrew texts, you might understand why I said that.



Changing the words to make it more detailed is called adding to scripture, something scripture prohibits.



Your opinions are irrelevant here.



What?



View attachment 3387

Strong's h216 - Lexical: אוֹר - Transliteration: or - Part of Speech: Noun Feminine - Phonetic Spelling: ore - Definition: a light. - Origin: From 'owr; illumination or (concrete) luminary (in every sense, including lightning, happiness, etc.). - Usage: bright, clear, + day, light (-ning), morning, sun. - Translated as (count): light (28), the light (18), and the light (6), for light (5), a light (4), in the light (4), Your light (4), as the light (3), Of light (3), to light (3), as a light to (2), for a light (2), His light (2), their light (2), With the light (2), an light (1), and a light (1), and as for the light (1), and He has given light (1), and light (1), And like the light (1), and your light (1), as a light (1), at light (1), at the light (1), bright (1), broad (1), by His light (1), dawned (1), from light (1), her light (1), His bright (1), His lightning (1), in Your light (1), it is daylight (1), it was light (1), its light (1), lightning (1), lights (1), like sun (1), like the light (1), morning (1), my light (1), shall be light (1), the sun (1), they had] light (1), to the light (1), to your light (1), with a light (1).

Morphology: N-CSPart of Speech: - N: Noun Grammatical Categories: - Gender C: Common - Number S: Singular

To reiterate: There is NO VERB "to shine" in the passage as you have claimed.



There is no muddying of the waters here.



Saying it doesn't make it so.



This is an appeal to authority.

Your "scholars" aren't the only ones who can read Hebrew and Greek, nor are they the only ones who have interpreted the passage in question.



It was.



False.



I didn't say it was. Read more carefully please.



Appeal to the stone.



False.



Supra.



Begging the question.



No, that's just your fallacies.



I did, had you actually bothered to read what I said.



You called yourself illiterate. I was simply agreeing with you.

"

," he says as he ignores the majority of my post.



So what?

Appeal to authority.



Supra.



Straw man.

Address what I said, please.



False



You probably don't even know what that means, based on what you were replying to.



You would know what I was saying if you would actually read it.



False.



Light is a noun.
Shine is a verb.

The word used (as shown in the image above) in Hebrew is a noun, not a verb.



It wasn't.



It was a question. Are you?



I did, but you didn't bother to read what I said, so you wouldn't know that.



You said:



I was responding to that.



Repeating what you said won't address my response to it.



You're the one insisting that the passage says "shine." I'm not.

----------

Now address the rest of my post.

https://media2.kgov.com/audio/20230915-BEL185.mp3?ZWqp86Xl4aeZWCKQ5_ELBjqArB.NIh8L

Well, Carl Baugh Ph. D has proven my idea that light existed before God said "let there be light"
Min 10 is a good place to start in his describing his discovery. I pray that you will dispense with the insults and just respond is a respectful way. Amen and amen.