>creates light on the first day
>creates sun and stars on the fourth day
Stopped reading right then and there
 It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
 |
It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
>creates light on the first day. >creates sun and stars on the fourth day
>creates light on the first day
>creates sun and stars on the fourth day
Stopped reading right then and there
It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
|
It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
Wait a second, you mean to tell me these mythology written thousands of years ago by some moronic desert tribe are... dumb?
There were light 100 million years before the first stats were formed. we know that from background radiation.
Modern physics textbooks also say the same.
You shouldn't have because there's a parallel/contradictory creation myth that comes right after emphasizing the fact that what you're reading isn't meant to be taken literally, plotgay.
Congratulations, you've been filtered by both the Bible AND physics. Weak bait, pleb.
>ancient desert tribe used their native word for "light" to refer to all electromagnetic waves and knew that all electromagnetic waves are technically light
>they knew while they were writing the book that electromagnetic waves existed before the sun
>but they could only explain this in vague allegory and the knowledge that not all light comes from the sun, moon and fire was somehow lost immediately after they wrote their book
christcucks are so fricking moronic
You're literally all over the place dude. Your "dunk" wasn't as coherent as you thought it was
I don't care what you think. That guy just asserted that the people who wrote genesis knew that light could be created by things other than stars and the sun, moon and fire. That means they AT LEAST knew about nebulae and may have even known that atomic particles can emit electromagnetic radiation. Either that or for some reason God mechanically controlled their hand and they had no comprehension of what they were writing.
What do you think came first: the Big Bang or the stars?
>what is a flashlight
There was a type of theological literature known as the "hexameron" in the patristic period which sought to explain this in detail; you can you look into that if you actually care (you don't).
Zoom zoom zoom
Light indicates time first and foremost in the ancient world. Stop reading it in your own context. That it is ushered in without reference to a Sun is appropriate.
>Light indicates time first and foremost in the ancient world
sauce? or is this just a schizo theory of yours where the night and day cycle is a cycle of light so light = time
It's not my own theory. Light was always a regulator of timekeeping. You can just know of sundials for that, right? But the bible is taking time as a whole transcendent idea in itself, away from anything measured locally due to the sun and shadows on the earth. In other creation stories as well, the Sun was always named as a god. Something the highest one. Here, it's just another light in the sky. Another object. Same with the moon or stars. None of them have proper names and there are no celestial struggles or wars between them. The Bible is more interested in presenting monotheism first and foremost and creates a much bigger universe right from the start with properties governing even the things people thought were big (like the Sun).
Sometimes* the highest one.
so it is just a schizo theory. can you post a bible verse or anything from the ancient hebrews or other near eastern to explicitly indicate they actually thought time and light were connected like this.
Dude, I'm not doing your homework for you. But it's as simple as reading a Bible Background commentary (that is, commentaries that don't bother with theology or anything. Just the text in ancient context). Go to a library. I don't expect you to pay for one. One teacher you could start is John Walton. Don't know if he tells you anything here, but he'll give you an idea of what Background studies are.
You don't even need this though. It's all there in the first passage. Time, Light, Order defeating Chaos, the very notion of work and activity and motion, the notion of what a "Day" even is - these are all ideas in God's mind before there is anything to do with suns and moons. He is self-contained, his own regulator of Order and Light. Else he wouldn't be God.
>he can't perceive light except through external sources
NGMI
>creates light, earth, and rain in the first week
>doesn’t create rainbows until like thousands of years later
>atheists are titans of intellect
>[but expect you to be impressed they don't believe in Santa]
>atheists stand for free-thinking
>[but demand you adhere to Scientism]
>atheists are champions of reason
>[but have strong opinions about things of which they're uneducated]
>atheists are anti-dogmatic
>[but insist you interpret scripture only according to their ideas of it]
Atheism is an intelligence LARP that morons indoctrinate themselves into. Being an atheist is ridiculously easy; their main weak point is their unearned pride and if you poke at their (entirely self-perceived) intelligence they become reactive and break down. Reminder that the legacy of New Atheism is pic-related: homosexual rape/cuck furry fetish cartoons.
Mate, he just hadn't turned the lights on yet
There is an on and off switch on the stars and it is for God to use
>Implying our sun is the only source of light
itt: bored israelites too scared to come out of their dorm rooms.
It's cute how newer apologists with theocratic ideas resort to this impotent violent rhetoric. It probably has something to do with the fact that all mainstream Christian denominations that still matter somewhat are completely captured by liberalism. I'd almost feel bad if your views weren't so repulsive.
Is this like a flex, because it's doubtful the church of Rick and Morty will ever be captured by conservatism or something?
No, it's not a flex at all. You just don't strike me as a liberal but Christianity (excluding some second- to third-worldist exceptions) seems increasingly aligned with liberal politics, as I said. And it's untrue that the "church of Rick and Morty" is safe from ideological capture, e.g. there were quite a few people from the insufferable online "skeptic" sphere that gravitated right over time. It just strikes me as silly that you're playing the keyboard warrior here, is all.
YOU KNOW BETTER
YOU KNOW BETTER
I got a copies of KJV and NIV on order. One for classic reading and the other to break it down into stupid speak for me.
Why would you get the NIV?
Because Middle English is gay and AIDS and I need something written in Modern English in order to figure out what the frick they're even saying.
Are you moronic? It’s talking about the concept of light and dark, then making lights as their primary source. Also, it’s a creation myth compiled in the middle Bronze Age that’s similar to most others in that region so it’s not going to be very plot inclined. It’s “why are things the way they are?”
Ok Smerdyakov