Page 1: Light and Darkness means ? Light, Day & Night Created on FIRST DAY & Also Fourth DAY?

Remedial Training concerning Genesis, page 1, day 1:

Genesis Chapter 1, verse 3:

"And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. (4) God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. (5) God called the light "day," and the the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning -- the first day."

?

Genesis Chapter 1, verse 14:

"And God said "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years, (15) and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth." And it was so. (16) God made two great lights -- the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. (17) God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth, (18) to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. (19) And there was evening, and there was morning -- the fourth day."

What do these verses mean to you?

What light was made on the first day, that was separated from the darkness and caused day and night?

If light and darkness were already created and separated on the first day, then what caused the differences between day and night before the sun, moon and stars were brought into existance on the fourth day?

I know "God is the light of the world", but God created the light on days 1 and 4.

I have my answers, however I would like others to weigh in using their own words, and their own ideas and concepts.

(Please have a sense of humor)
Perhaps God really took day 4 off, and that would make Wed the first real sabbath day? Perhaps somewhere down the line a person who thought 2 days off a week was too many, so they plagerized day 1 into day 4 to make it look like God did more than what was necessary. (Please have a sense of humor)

I will not be judgemental, for there very well may not be a wrong answer.

Please, this is not veiwed by myself as a descrepancy in the word, so don't think I'm making any effort to discredit the validity of a book that has been so important as to be passed down from generation to generation for so long. Thanks for your contributions in advance.




[edit on 08/12/71 by Esoteric Teacher]

[edit on 08/12/71 by Esoteric Teacher]

Genesis 1:1-5 KJV:
1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

First of all things, God created (formed) the expanse above (sky? stellar space?) and the firm land OR the field(as in 'somewhere to plant seeds')

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.

It came to pass that the field became desolate and empty and darkness (quite possibly, this is either misery or obscurity, my thoughts lean toward obscurity) had the charge of the face (this is a hard one--I get the idea, somehow, that is portraying the idea of a 'reflection', as in ourselves when we look in the mirror) of the abyss. The Spirit of God (or His magistrates) relaxed upon the face (same thing as above) of the juice (of life? I think this somehow represents the potential for souls--water into blood--definitely the 'seas' are symbolic of some sort of reservoir or supply of soul-stuff)

3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

And God said let there come to be an illumination, and there came to be an illumination.

4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.

And God considered (or pondered, approved) the illumination, and God separated out the illumination from the obscurity.

What I think this is saying is that God created the world as a field for planting, but for some reason, after an unspecified period, the field became empty and desolate--and the ideas of empty and desolate, in the Hebrew words used, are always used in reference to judgment for some sort of apostasy--in the OT usually in conjunction with Israel.

And when the field is empty--there are no human eyes to collapse the light waves--and so then God is a hidden God, in darkness (not evil darkness, but invisible darkness) and obscurity. This is another prevalent idea found in the OT--before God came to be with us, in the body of a man, He was, for the most part, hidden from us.

God separated out the light from the darkness---

Now, we start with one thing which is darkness. That is 'unity.'
Then light is separated out from it--or perhaps, taken out of obscurity. That is 'duality' and 'division', also 'house.' God divided His house and revealed Himself in man, and duality became manifest--spirit and flesh.

God is all things--God made all things. 'I create good and evil' He says in Isaiah 43 or 45. When God was still and hidden in His united form--He was darkness. When He manifested Himself as 'good' to us, lighting our way, then what was left behind was the darkness. This surely must have been the adversary. God is the source and creator of all things--the devil, or Satan, is on His payroll, too.

This is just one of my ponderings, there is another one taking form which I will have to post tomorrow.

This is a good thread!

for your invitation, that was most cool. It's an honor to be asked to give an opinion, especially since a lot of them I have to give are unpopular .

Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher
What do these verses mean to you?

I have two answers: The logical and the literal. But, I'd like to jump down to you're next question because I think it's an even better starting point.

Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher
What light was made on the first day, that was separated from the darkness and caused day and night?

Yes.

Logical Discussion: If light was not created and separated from darkness on the first day, then there was no first day. God dubs the first day "day" by the separation of the two. "God called the light "day" and the darkness he called "night". And there was evening, and there was morning - the first day" (Genesis 3:5, New International Version). For those following along at home, this was on the first day and defines the first day by God himself. My "New Antagonist's Version" reads shortly after, "You gotta problem wit dat? Take it up with the big G" . Kidding, of course.

Seriously though, one would have to accept this part of the Bible to be true first and foremost before trying to figure out anything afterwards. Next up is -

Literal Discussion: My Book at Genesis 1:14 says, "And God said, 'Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years, and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on earth"

Notice! The New Internation Version makes a pretty powerful distinction by showing a plural form - lights. In addition they mark seasons, days and years. Whereas before all we had was light and dark, we have actual objects that denote change, to use as reference points. Notice before that, God makes no mention of sun, moon, stars which are all used as reference points and causalities of seasonal change. In other words, God has now created a self-sustaining, independent system whereas before it was a dependent one. He had to give the light and remove it in order for a day to occur. After this point, all He had to do was supervise. Smart guy, this God of ours. Next thing to do was to appoint a pair of CEO's named Adam and Eve to run the Garden of Eden company. Let's see how they do...

Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher
If light and darkness were already created and separated on the first day, then what caused the differences between day and night before the sun, moon and stars were brought into existance on the fourth day?

God did it. All him per above. God isn't required to go by what we understand to be natural law since He's the creator of natural law.

Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher
I know "God is the light of the world", but God created the light on days 1 and 4.

He created light on day 1, the objects for a self-sustaining system for light on day 4. God uses lots of expressions to describe His role to us. In the same way, His son Jesus says he is the bread of life. Is he really bread? Well, he explains what he means in John 6:25. The people still don't get it though and argue how they're supposed to "eat his flesh". Then, he has to explain it again.

Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher
I have my answers, however I would like others to weigh in using their own words, and their own ideas and concepts.

(Please have a sense of humor)
Perhaps God really took day 4 off, and that would make Wed the first real sabbath day? Perhaps somewhere down the line a person who thought 2 days off a week was too many, so they plagerized day 1 into day 4 to make it look like God did more than what was necessary. (Please have a sense of humor)

Hehe. If God were a slacker than we'd all be in trouble :p

Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher
I will not be judgemental, for there very well may not be a wrong answer.

Not saying I have the right one either, just how I read it.

Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher
Please, this is not veiwed by myself as a descrepancy in the word, so don't think I'm making any effort to discredit the validity of a book that has been so important as to be passed down from generation to generation for so long. Thanks for your contributions in advance.

Mankind does have a nasty habit of turning things to their advantage. It's best then to explore the origins of all of it, and of course check up with God. He's there and will point out what you need to see if you ask.

Totally enjoying this discussion. It's a real thinker and forced me to go back and review the history. I like your approach too. Very objective, factual, and not based on 'agenda'.

Pray, train, study,
God bless.


[edit on 1-9-2005 by saint4God]

Thank you guys for weighing in!

Both posts deserve some thought. I will not have computer access for a few days, but will keep your reasoning (which both make good sense to me) on my mind, and will contemplate before I make another post.

Again, thank you both for accepting my invite, and thank you both for making sense ...... in essence, I guess thank you both for being who you are. Sorry to create a thread and run off for a few days, but it may not be until Sunday when you hear from me again.

Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher
Thank you guys for weighing in!

Glad to help

Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher
Both posts deserve some thought.

Woot!

Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher
I will not have computer access for a few days, but will keep your reasoning (which both make good sense to me) on my mind, and will contemplate before I make another post.

Again, thank you both for accepting my invite, and thank you both for making sense ...... in essence, I guess thank you both for being who you are. Sorry to create a thread and run off for a few days, but it may not be until Sunday when you hear from me again.

No worries, that's why boards are so great. You can go to work or on vacay and then pick up where ya left off.

Very interesting ideas. Saint's mention of the NIV's distinction of light vs. lights made me want to check out the Hebrew. Unfortunately, because I don't speak or read Hebrew yet, I had to crosscheck a few sources to be sure that I wasn't being led astray. So let's begin

Dr. Hugh Ross, an astronomer and minister has an interesting theory about the creation of the moon, stars and sun after light and dark had been separated and after the earth have been created. He believes it is wrong to take Genesis 1:14-19 as the creation of the sun, moon and stars.

In Genesis 1:6-8, God creates the atmosphere. On the first day, He had created day and night, the sun, moon and stars, but they were not visible on the formless void of earth due to the atmosphere being in the way. Think about a really cloudy day. If you didn't know they were there, there would be no reason to think there was a sun and a moon, nor stars, but you would still experience day and night as a result of the sun. Light penetrates, but is diffused to the point where you can't see the globe of the sun during the day.

Then, on the fourth day (or time, or age, depending on translation), He parted the clouds, allowing those from the surface of the earth to see the heavens above. This would fit with current geologic theories, too. It is believed that before life began on Earth there was some major volcanic activity and tectonic activity, spewing forth tons of soot and other such particles into the air -- creating the atmosphere.

E.J. Young, a respected Hebrew scholar, takes a different view.

That the heavenly bodies are made on the fourth day and that the earth had received light from a source other than the sun is not a naive conception, but is a plain and sober statement of the truth.

E.I. Young, Studies in Genesis One (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1964), p. 95.

Dr. Ross comes to his conclusion based on the use of the word "hayah", which he translates in day 4 as meaning appear. So essentially the text reads, "let there appear the sun, moon, and stars." This argument has a flaw, though, in that the word hayah is used 3 other times in Genesis 1: Genesis 1:3 (let light appear), and twice in Genesis 1:5 (Let an expanse appear and let a dividing appear). Yet he does not apply the same meaning of hayah in those two instances. He justifies this different translation of hayah in Genesis 1:14 due to the word nathan used in Genesis 1:17, normally translated as "set". He defines nathan as "set; put; place; appoint; bring forth; apply; ascribe; cause to appear; show." While the translation is correct and the word nathan has a broad semantic range, E. J. Young believes the word falls under 3 categories: give, put or set, or make or constitute.

In all the other events that take place, God actually creates something. Dr. Ross believes the exception is on Day 4.

Another common belief is that the days, times, or ages (again, based on translation) blend together. However, the use of the word "and" (Hebrew: "waw") denotes an order. Each day God says something and it is done. Then the next day is begun with another "and", leading one to believe there is a set order, and the next step doesn't take place until after the last was completed. The word used during Day 4 for the creation of the sun, moon, and stars is "asah", which is past tense. That would imply that the making of the sun, moon, and stars had happened earlier, though we can't know how much earlier unless we assume the light and darkness created on Day 1 was when this took place.

This word, "asah", appears two other times in Genesis 1, as well. The first time is on Day 2 (Genesis 1:6-7). God says, "let there be an expanse, then in verse 7, using this pluperfect (that which denotes that an action or event was completed before a given time) interpretation of the word would mean it should be translated, "and God had made the expanse," instead of the more common translation, "and God made the expanse." Because Hebrew has only one form of past tense, the second translation could still be correct -- it is unknown if the word was made in the pluperfect or not. The same word is used in verse 1:25 in the creation of the beasts of the earth.

Theophilus, an early church father, weighed in on this issue long before it became an issue. His foresight is rather remarkable:

On the fourth day the luminaries came into existence. Since God has foreknowledge, He understood the nonsense of the foolish philosophers who were going to say that the things produced on earth come from the stars, so that they might set God aside. In order therefore that the truth might be demonstrated, plants and seeds came into existence before stars. For what comes into existence later cannot cause what is prior to it.

So there are two major theories on this that are at direct odds with one another. One or the other is the correct manner by which Genesis took place, and they are mutually exclusive. Personally, I’m leaning towards Dr. Ross’s theory, but will have to look deeper before throwing in my lot with either side.

Presented both sides, squarely and fairly I think.

I'm still on the other side of the fence though...which one of us should ask when we get there brother? An amusing thought would be if God's reply is, "you've made it to heaven and you're still bickering over this stuff?"


[edit on 1-9-2005 by saint4God]

Originally posted by saint4God
which one of us should ask when we get there brother?

Whichever of us gets there first

An amusing thought would be if God's reply is, "you've made it to heaven and you're still bickering over this stuff?"
[edit on 1-9-2005 by saint4God]

I actually have had interesting conversations with a friend about that type of issue. He believes in predestination, and I don't. We talk about it and whatever, but we both realize that that is just an interpretation issue, and does not change the core of the message. So what if he believes in predestination and I don't -- it doesn't mean one of us will go to Heaven and the other to Hell. It's fun to talk about these things because it causes us to go deeper into the Word, and there's nothing wrong with that. My buddy was telling me, though, that people would often freak out on him when they'd talk about it. He's well versed in the Bible and makes a good arguement. Those that can't refute sometimes attack. Just look at that No Religion? No Free Will. thread. They didn't want to argue the science because they couldn't, so they attacked the religion.

Odd minds we humans have.

Thank you for considering my perspective/understandings, Sgt. (I don't want to say 'opinion', because it's not--but it's also not 'facts'.)

There's a deeper aspect to this, metaphysical in nature.

God's name: Yod He Vau He

Yod = arm, right hand of God
He = breath of life, Spirit
Vau = man, redemption
He = breath of life, Spirit

Yod--the positive (+), Sun, light, the Father

He represents the negative—(darkness, but not in the sense of bad or evil, but in the sense of negative polarity, pure darkness like that of the void of space, the receptive which can be understood sort of like a vacuum)

Vau is the meeting of Yod and He; the combining of the first two principles—it is a principle on its own even though it is the direct product of the first two principles—it is the conception and the birth of the second

He –which is the offspring of Yod and He--the result of their meeting and their subsequent creation—it has the same qualities as the Father, Yod, in that it is a Yod in its own realm, and is positive, the ‘Son’, and light—it is on a level ‘underneath’ (in the sense of being ‘from’) Yod—this second He begins the cycle (Yod-He-Vau-He) again, but as the Yod in it’s realm its polarity is reversed from the Father YOD


Yod is unity (1)
He is the manifestation of duality, polarity (2)
Vau is the place where they meet (and is the seed) (3)
He is the Son of the One, and is the Christ , and the way upward(4)

1 is unity, 2 is duality, 3 is seed and loving kindness, and 4 is the door, the way

Read these parables in Matthew with this in mind:
5:20-- 7:21-- 11:11-- 13:24-- 13:31-- 13:33-- 13:44-- 13:45-- 13:47-- 13:52-- 18:3-- 18:4-- 19:14-- 22:2-- 23:13-- 25:1-- 25:14

The kingdom of heaven calls us and draws us--because it seeks to be filled. When it is filled, Christ will be the Yod and He will be the 'all in all.'

God the Father is Yod, Christ is He
Christ is Yod, and we are He.

This a poem that I wrote some time ago, before I consicously understood these things:


Circles


There,

Where
The soul of origination
Leads to heartbeat

And memory spirals past
Future circles complete

Destination and purpose
At last, will meet!

I can tell already that I invited the right people to express their thoughts on this interestingly "contraversal" subject. Plenty of smarts and level scaled idealistic contributions. And, an healthy non-belittling conversation where people actually respect one another. Can't get the level of kindness you guys project with your rhetoric in a lot of the threads on ATS.

I have only a brief time to make a post, and unfortunatley only breifly skimmed over your guys' posts.

JungleJake: A lot of brainfood, you certainly don't ever seem to dissappoint when expressing your perspective. Your presence is appreciated and your thoughts worth comtemplating, thanks.

Queen, your thoughts and words are like divine poetry most of the time. You are inspirational, and I know you to be one of the most positive posters on ATS, with the insight to boot!

Saint4God: It may only seem we have not agreed totally in the past, but your input is always worth the time to read. You are truly authentic. Sometimes I may seem a little testy, not because I am testing your resolve, but because I quest to read the words of explanation I know you can deliver. It's been my observation you quote scripture a lot, not that that is anywhere near wrong, but I like to read the words you put together, the expression of thought manifested in your rhetoric speeks volumes to me, and sometimes I may appear to be a little abrasive, but only because I want your words, not only scripture.

Perhaps I owe you (Saint4God) an opology for my past transgessions against you. In fact we agree on most things, I just want your take on the meaning of things, and fight to get them. I'm sorry if my words have hurt you or offended your values in the past.

Long story short, thank you all for the priviledge of your perspectives.

I'll be able to spend more time on ATS this Sunday. See you all later, and thanks again.

Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher
I can tell already that I invited the right people to express their thoughts on this interestingly "contraversal" subject. Plenty of smarts and level scaled idealistic contributions. And, an healthy non-belittling conversation where people actually respect one another. Can't get the level of kindness you guys project with your rhetoric in a lot of the threads on ATS.

Wow cool! I do think this is a great group, yes indeedy! Pleased to be a part of it

Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher
Saint4God: It may only seem we have not agreed totally in the past, but your input is always worth the time to read. You are truly authentic. Sometimes I may seem a little testy, not because I am testing your resolve, but because I quest to read the words of explanation I know you can deliver. It's been my observation you quote scripture a lot, not that that is anywhere near wrong, but I like to read the words you put together, the expression of thought manifested in your rhetoric speeks volumes to me, and sometimes I may appear to be a little abrasive, but only because I want your words, not only scripture.

I'll take that as a compliment. Admittedly I change per person I talk to, but one definite thing I've noticed that I do is when talking to a believer is citing a lot of scripture (as I'm sure JJ will attest to ). To a non-believer, it's usually futile unless they're challenging what's written itself. A non-believer doesn't want to hear what's written, but rather why, with gobs of rationale, logic, and understanding so for that audience I hardly quote. That's a generalization, as all people are different, but noticed I do it a lot. With this knowledge, I shall do my best to provide more of the me (the parts that reflect the scripture) rather than direct quotes. The parts of me that don't reflect scripture are unimportant.

Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher
Perhaps I owe you (Saint4God) an opology for my past transgessions against you. In fact we agree on most things, I just want your take on the meaning of things, and fight to get them.

Nono not at all! Perhaps I've done a disservice to you then because my disagreements have been silent on the whole, though I don't like to jump in and disagree right away without knowing where the speaker is coming from. What I mean is, the language you've used made me feel that there was a lot open for interpretation. For example, using the phrase "The Truth" you'd used in the longer post on another thread, to me means God, but to a non-believer could mean science (and while there is truth in science, I don't think it qualifies for the qualities that you've provided for it)...so then you'd have agreement from both parties based on their interpretation of "The Truth". So, I sit back and listen to hear what other things you have to say about it rather than jumping in and getting all techincal about it. Pot calling the kettle black here, because I say things like the Word and the Book instead of Bible, but rotate interchangably. I'm probably getting too analytical, as I have been warned once before to "back off" from a brother or sister just because it isn't presented in a way I would or a matter that didn't seem immediately clear to me. There's value in the way God uses each one of us I think, so to smack someone up for their style is wrong, a waste of time and energy. On the other hand, it's hard to tell when someone is using a stylize difference or whether they're a shepherd leading to a void, especially whent they're new to you. At this point I'd give JJ my house keys, but if PowerHouseChristian (just made the name up) logs on, I'd want to see what gave her/him the name. Speaking of, can I have my car keys back JJ? I gotta run to the store tonight . Did any of that make sense?

Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher
I'm sorry if my words have hurt you or offended your values in the past.

Not at all. I'm made of tougher stuff and welcome any challenge you have to my thoughts/actions. If a brother/sister were to not help me grow in this way, could I really call them "brother/sister"?

Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher
Long story short, thank you all for the priviledge of your perspectives.

I'll be able to spend more time on ATS this Sunday. See you all later, and thanks again.

See you then! Take care and have a great extended weekend! Thanks again for the compliments & right back at ya.

[edit on 2-9-2005 by saint4God]

Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher
Remedial Training concerning Genesis, page 1, day 1:

Genesis Chapter 1, verse 3:

"And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. (4) God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. (5) God called the light "day," and the the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning -- the first day."

I've spent a little intellect and some time with the spirit. Curious. It has come to my attention recently that GOD seperated the light and the darkness. Is this to mean that they once co-existed?

I'm not reffering to the physical realm of earth's day and night and the complexities of night and day being created on both the first and fourth days, but the prospect that the entirety of creation, both light and darkness in regards to the spiritual realm may have been intermixed, which seems to me to be a prerequisite for separation.

As for the previous posts made by the humble members, I believe that the book is designed to speak to many, and on many levels. I would find it hard to fathom the concept of someone being wrong, unless it was to question GOD's error, when it should be evident that one was not made.

I realize the following statement may be percieved as blasphomy by some, but I would be denying something within that elludes to something that most mortals don't contemplate.

God is pure and God is all that is good.

What if God created such things as love, not knowing love may have a polar opposite. What if God created love not knowing "Fear" would also come into existance?

Could God feel or experience fear before creation was created?

What would God fear if God was all that was?

Just a thought.

Sometiimes I think God was shattered amongst creation because of the fall of the heavenly ones.

Sometimes I ponder if God's ultimate sacrifice was that of free will, and the cost for it.

Looking back on the original post, it may "shed new light" (pun intended) on the subject, and the symbolism Genesis contains.


[edit on 4-9-2005 by Esoteric Teacher]

Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher
I've spent a little intellect and some time with the spirit. Curious. It has come to my attention recently that GOD separated the light and the darkness. Is this to mean that they once co-existed?

Certainly they must have--after all, if one considers God to be All, then nothing can Be outside the All--including evil.

...but the prospect that the entirety of creation, both light and darkness in regards to the spiritual realm may have been intermixed, which seems to me to be a prerequisite for separation.

Yes. In the same way that first there was Adam, then God took a 'side' of Adam out and made woman.

As for the previous posts made by the humble members, I believe that the book is designed to speak to many, and on many levels. I would find it hard to fathom the concept of someone being wrong, unless it was to question GOD's error, when it should be evident that one was not made.

Yes. And also by thinking that the present conclusion/understanding of any human mind was somehow at the ultimate final truth of God. It is stagnation and attachment to beliefs (except the One belief--which is the only necessity) that inhibits growth and obscures truth.

I realize the following statement may be perceived as blasphemy by some, but I would be denying something within that eludes to something that most mortals don't contemplate.

Whatever 'some' may perceive as blasphemy is actually irrelevant--since only blaspheming the Holy Spirit is a 'no-no', which I understand to be the same thing as denying truth or restricting its discovery. If you reject truth as given by the Spirit that moves you, then, and only then, is your blasphemy a sin--otherwise its 'seeking outside the box'.

God is pure and God is all that is good.

God is pure. God is all that is good. But is not God all that is?

For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God.
1 Corinthians 11:12 KJV

Jesus knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands, and that he was come from God, and went to God;
John 13:3 KJV

And Jesus said:

And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? none is good, save one, that is, God.
Luke 18:19 KJV

Yet also we read:

I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.
Isaiah 45:7 KJV

Out from God, created for, through, and by Christ...came all things.
In God is unity.
Humans perceive duality in all things.

If, from God, comes both evil and good--yet only God is good--then we have report in that deduction that there is no other possibility except that good will overcome evil, indeed, it already has---but we can be sure that work is done as is written. By it's sheer nature as light, good overcomes evil. Darkness cannot obliterate light, but even a pinpoint of light makes the darkness a shade less dark.

And the darkness of existence is the existence unknowing and apart from God.

What if God created such things as love, not knowing love may have a polar opposite. What if God created love not knowing "Fear" would also come into existance?

I'm not sure if I can reconcile God 'creating love'--in Isaiah it says God creates both peace and evil--not love and evil. I believe the essential characteristic of God is love, IOW God IS love. Christ was love incarnate.
Out of the Good and the Love that God is, sometimes evil emerges, purposely. God says He does 'evil' for the purpose of good. Therefore, God's evil is even good--because it is done for the purpose of ultimate good. Out of man comes the only true evil--because the evil man does is always in vain, done from a blinded heart, and to no positive effect to anyone.
I think, also, that God must have surely known that fear is a direct result of insecurity--an inevitable consequence of existing in a darkness whose nature is unknown.

Could God feel or experience fear before creation was created?

If fear is truly somehow the 'ultimate fear of the dark' then He could not have, for we also read there is no darkness in God.

What would God fear if God was all that was?

Being alone, perhaps.

Sometimes I think God was shattered amongst creation because of the fall of the heavenly ones.

I think it was much like 'the night the lights went out in creation.'

Sometimes I ponder if God's ultimate sacrifice was that of free will, and the cost for it.

I think the cost of the future companionship He will share with us, was, for Him, a period of time of solitude, after the time in which the solitude had first been breached with the first created being, which, of course, was Christ.

Your responses .... well, I expected nothing less. Perfect.

So, are we trying to put Humpdy Dumpdy back together again? Is what we do directly effecting the Kingdom of Kingdoms? I believe this is the case. I believe humanities individual actions and behaviors effect the whole of creation, and the whole of consciousness.

"Forgive them Father, for they know not what they do."

These words mean more than I previously knew.

Could the separation of light and dark have anything to do with the fall of Satan? Job indicates that Satan is an angel, and was created before the Earth. Yet, Satan led a rebellion against Michael (Revelation 12:4, 9), or will. There's not much in terms of a biography of Satan, though we do get to read the ending of his story. He seems to be against God, as we can tell from Genesis, Job, the Gospels, Revelation, and some would contend Isaiah and Ezekiel.

Just throwing out a very rough draft of a thought forming that may never gain feet

EDIT: Spell check, man! Do the spell check before posting!

[edit on 9-6-2005 by junglejake]

Originally posted by junglejake
Could the separation of light and dark have anything to do with the fall of Satan? Job indicates that Satan is an angel, and was created before the Earth. Yet, Satan led a rebellion against Michael (Revelation 12:4, 9), or will. There's not much in terms of a biography of Satan, though we do get to read the ending of his story. He seems to be against God, as we can tell from Genesis, Job, the Gospels, Revelation, and some would contend Isaiah and Ezekiel.

Just throwing out a very rough draft of a thought forming that may never gain feet

EDIT: Spell check, man! Do the spell check before posting!

[edit on 9-6-2005 by junglejake]

Perhaps Lucifer was charged with containing/restraining that which was offensive to the purest essence. Perhaps Satan/Lucifer actually serves a purpose, a purpose of containing/restraining that which the Almighty needs not to know in order to be pure light?

I know this may be a contraversial thought, but why else would the Almighty permit this angel to exist after the fall, if not to learn something, and if not to serve a divine purpose?

Can the light bear witness to the dark, but the dark cannot be fully aware of the light?

Just a thought.

... Good posts by Jungle Jake. presenting both sides with hebrew scholars and such. i like the atmosphere argument as well. doesnt really conflict with the below.

Joh 12:46 I am come a light into the world, that whosoever believeth on me should not abide in darkness.

Rev 21:22 And I saw no temple therein: for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it.
Rev 21:23 And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof.

the light was Gods prescense, the night was God resting. until at least the 4th day , when he made the sun and moon. It will go back to the time without them.

now about all this lucifer being need to restrain God , not biblical.
Isa 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

his will is that we do good so that this isnt necessary. lucifer was just a guard until he rebelled (albiet a very important guard endowed with "the full pattern").

[edit on 2005-9-6 by NuTroll]

Originally posted by NuTroll


now about all this lucifer being need to restrain God , not biblical.
Isa 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

First, thanks for the quote. It may actually answer a couple thoughts I had concerning it.

Secondly, and most importantly:
I never intended my words to be interpretted as to mean Lucifer in any way shape or form restrains God.

I only meant it as perhaps his punishment would be to restrain evil and hurtfull things from the Lord. It would be Satan's job to clean up his own mess and keep the perverted things that would upset God from God.

i see. well if he would ever comply with anything God said then that might happen. the opposite is still true, hes kickin up a mess right nwo.

Good stuff.

The only thing I wanted to bring to the table at this point is that I don't think light on the first and four day was an error. There have been a lot of people between when it was written and now who have made the Book their life-long study. If it were in error or some conspiracy, there most certainly would have been some kind of attempt to 'correct'. It's a testament to the testament that it is correct because we're unable to explain it. There are a few places in the Bible that are called 'inconsistent' but rather seem to be stuff we just cannot explain. With all the science, archeology, and math throughout the years we have been unable to explain these things...though we do know that the sun is not born from a heavenly cow and swallowed up at the end of the day.



Is that where the term "Holy Cow!" comes from?

Also, the sun is represented as a calf according to this belief. Could this be the 'golden calf' as represented Exodus? It'd make sense since gold is the colour of the sun and is bright when the sunlight hits it. Sun god, Baal perhaps? I think I find a lot of traces of Baal these days even still.

Back to the topic, sorry. Gone off into exploratory mode again.



[edit on 7-9-2005 by saint4God]