Did God make two great lights or did He make the great light two? The 2019 Stack Overflow Developer Survey Results Are In Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara Planned maintenance scheduled April 17/18, 2019 at 00:00UTC (8:00pm US/Eastern)Is “stars” the object of “made” or “rule” in Genesis 1:16?“Under heaven” or “under the heavens” on day three of creation?Does Genesis 1:14 Talk About Astrology?Why is the light in day 1 of creation not an 'it'?Plants created before the sun?Why were the waters divided in Gen 1:6?Are the luminaries of Gen. 1:14-15 the same as the stars of Gen. 1:16?In Psalm 148:4 are the waters above the highest heaven?Genesis 1:5 How can God call the light “Day” when light and day are two different concepts?In Genesis 1:14, how are the “lights in the firmament of heaven…for signs”?

University's motivation for having tenure-track positions

Typeface like Times New Roman but with "tied" percent sign

Why did all the guest students take carriages to the Yule Ball?

Road tyres vs "Street" tyres for charity ride on MTB Tandem

Didn't get enough time to take a Coding Test - what to do now?

Are my PIs rude or am I just being too sensitive?

Hopping to infinity along a string of digits

What are these Gizmos at Izaña Atmospheric Research Center in Spain?

Make it rain characters

Is this wall load bearing? Blueprints and photos attached

Segmentation fault output is suppressed when piping stdin into a function. Why?

First use of “packing” as in carrying a gun

How to grep and cut numbes from a file and sum them

Scientific Reports - Significant Figures

Can the prologue be the backstory of your main character?

Is it ethical to upload a automatically generated paper to a non peer-reviewed site as part of a larger research?

Arduino Pro Micro - switch off LEDs

He got a vote 80% that of Emmanuel Macron’s

What aspect of planet Earth must be changed to prevent the industrial revolution?

Why is the object placed in the middle of the sentence here?

Are spiders unable to hurt humans, especially very small spiders?

How can I protect witches in combat who wear limited clothing?

How to copy the contents of all files with a certain name into a new file?

Can a novice safely splice in wire to lengthen 5V charging cable?



Did God make two great lights or did He make the great light two?



The 2019 Stack Overflow Developer Survey Results Are In
Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara
Planned maintenance scheduled April 17/18, 2019 at 00:00UTC (8:00pm US/Eastern)Is “stars” the object of “made” or “rule” in Genesis 1:16?“Under heaven” or “under the heavens” on day three of creation?Does Genesis 1:14 Talk About Astrology?Why is the light in day 1 of creation not an 'it'?Plants created before the sun?Why were the waters divided in Gen 1:6?Are the luminaries of Gen. 1:14-15 the same as the stars of Gen. 1:16?In Psalm 148:4 are the waters above the highest heaven?Genesis 1:5 How can God call the light “Day” when light and day are two different concepts?In Genesis 1:14, how are the “lights in the firmament of heaven…for signs”?










2
















And God said, “Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night. And let them be for signs and for seasons, and for days and years, and let them be lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light upon the earth.” And it was so. (Genesis 1:14-15) [ESV]




The moon is not a star nor does it emit light; it only reflects the light of the sun (and a small amount of light from the earth, which also originated from the sun).




And God made the two great lights—the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night—and the stars. And God set them in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth, to rule over the day and over the night, and to separate the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good. (Genesis 1:16-18)




Physically, the sun does not change. The amount of light which reaches a specific location on the earth will vary because the earth rotates. A location will move away from direct light from the sun, but the light received (at night) is still from the sun. In other words, even when not directly visible, the sun is still the greater light (in the night sky).



The correct way to explain this system is to say there is one great light which becomes lesser by the combined factors of the earth's rotation and the presence of the moon. Or simply, God made the greater light lesser to rule at night.




וַיַּעַשׂ אֱלֹהִים אֶת־שְׁנֵי הַמְּאֹרֹת הַגְּדֹלִים אֶת־הַמָּאֹור הַגָּדֹל לְמֶמְשֶׁלֶת הַיֹּום וְאֶת־הַמָּאֹור הַקָּטֹן לְמֶמְשֶׁלֶת הַלַּיְלָה וְאֵת הַכֹּוכָבִֽים׃




While "two lights great" is plural, "the light" הַמָּא֤וֹר which rules the day is the identical with "the light" הַמָּא֤וֹר which rules the night.



Can Genesis 1:16 be read to give a more physically correct description of the system God created?










share|improve this question






















  • The sun rules the day, the moon the night. Both give off their own light. Fun fact: Moonlight is actually colder than darkness. Learn more about God's creation, what world we are truly living in here: gffg.info/Jesus/FlatEarth.html

    – www.gffg.info
    7 hours ago











  • @www.gffg.info The moon is a rock. It has no light of its own. The Bible does correctly distinguish it as "light" and not a star but your "scientific" claims damage the credibility of the word of God.

    – Revelation Lad
    6 hours ago











  • Have you ever been to the moon? Does the Bible say it is a rock? We don't know, nobody has ever been to the moon. And the moon most definitely does emit it's own light. You cant believe what the heathen world teaches concerning these things but look to the word of God. People around the world have been deceived to believe that we are on a ball in "space" spinning at a thousand miles per hour floating around a massive sun in a universe so big it goes on infinitely. The ancient Hebrews knew what the world was, look up the Ancient Hebrew Conception of the world. This is all proven in...

    – www.gffg.info
    6 hours ago











  • this video: m.youtube.com/watch?v=hmBRgqRrLyM And what claims of mine damage the credibility of the word of God?

    – www.gffg.info
    6 hours ago












  • @www.gffg.info All of them?

    – Revelation Lad
    6 hours ago















2
















And God said, “Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night. And let them be for signs and for seasons, and for days and years, and let them be lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light upon the earth.” And it was so. (Genesis 1:14-15) [ESV]




The moon is not a star nor does it emit light; it only reflects the light of the sun (and a small amount of light from the earth, which also originated from the sun).




And God made the two great lights—the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night—and the stars. And God set them in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth, to rule over the day and over the night, and to separate the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good. (Genesis 1:16-18)




Physically, the sun does not change. The amount of light which reaches a specific location on the earth will vary because the earth rotates. A location will move away from direct light from the sun, but the light received (at night) is still from the sun. In other words, even when not directly visible, the sun is still the greater light (in the night sky).



The correct way to explain this system is to say there is one great light which becomes lesser by the combined factors of the earth's rotation and the presence of the moon. Or simply, God made the greater light lesser to rule at night.




וַיַּעַשׂ אֱלֹהִים אֶת־שְׁנֵי הַמְּאֹרֹת הַגְּדֹלִים אֶת־הַמָּאֹור הַגָּדֹל לְמֶמְשֶׁלֶת הַיֹּום וְאֶת־הַמָּאֹור הַקָּטֹן לְמֶמְשֶׁלֶת הַלַּיְלָה וְאֵת הַכֹּוכָבִֽים׃




While "two lights great" is plural, "the light" הַמָּא֤וֹר which rules the day is the identical with "the light" הַמָּא֤וֹר which rules the night.



Can Genesis 1:16 be read to give a more physically correct description of the system God created?










share|improve this question






















  • The sun rules the day, the moon the night. Both give off their own light. Fun fact: Moonlight is actually colder than darkness. Learn more about God's creation, what world we are truly living in here: gffg.info/Jesus/FlatEarth.html

    – www.gffg.info
    7 hours ago











  • @www.gffg.info The moon is a rock. It has no light of its own. The Bible does correctly distinguish it as "light" and not a star but your "scientific" claims damage the credibility of the word of God.

    – Revelation Lad
    6 hours ago











  • Have you ever been to the moon? Does the Bible say it is a rock? We don't know, nobody has ever been to the moon. And the moon most definitely does emit it's own light. You cant believe what the heathen world teaches concerning these things but look to the word of God. People around the world have been deceived to believe that we are on a ball in "space" spinning at a thousand miles per hour floating around a massive sun in a universe so big it goes on infinitely. The ancient Hebrews knew what the world was, look up the Ancient Hebrew Conception of the world. This is all proven in...

    – www.gffg.info
    6 hours ago











  • this video: m.youtube.com/watch?v=hmBRgqRrLyM And what claims of mine damage the credibility of the word of God?

    – www.gffg.info
    6 hours ago












  • @www.gffg.info All of them?

    – Revelation Lad
    6 hours ago













2












2








2









And God said, “Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night. And let them be for signs and for seasons, and for days and years, and let them be lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light upon the earth.” And it was so. (Genesis 1:14-15) [ESV]




The moon is not a star nor does it emit light; it only reflects the light of the sun (and a small amount of light from the earth, which also originated from the sun).




And God made the two great lights—the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night—and the stars. And God set them in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth, to rule over the day and over the night, and to separate the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good. (Genesis 1:16-18)




Physically, the sun does not change. The amount of light which reaches a specific location on the earth will vary because the earth rotates. A location will move away from direct light from the sun, but the light received (at night) is still from the sun. In other words, even when not directly visible, the sun is still the greater light (in the night sky).



The correct way to explain this system is to say there is one great light which becomes lesser by the combined factors of the earth's rotation and the presence of the moon. Or simply, God made the greater light lesser to rule at night.




וַיַּעַשׂ אֱלֹהִים אֶת־שְׁנֵי הַמְּאֹרֹת הַגְּדֹלִים אֶת־הַמָּאֹור הַגָּדֹל לְמֶמְשֶׁלֶת הַיֹּום וְאֶת־הַמָּאֹור הַקָּטֹן לְמֶמְשֶׁלֶת הַלַּיְלָה וְאֵת הַכֹּוכָבִֽים׃




While "two lights great" is plural, "the light" הַמָּא֤וֹר which rules the day is the identical with "the light" הַמָּא֤וֹר which rules the night.



Can Genesis 1:16 be read to give a more physically correct description of the system God created?










share|improve this question















And God said, “Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night. And let them be for signs and for seasons, and for days and years, and let them be lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light upon the earth.” And it was so. (Genesis 1:14-15) [ESV]




The moon is not a star nor does it emit light; it only reflects the light of the sun (and a small amount of light from the earth, which also originated from the sun).




And God made the two great lights—the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night—and the stars. And God set them in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth, to rule over the day and over the night, and to separate the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good. (Genesis 1:16-18)




Physically, the sun does not change. The amount of light which reaches a specific location on the earth will vary because the earth rotates. A location will move away from direct light from the sun, but the light received (at night) is still from the sun. In other words, even when not directly visible, the sun is still the greater light (in the night sky).



The correct way to explain this system is to say there is one great light which becomes lesser by the combined factors of the earth's rotation and the presence of the moon. Or simply, God made the greater light lesser to rule at night.




וַיַּעַשׂ אֱלֹהִים אֶת־שְׁנֵי הַמְּאֹרֹת הַגְּדֹלִים אֶת־הַמָּאֹור הַגָּדֹל לְמֶמְשֶׁלֶת הַיֹּום וְאֶת־הַמָּאֹור הַקָּטֹן לְמֶמְשֶׁלֶת הַלַּיְלָה וְאֵת הַכֹּוכָבִֽים׃




While "two lights great" is plural, "the light" הַמָּא֤וֹר which rules the day is the identical with "the light" הַמָּא֤וֹר which rules the night.



Can Genesis 1:16 be read to give a more physically correct description of the system God created?







hebrew genesis






share|improve this question













share|improve this question











share|improve this question




share|improve this question










asked 7 hours ago









Revelation LadRevelation Lad

3,2112944




3,2112944












  • The sun rules the day, the moon the night. Both give off their own light. Fun fact: Moonlight is actually colder than darkness. Learn more about God's creation, what world we are truly living in here: gffg.info/Jesus/FlatEarth.html

    – www.gffg.info
    7 hours ago











  • @www.gffg.info The moon is a rock. It has no light of its own. The Bible does correctly distinguish it as "light" and not a star but your "scientific" claims damage the credibility of the word of God.

    – Revelation Lad
    6 hours ago











  • Have you ever been to the moon? Does the Bible say it is a rock? We don't know, nobody has ever been to the moon. And the moon most definitely does emit it's own light. You cant believe what the heathen world teaches concerning these things but look to the word of God. People around the world have been deceived to believe that we are on a ball in "space" spinning at a thousand miles per hour floating around a massive sun in a universe so big it goes on infinitely. The ancient Hebrews knew what the world was, look up the Ancient Hebrew Conception of the world. This is all proven in...

    – www.gffg.info
    6 hours ago











  • this video: m.youtube.com/watch?v=hmBRgqRrLyM And what claims of mine damage the credibility of the word of God?

    – www.gffg.info
    6 hours ago












  • @www.gffg.info All of them?

    – Revelation Lad
    6 hours ago

















  • The sun rules the day, the moon the night. Both give off their own light. Fun fact: Moonlight is actually colder than darkness. Learn more about God's creation, what world we are truly living in here: gffg.info/Jesus/FlatEarth.html

    – www.gffg.info
    7 hours ago











  • @www.gffg.info The moon is a rock. It has no light of its own. The Bible does correctly distinguish it as "light" and not a star but your "scientific" claims damage the credibility of the word of God.

    – Revelation Lad
    6 hours ago











  • Have you ever been to the moon? Does the Bible say it is a rock? We don't know, nobody has ever been to the moon. And the moon most definitely does emit it's own light. You cant believe what the heathen world teaches concerning these things but look to the word of God. People around the world have been deceived to believe that we are on a ball in "space" spinning at a thousand miles per hour floating around a massive sun in a universe so big it goes on infinitely. The ancient Hebrews knew what the world was, look up the Ancient Hebrew Conception of the world. This is all proven in...

    – www.gffg.info
    6 hours ago











  • this video: m.youtube.com/watch?v=hmBRgqRrLyM And what claims of mine damage the credibility of the word of God?

    – www.gffg.info
    6 hours ago












  • @www.gffg.info All of them?

    – Revelation Lad
    6 hours ago
















The sun rules the day, the moon the night. Both give off their own light. Fun fact: Moonlight is actually colder than darkness. Learn more about God's creation, what world we are truly living in here: gffg.info/Jesus/FlatEarth.html

– www.gffg.info
7 hours ago





The sun rules the day, the moon the night. Both give off their own light. Fun fact: Moonlight is actually colder than darkness. Learn more about God's creation, what world we are truly living in here: gffg.info/Jesus/FlatEarth.html

– www.gffg.info
7 hours ago













@www.gffg.info The moon is a rock. It has no light of its own. The Bible does correctly distinguish it as "light" and not a star but your "scientific" claims damage the credibility of the word of God.

– Revelation Lad
6 hours ago





@www.gffg.info The moon is a rock. It has no light of its own. The Bible does correctly distinguish it as "light" and not a star but your "scientific" claims damage the credibility of the word of God.

– Revelation Lad
6 hours ago













Have you ever been to the moon? Does the Bible say it is a rock? We don't know, nobody has ever been to the moon. And the moon most definitely does emit it's own light. You cant believe what the heathen world teaches concerning these things but look to the word of God. People around the world have been deceived to believe that we are on a ball in "space" spinning at a thousand miles per hour floating around a massive sun in a universe so big it goes on infinitely. The ancient Hebrews knew what the world was, look up the Ancient Hebrew Conception of the world. This is all proven in...

– www.gffg.info
6 hours ago





Have you ever been to the moon? Does the Bible say it is a rock? We don't know, nobody has ever been to the moon. And the moon most definitely does emit it's own light. You cant believe what the heathen world teaches concerning these things but look to the word of God. People around the world have been deceived to believe that we are on a ball in "space" spinning at a thousand miles per hour floating around a massive sun in a universe so big it goes on infinitely. The ancient Hebrews knew what the world was, look up the Ancient Hebrew Conception of the world. This is all proven in...

– www.gffg.info
6 hours ago













this video: m.youtube.com/watch?v=hmBRgqRrLyM And what claims of mine damage the credibility of the word of God?

– www.gffg.info
6 hours ago






this video: m.youtube.com/watch?v=hmBRgqRrLyM And what claims of mine damage the credibility of the word of God?

– www.gffg.info
6 hours ago














@www.gffg.info All of them?

– Revelation Lad
6 hours ago





@www.gffg.info All of them?

– Revelation Lad
6 hours ago










4 Answers
4






active

oldest

votes


















2














The answer is simply "no", for at least two reasons.



The first reason is that there is no indication that any Biblical passage is intended to teach a technical, scientific or even historical truth. The majority of the Bible presents the religious and political viewpoints of its various authors and redactors relative to competing viewpoints at the time of their writing. These authors lived and wrote in a time before what we now call "science". Furthermore, science doesn't purport to be true or "the Truth", science only purports to providing the best current understanding of natural phenomena. Because of this mismatch in purposes it is an exercise in futility to try to back-read science into the ancient world and into the Bible in particular.



The second reason is that the grammar of the verse does not support such a reading. The main verse in question is Genesis 1:16, the MT of which is:




וַיַּ֣עַשׂ אֱלֹהִ֔ים אֶת־שְׁנֵ֥י הַמְּאֹרֹ֖ת הַגְּדֹלִ֑ים אֶת־הַמָּא֤וֹר הַגָּדֹל֙ לְמֶמְשֶׁ֣לֶת הַיּ֔וֹם וְאֶת־הַמָּא֤וֹר הַקָּטֹן֙ לְמֶמְשֶׁ֣לֶת הַלַּ֔יְלָה וְאֵ֖ת הַכּוֹכָבִֽים




The first grammatical problem is that the word מאור (ma'or) which appears three time in the verse is not the same as the word אור (or), meaning "light" as in Genesis 1:3. The word מאור in Genesis 1:16 has a mem (מ) prefix, meaning something that gives light, a source of illumination rather than light itself. This distinction is critical to correct understanding of the verse but is not apparent in any of the main English translations because in English there is no distinction between "light" meaning light itself and "a light" meaning a lamp or source of illumination. Only Young's Literal Translation comes close to providing this distinction:




And God maketh the two great luminaries, the great luminary for the rule of the day, and the small luminary -- and the stars -- for the rule of the night.




The second grammatical problem is the form of the verse, which is




God made two: this one and that one




This is a common form in the OT, for example, Exodus 29:38-39 (KJV):




Now this is that which thou shalt offer upon the altar; two lambs of the first year day by day continually. The one lamb thou shalt offer in the morning; and the other lamb thou shalt offer at even:




No one would suggest that this form indicates that the two lambs (or two sources of light) could be identical.






share|improve this answer

























  • About your point about science and its 'claims' (where we to personify the endeavor as a whole): doesn't "best" imply an objective standard?

    – Sola Gratia
    1 hour ago


















2














Quite clearly, the "lights" refer to light sources rather than more specifically light emitters (over and against reflectors—whereas both can be called emitters). The moon is a source of light for the earth, and thus a light source, even if a secondary one. It's also fitting that the maidservant of the sun should emit less light during "the darkness" which is separated from "the light."



Also, we don't expect people today to say, "I awoke at the time when the earth's rotation is such that it gives the impression that the sun is rising in the sky." We just say "sunrise." The Bible may use the same kind of language—and does.






share|improve this answer























  • I think that may be called "phenomenally" as in "as things appear". IE: while not scientifically accurate the words describe things "as they would have appeared to the ancients" or something to that effect. Or I may have dreamed that up, dunno!

    – Ruminator
    1 hour ago












  • Even in science, relativity alone supports the truth that the sun rises from our perspective. In fact, relativity even allows us to be the 'center' of the universe, i.e. that the sun rotates around the earth. Boom.

    – Sola Gratia
    1 hour ago











  • And up is down, down is up? By the way, when you mess with relativity you also mess with time (a day is a rotation, etc).

    – Ruminator
    44 mins ago












  • Any direction is any direction you want.

    – Sola Gratia
    43 mins ago











  • The earth is flat and we are indeed at the center of God's creation. The Ancient Hebrews knew exactly what God's creation looked like. See: gffg.info/Jesus/FlatEarth.html

    – www.gffg.info
    14 mins ago



















0














The first day of creation the being created is the law of righteousness ,Psalms 119,also Proverbs 6:23; the darkness is unlawful life before God Most High! The second time light is created is the stars like our sun also the moon, the fourth day.






share|improve this answer








New contributor




Dug is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.




















  • biblehub.com/commentaries/proverbs/6-23.htm

    – www.gffg.info
    6 hours ago











  • @www.gffg.info and Dug I'm sure there are symbolic aspects, or rather, I'm certain the God who created, created things which embody truth beyond the natural. But it is all pointless unless the natural is created in a way that does embody that truth. Otherwise, there is no truth or people who may learn of it.

    – Revelation Lad
    6 hours ago











  • I posted that so Dug can get a proper interpretation of the verse

    – www.gffg.info
    6 hours ago


















-1














From my own aspect on earth, I see two luminaries. I may, or may not, know the physics of the two objects, but what I can see is that one light is greater and one light is lesser. To me, from other places in scripture (such as, 'the sun of righteousness shall arise', Malachi 4:2) I understand that Jesus Christ is the greater light that shines upon the world of men.



In him was life and the life was the light of men, John 1 : 4.



The lesser light that ruled the night is the light of the law, the knowledge of good and evil, which law was a schoolmaster to bring me to Christ, the true light.



No, I do not think that Genesis 1:16 can be read to give a clearer understanding of the physics involved because that is not what the first chapter of Genesis is about - a technical explanation of heavenly bodies.



Genesis chapter one is a profoundly spiritual expression of what creation is, in and of itself. And a profound revelation of the new creation, for those who have eyes to see it.






share|improve this answer























  • I dont agree with the theory of Genesis chapter one being not a literal detailed account of the first 7 days of creation. Though I do believe God could have outlined ahead of time His overall plans for the world in the events that happened in the first 7 days (the 7 days 7000 years theory).

    – www.gffg.info
    2 hours ago











Your Answer







StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
return StackExchange.using("virtualKeyboard", function ()
StackExchange.virtualKeyboard.init("hebrew");
);
, "virtkeyb");

StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "320"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);

else
createEditor();

);

function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);



);













draft saved

draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fhermeneutics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f40096%2fdid-god-make-two-great-lights-or-did-he-make-the-great-light-two%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown

























4 Answers
4






active

oldest

votes








4 Answers
4






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes









2














The answer is simply "no", for at least two reasons.



The first reason is that there is no indication that any Biblical passage is intended to teach a technical, scientific or even historical truth. The majority of the Bible presents the religious and political viewpoints of its various authors and redactors relative to competing viewpoints at the time of their writing. These authors lived and wrote in a time before what we now call "science". Furthermore, science doesn't purport to be true or "the Truth", science only purports to providing the best current understanding of natural phenomena. Because of this mismatch in purposes it is an exercise in futility to try to back-read science into the ancient world and into the Bible in particular.



The second reason is that the grammar of the verse does not support such a reading. The main verse in question is Genesis 1:16, the MT of which is:




וַיַּ֣עַשׂ אֱלֹהִ֔ים אֶת־שְׁנֵ֥י הַמְּאֹרֹ֖ת הַגְּדֹלִ֑ים אֶת־הַמָּא֤וֹר הַגָּדֹל֙ לְמֶמְשֶׁ֣לֶת הַיּ֔וֹם וְאֶת־הַמָּא֤וֹר הַקָּטֹן֙ לְמֶמְשֶׁ֣לֶת הַלַּ֔יְלָה וְאֵ֖ת הַכּוֹכָבִֽים




The first grammatical problem is that the word מאור (ma'or) which appears three time in the verse is not the same as the word אור (or), meaning "light" as in Genesis 1:3. The word מאור in Genesis 1:16 has a mem (מ) prefix, meaning something that gives light, a source of illumination rather than light itself. This distinction is critical to correct understanding of the verse but is not apparent in any of the main English translations because in English there is no distinction between "light" meaning light itself and "a light" meaning a lamp or source of illumination. Only Young's Literal Translation comes close to providing this distinction:




And God maketh the two great luminaries, the great luminary for the rule of the day, and the small luminary -- and the stars -- for the rule of the night.




The second grammatical problem is the form of the verse, which is




God made two: this one and that one




This is a common form in the OT, for example, Exodus 29:38-39 (KJV):




Now this is that which thou shalt offer upon the altar; two lambs of the first year day by day continually. The one lamb thou shalt offer in the morning; and the other lamb thou shalt offer at even:




No one would suggest that this form indicates that the two lambs (or two sources of light) could be identical.






share|improve this answer

























  • About your point about science and its 'claims' (where we to personify the endeavor as a whole): doesn't "best" imply an objective standard?

    – Sola Gratia
    1 hour ago















2














The answer is simply "no", for at least two reasons.



The first reason is that there is no indication that any Biblical passage is intended to teach a technical, scientific or even historical truth. The majority of the Bible presents the religious and political viewpoints of its various authors and redactors relative to competing viewpoints at the time of their writing. These authors lived and wrote in a time before what we now call "science". Furthermore, science doesn't purport to be true or "the Truth", science only purports to providing the best current understanding of natural phenomena. Because of this mismatch in purposes it is an exercise in futility to try to back-read science into the ancient world and into the Bible in particular.



The second reason is that the grammar of the verse does not support such a reading. The main verse in question is Genesis 1:16, the MT of which is:




וַיַּ֣עַשׂ אֱלֹהִ֔ים אֶת־שְׁנֵ֥י הַמְּאֹרֹ֖ת הַגְּדֹלִ֑ים אֶת־הַמָּא֤וֹר הַגָּדֹל֙ לְמֶמְשֶׁ֣לֶת הַיּ֔וֹם וְאֶת־הַמָּא֤וֹר הַקָּטֹן֙ לְמֶמְשֶׁ֣לֶת הַלַּ֔יְלָה וְאֵ֖ת הַכּוֹכָבִֽים




The first grammatical problem is that the word מאור (ma'or) which appears three time in the verse is not the same as the word אור (or), meaning "light" as in Genesis 1:3. The word מאור in Genesis 1:16 has a mem (מ) prefix, meaning something that gives light, a source of illumination rather than light itself. This distinction is critical to correct understanding of the verse but is not apparent in any of the main English translations because in English there is no distinction between "light" meaning light itself and "a light" meaning a lamp or source of illumination. Only Young's Literal Translation comes close to providing this distinction:




And God maketh the two great luminaries, the great luminary for the rule of the day, and the small luminary -- and the stars -- for the rule of the night.




The second grammatical problem is the form of the verse, which is




God made two: this one and that one




This is a common form in the OT, for example, Exodus 29:38-39 (KJV):




Now this is that which thou shalt offer upon the altar; two lambs of the first year day by day continually. The one lamb thou shalt offer in the morning; and the other lamb thou shalt offer at even:




No one would suggest that this form indicates that the two lambs (or two sources of light) could be identical.






share|improve this answer

























  • About your point about science and its 'claims' (where we to personify the endeavor as a whole): doesn't "best" imply an objective standard?

    – Sola Gratia
    1 hour ago













2












2








2







The answer is simply "no", for at least two reasons.



The first reason is that there is no indication that any Biblical passage is intended to teach a technical, scientific or even historical truth. The majority of the Bible presents the religious and political viewpoints of its various authors and redactors relative to competing viewpoints at the time of their writing. These authors lived and wrote in a time before what we now call "science". Furthermore, science doesn't purport to be true or "the Truth", science only purports to providing the best current understanding of natural phenomena. Because of this mismatch in purposes it is an exercise in futility to try to back-read science into the ancient world and into the Bible in particular.



The second reason is that the grammar of the verse does not support such a reading. The main verse in question is Genesis 1:16, the MT of which is:




וַיַּ֣עַשׂ אֱלֹהִ֔ים אֶת־שְׁנֵ֥י הַמְּאֹרֹ֖ת הַגְּדֹלִ֑ים אֶת־הַמָּא֤וֹר הַגָּדֹל֙ לְמֶמְשֶׁ֣לֶת הַיּ֔וֹם וְאֶת־הַמָּא֤וֹר הַקָּטֹן֙ לְמֶמְשֶׁ֣לֶת הַלַּ֔יְלָה וְאֵ֖ת הַכּוֹכָבִֽים




The first grammatical problem is that the word מאור (ma'or) which appears three time in the verse is not the same as the word אור (or), meaning "light" as in Genesis 1:3. The word מאור in Genesis 1:16 has a mem (מ) prefix, meaning something that gives light, a source of illumination rather than light itself. This distinction is critical to correct understanding of the verse but is not apparent in any of the main English translations because in English there is no distinction between "light" meaning light itself and "a light" meaning a lamp or source of illumination. Only Young's Literal Translation comes close to providing this distinction:




And God maketh the two great luminaries, the great luminary for the rule of the day, and the small luminary -- and the stars -- for the rule of the night.




The second grammatical problem is the form of the verse, which is




God made two: this one and that one




This is a common form in the OT, for example, Exodus 29:38-39 (KJV):




Now this is that which thou shalt offer upon the altar; two lambs of the first year day by day continually. The one lamb thou shalt offer in the morning; and the other lamb thou shalt offer at even:




No one would suggest that this form indicates that the two lambs (or two sources of light) could be identical.






share|improve this answer















The answer is simply "no", for at least two reasons.



The first reason is that there is no indication that any Biblical passage is intended to teach a technical, scientific or even historical truth. The majority of the Bible presents the religious and political viewpoints of its various authors and redactors relative to competing viewpoints at the time of their writing. These authors lived and wrote in a time before what we now call "science". Furthermore, science doesn't purport to be true or "the Truth", science only purports to providing the best current understanding of natural phenomena. Because of this mismatch in purposes it is an exercise in futility to try to back-read science into the ancient world and into the Bible in particular.



The second reason is that the grammar of the verse does not support such a reading. The main verse in question is Genesis 1:16, the MT of which is:




וַיַּ֣עַשׂ אֱלֹהִ֔ים אֶת־שְׁנֵ֥י הַמְּאֹרֹ֖ת הַגְּדֹלִ֑ים אֶת־הַמָּא֤וֹר הַגָּדֹל֙ לְמֶמְשֶׁ֣לֶת הַיּ֔וֹם וְאֶת־הַמָּא֤וֹר הַקָּטֹן֙ לְמֶמְשֶׁ֣לֶת הַלַּ֔יְלָה וְאֵ֖ת הַכּוֹכָבִֽים




The first grammatical problem is that the word מאור (ma'or) which appears three time in the verse is not the same as the word אור (or), meaning "light" as in Genesis 1:3. The word מאור in Genesis 1:16 has a mem (מ) prefix, meaning something that gives light, a source of illumination rather than light itself. This distinction is critical to correct understanding of the verse but is not apparent in any of the main English translations because in English there is no distinction between "light" meaning light itself and "a light" meaning a lamp or source of illumination. Only Young's Literal Translation comes close to providing this distinction:




And God maketh the two great luminaries, the great luminary for the rule of the day, and the small luminary -- and the stars -- for the rule of the night.




The second grammatical problem is the form of the verse, which is




God made two: this one and that one




This is a common form in the OT, for example, Exodus 29:38-39 (KJV):




Now this is that which thou shalt offer upon the altar; two lambs of the first year day by day continually. The one lamb thou shalt offer in the morning; and the other lamb thou shalt offer at even:




No one would suggest that this form indicates that the two lambs (or two sources of light) could be identical.







share|improve this answer














share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer








edited 3 hours ago

























answered 3 hours ago









Abu Munir Ibn IbrahimAbu Munir Ibn Ibrahim

4,966831




4,966831












  • About your point about science and its 'claims' (where we to personify the endeavor as a whole): doesn't "best" imply an objective standard?

    – Sola Gratia
    1 hour ago

















  • About your point about science and its 'claims' (where we to personify the endeavor as a whole): doesn't "best" imply an objective standard?

    – Sola Gratia
    1 hour ago
















About your point about science and its 'claims' (where we to personify the endeavor as a whole): doesn't "best" imply an objective standard?

– Sola Gratia
1 hour ago





About your point about science and its 'claims' (where we to personify the endeavor as a whole): doesn't "best" imply an objective standard?

– Sola Gratia
1 hour ago











2














Quite clearly, the "lights" refer to light sources rather than more specifically light emitters (over and against reflectors—whereas both can be called emitters). The moon is a source of light for the earth, and thus a light source, even if a secondary one. It's also fitting that the maidservant of the sun should emit less light during "the darkness" which is separated from "the light."



Also, we don't expect people today to say, "I awoke at the time when the earth's rotation is such that it gives the impression that the sun is rising in the sky." We just say "sunrise." The Bible may use the same kind of language—and does.






share|improve this answer























  • I think that may be called "phenomenally" as in "as things appear". IE: while not scientifically accurate the words describe things "as they would have appeared to the ancients" or something to that effect. Or I may have dreamed that up, dunno!

    – Ruminator
    1 hour ago












  • Even in science, relativity alone supports the truth that the sun rises from our perspective. In fact, relativity even allows us to be the 'center' of the universe, i.e. that the sun rotates around the earth. Boom.

    – Sola Gratia
    1 hour ago











  • And up is down, down is up? By the way, when you mess with relativity you also mess with time (a day is a rotation, etc).

    – Ruminator
    44 mins ago












  • Any direction is any direction you want.

    – Sola Gratia
    43 mins ago











  • The earth is flat and we are indeed at the center of God's creation. The Ancient Hebrews knew exactly what God's creation looked like. See: gffg.info/Jesus/FlatEarth.html

    – www.gffg.info
    14 mins ago
















2














Quite clearly, the "lights" refer to light sources rather than more specifically light emitters (over and against reflectors—whereas both can be called emitters). The moon is a source of light for the earth, and thus a light source, even if a secondary one. It's also fitting that the maidservant of the sun should emit less light during "the darkness" which is separated from "the light."



Also, we don't expect people today to say, "I awoke at the time when the earth's rotation is such that it gives the impression that the sun is rising in the sky." We just say "sunrise." The Bible may use the same kind of language—and does.






share|improve this answer























  • I think that may be called "phenomenally" as in "as things appear". IE: while not scientifically accurate the words describe things "as they would have appeared to the ancients" or something to that effect. Or I may have dreamed that up, dunno!

    – Ruminator
    1 hour ago












  • Even in science, relativity alone supports the truth that the sun rises from our perspective. In fact, relativity even allows us to be the 'center' of the universe, i.e. that the sun rotates around the earth. Boom.

    – Sola Gratia
    1 hour ago











  • And up is down, down is up? By the way, when you mess with relativity you also mess with time (a day is a rotation, etc).

    – Ruminator
    44 mins ago












  • Any direction is any direction you want.

    – Sola Gratia
    43 mins ago











  • The earth is flat and we are indeed at the center of God's creation. The Ancient Hebrews knew exactly what God's creation looked like. See: gffg.info/Jesus/FlatEarth.html

    – www.gffg.info
    14 mins ago














2












2








2







Quite clearly, the "lights" refer to light sources rather than more specifically light emitters (over and against reflectors—whereas both can be called emitters). The moon is a source of light for the earth, and thus a light source, even if a secondary one. It's also fitting that the maidservant of the sun should emit less light during "the darkness" which is separated from "the light."



Also, we don't expect people today to say, "I awoke at the time when the earth's rotation is such that it gives the impression that the sun is rising in the sky." We just say "sunrise." The Bible may use the same kind of language—and does.






share|improve this answer













Quite clearly, the "lights" refer to light sources rather than more specifically light emitters (over and against reflectors—whereas both can be called emitters). The moon is a source of light for the earth, and thus a light source, even if a secondary one. It's also fitting that the maidservant of the sun should emit less light during "the darkness" which is separated from "the light."



Also, we don't expect people today to say, "I awoke at the time when the earth's rotation is such that it gives the impression that the sun is rising in the sky." We just say "sunrise." The Bible may use the same kind of language—and does.







share|improve this answer












share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer










answered 1 hour ago









Sola GratiaSola Gratia

3,735420




3,735420












  • I think that may be called "phenomenally" as in "as things appear". IE: while not scientifically accurate the words describe things "as they would have appeared to the ancients" or something to that effect. Or I may have dreamed that up, dunno!

    – Ruminator
    1 hour ago












  • Even in science, relativity alone supports the truth that the sun rises from our perspective. In fact, relativity even allows us to be the 'center' of the universe, i.e. that the sun rotates around the earth. Boom.

    – Sola Gratia
    1 hour ago











  • And up is down, down is up? By the way, when you mess with relativity you also mess with time (a day is a rotation, etc).

    – Ruminator
    44 mins ago












  • Any direction is any direction you want.

    – Sola Gratia
    43 mins ago











  • The earth is flat and we are indeed at the center of God's creation. The Ancient Hebrews knew exactly what God's creation looked like. See: gffg.info/Jesus/FlatEarth.html

    – www.gffg.info
    14 mins ago


















  • I think that may be called "phenomenally" as in "as things appear". IE: while not scientifically accurate the words describe things "as they would have appeared to the ancients" or something to that effect. Or I may have dreamed that up, dunno!

    – Ruminator
    1 hour ago












  • Even in science, relativity alone supports the truth that the sun rises from our perspective. In fact, relativity even allows us to be the 'center' of the universe, i.e. that the sun rotates around the earth. Boom.

    – Sola Gratia
    1 hour ago











  • And up is down, down is up? By the way, when you mess with relativity you also mess with time (a day is a rotation, etc).

    – Ruminator
    44 mins ago












  • Any direction is any direction you want.

    – Sola Gratia
    43 mins ago











  • The earth is flat and we are indeed at the center of God's creation. The Ancient Hebrews knew exactly what God's creation looked like. See: gffg.info/Jesus/FlatEarth.html

    – www.gffg.info
    14 mins ago

















I think that may be called "phenomenally" as in "as things appear". IE: while not scientifically accurate the words describe things "as they would have appeared to the ancients" or something to that effect. Or I may have dreamed that up, dunno!

– Ruminator
1 hour ago






I think that may be called "phenomenally" as in "as things appear". IE: while not scientifically accurate the words describe things "as they would have appeared to the ancients" or something to that effect. Or I may have dreamed that up, dunno!

– Ruminator
1 hour ago














Even in science, relativity alone supports the truth that the sun rises from our perspective. In fact, relativity even allows us to be the 'center' of the universe, i.e. that the sun rotates around the earth. Boom.

– Sola Gratia
1 hour ago





Even in science, relativity alone supports the truth that the sun rises from our perspective. In fact, relativity even allows us to be the 'center' of the universe, i.e. that the sun rotates around the earth. Boom.

– Sola Gratia
1 hour ago













And up is down, down is up? By the way, when you mess with relativity you also mess with time (a day is a rotation, etc).

– Ruminator
44 mins ago






And up is down, down is up? By the way, when you mess with relativity you also mess with time (a day is a rotation, etc).

– Ruminator
44 mins ago














Any direction is any direction you want.

– Sola Gratia
43 mins ago





Any direction is any direction you want.

– Sola Gratia
43 mins ago













The earth is flat and we are indeed at the center of God's creation. The Ancient Hebrews knew exactly what God's creation looked like. See: gffg.info/Jesus/FlatEarth.html

– www.gffg.info
14 mins ago






The earth is flat and we are indeed at the center of God's creation. The Ancient Hebrews knew exactly what God's creation looked like. See: gffg.info/Jesus/FlatEarth.html

– www.gffg.info
14 mins ago












0














The first day of creation the being created is the law of righteousness ,Psalms 119,also Proverbs 6:23; the darkness is unlawful life before God Most High! The second time light is created is the stars like our sun also the moon, the fourth day.






share|improve this answer








New contributor




Dug is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.




















  • biblehub.com/commentaries/proverbs/6-23.htm

    – www.gffg.info
    6 hours ago











  • @www.gffg.info and Dug I'm sure there are symbolic aspects, or rather, I'm certain the God who created, created things which embody truth beyond the natural. But it is all pointless unless the natural is created in a way that does embody that truth. Otherwise, there is no truth or people who may learn of it.

    – Revelation Lad
    6 hours ago











  • I posted that so Dug can get a proper interpretation of the verse

    – www.gffg.info
    6 hours ago















0














The first day of creation the being created is the law of righteousness ,Psalms 119,also Proverbs 6:23; the darkness is unlawful life before God Most High! The second time light is created is the stars like our sun also the moon, the fourth day.






share|improve this answer








New contributor




Dug is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.




















  • biblehub.com/commentaries/proverbs/6-23.htm

    – www.gffg.info
    6 hours ago











  • @www.gffg.info and Dug I'm sure there are symbolic aspects, or rather, I'm certain the God who created, created things which embody truth beyond the natural. But it is all pointless unless the natural is created in a way that does embody that truth. Otherwise, there is no truth or people who may learn of it.

    – Revelation Lad
    6 hours ago











  • I posted that so Dug can get a proper interpretation of the verse

    – www.gffg.info
    6 hours ago













0












0








0







The first day of creation the being created is the law of righteousness ,Psalms 119,also Proverbs 6:23; the darkness is unlawful life before God Most High! The second time light is created is the stars like our sun also the moon, the fourth day.






share|improve this answer








New contributor




Dug is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.










The first day of creation the being created is the law of righteousness ,Psalms 119,also Proverbs 6:23; the darkness is unlawful life before God Most High! The second time light is created is the stars like our sun also the moon, the fourth day.







share|improve this answer








New contributor




Dug is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer






New contributor




Dug is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









answered 6 hours ago









DugDug

191




191




New contributor




Dug is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.





New contributor





Dug is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.






Dug is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.












  • biblehub.com/commentaries/proverbs/6-23.htm

    – www.gffg.info
    6 hours ago











  • @www.gffg.info and Dug I'm sure there are symbolic aspects, or rather, I'm certain the God who created, created things which embody truth beyond the natural. But it is all pointless unless the natural is created in a way that does embody that truth. Otherwise, there is no truth or people who may learn of it.

    – Revelation Lad
    6 hours ago











  • I posted that so Dug can get a proper interpretation of the verse

    – www.gffg.info
    6 hours ago

















  • biblehub.com/commentaries/proverbs/6-23.htm

    – www.gffg.info
    6 hours ago











  • @www.gffg.info and Dug I'm sure there are symbolic aspects, or rather, I'm certain the God who created, created things which embody truth beyond the natural. But it is all pointless unless the natural is created in a way that does embody that truth. Otherwise, there is no truth or people who may learn of it.

    – Revelation Lad
    6 hours ago











  • I posted that so Dug can get a proper interpretation of the verse

    – www.gffg.info
    6 hours ago
















biblehub.com/commentaries/proverbs/6-23.htm

– www.gffg.info
6 hours ago





biblehub.com/commentaries/proverbs/6-23.htm

– www.gffg.info
6 hours ago













@www.gffg.info and Dug I'm sure there are symbolic aspects, or rather, I'm certain the God who created, created things which embody truth beyond the natural. But it is all pointless unless the natural is created in a way that does embody that truth. Otherwise, there is no truth or people who may learn of it.

– Revelation Lad
6 hours ago





@www.gffg.info and Dug I'm sure there are symbolic aspects, or rather, I'm certain the God who created, created things which embody truth beyond the natural. But it is all pointless unless the natural is created in a way that does embody that truth. Otherwise, there is no truth or people who may learn of it.

– Revelation Lad
6 hours ago













I posted that so Dug can get a proper interpretation of the verse

– www.gffg.info
6 hours ago





I posted that so Dug can get a proper interpretation of the verse

– www.gffg.info
6 hours ago











-1














From my own aspect on earth, I see two luminaries. I may, or may not, know the physics of the two objects, but what I can see is that one light is greater and one light is lesser. To me, from other places in scripture (such as, 'the sun of righteousness shall arise', Malachi 4:2) I understand that Jesus Christ is the greater light that shines upon the world of men.



In him was life and the life was the light of men, John 1 : 4.



The lesser light that ruled the night is the light of the law, the knowledge of good and evil, which law was a schoolmaster to bring me to Christ, the true light.



No, I do not think that Genesis 1:16 can be read to give a clearer understanding of the physics involved because that is not what the first chapter of Genesis is about - a technical explanation of heavenly bodies.



Genesis chapter one is a profoundly spiritual expression of what creation is, in and of itself. And a profound revelation of the new creation, for those who have eyes to see it.






share|improve this answer























  • I dont agree with the theory of Genesis chapter one being not a literal detailed account of the first 7 days of creation. Though I do believe God could have outlined ahead of time His overall plans for the world in the events that happened in the first 7 days (the 7 days 7000 years theory).

    – www.gffg.info
    2 hours ago















-1














From my own aspect on earth, I see two luminaries. I may, or may not, know the physics of the two objects, but what I can see is that one light is greater and one light is lesser. To me, from other places in scripture (such as, 'the sun of righteousness shall arise', Malachi 4:2) I understand that Jesus Christ is the greater light that shines upon the world of men.



In him was life and the life was the light of men, John 1 : 4.



The lesser light that ruled the night is the light of the law, the knowledge of good and evil, which law was a schoolmaster to bring me to Christ, the true light.



No, I do not think that Genesis 1:16 can be read to give a clearer understanding of the physics involved because that is not what the first chapter of Genesis is about - a technical explanation of heavenly bodies.



Genesis chapter one is a profoundly spiritual expression of what creation is, in and of itself. And a profound revelation of the new creation, for those who have eyes to see it.






share|improve this answer























  • I dont agree with the theory of Genesis chapter one being not a literal detailed account of the first 7 days of creation. Though I do believe God could have outlined ahead of time His overall plans for the world in the events that happened in the first 7 days (the 7 days 7000 years theory).

    – www.gffg.info
    2 hours ago













-1












-1








-1







From my own aspect on earth, I see two luminaries. I may, or may not, know the physics of the two objects, but what I can see is that one light is greater and one light is lesser. To me, from other places in scripture (such as, 'the sun of righteousness shall arise', Malachi 4:2) I understand that Jesus Christ is the greater light that shines upon the world of men.



In him was life and the life was the light of men, John 1 : 4.



The lesser light that ruled the night is the light of the law, the knowledge of good and evil, which law was a schoolmaster to bring me to Christ, the true light.



No, I do not think that Genesis 1:16 can be read to give a clearer understanding of the physics involved because that is not what the first chapter of Genesis is about - a technical explanation of heavenly bodies.



Genesis chapter one is a profoundly spiritual expression of what creation is, in and of itself. And a profound revelation of the new creation, for those who have eyes to see it.






share|improve this answer













From my own aspect on earth, I see two luminaries. I may, or may not, know the physics of the two objects, but what I can see is that one light is greater and one light is lesser. To me, from other places in scripture (such as, 'the sun of righteousness shall arise', Malachi 4:2) I understand that Jesus Christ is the greater light that shines upon the world of men.



In him was life and the life was the light of men, John 1 : 4.



The lesser light that ruled the night is the light of the law, the knowledge of good and evil, which law was a schoolmaster to bring me to Christ, the true light.



No, I do not think that Genesis 1:16 can be read to give a clearer understanding of the physics involved because that is not what the first chapter of Genesis is about - a technical explanation of heavenly bodies.



Genesis chapter one is a profoundly spiritual expression of what creation is, in and of itself. And a profound revelation of the new creation, for those who have eyes to see it.







share|improve this answer












share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer










answered 4 hours ago









Nigel JNigel J

6,3181426




6,3181426












  • I dont agree with the theory of Genesis chapter one being not a literal detailed account of the first 7 days of creation. Though I do believe God could have outlined ahead of time His overall plans for the world in the events that happened in the first 7 days (the 7 days 7000 years theory).

    – www.gffg.info
    2 hours ago

















  • I dont agree with the theory of Genesis chapter one being not a literal detailed account of the first 7 days of creation. Though I do believe God could have outlined ahead of time His overall plans for the world in the events that happened in the first 7 days (the 7 days 7000 years theory).

    – www.gffg.info
    2 hours ago
















I dont agree with the theory of Genesis chapter one being not a literal detailed account of the first 7 days of creation. Though I do believe God could have outlined ahead of time His overall plans for the world in the events that happened in the first 7 days (the 7 days 7000 years theory).

– www.gffg.info
2 hours ago





I dont agree with the theory of Genesis chapter one being not a literal detailed account of the first 7 days of creation. Though I do believe God could have outlined ahead of time His overall plans for the world in the events that happened in the first 7 days (the 7 days 7000 years theory).

– www.gffg.info
2 hours ago

















draft saved

draft discarded
















































Thanks for contributing an answer to Biblical Hermeneutics Stack Exchange!


  • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid …


  • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

  • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fhermeneutics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f40096%2fdid-god-make-two-great-lights-or-did-he-make-the-great-light-two%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown





















































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown

































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown







Popular posts from this blog

What does “fit” mean in this sentence? Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara Planned maintenance scheduled April 17/18, 2019 at 00:00UTC (8:00pm US/Eastern)How does 'jealousy' mean 'suspicion'?What does “not so say” mean?Does “somebody of my caliber” mean the speaker themselves?“accounting for high fasting blood glucose”- help about the meaningWhat does “cloaked by NDA” mean in this context?What does it mean by 'community ownership' in this context?What does “human corroborators” mean in this context?What does “everything but a fire” mean in this context?What does “run” mean here?What does “rabbited” mean/imply in this sentence?

History of India Contents Prehistoric era (until c. 3300 BCE) Bronze Age – "First urbanisation" (c. 3300 – c. 1800 BCE) Climate change, de-urbanisation, and Indo-Aryan migrations (c.1800 – 1500 BCE) Iron Age - Vedic period (c. 1500 – c. 600 BCE) "Second urbanisation" (c. 600 – c. 200 BCE) Classical to early medieval periods (c. 200 BCE – c. 1200 CE) Late medieval period (c. 1200 – 1526 CE) Early modern period (c. 1526–1858 CE) Modern period and independence (after c. 1850 CE) Historiography See also References Further reading External links Navigation menureviewedee[update]The crisisThe Evolution and History of Human Populations in South Asia: Inter-disciplinary Studies in Archaeology, Biological Anthropology, Linguistics and GeneticsThe Ancient Indus: Urbanism, Economy, and Society"Indus River Valley Civilizations"The Ancient Indus: Urbanism, Economy, and Society"India before the British: The Mughal Empire and its Rivals, 1526–1857"Why Europe Grew Rich and Asia Did Not: Global Economic Divergence, 1600–1850Development Centre Studies The World Economy Historical Statistics: Historical StatisticsDeveloping cultures: case studiesEthnic Groups of South Asia and the Pacific: An Encyclopedia: An Encyclopedia"Indian Economy During British Rule""Economic Impact of the British Rule in India | Indian History"The Bone Readers: Science and Politics in Human Origins Research"Out of Africa: new hypotheses and evidence for the dispersal of Homo sapiens along the Indian Ocean rim"10.3109/0301446100363924920334598"Genetic and archaeological perspectives on the initial modern human colonization of southern Asia"2013PNAS..11010699M10.1073/pnas.1306043110369678523754394"Edakkal Caves|Places Around in Wayanad"Protecting megaliths to keep history alive The Hindu daily"Archaeologists rock solid behind Edakkal Cave"The Global Prehistory of Human Migration"Indus Valley 2,000 years older than thought"the original"Stepwells -Cosmology of Subterranean Architecture as seen in Adalaj"A History of Ancient and Early medieval India : from the Stone Age to the 12th century"Stone celts in Harappa"the original"Peoples and languages in pre-islamic Indus valley"the original"The Sindhi language"the originalThe Aryan chromosome"Fluvial landscapes of the Harappan Civilization"2012PNAS..109E1688G10.1073/pnas.1112743109338705422645375"Is River Ghaggar, Saraswati? Geochemical Constraints""An Ancient Civilization, Upended by Climate Change""Huge Ancient Civilization's Collapse Explained"2003GeoRL..30.1425S10.1029/2002GL0168222006QSRv...25.1283M10.1016/j.quascirev.2005.10.0122011QuInt.229..140M10.1016/j.quaint.2009.11.012Climate Change and the Course of Global History: A Rough JourneyA History of Ancient and Early Medieval India: From the Stone Age to the 12th CenturyA History of Ancient and Mediaeval India: From the Stone Age to the 12th CenturyAntennae SwordA History of IndiaA History of IndiaAn Introduction to Hinduism"India: The Late 2nd Millennium and the Reemergence of Urbanism"The Coinage of Ancient IndiaA Sanskrit reader: with vocabulary and notesPedigree: the origins of words from nature"Early Sanskritization. Origins and Development of the Kuru State"10.11588/ejvs.1995.4.823The Sanskrit epics, Part 2The City in South AsiaThe UpanishadsAn Introduction to HinduismReligions of the World, Second Edition: A Comprehensive Encyclopedia of Beliefs and PracticesA History of Ancient and Early Medieval India: From the Stone Age to the 12th CenturyEarly India: From the Origins to AD 1300Republics in ancient Indiapp. 83ff"Magadha Empire""Lumbini Development Trust: Restoring the Lumbini Garden"the originalThe great armies of antiquityarchived"The Achaemenid Persian Empire (550–330 B.C.)""East–West Orientation of Historical Empires"1076-156X"Dinner on the Grand Trunk Road"10.2307/32502263250226"Silappathikaram Tamil Literature"the originalManimekalai – English transliteration of Tamil originalIndian Temple Architecture: Form and Transformation : the Karṇāṭa Drāviḍa Tradition, 7th to 13th CenturiesBuddhist ArchitectureA History of India"The World Economy (GDP) : Historical Statistics by Professor Angus Maddison"The World Economy – Volume 1: A Millennial Perspective and Volume 2: Historical Statistics10.2307/32502140004-36483250214A Comprehensive History of India: Volume 2Between the Empires: Society in India, 300 to 400Emergence of Viṣṇu and Śiva Images in India: Numismatic and Sculptural Evidence"Parthian Pair of Earrings"the originalThe Medical Times and Gazette, Volume 1Greatest emporium in the worldThe Cambridge History of Ancient China: From the Origins of Civilization to 221 BCBuddhist Records of the Western WorldArchaeology in Soviet Central AsiaThe Grandeur of Gandhara: The Ancient Buddhist Civilization of the Swat, Peshawar, Kabul and Indus ValleysIndian Sculpture: Circa 500 B.C.-A.D. 700"The History of Pakistan: The Kushans"Gupta Dynasty – MSN Encartathe original"India – Historical Setting – The Classical Age – Gupta and Harsha""Gupta Dynasty, Golden Age Of India"the original"The Age of the Guptas and After"the originalNumber Theory and Its History"Gupta dynasty (Indian dynasty)""Gupta dynasty: empire in 4th century"the original"The Story of India – Photo Gallery"The ASI say499315420"Pallava script"p. 145"CNG: eAuction 329. INDIA, Post-Gupta (Ganges Valley). Vardhanas of Thanesar and Kanauj. Harshavardhana. Circa AD 606–647. AR Drachm (13mm, 2.28 g, 1h)""Harsha""Sthanvishvara (historical region, India)""Harsha (Indian emperor)"Shyama Kumar Chattopadhyaya (2000) The Philosophy of Sankar's Advaita VedantaShankara's IntroductionShankara's Introduction19373677Shankara's IntroductionIs The Buddhist 'No-Self' Doctrine Compatible With Pursuing Nirvana?The Seven Spiritual Laws Of YogaIndia: The Ancient Past. A History of the Indian-Subcontinent from 7000 BC to AD 1200The Kashmir Series: Glimpses of Kashmiri Culture – Vivekananda Kendra, Kanyakumari (p. 57).Al-Hind: Early Medieval India and the Expansion of Islam, 7th–11th CenturiesHistory of GopāchalaLand of Two Rivers: A History of Bengal from the Mahabharata to MujibEuropean Trade and Colonial ConquestA History of IndiaA Comprehensive History Of Ancient India (3 Vol. Set)"The Last Years of Cholas: The decline and fall of a dynasty"the originalFascinating Hindutva: Saffron Politics and Dalit MobilisationGazetteer of the province of OudhAl- Hind: The slave kings and the Islamic conquest. 2"Shahi Family"The Cambridge history of Islam"Ameer Nasir-ood-deen Subooktugeen"Gazetteer of the Attock District, 1930, Part 1Land of seven rivers: History of India's GeographyTemple Desecration and Indo-Muslim StatesIslam in South Asia: A Short HistoryBeyond Orientalism: The Work of Wilhelm Halbfass and Its Impact on Indian and Cross-cultural StudiesThe Making of Terrorism in Pakistan: Historical and Social Roots of ExtremismOrnament in Indian ArchitectureA historical review of Hindu India: 300 B.C. to 1200 A.D."Indian States and Union Territories"Islam in South Asia: A Short HistoryA Brief History of the Indian PeoplesThe Modern ReviewDelhi Sultanate"Battuta's Travels: Delhi, capital of Muslim India"the original"Timur – conquest of India"the originalIndia HandbookBhaktiThe Four Denomination of Hinduism10.1007/s11407-008-9049-925691067"Vijayanagara Research Project::Elephant Stables"10.2307/26465262646526Historical Dictionary of the TamilsBihar General Knowledge DigestMapping Bihar: From Medieval to Modern TimesPopular Literature and Pre-modern Societies in South AsiaA manual of the Kistna district in the presidency of MadrasAncient Indian History and CivilizationFragmented Memories: Struggling to be Tai-Ahom in India"The Islamic World to 1600: Rise of the Great Islamic Empires (The Mughal Empire)"the originalDynasties: A Global History of Power, 1300–1800, p. 105"Whose fort is it anyway"10.1111/0020-8833.000532600793Development Centre Studies The World Economy Historical Statistics: Historical Statistics"India's Deindustrialization in the 18th and 19th Centuries"The Mughal Empire, p. 190"The Long Globalization and Textile Producers in India"The Mughal World: Life in India's Last Golden AgeAurangzeb: The Life and Legacy of India's Most Controversial KingIn the Shadow of the Taj: A Portrait of Agra"Iran in the Age of the Raj"p. 8610.2307/20539802053980Delhi, the Capital of IndiaAn Advanced History of Modern India"Journal of the Tanjore Maharaja Serfoji's Sarasvati Mahal Library"The Rediscovery of India: A New SubcontinentIslamic Renaissance In South Asia (1707–1867) : The Role Of Shah Waliallah & His SuccessorsAn Advanced History of Modern IndiaThe Great Maratha Mahadaji Scindia"Full text of "Selections from the papers of Lord Metcalfe; late governor-general of India, governor of Jamaica, and governor-general of Canada""The Discovery Of IndiaThe Sacred City of the Hindus: An Account of Benares in Ancient and Modern TimesResurrecting Banaras: Urban Space, Architecture and Religious BoundariesFaith & Philosophy of Sikhism"Missiles mainstay of Pak's N-arsenal"History Modern India By S.N. Sen"Sirajuddaula"ArchivedLongman History & Civics (Dual Government in Bengal)Madhya Pradesh National Means-Cum-Merit Scholarship Exam (Warren Hasting's system of Dual Government)A Military History of Britain: from 1775 to the PresentIndian Cultural Heritage Perspective For TourismHindu Rulers, Muslim Subjects: Islam, Rights, and the History of KashmirIndian HistoryAn Atlas and Survey of South Asian HistoryAn Historical Account of the British Trade Over the Caspian SeaIndian Merchants and Eurasian Trade, 1600–1750The Indian diaspora in Central Asia and its trade, 1550–1900From Constantinople to the home of Omar Khayyam: travels in Transcaucasia and northern Persia for historic and literary researchA journey from Bengal to England: through the northern part of India, Kashmire, Afghanistan, and Persia, and into Russia, by the Caspian-SeaA Second Journey through Persia, Armenia, and Asia Minor, to Constantinople, between the Years 1810 and 1816Reports from the consuls of the United States, 1887Portugal and its Empire, 1250–1800 (Collected Essays in Memory of Glenn J. Ames).: Portuguese Studies Review, Vol. 17, No. 1The Dutch Power in Kerala, 1729–1758http://mod.nic.inArchivedDossier Goa – A Recusa do Sacrifício InútilAn Imperial Crisis in British India: The Manipur Uprising of 1891The Truth of Babri Mosque"Kolkata (Calcutta) : History"the original"Robert Clive, Baron Clive, 'Clive of India', 1725–1774""The Transformation from a Pre-Colonial to a Colonial Order: The Case of India"10.2307/25955872595587A versatile geniusArchived10.1109/MWSYM.1997.602854"Rabindranath Tagore on Education"the original"Essay on 'Derozio and the Young Bengal Movement'"Poverty and Famines: An Essay on Entitlement and Deprivation"Plague"the originalPopulation Growth and Land Use"Reintegrating India with the World Economy""Census Of India 1931"A history of modern India, 1480–1950"'India's well-timed diversification of army helped democracy' | Business Standard News"Bal Gangadhar Tilak: Struggle for Swaraj"Participants from the Indian subcontinent in the First World War""Commonwealth War Graves Commission Annual Report 2007–2008 Online"the original1462689197110.1017/s0010417500016534178920Eurocentrism: a marxian critical realist critique"Ranjit Guha, "On Some Aspects of Historiography of Colonial India""10.2307/2168385216838510.7202/016593ar"Harvard scholar says the idea of India dates to a much earlier time than the British or the Mughals""In The Footsteps of Pilgrims""India's spiritual landscape: The heavens and the earth""India: A Sacred Geography by Diana L Eck – review"Modern India: The Origins of an Asian Democracy10.2307/21694222169422964322464"The Indian Subcontinent and 'Out of Africa 1'"254043308Encyclopedia of World ReligionsThe Evolution and History of Human Populations in South Asia: Inter-disciplinary Studies in Archaeology, Biological Anthropology, Linguistics and Genetics"The Early Paleolithic of the Indian Subcontinent: Hominin Colonization, Dispersals and Occupation History"Ancient Indian History and CivilizationAncient Indian Social History: Some Interpretationsthe originalIndia Before EuropeA Concise History of Modern India"The beginning of the historical period, c. 500–150 BCE"full textA History of Indiathe originalexcerpt and text searchexcerptexcerptAn Economic History of India: From Pre-Colonial Times to 1991excerpt and text searchexcerpt and text searchIndia as known to the ancient world10.1111/j.1468-0289.1985.tb00391.x2597191onlineThe History of India, as told by its own historians. The Muhammadan Periodonline editionHans William Brown research collection on 19th-century missionary work in India, 1882–1932, Ms. Coll. 1033, Kislak Center for Special Collections, Rare Books and Manuscripts, University of Pennsylvaniaee

Isurus Índice Especies | Notas | Véxase tamén | Menú de navegación"A compendium of fossil marine animal genera (Chondrichthyes entry)"o orixinal"A review of the Tertiary fossil Cetacea (Mammalia) localities in wales port taf Museum Victoria"o orixinalThe Vertebrate Fauna of the Selma Formation of Alabama. Part VII. Part VIII. The Mosasaurs The Fishes50419737IDsh85068767Isurus2548834613242066569678159923NHMSYS00210535017845105743