Gods two lights

I saw a topic earlier about someone thinking god left the moon out of creation which came to an agreement that the Bible talks about the two lights that govern the day and night as being the Sun and the Moon. I don't want to bash anyone's belief in god, But its says that there are two lights that govern the day and night, and that they are the Sun and the Moon. So I was randomly thinking about it while I was having a smoke outside. So lets say the Sun and Moon are the two lights that were created. The Sun itself emits light but the Moon does not. The Moon only reflects light off from the Sun.

So can the Moon really be the second light The Bible talks about?

I am in now way trying to bash or discredited anyone's belief so please don't flame the hell out of me, it was just a question I thought of and was wondering what everyone else thought.

Hi
Thanks, this is very interesting...great point you have. I had the same thoughts like you. And you know what,if i did not agree i will not flame you as you call it :-) but you know if people speak out there will always be someone who does not agree... Just take it as i comes and may the sun and the moon shine on you

Doesnt the moon reflect the suns rays?

This might explain the 2 lights.

Originally posted by Fett Pinkus
Doesnt the moon reflect the suns rays?

This might explain the 2 lights.

That was my point, it only reflects light it does not emit any light itself.

Is god so litterally dogmatic? She seems very pedantic.

I think maybe you should cut her a break.

reply to post by JoeyVilla


Did people at the time Genesis was written know that the Moon only reflected the Sun's light? Or did they even care? All they knew was that the Moon was not so bright as the Sun and was thus a lesser light in comparison.

reply to post by JoeyVilla


Hi there
thanks a lot for this highly interessting thread

whoever we cause for making this world go round : ) if a "he/or she god " or energy or or or ....everyone at its taste : )
but the moon is only reflecting the light of the sun yes it´s just like the explanation for all dualism here on earth ....the sun / the light the moon /the shadow yin/yang and so on.......
and that all what we feel towards others is only the mirror to ourselves

thank you so much for questioning this "sun and moon light "......its a real good phylosophical topic to think and "feel" about
and "whoever" created all this ...nothing without reason
what would now again question the question aaaaaaaaaaaaah it`s neverending LOL : )

i don't believe the "lesser light" referred to in genesis is the moon. The moon is not only sometimes invisible at night, but also visible at times during the day.

If one assumes that the book of genises is literally accurate; that person should logically assume that the "lesser light" that rules the night, is JUPITER. To an observer on earth, it always appears fully illuminated at night.It also has it's own luminosity.

You can even take it a step further and postulate that we're actually part of a binary star system (like most of the systems in our galaxy). But the orbit of the earth has changed so that we no longer can see our second (more distant "lesser light") star at all.

[edit on 8/22/2008 by JPhish]

reply to post by JPhish

You can even take it a step further and postulate that we're actually part of a binary star system (like most of the systems in our galaxy). But the orbit of the earth has changed so that we no longer can see our second (more distant "lesser light") star at all.

Or the binary star has changed over time, to where it no longer gives off visible light.
Or, like people are saying now, on the radio shows, that the other star has a planet that was visible, long ago.



[edit on 22-8-2008 by jmdewey60]

Originally posted by JPhish

If one assumes that the book of genises is literally accurate; that person should logically assume that the "lesser light" that rules the night, is JUPITER. To an observer on earth, it always appears fully illuminated at night.It also has it's own luminosity.

Jupiter is not always visible at night, it's like light is, like the Moon, reflected from the Sun, and it's not even as bright as some stars .....

I wouldn't put too much emphasis on a literal scientific reading of Genesis chapter 1 (1st Creation Myth) or chapter 2 (2nd Creation Myth) since we are dealing with liturgical theology and its symbology and not 'modern science'.

It is clear from the 1st Creation Myth in Beres-hith (Gen 1:1 to 2:4a) written by the P writer (with the Hezekielite accent, full of Babylonian loan words e.f. Tehom ('watery Chaos') for the Babylonian Chaos Monster Tiamat etc.) was referring to the 'moon' by the term 'lesser light to rule the night'--expressed implicitly in the text:

"and Elohim created the greater light to rule the day (i.e. the sun) and the lesser light to rule the night (i.e. the moon) 'and then he created the stars.'

Post Exilic Jews knew little if anything about what we call modern Cosmology: similarly the Babylonians & Assyrians from whom they borrowed their text.

There are a number of childish 'scientific' problems with the 1st Creation Myth of the post Exilic writer (whoever he was with his Babylonian Hezekielite accent) in Genesis 1:1 to 2:4a--vegetation is created (e.g. trees and grass and herbs) BEFORE the Sun, Moon or Stars...which is an impossibility -- the author was more of a liturgist borrowing Babylonian Cosmology than what we would call a modern astronomer -- the 1st creation myth is a recited chant with several stanzas repeated ('and Elohim saw that it was good...' paralleling the 7-fold creation myths of the Canaanites with the 7-fold peal of Ba'al etc.

Also the idea of a dome (req'iak = Hebrew for 'bowl') or a 'firmament' which surrounds the flat earth is also non-scientific. We know that there is no BOWL (i.e. flat at the bottom and round at the top) surrounding a flat earth, but a solar system which is in turn part of a galaxy of stars with planets hovering around them...

Also there is the issue of the Sun and the Moon beinig 'created' (bara) BEFORE the Stars...which is another cosmological blooper in the 1st Creation Myth of the Jews, but at least male and female are created together 'in the image of Elohim male and female created he them..and he CALLED THEIR NAME ADAM (see Gen 5:1-2 where the P writer re-emerges with his Hezekielite accent !) which literally means that according to the text as it stands, Elohim is bisexual-androgynous having both male and female parts—unlike the 2nd (and contradictory) Creation Myth found in Genesis (called the JE myth since the author uses YHWH-Elohim to refer to the creator godf) which starts at Gen 2:4b and has 'adam' 'formed' as a male made of mud then the animals 'formed' of mud and brought to the man for intercourse' but no 'wife was found for him...' so then the woman was 'formed' by YHWH Elohim having her material 'taken from the side of the man'..parallelling the Sumerian myths of creation in several key parts--not surprisingly because the nations of Assyria (conquored northern Kingdom of Israel in 722BC) and Babylon (conquored southern Judah in 587 BC) exiled the priests and metalworkers (i.e. what we could later call alchemists) out of the country where they were exposed to the literary creations of these older and far more sophisticated nations (no wonder they adapted their liturgies using their formats as models for their own creation myths when Ezra compiled the Torah in writing after 480 BC).

The Re'qiak ('bowl') or 'firmament' (which translation is nonsensical in English) is that according to the 1st Creation Myth in Genesis chapter 1, it is created (bara – ‘he created out of nothing’) WITHOUT the sun, and without the MOON and without the STARS, which were ADDED later AFTER Vegetation was created (herbs bearing seed, grass, Trees etc.)...

The idea here being that we are dealing (in Gen 1:1 to 2:4a) with the 7-fold Creation Liturgy pattern of the Cannanite and Assyro-Babylonian Baalite New Year Festival (Fertility Rite) which took place every Spring with its repeated stanzas like a chant---and NOT Science, as you can plainly see...

And in any case, it is just a creation myth. Why place any more credence on its scientific veracity than the Iroquois, Basque, Inuit or San Bushmen creation myths?

Wow much better answers and explanations then I thought I was going to get. I like Chrystostomus's post the best.

I'll say again I'm not trying to disprove or claim anything I just was wondering what other people know and what they think.

[edit on 22-8-2008 by JoeyVilla]

reply to post by Chrystostomus

The idea here being that we are dealing (in Gen 1:1 to 2:4a) with the 7-fold Creation Liturgy pattern of the Cannanite and Assyro-Babylonian Baalite New Year Festival (Fertility Rite) which took place every Spring with its repeated stanzas like a chant---and NOT Science, as you can plainly see...

Whatever similarities between the Bible version and the Pagan versions are there in order to correct the parts about opposing gods striving against each other.
For example, one god who wants the land to rule over and another god who wants water to cover the planet.
In the Bible version, one God decides how to part the earth.
So Genesis could have been written to contradict other creation stories that were current at the time of its writing.