Day 1 Light Is Starlight Arriving

[EarlyActs]

Show why this can not be.

 

[David Lamb]

Show why this can not be.

Sorry, are you saying that our light comes only from the stars? The sun and the moon are much brighter from our viewpoint.

 

[EarlyActs]

Day 1. The local system is not in place til Day 4.

 

[makesends]

Show why this can not be.

Show why it would be.

 

[EarlyActs]

Are you familiar with the Hebrew terms (even in transliteration) ‘shema’ and ‘kavov ’ (those are cognate forms, stems)? In Gen 1 of course, but not only there. The English terms makes several points of confusion.

The only possible light that might mark evening is from starlight arriving from what the Bible elsewhere calls the ‘spreading out’ which is about the ‘kavov.’

 

[makesends]

Are you familiar with the Hebrew terms (even in transliteration) ‘shema’ and ‘kavov ’ (those are cognate forms, stems)? In Gen 1 of course, but not only there. The English terms makes several points of confusion.

The only possible light that might mark evening is from starlight arriving from what the Bible elsewhere calls the ‘spreading out’ which is about the ‘kavov.’

Consider the fact that God is the reason there are stars. So, again, I ask—why should it be from stars? Is it any harder for God to make light than to make light via stars? Truth is, you don't know.

Question here is, why do you declare something so, then challenge people to disprove it, when you have no compelling evidence presented to declare it to be so?

We can't prove God exists, but it is WAY the most reasonable explanation for existence.

Your notion is many levels of reasonable below that, but you claim it to be so anyway. Why not say, "maybe"? Or, "I think"?

 

[EarlyActs]

I do this to preserve the rationality of the text where possible. Acts 26–these things are true and rational.

What is irrational is to say Day 1 light is shekinah or “Christ” or some other miracle light. When there is a sensible explanation, use it.

The only rational conclusion about our universe is that God is there and and has communicated.

Are you against knowing Hebrew language details? Why?

 

[makesends]

I do this to preserve the rationality of the text where possible. Acts 26–these things are true and rational.

You sound like a concrete thinker. Why must you draw a certain conclusion?
Why not, instead, keep accumulating data until you have more to go on?

What is irrational is to say Day 1 light is shekinah or “Christ” or some other miracle light. When there is a sensible explanation, use it.

Star light is miraculous too. But I'm not saying it is shekinah nor any other miracle light. I'm saying that neither of us know what we are talking about, concerning the Day 1 light.

I remember a friend's kid telling another little kid, "I know everything about God and fireants." That's pretty much what this sounds like, to me. We are ignorant. There's no use in drawing early conclusions.

The only rational conclusion about our universe is that God is there and and has communicated.

Where have I said different?

Are you against knowing Hebrew language details? Why?

What makes you think I'm ever against knowing Hebrew language details? Why so defensive? Why bring up these red herrings?

 

[David Lamb]

Day 1. The local system is not in place til Day 4.

If by "local system" you mean that God did not create sun, moon and stars until Day 4, I agree.

 

[EarlyActs]

You sound like a concrete thinker. Why must you draw a certain conclusion?
Why not, instead, keep accumulating data until you have more to go on?

Star light is miraculous too. But I'm not saying it is shekinah nor any other miracle light. I'm saying that neither of us know what we are talking about, concerning the Day 1 light.

I remember a friend's kid telling another little kid, "I know everything about God and fireants." That's pretty much what this sounds like, to me. We are ignorant. There's no use in drawing early conclusions.

Where have I said different?

What makes you think I'm ever against knowing Hebrew language details? Why so defensive? Why bring up these red herrings?

That entire response was for David , you know.

The bizarre thing about this forum is that a person cannot refer to things (research, writings) that they have made public after years of study etc.

So I tried with a simple point but it’s hopeless without the entire context. You can check other threads I have about this.

In the starlight in particular is a very important integration of the two sets of Hebrew terms used to explain the lifeless random distant worlds vs the ‘placed’ local human-suited system. It is nearly impossible to see in English.

So one of my supporting essays is on the need for transliteration.

 

[EarlyActs]

If by "local system" you mean that God did not create sun, moon and stars until Day 4, I agree.

I hope so. It’s better than some with whom I have exchanged who scanned Gen 1 and said ‘I just realized there’s two creations!’ Or at least they think that for a little while .

But those are people operating in English, not even trying to leverage their understanding with transliteration.

 

[EarlyActs]

My essential points are in summary form at 2 creation studies associations. It has been several months and there has been no reply. I was advised that unless at least one of them approve the points made, I wouldn’t get wide attention, without a heavy push for replies from major names.

 

[EarlyActs]

You sound like a concrete thinker. Why must you draw a certain conclusion?
Why not, instead, keep accumulating data until you have more to go on?

Star light is miraculous too. But I'm not saying it is shekinah nor any other miracle light. I'm saying that neither of us know what we are talking about, concerning the Day 1 light.

I remember a friend's kid telling another little kid, "I know everything about God and fireants." That's pretty much what this sounds like, to me. We are ignorant. There's no use in drawing early conclusions.

Where have I said different?

What makes you think I'm ever against knowing Hebrew language details? Why so defensive? Why bring up these red herrings?

Re Day 1 light:
If you integrate the ‘spreading out’ with the distinct lighting of Hebrew terms in Gen 1, and stay consistent about POV, you can make a sensible case that the brightest nearest star was marking the first evening.

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

The stars were created on day 4

14 Then God said, “Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs and seasons, and for days and years; 15 and let them be for lights in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth”; and it was so. 16 Then God made two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night. He made the stars also. 17 God set them in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth, 18 and to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 So the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

 

[EarlyActs]

The stars were created on day 4

14 Then God said, “Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs and seasons, and for days and years; 15 and let them be for lights in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth”; and it was so. 16 Then God made two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night. He made the stars also. 17 God set them in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth, 18 and to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 So the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

There is a practice in Hebrew narrative to dwell on the most important topic and then just barely mention something in addition that is slightly related. For ex., in the genealogies of Genesis the first son keeps getting named and detailed. Then it will say the person had 'other sons.'

In this description, the 'raqiy' is what is important. He is not explaining the stars, but they get mentioned. The idea is not that they were created that day, because the 'raqiy' was placed. This verb often has the idea of taking something from somewhere else and deliberately putting it somewhere else; Eve grabbed the wrong fruit and placed it in Adam's hand. It was already there at the tree. Apply that to the phrase about the stars.

v17 also suggests to us that there wasn't that much light until the 'shema' (the local system) was placed (it became named the 'shema-raqiy.') The 'kavov' stars are a distant entity. So v17 tells us the 'shema' needed to be placed to provide light.

What did the Day 1 light do? It marked the start of the week. I propose this was was Sirius' light arriving and marking things, which it has done in most ancient accounts, also setting a steady latitudinal mark when it rises.

This means the 'spreading out' of the lifeless distant stars was earlier and separate, which can be reasonably concluded from 2 Peter 3.