Christian Forums

https://evolutionnews.org/2022/01/the-eye-a-classic-example-of-natural-design/

Article quoted below, from link above.

QuoteThe Eye: A Classic Example of Natural Design

From Cicero in antiquity to John Ray three centuries ago, the eye has traditionally been held up as a marvel of design. Even Charles Darwin, after publishing his theory of evolution, privately admitted "The eye to this day gives me a cold shudder." And it should have. Ray had extolled the many wonders of the human vision system, and since then those wonders have only continued to mount.

John Ray was a leading 17th-century botanist. He is remembered for formalizing the concept of the biological "species." He is also remembered as the father of the 18th- and early 19th-century Natural Theology movement which emphasized nature's designs. Ray's study of the natural world led him to be increasingly impressed with its design.

Myriad Examples of Design

Of Ray's myriad examples of design, he paid particular attention to vision systems. The pupil, Ray noted, dilates and contracts in dim and bright conditions, respectively, to control the light entering the eye. That incoming light forms an image, but after passing through the lens of the eye it is inverted. Nonetheless, the nerves somehow present the image "in its right or natural Posture" to the soul.

Those nerves are bundled together, forming the optic nerve which runs through the retina and back to the brain. And while it may seem logical for the optic nerve to run through the center of the retina, directly behind the lens, in fact it is off to the side, for improved vision. And the images from the two eyes are combined to form depth perception.

Six muscles provide fast and accurate rotation of the eye "to move it upward, downward, to the Right and Left, obliquely and round about," to direct one's field of view without requiring head motion. These and other features led Ray to conclude that the eye was designed, for it was "highly absurd and unreasonable to affirm, either that it was not Design'd at all for this Use, or that it is imposible for Man to know whether it was or not."1

Two Warnings

To those who would dismiss these ideas as the outdated musings of an early scientist, I have two warnings. First, beware of presentism — the anachronistic judging of the past according to contemporary facts and sentiment. It can mask the wisdom of those who came before and lead to a false confidence. Your 21st-century facts do not necessarily make you superior to intellectual giants of previous eras.

Second, far from refuting Ray's three-hundred-year-old work, those 21st-century facts have, indeed, done much to amplify Ray's conclusions. For if the 18th-century study of vision suggested design to thinkers such as Ray, then our 21st-century knowledge is screaming design. If you believe the times have changed, and Ray's ideas are now outdated and outflanked, then you really don't understand the science.

Design on Steroids

Today we have a picture of design on steroids that Ray could not have dreamed of. For example, we now have insight into cellular signal transduction and the vision cascade. Light impinging on the retina enters photoreceptor cells and interacts with a small chromophore molecule, altering its configuration. That shift sets off an intricate cascade of events. Like a tail wagging the dog, the altered chromophore influences a much larger opsin protein which, in turn, activates hundreds of transducin molecules which next activate enzymes that degrade hundreds of thousands of the cyclic nucleotide, cGMP, molecules.

The reduction in cGMP concentration causes the closure of membrane proteins, thus shutting out millions of sodium ions per second that otherwise would have entered the cell. The reduced inflow of sodium ions causes a shift in the voltage across the photoreceptor cell membrane which reduces the release of neurotransmitter in the synaptic region of the cell. This can initiate an electrical signal that ultimately will be transmitted to the brain.

Only the Beginning

This remarkable, finely tuned, intricate, and interdependent cascade provides incredible sensitivity in low-light conditions. Twentieth-century researchers were stunned to discover that we are capable of sensing even just a few photons. But this description of the vision cascade is only the beginning. For example, also in the retina are Mueller cells which simultaneously perform multiple functions. First, they help to sustain the photoreceptor cells and provide mechanical support to the neurons carrying signals to the brain. But secondly, they serve as biological waveguides, guiding the incoming light to the right photoreceptors, depending on light intensity and wavelength. The result is far greater optical efficiency. As one researcher explained, the retina's "optical structure is optimized for our vision purposes."2

This is only a tiny introduction to the design of our vision system. And although it hardly needs to be said, not only does evolution lack a credible explanation for how such designs evolved, but the various components, such as the chromophores and opsins, do not fall neatly into an evolutionary pattern. We can see that Ray's 18th-century sentiment, that it was "highly absurd and unreasonable to affirm" the eye was not designed, was not the musings of an old scientist, but a presaging of things to come.

Another prime example of evolutionists ever learning but never able to come to a knowledge of the truth. We all know today, that the eye is far more complicated than Darwin and others of his time knew, who admitted of the problem it posed for evolution even then. Nevertheless ever increasing learning concerting such at almost every level, does not faze the faith of evolutionists. So be it.

Quote from: 4WD on Mon Feb 07, 2022 - 06:43:00
Well so much for peshat.  It is curious that God didn't declare "there was evening and morning" the seventh day. Even if it be peshat, that doesn't solve the obvious contradiction with what occurred on day four.  And if day is "day", why bother with "evening and morning"?

You are thinking and trying to analyze the text from (1) a translation of the REAL text; and (2) from a modern western mindset. 

What does not make sense to you made perfect sense to  a bronze age Jew. You need to see this text from THAT perspective.

Quote from: DaveW on Tue Feb 08, 2022 - 08:23:35
You are thinking and trying to analyze the text from (1) a translation of the REAL text; and (2) from a modern western mindset. 

What does not make sense to you made perfect sense to  a bronze age Jew. You need to see this text from THAT perspective.

So you think it made perfect sense to a bronze age Jew that there was a sun rise and sun set even though there was no sun.  Why in the world would I need to interpret that text from that perspective?  Apparently it made sense to the bronze age Jew that the sun revolved around the earth, even though we know today that is not the case. According to you, therefore, I must view an earth-centric solar system as true? I don't think so.

And by the way, maybe it is you who does not know how the bronze age Jew really interpreted that text.

Quote from: Amo on Tue Feb 08, 2022 - 07:42:50
Another prime example of evolutionists ever learning but never able to come to a knowledge of the truth. We all know today, that the eye is far more complicated than Darwin and others of his time knew, who admitted of the problem it posed for evolution even then. Nevertheless ever increasing learning concerting such at almost every level, does not faze the faith of evolutionists. So be it.

All of that is actually a Young Earth Creationist's refusal to think that God could possibly have created the system whereby things like the eye could have developed through natural processes.  Such thinking is an affront to God's creative abilities. And that is a real shame.

Quote from: 4WD on Tue Feb 08, 2022 - 08:44:36
All of that is actually a Young Earth Creationist's refusal to think that God could possibly have created the system whereby things like the eye could have developed through natural processes.  Such thinking is an affront to God's creative abilities. And that is a real shame.

I take it then you are NOT a biblical literalist, at least in the first chapters of Genesis.

I find that a bigger shame.

Quote from: DaveW on Tue Feb 08, 2022 - 09:38:21I take it then you are NOT a biblical literalist, at least in the first chapters of Genesis.

I find that a bigger shame.

If you are a biblical literalist with respect to the first chapters of Genesis, there are several questions that I would like your answer to.  The first, of course, is what is the literal meaning of "evening and morning" as it applies to days one, two and three for which there are no sun, moon and stars.  A second might be what is the literal meaning of God's placing a "cherubim and a flaming sward that turned every way to guard the way to the tree of life". There are a bunch more, but these two will be a start.

Quote from: 4WD on Tue Feb 08, 2022 - 08:44:36
All of that is actually a Young Earth Creationist's refusal to think that God could possibly have created the system whereby things like the eye could have developed through natural processes.  Such thinking is an affront to God's creative abilities. And that is a real shame.

Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. 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. 3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. 4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. 5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

The fact that you cannot comprehend the above testimony without the sun, does not mean that God is limited to your comprehension issues. The testimony is clear, God did this before there was our sun. He later testified that the evening and mornings of the creation week were days. This is not a problem for Him, even if it is a problem for you. Light and darkness were here before the sun, moon, and stars of our galaxy in any case. No one is denying God could do as you suggest, His word simply states otherwise. You are the one denying God's ability to do something according as His word testifies, not us.

Perhaps you might find the following of interest. 

https://deeperchristian.com/evening-and-morning-genesis-1/

Quotes below from link above.

QuoteEvening

The word in Hebrew for "evening" is erev (or ereb).  It does mean darkness, dusk, evening, and sunset, but it came out of the understanding of obscurity, mixture, chaos, increasing entropy.

When the day approaches evening, things increasingly get obscured, it becomes hard to see, darkness (chaos) encroaches, and there is seeming movement toward disorder (entropy). The word came to mean "evening" because of this.

Morning

The morning is the opposite of evening. Sunlight pierces the darkness and things become discernible.  Entropy decreases, visibility is restored, and a seeming order ensues. This is why the Hebrew word boker (or boqer) came to mean "morning."

Evening and Morning: From Chaos to Order

Though Genesis is a literal account of creation, there is another layer of understanding and depth. On day one, God took creation and brought order to the chaos. On the second day, He continued His work and brought about more order. This continued through day six until creation was complete and therefore the "erev" (obscurity, chaos, entropy) of creation was brought into order.

Why didn't day seven have an evening and morning? In a literal sense it did – it had a sunrise and a sunset. But there is more to the story than daylight ... erev/boker is not mentioned because creation was whole, in order, and "very good" (Genesis 1.31).

Or maybe the following as well.

http://www.torahtimes.org/www.parsimony.org/biblequestions/eveningandmorning.html

QuoteHere we have a chart explaining the meaning of "evening" and "morning" in the Bible. When the the sun is setting, that is, going down along the descending part of the blue curve, then it is "evening," and when the sun is going along the ascending portion of the curve, it is called "morning." The first evening (which we call afternoon) is the time of the "evening sacrifice," and is also the time we call "between the evenings," because it is between the beginning points of the the two evenings.

Morning actually begins after midnight, and is equivalent to the English usage of the word "morning," we should break down into "very early morning," "early morning," and "late morning." "Very early morning" is midnight to sunrise. Early morning is up to nine, and late morning is nine to noon.

When most people read Genesis 1 [Berasheet 1], "And there was evening and there was morning: one day," they mistakenly think that "morning" means "day" and "evening" means "night." But "morning" is never used for time after noon, and evening is never used for time after midnight, so these words do not mean day and night. If you think about day and night on a round world, you will realize that if we start with evening on one side of the world, that it will start with morning on the other side! So for some parts of the world, the first day began with morning and for some parts of the world it began with evening.

Maybe there is hope for you yet. The whole account, with particular emphasis on "there was evening and there was morning" is not about sunset or sunrise at all.  The message is there was chaos and there was order.  Each day as God completed the work for that day He states "And there was chaos and there was order".  At each step in His creation God brings order out of chaos. I was led to that understanding of "ereb" and "boker" many years ago.  It is really too bad that none of the English translations, or any others probably, have brought that translation/interpretation/understanding into the text.

What is to be understood is the fact that the explanation from nature about the creation beginning with the big bang is the fact that it also describes the creation event [though it is not always referred to as the creation event] as order arising out of chaos.

So, congratulations for looking outside or your own limited understanding for the true message of God's account of creation. Now that you have grasped the real meaning of the words "evening" and "morning", perhaps you could continue in your search and grasp the real meaning of the word "day".

Quote from: 4WD on Tue Feb 08, 2022 - 11:14:14
If you are a biblical literalist with respect to the first chapters of Genesis, there are several questions that I would like your answer to.  The first, of course, is what is the literal meaning of "evening and morning" as it applies to days one, two and three for which there are no sun, moon and stars.  A second might be what is the literal meaning of God's placing a "cherubim and a flaming sward that turned every way to guard the way to the tree of life". There are a bunch more, but these two will be a start.

God Himself was the light, just like in the final chapters of Revelation.  He provided a variance that would result in evening and morning.

Yes there was a literal Gan Eden that Mr and Mrs Adam were kicked out of.  And a literal angel contingent to keep them out.  As to the sword itself, perhaps that was another class of angel. 

BTW I had to laugh when I looked at that in the KJV where it uses the word "cherubims."  Cherub is the singular and if you add the -im suffix it is masculine plural. ( -ot is feminine plural)
So by saying  "cherubims" it becomes double plural??

Quote from: DaveW on Wed Feb 09, 2022 - 06:52:07
God Himself was the light, just like in the final chapters of Revelation.  He provided a variance that would result in evening and morning.

Dave, you are suggesting that when God said, "Let there be light," and there was light", He was referring to Himself"?  I don't think so.  It is speaking of creation; God is not speaking about himself.  The light that He is speaking about is physical light, i.e., electromagnetic energy.

Quote from: DaveW on Wed Feb 09, 2022 - 06:52:07
God Himself was the light, just like in the final chapters of Revelation.  He provided a variance that would result in evening and morning.

Yes there was a literal Gan Eden that Mr and Mrs Adam were kicked out of.  And a literal angel contingent to keep them out.  As to the sword itself, perhaps that was another class of angel. 

BTW I had to laugh when I looked at that in the KJV where it uses the word "cherubims."  Cherub is the singular and if you add the -im suffix it is masculine plural. ( -ot is feminine plural)
So by saying  "cherubims" it becomes double plural??

Ive been down this road before with 4WD. Which is most certainly tenable and biblically based. I think he went off on some tangent about what light is, and what the term God is light, really means. Don't remember all the details, just his rejection of the notion. I do believe there is probably more to it than just God Himself being the light though.

Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. 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. 3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. 4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. 5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

The above seems to suggest more than just God being the light. I'm sure we have much to learn about light and darkness yet, along with just about everything else which exists within our separated box of existence, from so very much of the reality which is God and His creations. We will just have to wait and see. This does not mean the testimony we have, is not accurate and or literal concerning the creation account. A lot to look forward to.

Quote from: 4WD on Wed Feb 09, 2022 - 07:11:39
Dave, you are suggesting that when God said, "Let there be light," and there was light", He was referring to Himself"?  I don't think so.  It is speaking of creation; God is not speaking about himself.  The light that He is speaking about is physical light, i.e., electromagnetic energy.

Like I said. He finished his post before I did.

Quote from: 4WD on Wed Feb 09, 2022 - 07:11:39
Dave, you are suggesting that when God said, "Let there be light," and there was light", He was referring to Himself"?  I don't think so.  It is speaking of creation; God is not speaking about himself.  The light that He is speaking about is physical light, i.e., electromagnetic energy.

God Himself is making the "physical" light.

Revelation 22:5
And there will no longer be any night; and they will not have need of the light of a lamp nor the light of the sun, because the Lord God will illumine them; and they will reign forever and ever.

While at the beginning there was a need for day and night, at the end that need no longer exists.  But God Himself illuminates both scenes.

Amo & Dave,

The light of Genesis 1:3 has nothing whatsoever to do with "God being their light" in Revelation 22:5. That ought to be obvious because the first part of Revelation 22:5 says "they will need no light of lamp or sun", that is they will need no physical light.

So much for your literal interpretations of the Genesis account of creation. If becomes more and more obvious that you simply pick and choose, according to your own preconceived notions, which is to be taken literally and which is to be taken figuratively.

God being their light in Revelation 22:5 is the light Jesus referred to in John 8:12 where he declared, "I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will not walk in darkness, but will have the light of life."

Quote from: 4WD on Wed Feb 09, 2022 - 08:42:29
The light of Genesis 1:3 has nothing whatsoever to do with "God being their light" in Revelation 22:5. That ought to be obvious because the first part of Revelation 22:5 says "they will need no light of lamp or sun", that is they will need no physical light.

"They will need no PHYSICAL light" is you reading something into the text that is not there.  The fact that the light is NOT from a lamp or the sun does not mean it is not physical light.

QuoteSo much for your literal interpretations of the Genesis account of creation. If becomes more and more obvious that you simply pick and choose, according to your own preconceived notions, which is to be taken literally and which is to be taken figuratively.

Not so.  PaRDeS dictates that all Hebrew scripture (and I believe the Greek scriptures to, to a lesser extent) can be taken BOTH literally and figuratively.

Quote from: DaveW on Wed Feb 09, 2022 - 09:01:25
"They will need no PHYSICAL light" is you reading something into the text that is not there.  The fact that the light is NOT from a lamp or the sun does not mean it is not physical light.

Yeah it sort of does, especially when compared with the light that is described as the Lord God. You think that there are photons bouncing around heaven? Yes, I can imagine you might think that.

Quote from: DaveW on Wed Feb 09, 2022 - 09:01:25Not so. PaRDeS dictates that all Hebrew scripture (and I believe the Greek scriptures to, to a lesser extent) can be taken BOTH literally and figuratively.

I have no idea what PaRDeS is or might be and I don't think I care.  It is clearly wrong.

Quote from: DaveW on Wed Feb 09, 2022 - 09:01:25
PaRDeS dictates that all Hebrew scripture (and I believe the Greek scriptures to, to a lesser extent) can be taken BOTH literally and figuratively.

PaRDeS originates about 1000 years too late to be a valid paradigm for Scriptural interpretation.

I find it more instructional to look at how Jesus and His disciples handled the Old Testament.

Quote from: Wycliffes_Shillelagh on Wed Feb 09, 2022 - 12:19:24
PaRDeS originates about 1000 years too late to be a valid paradigm for Scriptural interpretation.
I find it more instructional to look at how Jesus and His disciples handled the Old Testament.

It may have been formalized "too late," but you can clearly see it being used (without the name) in NT scripture.

It was understood that Semitic languages have multiple levels of meaning.  I am told that Arabic has 7, not just the 4 of ancient Hebrew.

Jesus was the master of Remez, the R in PaRDeS.

Quote from: DaveW on Thu Feb 10, 2022 - 11:43:55
It may have been formalized "too late," but you can clearly see it being used (without the name) in NT scripture.

It was understood that Semitic languages have multiple levels of meaning.  I am told that Arabic has 7, not just the 4 of ancient Hebrew.

No, Dave.  You might find an example of one of them being used apart from the others...

-----
Peshat, the plain meaning of a text, exists for most Scriptures.

Remez, hints pointing to further information elsewhere, exists but is not ubiquitous.  This paradigm should be applied only where the text quotes or alludes to other passages, or specifically calls for an allegorical interpretation with phrases such as "let he who hath wisdom..."  We should not treat every verse or snippet as a hint pointing to something else.  Not everything is an allegory.  This is certainly not intended by the authors, and I would argue that this is also not the way that inspiration works.

Midrash is a loaded word.  What was practiced in the 1st century as midrash was nothing more than basic commentary and cross-referencing.  What modern Judaism means by it is a whole mess of things.  Some valid hermeneutical techniques are included, but Judaism seems to delight in the bogus techniques like gematria, and creating false syllogisms from unrelated verses.

Sod is... well, it's garbage.  I can't actually think of a single place in Scripture or anywhere else where any "mystical" meaning ascribed to a text yields good fruit.
-----

But, there's no place in the NT where anyone works through the four consecutively to create a homily on another passage.  There is nothing to suggest that ALL of them are valid for ALL of Scripture.

I find it more profitable to look at what Jesus and His disciples actually did use, things like...

Pesher ("interpretation") is the practice of viewing Scripture as a pattern, and attempting to fit current events to that pattern.  It is in this sense that prophecies are 'fulfilled' (or maybe we should say 'refilled.')

The Spiritual meaning of the Law being prioritized.  That is to say, laws are understood (and enforced) according to the original intent of the law.

These things modern Judaism cannot abide, because if allowed they would immediately point to Christ.

Jarrod

QuoteSod is... well, it's garbage.  I can't actually think of a single place in Scripture or anywhere else where any "mystical" meaning ascribed to a text yields good fruit.

Matthew 2:18
"A voice was heard in Ramah, Weeping and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children; And she refused to be comforted, Because they were no more."

The peshat meaning had nothing to do with Messiah.  This was purely a sod level meaning.

Quote from: DaveW on Thu Feb 10, 2022 - 14:08:57
Matthew 2:18
"A voice was heard in Ramah, Weeping and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children; And she refused to be comforted, Because they were no more."[/color]

The peshat meaning had nothing to do with Messiah.  This was purely a sod level meaning.

There's nothing mystical about that.

It's actually a good example of Remez.  Jeremiah 31 is a prophecy of the restoration of Ephraim (the northern kingdom of Israel).  Matthew 2 is about the birth of Jesus.  The snippet of Jeremiah 31 that is quoted in Matthew 2 is meant to hint that the birth of Jesus the messiah is the beginning of the restoration of Ephraim.

Jarrod

https://crev.info/2022/01/how-darwinists-cheat/

Interesting article about evolutionists assumption and repetition.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DSgoLA2Nxcs

Good video about Easter Island. Rapid deforestation and a whole lot of buried ancient structures. Sounds like another instance among many, of post flood peoples building upon their discoveries of pre-flood higher tech societies, and deifying the antediluvians responsible unto many of the ancient religions. The flood of course causing the rapid deforestation and burial.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHK2-MoR9Fs&t=844s

More evidence of older buried high tech being built upon by later lower tech societies. Which societies tried to replicate what they found, and deified the original builders as part of the religions they formed. This evidence is in Egypt, and also exposes likely coverups by archeologists of a certain narrative, attempting to cover up that which contradicts their faulty narratives.

QuoteI take it then you are NOT a biblical literalist, at least in the first chapters of Genesis.  I find that a bigger shame.

No one who believes in predestination is a Bible literalist.  If you are predestined, you don't need the Bible.  You are hand-picked ahead of time.

Quote from: Cobalt1959 on Thu Feb 17, 2022 - 01:31:14

Quote from: DaveW on Tue Feb 08, 2022 - 09:38:21
I take it then you are NOT a biblical literalist, at least in the first chapters of Genesis.

No one who believes in predestination is a Bible literalist.  If you are predestined, you don't need the Bible.  You are hand-picked ahead of time.

You were quoting me without attribution.  I added my quote for proper attribution.

Where did you get the idea I believed in Calvinistic predestination?  I do not.

And what does predestination have to do with supernatural and/or physical light?

What is supernatural light?

Quote from: 4WD on Thu Feb 17, 2022 - 05:37:15
What is supernatural light?

Light of the spirit and mind.

Is that the light of Genesis 1:3?

Quote from: 4WD on Wed Feb 09, 2022 - 08:42:29
Amo & Dave,

The light of Genesis 1:3 has nothing whatsoever to do with "God being their light" in Revelation 22:5. That ought to be obvious because the first part of Revelation 22:5 says "they will need no light of lamp or sun", that is they will need no physical light.

So much for your literal interpretations of the Genesis account of creation. If becomes more and more obvious that you simply pick and choose, according to your own preconceived notions, which is to be taken literally and which is to be taken figuratively.

God being their light in Revelation 22:5 is the light Jesus referred to in John 8:12 where he declared, "I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will not walk in darkness, but will have the light of life."

The bottom line is, you have no idea exactly what the light we are discussing is, just like the rest of us. You are just like us, you will either take God's word for what it says happened, or you will not. You have chosen the latter. This in no way shape or form means you understand God's power, what He did or did do at creation, or how He did it, any better than anyone else. It simply means you do not believe God did it as His word simply states. You are no better or smarter than anyone else because of this, but perhaps in your own mind. As far as God being actual light as we understand and perceive it, you yourself are also guilty of using scripture alone which supports your own view, while ignoring others which do not.

Exo 14:19  And the angel of God, which went before the camp of Israel, removed and went behind them; and the pillar of the cloud went from before their face, and stood behind them: 20 And it came between the camp of the Egyptians and the camp of Israel; and it was a cloud and darkness to them, but it gave light by night to these: so that the one came not near the other all the night.

Psa 104:1 Bless the LORD, O my soul. O LORD my God, thou art very great; thou art clothed with honour and majesty. 2 Who coverest thyself with light as with a garment: who stretchest out the heavens like a curtain:

Isa 60:19 The sun shall be no more thy light by day; neither for brightness shall the moon give light unto thee: but the LORD shall be unto thee an everlasting light, and thy God thy glory. 20 Thy sun shall no more go down; neither shall thy moon withdraw itself: for the LORD shall be thine everlasting light, and the days of thy mourning shall be ended.

Hab 3:2 O LORD, I have heard thy speech, and was afraid: O LORD, revive thy work in the midst of the years, in the midst of the years make known; in wrath remember mercy. 3 God came from Teman, and the Holy One from mount Paran. Selah. His glory covered the heavens, and the earth was full of his praise. 4 And his brightness was as the light; he had horns coming out of his hand: and there was the hiding of his power. 5 Before him went the pestilence, and burning coals went forth at his feet. 6 He stood, and measured the earth: he beheld, and drove asunder the nations; and the everlasting mountains were scattered, the perpetual hills did bow: his ways are everlasting.

Zec 14:3 Then shall the LORD go forth, and fight against those nations, as when he fought in the day of battle. 4 And his feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives, which is before Jerusalem on the east, and the mount of Olives shall cleave in the midst thereof toward the east and toward the west, and there shall be a very great valley; and half of the mountain shall remove toward the north, and half of it toward the south. 5 And ye shall flee to the valley of the mountains; for the valley of the mountains shall reach unto Azal: yea, ye shall flee, like as ye fled from before the earthquake in the days of Uzziah king of Judah: and the LORD my God shall come, and all the saints with thee. 6 And it shall come to pass in that day, that the light shall not be clear, nor dark: 7 But it shall be one day which shall be known to the LORD, not day, nor night: but it shall come to pass, that at evening time it shall be light. 8 And it shall be in that day, that living waters shall go out from Jerusalem; half of them toward the former sea, and half of them toward the hinder sea: in summer and in winter shall it be. 9 And the LORD shall be king over all the earth: in that day shall there be one LORD, and his name one.

Act 9:3 And as he journeyed, he came near Damascus: and suddenly there shined round about him a light from heaven: 4 And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? 5 And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks. 6 And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do.

Act 22:6  And it came to pass, that, as I made my journey, and was come nigh unto Damascus about noon, suddenly there shone from heaven a great light round about me. 7 And I fell unto the ground, and heard a voice saying unto me, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? 8 And I answered, Who art thou, Lord? And he said unto me, I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom thou persecutest. 9 And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me. 10 And I said, What shall I do, Lord? And the Lord said unto me, Arise, and go into Damascus; and there it shall be told thee of all things which are appointed for thee to do. 11 And when I could not see for the glory of that light, being led by the hand of them that were with me, I came into Damascus.

Act 26:12 Whereupon as I went to Damascus with authority and commission from the chief priests, 13 At midday, O king, I saw in the way a light from heaven, above the brightness of the sun, shining round about me and them which journeyed with me. 14 And when we were all fallen to the earth, I heard a voice speaking unto me, and saying in the Hebrew tongue, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.

2Co 4:5  For we preach not ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord; and ourselves your servants for Jesus' sake. 6 For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.

1Jn 1:5 This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all. 6 If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth: 7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.

Rev 21:22  And I saw no temple therein: for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it. 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. 24 And the nations of them which are saved shall walk in the light of it: and the kings of the earth do bring their glory and honour into it.

Rev 22:5 And there shall be no night there; and they need no candle, neither light of the sun; for the Lord God giveth them light: and they shall reign for ever and ever.

Eze 8:1  And it came to pass in the sixth year, in the sixth month, in the fifth day of the month, as I sat in mine house, and the elders of Judah sat before me, that the hand of the Lord GOD fell there upon me. 2 Then I beheld, and lo a likeness as the appearance of fire: from the appearance of his loins even downward, fire; and from his loins even upward, as the appearance of brightness, as the colour of amber.

Eze 10:4 Then the glory of the LORD went up from the cherub, and stood over the threshold of the house; and the house was filled with the cloud, and the court was full of the brightness of the LORD'S glory.

2Th 2:7 For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way. 8 And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming:

God's light is both spiritual and visible. It can be used and or viewed either way according to scripture. This is only right, in that spiritual realities are reality, it is our world and perception that is so very temporary and passing away. Certainly not the spiritual reality which is God, who alone is forever.

1Ti 6:15  Which in his times he shall shew, who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords; 16 Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honour and power everlasting. Amen.

Quote from: 4WD on Fri Feb 18, 2022 - 06:02:30
Is that the light of Genesis 1:3?

IMO Gen 1.3 is both physical and spiritual light.

Quote from: Amo on Fri Feb 18, 2022 - 08:31:22
The bottom line is, you have no idea exactly what the light we are discussing is, just like the rest of us. You are just like us, you will either take God's word for what it says happened, or you will not. You have chosen the latter .

I don't say this very often about anyone.  But in this you are lying.  I have not chosen the latter as you accuse.  I am taking God's word for what He says when He said, "Let there be light," and there was light.. Even more, I take what He said there to be the literal light as understood today as electromagnetic energy. What's more, I can even explain, in a very rational and scientifically literal way, how that happened and what actually took place at His command to "Let there be light". 

I could have said that you were mistaken when you said I do not take God's word for what it says happened.  But I have explained several times here at the forum what I believe it actually means when God said, "Let there be light," and there was light.. That you apparently are not capable of understanding what I said is no excuse for your accusation.  You, apparently being rather ignorant of all things scientific, do not understand the explanation of what actually took place at God's command and therefore reject it out of hand and accuse me of not taking God's word for what it says happened. That is not just wrong, it is a lie.

Quote from: Amo on Fri Feb 18, 2022 - 08:31:22
This in no way shape or form means you understand God's power, what He did or did do at creation, or how He did it, any better than anyone else. It simply means you do not believe God did it as His word simply states. You are no better or smarter than anyone else because of this, but perhaps in your own mind.

I don't claim to be any smarter than anyone else, but I do claim that I understand somewhat, based upon the natural laws created by God at the very outset of His creation, what took place.

Quote from: Amo on Fri Feb 18, 2022 - 08:31:22
As far as God being actual light as we understand and perceive it, you yourself are also guilty of using scripture alone which supports your own view, while ignoring others which do not.

There is nothing in the Genesis account of creation that suggests the light in Genesis 1:3 being what you have decided it is. You can quote all the passages of scripture that you wish that speak about God later speaking about light in one manner or another, but that does not change what occurred at creation. The fact that you do not understand the physics of what happened is of no consequence whatever.
Jesus said, "I am the light of the world..... " (John 8:12)  That has nothing to do with the light which God brought forth as stated in Genesis 1:3. If I took your explanation of it, I would have to conclude that Genesis 1:3 is a description of God creating Jesus. What utter nonsense you provide.

Quote from: DaveW on Fri Feb 18, 2022 - 10:18:13
IMO Gen 1.3 is both physical and spiritual light.

I asked you earlier what spiritual light is.  You gave me an answer which, frankly, I didn't really understand.  When Jesus said that He is the light of the world, is that what you are calling spiritual light?  If so, when Jesus said, "I am the door" (John 10:9), is that then a spiritual door?  If so, do you think that is the light of Genesis 1:3?  You are, of course, free to think what you wish, but I certainly wouldn't give that interpretation to the Genesis account of creation.

Quote from: 4WD on Fri Feb 18, 2022 - 10:56:27
I asked you earlier what spiritual light is.  You gave me an answer which, frankly, I didn't really understand. 

Not sure how to remedy that.  Apparently we are operating from differing frames of reference.

QuoteWhen Jesus said that He is the light of the world, is that what you are calling spiritual light?

Again, I take it as both. 

"I AM"  As fully GOD, He exists outside of time in the eternal present. In this age, He is spiritual light (enlightenment) to us His followers.  In the Age to Come (post millennial eternity) He will be physical light as stated in Rev 21.

But since He as God exists outside of our time, He is currently both since He is here now and there then at the same "time."

QuoteIf so, when Jesus said, "I am the door" (John 10:9), is that then a spiritual door?

I take that as more of a metaphorical door. He allows entry into the Kingdom of God.