Originally posted by ink
let there be light... was not actual light we see
the sun and moon and stars where created later'
jesus first off, is not his name, jesus is from a greek translation of iesous.
yehoshua, was his given name,
he is the light to the gentiles...
and i cant explain how i know
except with GOD all things are possable.
i have not always believed or thought that he was real, and at one point in my life i truly hated him (used figurativly)
but the truth cannot be denied, he came into my life, he made me open my eyes, well he did not make me, but made it possable for me to open my eyes.
and now my job is to spread his name. and to try to help others see the truth. if they so desire.
peace
Well, I don't want to hijack this thread, so I won't get into a long debate about the meaning of this verse (At least not here) However, I will point out one more important principle of proper interpretation. Words have no meaning apart from sentences, and sentences rarely have meaning apart from paragraphs. (At least the meaning rarely can be properly understood.) So if I present you with just a word.
Read
And I ask you what it means. You can guess at the definition, but you can not know my intended definition, because the word lacks context. (so it could be "read my post", or "I read your post", you can't be sure.) Same is true of sentences. You might quote me as saying, "I'm going to kill myself." This might be exactly what I said, but if the context was, "The next time Rex Grossman fumbles a snap, I'm going to kill myself." It means something quite different. So the statement's proper meaning can only be known in it's context.
So as odd as it might seem, according to the context of the verse you are referring to, actual light was present prior to the creation of the sun, moon and stars.
"4And God saw the light, that it was good; and God divided the light from the darkness. 5God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. So the evening and the morning were the first day." (You don't have an evening and a morning without light, and the original readers would have understood it in that manner.)
So, the context requires the presence of light, and verse 3, provides it, through the creation of light (actual light). This is also consistent with intent. Clearly the author implies, there is light at the end of the first day (3 days before the sun was created) We know from the context of the passage. Verses 4 and 5 make it clear. (He makes reference to Light and Darkness, Day and Night, Evening and Morning.)
So your interpretation of this verse violates all three of the commonly accepted principle I mentioned. (Author's intent, how the original readers would have understood it, and context. As well as others I have not addressed here.) The interpretation you offer simply isn't sound.
(BTW, Jesus, is the light of the gentiles, in fact the Bible says He is the light of the world, not just limited to the gentiles, but this does not prove the light spoken of in Genesis, is referring to Jesus.)
Further more, if we follow the conclusion that the light mentioned in Genesis verse 3 refers to Jesus, and not actual light, then I could claim his name, is neither Jesus, or Yehoshua, but his name is Yom, the Hebrew word for day. This is clear from verse 5. "God called the light Day".
Finally as to the issue of names, I've often heard people make a rather large issue of this. Jesus was called Ἰησοῦς in Greek, (which we translate Jesus) but keep in mind that was the only name he was called by most of the gentile converts. So, if the early gentile church used this name, which we translate Jesus, and there is nothing the Bible that would indicate the apostles had an issue with this, then I'm not sure why people today would have an issue with it. This is similar to people saying we should only address God (the father) as Jehovah. The interesting thing is, the word is never found in the Greek new testament. So most gentiles in that day would not have referred to God as Jehovah, and the Jews neither spoke that name, nor did they write it.
Also, Peter in the book of Acts refers to the Christ as Jesus, and then goes on to say there is no other NAME under heaven by which men might be saved. (The name was not, Yehoshua, but the Greek name we translate Jesus.)
The point being, I don't make a big issue of it, and I don't find proper cause to in the Bible. (So, why bring it up.)
Sorry about the length, and the Hijack, I'll refrain from pursuing this topic in this thread, any further.
Best regards,
--Tachus
