Originally posted by wolfgang59 If god does not change he knew what light was like before creating it.
So why bother with Gen 1:4 ?
It should be "He knew it was good"
not "He saw that it was good".
There is a strong implication that god was experiencing
light for the first time and making a decision on it.
This is what I was saying when I said that "God didn't cause the Bible to be written for himself". Much of the Bible is for instruction on how man should act. Good craftsmen always check their work, no matter how good they are. Should it not be apparent, especially to ancient man, that God, being a good craftsman, should do the same?
Originally posted by sonship I gather from this that God is communicating with us that He agrees with us that light is good. We do like light and can hardly live well without it.
He communicates it with us in such a way that humans from varied ages, varied cultures, varied levels of human maturity can comprehend. A child can understand. An aged adult can also understand. [/b]
That is nonsense - almost every sentence is up for interpretation.
We wouldn't be discussing it now if it were clear.
Originally posted by Suzianne This is what I was saying when I said that "God didn't cause the Bible to be written for himself". Much of the Bible is for instruction on how man should act. Good craftsmen always check their work, no matter how good they are. Should it not be apparent, especially to ancient man, that God, being a good craftsman, should do the same?
Then this is a case of god being made to look like Man?
Originally posted by wolfgang59 God saw that the light was good;
How do you interpret that?
It appears to me that we may fall into the trap of thinking of the term 'good' in a purely moral sense. 'Good' for example to the ancient Greeks could mean virtuous. Anyone who has read any Platonic philosophy will testify that virtue carries with it the idea of being fitted out for a purpose. I vaguely remember that Socrates havers on about it in one of Platos dialogues but i forget which one it is. Anyway the idea is that God in observing the effect of the light (the expression in Hebrew infact signifies diffused light) declared that it was indeed 'good', or acted excellently with regard to its purpose.
Originally posted by Suzianne This is absurd. God is not a farmer, and Christians are not chickens.
I believe he meant this as sort of an analogy as did Jesus when He said the following:
"Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were unwilling."
Originally posted by robbie carrobie It appears to me that we may fall into the trap of thinking of the term 'good' in a purely moral sense. 'Good' for example to the ancient Greeks could mean virtuous. Anyone who has read any Platonic philosophy will testify that virtue carries with it the idea of being fitted out for a purpose. I vaguely remember that Socrates havers on about it in ...[text shortened]... used light) declared that it was indeed 'good', or acted excellently with regard to its purpose.
That may be a different debate, but whatever meaning "good"
has the inference is there that god is making a decision on it.
ie God said "Let there be light" and he saw that it was fit for its purpose.
Originally posted by wolfgang59 That is nonsense - almost every sentence is up for interpretation.
We wouldn't be discussing it now if it were clear.
So you throw up your hands in despair and decide, that a l long as you have to decide which interpretations seem more valid, it is all nonsense.
The bottom line of my comments for you is that it is nonsense to think God had to create light to find out what it is and decide it was good. There's your nonsense.
Originally posted by gswilm So you throw up your hands in despair and decide, that a l long as you have to decide which interpretations seem more valid, it is all nonsense.
The bottom line of my comments for you is that it is nonsense to think God had to create light to find out what it is and decide it was good. There's your nonsense.
- sonship here.
Your point seems to be that by saying, "Let there be light." ... God must have had a concept of what He wanted to create before He created it. God must have thought that it would be good. Right?
Originally posted by wolfgang59 That may be a different debate, but whatever meaning "good"
has the inference is there that god is making a decision on it.
ie God said "Let there be light" and he saw that it was fit for its purpose.
We have been asked to comment on Genesis Chapter 1:4 which reads, 'God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness.'
If one creates something for example a piece of art and as the creator you stand back to examine your work and it meets with your satisfaction and you declare that to your mind its good there is no morality involved. You are making an evaluation and attesting to the fact that the piece before you satisfies some criteria not necessarily moral. It may be an aesthetic value just by way of example. Why should God as architect of the universe be any different?
When we ask our American cousins, 'How are you?' and they reply, 'Im good' are they attesting to their moral health? Probably not! but to their countenance and general feeling of well being. The danger for us is that we project some value onto the term where none can be explicitly extracted from the text. Furthermore we are at somewhat of a disadvantage for we are reading a translation which may or may not be able to accurately reflect the sentiments of the author. Anyone who has read Burns in the original Scots and then views a translation knows just how much of the original can be lost in translation. Language can be 'a cumbersome vehicle' for expressing thoughts.
Even if we concede that God is making 'a decision' or as I prefer to put it 'an evaluation' what of it? Is there some significance to this?
Originally posted by RJHinds I believe he meant this as sort of an analogy as did Jesus when He said the following:
"Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were unwilling."
(Matthew 23:37 NASB)
What Jesus is saying here is absolutely true, it's not much of an analogy.
Originally posted by RJHinds Your point seems to be that by saying, "Let there be light." ... God must have had a concept of what He wanted to create before He created it. God must have thought that it would be good. Right?
No. God is telling man that he found the light to be good because everything God does is good. God is not so much deciding if the light is good, he's telling man that the light is good.
This was what I meant when I said that God didn't cause the Bible to be written for himself, it was written for man.
Genesis 1:4
05 Dec '15 17:48
Back to Top