₦airaland Forum

Dapo777:
What rubbish are you saying. You are exhibiting signs of cognitive dissonance.

How would you say the first light is to neutralize total darkness, why then was it called day and first morning. Why on earth was it called the first morning,If it was just to neutralize total darkness.

It seems you have no idea whatsoever What morning means.

Let me define morning for you because you obviously don't know What morning means: according to Google definition, morning is:

the period of time between midnight and noon, especially from sunrise to noon.

Did you see that? Especially from sunrise to noon. So you telling me morning starts from 12:00am is completely wrong and you are just doing that to earn cheap points in this argument.

End of story. I won!!!

Why because, the verse 5 of chapter 1 clearly makes us know that during the time the first light came, the first morning came into existence. And morning starts with sunrise. That means they have to be sunlight in order to have morning. And Since God didn't create sun that time and was still able to misteriously create the first morning without the sun,that makes this Biblical account impossible and that makes Yahweh impossible to exist because Yahweh did the impossible.

#debunked#

Lolol. You won? Is it really about winning or learning?

I am more interested in your last paragraph. Actually, you didn't say anything about my comment but only went ahead to state what you have been talking about. If I follow the same method in answering you we will get no where. I will respond to your last paragraph by elaborating on my previous comment.

Morning and evening, like I wrote above, as indicated in the bible passage, only but indicates the beginning of the events leading to a particular creation of God and the end period of this creation. If you were open minded enough, your last paragraph would have helped you see that is the logical explanation. Nothing more. Why do you find it hard to understand it in this sense?

Dapo777:
I totally disagree with you.

That's What Christians are good at doing. They interpret meaningless things in the Bible as symbolism, whatever makes sense is literal and whatever doesn't make sense is symbolic right? Hahahahaha Christians and their silly way of interpreting clear messages in the Bible whatever way suits their argument.

Morning to me starts from 6:30am When there is light to see,12:00am is midnight So don't try to confuse anyone here cos u are only confusing yourself.

As far as I am concerned, it is very obvious that the light is visible beyond reasonable doubt,someone telling me that the light isn't visible is obviously in for an ulterior purpose. I don't want to further this argument again with you,because you are changing the natural and normal meaning of things just to favour your own side of the argument and it makes no sense at all.


Its like someone saying dogs don't bark and cat don't meww just to win an argument. I am not interested in silly definition and conclusion.

BYE!!!!

Lol. Calm down we are still about to start the argumen. Remember the argument is why you don't believe that God exists because of what is obtainable in Genesis. Do you think I should go further with the very subject with some questions? Are you ready?

Reyginus:
Lolol. You won? Is it really about winning or learning?

I am more interested in your last paragraph. Actually, you didn't say anything about my comment but only went ahead to state what you have been talking about. If I follow the same method in answering you we will get no where. I will respond to your last paragraph by elaborating on my previous comment.

Morning and evening, like I wrote above, as indicated in the bible passage, only but indicates the beginning of the events leading to a particular creation of God and the end period of this creation. If you were open minded enough, your last paragraph would have helped you see that is the logical explanation. Nothing more. Why do you find it hard to understand it in this sense?

Ok I get your point now,But you are not presenting your point clearly. You should have emphasized the "and let there be lights on the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night" that is When the sun and stars start giving off their light to separate the day from night.

But that still didn't explain the first light that God created. What kind of light is that,and why was the light called day?

Reyginus:
Lol. Calm down we are still about to start the argumen. Remember the argument is why you don't believe that God exists because of what is obtainable in Genesis. Do you think I should go further with the very subject with some questions? Are you ready?

I owe nobody an explanation as to why I don't believe in Yahweh. There are more than a thousand reasons in the Bible and even on earth now not to believe in Yahweh. What are you trying to do now? Make me believe in Yahweh?
You are joking right?

Dapo777:
I owe nobody an explanation as to why I don't believe in Yahweh. There are more than a thousand reasons in the Bible and even on earth now not to believe in Yahweh. What are you trying to do now? Make me believe in Yahweh?
You are joking right?

Lol. I am not trying to. Maybe I am trying to help you develop a better reason for your unbelief.

Reyginus:
Lol. I am not trying to. Maybe I am trying to help you develop a better reason for your unbelief.

That's your problem. You didn't read it When I wrote that this is not the main reason for my unbelief But its among one of a thousand reason why I don't believe? You didn't read that at the beginning of this thread abi? How would you?

Dapo777:
Ok I get your point now,But you are not presenting your point clearly. You should have emphasized the "and let there be lights on the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night" that is When the sun and stars start giving off their light to separate the day from night.

But that still didn't explain the first light that God created. What kind of light is that,and why was the light called day?

Surely, it is not the same light that came with the firmaments. I don't know exactly what light is it but one thing I am sure of is that it was visible enough, at least to God, for it to be employed as a synocdeche.

Light, I think, in this biblical context, is indicative of daylight. I don't think using the minutest form of light to categorize all light into a phenomena is a bad idea. A better analogy is what happens when a country sends an individual to represent her on international matters. No matter how insignificant the person sent is, his address will be represented and presented as the Country's.

Dapo777:
That's your problem. You didn't read it When I wrote that this is not the main reason for my unbelief But its among one of a thousand reason why I don't believe? You didn't read that at the beginning of this thread abi? How would you?

I did but I thought it was another distraction, guessing from the way you concentrated on Genesis 1 in the former thread.

Dapo777:
There are more than one impossible things and irrational things in the Bible that points to the non existence of Yahweh.

When I saw God I mean Yahweh. Agreed?

You want to pretend not to see that comment above uhn?

Reyginus:
I did but I thought it was another distraction, guessing from the way you concentrated on Genesis 1 in the former thread.

As far as I am concerned this is a good reason not to believe the story. If its not a good reason to you,That's to you not me. And I can't force you to see things in a normal way just the way they are. Its ur cup of tea Na not mine. Let me guess,you believe in talking donkeys don't you?

Dapo777:
You want to pretend not to see that comment above uhn?

So, what do you think, do we now talk about them or the light problem is enough?

Dapo777:
As far as I am concerned this is a good reason not to believe the story. If its not a good reason to you,That's to you not me. And I can't force you to see things in a normal way just the way they are. Its ur cup of tea Na not mine. Let me guess,you believe in talking donkeys don't you?

I think as a truth seeker you once agreed you are, it should concern you. Don't you think so? A truth seeker doesn't settle with subjectivism but objective truths.

And, no. I don't believe that donkeys talk as we do.

Reyginus:
I think as a truth seeker you once agreed you are, it should concern you. Don't you think so? A truth seeker doesn't settle with subjectivism but objective truths.

And, no. I don't believe that donkeys talk as we do.

So your own opinion is objective and mine is subjective. You can say whatever you like. The last time I checked,everyone thinks his/her opinion is the right one.
Cool

Reyginus:
So, what do you think, do we now talk about them or the light problem is enough?

No I don't want to talk about them, because you will definitely find a way to explain it away whether it makes sense or not just as you just did here.

But If you need to know more reasons visit.

www.godisimaginary.com

Dapo777:
So your own opinion is objective and mine is subjective. You can say whatever you like. The last time I checked,everyone thinks his/her opinion is the right one.
Cool

Don't misrepresent my position, bro. What I mean is, saying that a thing can be a good reason to me but not to you and still okay, is suggestive of subjectism. A good reason is good irrespective of what any party thinks.

Dapo777:
No I don't want to talk about them, because you will definitely find a way to explain it away whether it makes sense or not just as you just did here.

But If you need to know more reasons visit.

www.godisimaginary.com

But a truth seeker will talk about them to really know the truth. Are you a truth seeker or you are no longer one?

Reyginus:
Don't misrepresent my position, bro. What I mean is, saying that a thing can be a good reason to me but not to you and still okay, is suggestive of subjectism. A good reason is good irrespective of what any party thinks.

Check the total number of likes I have for my opinion on visible light and Check If you have any likes for your opinion on invisible light,then you would know whose opinion is subjective and whose is objective.

Reyginus:
But a truth seeker will talk about them to really know the truth. Are you a truth seeker or you are no longer one?

I think I have answered your question before,So why are you asking me again.
I said I am no longer seeking the truth because I have discovered the truth. Yahweh is imaginary. Simple and straight. Is that difficult to understand?

Then I was still searching for the truth as to whether Yahweh exist or not,now that I have finally discovered that Yahweh is just myth,What is there to seek again. What other truth is there than Yahweh is a myth. Are you still confused?

Dapo777:
I think I have answered your question before,So why are you asking me again.
I said I am no longer seeking the truth because I have discovered the truth. Yahweh is imaginary. Simple and straight. Is that difficult to understand?

Then I was still searching for the truth as to whether Yahweh exist or not,now that I have finally discovered that Yahweh is just myth,What is there to seek again. What other truth is there than Yahweh is a myth. Are you still confused?

I was never confused, friend. I expected to learn a lot from your awareness but it seems you don't want to share any.

Dapo777:
Check the total number of likes I have for my opinion on visible light and Check If you have any likes for your opinion on invisible light,then you would know whose opinion is subjective and whose is objective.

Lololol.
What is this, Dapo? You seem to be arguing for the purpose of winning or pleasing the public and not really for understanding truth. You can be better than that. You may not know if I was one of the likers to spur you on.

Reyginus:
I was never confused, friend. I expected to learn a lot from your awareness but it seems you don't want to share any.

I can't share any because you will just explain it off. So What's the point?
I don't try to continue anyone to stop belief in Yahweh,I am fully convinced within my self that Yahweh doesn't exist,and that has not made me a pervert. In fact Since I stopped believing in Yahweh life has become clearer to me,things starts to make more sense to me. No more nights of endless thinking, every thing seems to fit together to solve this puzzle called life. I have discovered the truth about life. I hope you would discover it also.

The truth is not What seems more appealing to the ears,But I am compelled to accept my current belief as the truth because of overwhelming evidence,and because I trust my common sense and guts.

That's it.

Reyginus:
Lololol.
What is this, Dapo? You seem to be arguing for the purpose of winning or pleasing the public and not really for understanding truth. You can be better than that. You may not know if I was one of the likers to spur you on.

Are you not the one implying my opinion is subjective, and I asked you to Check the number of likes I have,those who liked the comments definitely agree with me,So you see that I am not the only one who has my opinion,so it is therefore not subjective.

Dapo777:
I can't share any because you will just explain it off. So What's the point?
I don't try to continue anyone to stop belief in Yahweh,I am fully convinced within my self that Yahweh doesn't exist,and that has not made me a pervert. In fact Since I stopped believing in Yahweh life has become clearer to me,things starts to make more sense to me. No more nights of endless thinking, every thing seems to fit together to solve this puzzle called life. I have discovered the truth about life. I hope you would discover it also.

The truth is not What seems more appealing to the ears,But I am compelled to accept my current belief as the truth because of overwhelming evidence,and because I trust my common sense and guts.

That's it.

I can bet my life that you are not fully convinced that Yahweh is non-existent. It is just an exaggeration to keep you on track. Any new rebel, in this case, has little doubts of his new position.

Dapo777:
Are you not the one implying my opinion is subjective, and I asked you to Check the number of likes I have,those who liked the comments definitely agree with me,So you see that I am not the only one who has my opinion,so it is therefore not subjective.

Lolol. You are still repeating that line. I didn't imply anything, you did state it yourself when you suggested that the reason may be good for me and not for you.

Reyginus:
I can bet my life that you are not fully convinced that Yahweh is non-existent. It is just an exaggeration to keep you on track. Any new rebel, in this case, has little doubts of his new position.

What d fvck Ar u talking about. So now you know me more than I know myself.

Please don't waste your talent on nairaland, go into comedy,you will succeed as a comedian. Cos my ribs are cracking Really hard here. Hehehe

Dapo777:
What d fvck Ar u talking about. So now you know me more than I know myself.

Please don't waste your talent on nairaland, go into comedy,you will succeed as a comedian. Cos my ribs are cracking Really hard here. Hehehe

Okay. But I expected more.

Reyginus:
Lol. Calm down we are still about to start the argumen. Remember the argument is why you don't believe that God exists because of what is obtainable in Genesis. Do you think I should go further with the very subject with some questions? Are you ready?

This is not a real argument. God is an amorphous term and could mean anything from the $20 bill in my pocket to my Ford Taurus. Or even a mystical being who interferes in human activities.

If by God, you mean Jesus and Yahweh, then Genesis isn't even needed to refute the existence of those two.

I've read through this thread and I see what you're driving at but I've to come back to this post. In fact I like the way two of you have been keeping it cool from start.

Dapo777:
Ok in the book of Genesis 1:3-4
And God said let there be light and there was light. God saw that the light was good and he separated the light from darkness.

You should have started it from verse 2 so that the understanding of what verse 3 is pointing will be cleared.

"And the earth was waste and void; [size=14pt]and darkness was upon the face of the deep:[/size] and the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters." Gen 1:2 ASV

@bolded-Darkness was on the face of the deep, what God did is to illuminate the surrounding by bringing out "LIGHT" and mind you no where Bible later says this particular LIGHT was remained after the creation.

Now What this obviously means is that God created visible light before creating the sun because not in anywhere in verse one or two was the creation of sun mentioned.

So the light that God created where is it today?
This is where I see the misunderstanding of the scriptures because this particular light never HAVE A POSITION or physical representative object, so this should shows that God only bring out this LIGHT to start His work and LATER USED THE SUN TO REPLACE and continue the functionality of the FIRST LIGHT.

Since it is not possible to have visible light through natural means without the sun ,and If you mention Aurora, Aurora is caused by geomagnetic disturbances, I presume When God created the earth it was perfect,So having geomagnetic disturbances is ruled out,because the presence of Aurora doesn't support a "perfect" earth as God created it in the beginning.

I don't have much to say here.

Now that I have established the fact that they can't be light without the sun, Genesis 1:3-4 completely destroys the possibility of the existence of a God creating light before the sun.

Please let's allow Bible to speak for Itself rejecting Bible shouldn't rule out this, God is Light so they can be Light without the Sun and Genesis 1:3 didn't say the LIGHT have a position in fact an open minded reading Genesis 1:14 can see that the actual LIGHT CREATED was to TAKE the PLACE and FUNCTIONALITY of the first light; How?

We read in Gen 1:14 "And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years:"

One thing that is very astonished here and made it clear that this LIGHT is to replace and perform the function of the FIRST LIGHT is the underlined because we can see again that this same LIGHT is to divide/separate day and night.

If we can ask, how many time then God divided DAY and NIGHT?

If will should follow your assumption our answer will be TWO TIMES, but an open minded person can conclude that THE SECOND LIGHT of Genesis 1:14 is to take the position and functionality of the FIRST LIGHT of Genesis 1:3.

So Gen 1:3 is just a light that God used to begin His work which later replaced by permanent one in Gen 1:14

I'm not given this answer to what science says about our universe BUT the way we should allow Bible to speak for Itself.

Emusan:
I've read through this thread and I see what you're driving at but I've to come back to this post. In fact I like the way two of you have been keeping it cool from start.



You should have started it from verse 2 so that the understanding of what verse 3 is pointing will be cleared.

"And the earth was waste and void; [size=14pt]and darkness was upon the face of the deep:[/size] and the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters." Gen 1:2 ASV

@bolded-Darkness was on the face of the deep, what God did is to illuminate the surrounding by bringing out "LIGHT" and mind you no where Bible later says this particular LIGHT was remained after the creation.



So the light that God created where is it today?
This is where I see the misunderstanding of the scriptures because this particular light never HAVE A POSITION or physical representative object, so this should shows that God only bring out this LIGHT to start His work and LATER USED THE SUN TO REPLACE and continue the functionality of the FIRST LIGHT.



I don't have much to say here.



Please let's allow Bible to speak for Itself rejecting Bible shouldn't rule out this, God is Light so they can be Light without the Sun and Genesis 1:3 didn't say the LIGHT have a position in fact an open minded reading Genesis 1:14 can see that the actual LIGHT CREATED was to TAKE the PLACE and FUNCTIONALITY of the first light; How?

We read in Gen 1:14 "And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years:"

One thing that is very astonished here and made it clear that this LIGHT is to replace and perform the function of the FIRST LIGHT is the underlined because we can see again that this same LIGHT is to divide/separate day and night.

If we can ask, how many time then God divided DAY and NIGHT?

If will should follow your assumption our answer will be TWO TIMES, but an open minded person can conclude that THE SECOND LIGHT of Genesis 1:14 is to take the position and functionality of the FIRST LIGHT of Genesis 1:3.

So Gen 1:3 is just a light that God used to begin His work which later replaced by permanent one in Gen 1:14

I'm not given this answer to what science says about our universe BUT the way we should allow Bible to speak for Itself.

I think I am more comfortable with this explanation than Reyginus explanation, What he was trying to make me accept is that the first light wasn't visible to human eyes,Which I just can't make myself accept it,But you would agree the light is visible,at least we are getting somewhere with that realization.

Now how do you know that God removed this first light after using it to start his creation? No Where in the book of Genesis is it stated that God removed the light.

Dapo777:
I am Happy you concluded that the Biblical account is just to be believed,and not to use scientific methods to analyze it.

Is that what you analyse from the article?

Dapo777:
So God is the light that was created, So God said let there be God and there was God,and God called the God day and there was the first morning.

Wonderful.

What you should worry about is how the Holy city is going to be illuminated in the book of Revelation. The end gives us a clue to the beginning.

"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" (Revelation 21:23).

Weah96:
This is not a real argument. God is an amorphous term and could mean anything from the $20 bill in my pocket to my Ford Taurus. Or even a mystical being who interferes in human activities.

If by God, you mean Jesus and Yahweh, then Genesis isn't even needed to refute the existence of those two.

I would like to see you refute his existence. Go on...

Dapo777:
I think I am more comfortable with this explanation than Reyginus explanation, What he was trying to make me accept is that the first light wasn't visible to human eyes,Which I just can't make myself accept it,But you would agree the light is visible,at least we are getting somewhere with that realization.

I'm really impressed with your open mind towards my post. God will continue to enlighten our mind and expand our knowledge about Himself. Amen! because I'm a fallible man with a limited mind trying to discern the mind of an infallible and unlimited God. In fact I've learnt something on this thread.

Now how do you know that God removed this first light after using it to start his creation? No Where in the book of Genesis is it stated that God removed the light.

To answer your question we must first ask ourselves this, where was the FIRST LIGHT placed/positioned?

According to Genesis 1:3 the Light has no position nor been described as an OBJECT unlike the second Light in Gen 1:14 that has position and been described as an object. "And God said, let there be LIGHT in the FIRMAMENT of heaven…17 And God set THEM in the firmament of heaven..." this indicate that this light is actually an OBJECT and HAVING A POSITION.

If we carefully read Genesis 1:3-5 to see the function of this FIRST LIGHT and compare it with Genesis 1:14-19 there will be no doubt that this second LIGHT actually comes to PERFORM the functions of the FIRST LIGHT.

To answer your question, since the second Light came to perform the functions of the FIRST light and this first Light having no POSITION or been described in form of an object, then we can conclude that THIS LIGHT ACTUALLY PROJECTED OUT from NON POSITIONAL object SOURCE which its removal might not necessarily need to be considered.

Actually nowhere Bible later said the light was removed but common logic can tell us that since the second light has come to carry out the function of the first light. the first must surely not need to be there anymore.

I'm still a fallible and limited minded man trying to discern the mind of an infallible and unlimited mind of God.

I will happily welcome any of your view about my post


Shalom!


(I'm sorry if my post is too lengthen)