What Was the Light On Day 1 Of Creation And How Come There Was Night When The Sun Was Created On Day 4?

Then God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good; and God divided the light from the darkness. God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. So the evening and the morning were the first day. (Gen 1:3-5)

Then God said, "Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs and seasons, and for days and years; and let them be for lights in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth"; and it was so. Then God made two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night. He made the stars also. God set them in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth, and to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good. So the evening and the morning were the fourth day. (Gen 1:14-19)

On Day 1, pure physical light was created. The earth was covered with waters and deep darkness. The only movement was the movement of the Spirit over the face of the waters.

When God created light on Day 1, darkness was still there. Light was divided from the darkness in the sense that where light shines, darkness cannot be - light travels, darkness can't. Light is energy. The creation of Light signified the beginning of the Time-Clock. The time run down begins here. This is when the clocks begin to first tick. This is when the ancient symbols of time run - night and day - take charge. It doesn't mean that day is day because of the sun and night is night because of the moon. It signifies the beginning of physical time in the universe with the first act of God.

Of course, there are many opinions and suggestions given regarding the identity of this light. For examples, Dr. Rabbi Zev Farber documents a few rabbinic views such as the buried light view (that the original light got buried and withheld from sinful men), the unfixed lights view (that the lights on day 1 and 4 are identical but not fixed yet on day 1), and the placed in the sun view (that the light was placed in the sun to limit its radiance and heat on day 4). But, these are mere opinions and conjectures.

The fact stated is clearly that God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light. It doesn't say "lights", but "light" signifying the creation of the generic light.

Does the Moral Law Require a Moral Lawgiver?

One popular version of the moral argument for the existence of God has been that the reality or rational necessity of the moral law proves the existence of a moral lawgiver. However, we must admit that there are religious philosophies, especially in Hinduism, Buddhism, and Jainism that do not find a leap from moral law to moral lawgiver necessary at all. In fact, in these, the moral law exists independently to any concept of deity. So, how justified is the argument from law to lawgiver?

I believe that the concept of a moral law and God are inseparable. Perhaps, the name God is better than the term Lawgiver, because the moral law doesn't exist because of an arbitrary command of God (as in divine command theories). Certainly, the moral law doesn't exist apart from God as if He only discovered or knew the principle and gave interpretations to humans in the form of rules and norms. The moral law is not just a set of commandments. It is the law of relationship between persons. Persons have the faculty for self-awareness and self-determination, which takes into account inter-personal relationships. A natural law is a law of relationship between elements or forces of nature. But, the moral law is the law of relationship between moral beings.

To say that the moral law can exist independent of God (Triune Inter-personal Being) is to claim that the moral law is not personal, or if it is personal, it isn't absolute and eternal. Obviously, it couldn't be absolute and eternal if it were restricted to just the flux of this-worldly phenomenon.

Also, this argues against the idea of an impersonal God. If God is impersonal, only impersonal laws would exist. The Eastern views consider personal consciousness as imperfect and impersonal existence as perfect. Thus, in their ultimate argument, the moral law would be very illusory. However, they cannot establish how such an idea could be justified by a "person" whose status of existence is "personal" and not "impersonal".

We know that the moral law exists by the fact that moral beings have concepts of justice and retribution. It is another thing if some call evil as good and good as evil. People usually resort to moral reasoning to settle these differences. However, moral reasoning about what is just and what is unjust would be baseless if there is not a law above the cultural or political "commandments", "traditions", and "customs" of men. Morality would then be highly relative, as some already accept so. But, to say that morality is relative is to make an absolute statement with the normative implication that relative laws ought not to be regarded as either good or evil. The relativist position is self-defeating.

This implies that the moral law does exist eternally and absolutely, not somewhere in the outer space but in the way in which persons are naturally inter-related. This involves the emotional-attitudinal-actional inter-relationship between persons. Such inter-personal relating cannot be the result of impersonal forces-- for if it were, then the idea of personal justice would be ultimately absurd. This effect of moral inter-relations cannot be caused by amoral causes. The cause must be Absolute, Eternal, and Inter-Personal. Therefore, we say that the reality of the moral law invites us to acknowledge the reality of the Triune God.

"My Church" "Your Church" - How Right Are These Expressions?

With the growth of denominational and non-denominational groups, the expressions "my church", "our church", "your church", and "their church" have also become part of many a church jargon. Of course, none of the users of such expressions intend to mean that the church "belongs" to them in the sense of "ownership". Usually, users of these phrases only may mean to say "the local church group that I am going to or am part of". Or do they?

Certainly, only Christ has used the expression "My church" and "My sheep" in the Bible. He said,

And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. (Matthew 16:18)
Jesus said to him, "Feed My sheep. (Joh 21:17)

The apostles only used expressions such as "the church in Jerusalem" and "the church in your house" (Acts 11:22; Philem 1:2). When talking to the Ephesian elders, Paul said:

Therefore take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood. (Act 20:28)

Notice, he says "the church of God".

Usually, pastors may be using the phrase "my church" in the sense of "the flock I am made accountable of". However, many servants of God consciously refuse to use such phrases. They feel grieved when anyone would use such a phrase and will humbly correct it as "Christ's church" or the "church of Jesus", and so on; rightly so.

But, in a highly fragmented world, where at times one may find several "churches" in the same location, or even the same building(!), people wish to identify with some name to distinguish between the groups, and these pronouns sound very meaningful and useful to them in such contexts. But, these phrases also often express the sense of fragmentation.

One danger of possessiveness is to forget that the Chief Shepherd is the one who cares for each His flock. The other danger of fragmented identities is that one may not feel so much at one with a member going to another group. But, if one cannot love his neighbor whom he sees, how can he love the Lord whom he doesn't see? How real is this sense of "belongedness" to some group? Could it be cultic or communal to some extent? The same question can also be asked of para-church missionary movements and groups.

The flock is essentially the flock of God. The church is the sheep of God. Pastors and elders are only overseers entrusted with the care of the sheep. This doesn't mean that they become restricted in their accountability for just flocks of one "denomination" and "group". This responsibility is not man-appointed and doesn't have boundaries imposed by men. It also doesn't end with retirements imposed by man. Their accountability is primarily to God and for whoever the Lord appoints them to take care of.

Shepherd the flock of God which is among you, serving as overseers, not by compulsion but willingly, not for dishonest gain but eagerly; nor as being lords over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock; and when the Chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the crown of glory that does not fade away. (1Pe 5:2-4)

Was John 7:53-8:11 in the Original Text?

 

This famous well-beloved section, known as the Pericope Adulterae, has been the subject of not only many sermons but also many theses and dissertations. Some of the newer Bible versions try to place a footnote stating that the segment is not present in the more ancient available manuscripts. A number of commentators have tried to avoid commenting on it. Some regard the style and theme to be Johannine and opine that perhaps it was omitted in some early manuscript by a copyist and the error carried on into later manuscripts.  Some think the omission may have been deliberate in order to protect the community from becoming too lenient towards the sin of adultery. [1]

Internal evidence points out to the originality of the verses as inspired by the Holy Spirit. The theme of the light of life revealed in the grace of Jesus Christ (John 8:12) is consistent with the pronouncement in John 1:17, that the law came through Moses but grace and truth through Jesus Christ. Also, the contrast between the condemning light of the Law of Moses and the saving light of the Grace of Jesus is obvious. To those who walk in this light, there is cleansing by the blood of Jesus (1John 1:7).

The passage is certainly there in a number of manuscripts though it fails to appear in a number of others. However, the inductive nature of research cannot draw conclusions on the basis of what is not available yet, i.e. a more ancient manuscript that has this passage intact. There is still this possibility that this passage got missed in a copying process in certain manuscripts but remained intact in others. The verses possess marks of authenticity, were accepted and quoted by the church fathers, are consistent with sound doctrine, and are spiritually edifying.

Notes

---

1. John David Punch, The Pericope Adulterae: Theories of Insertion & Omission, Doctoral Dissertation submitted to Radboud University Nijmegen, 19 April 2010

Were Peter and John Illiterate?

Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were uneducated and untrained men, they marveled. And they realized that they had been with Jesus. (Acts 4:13)

The phrase "uneducated and untrained" can be also rephrased as "not educated in rabbinic law nor professionally trained in matters of religion." But, certainly, it does not mean that Peter and John were illiterate. They were literate enough to write epistles and professionally trained fishermen. However, the scribes and temple leaders didn't recognize them as literate according to their standards and procedures of education. But, they were trained better than the scribes in understanding the law and the prophets and their fulfillment in Christ.

Later on, Peter stresses the importance of a right training for an understanding of the scriptures. He says that there are some who are unlearned and unstable that twist the scriptures.

There are some things in those [epistles of Paul] that are difficult to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist {and} misconstrue to their own utter destruction, just as [they distort and misinterpret] the rest of the Scriptures. (2Pet. 3:16, Amp)

It is more important to know the grace of Jesus Christ than to memorize 10,000 commentaries on the law. The disciples knew Jesus, and everybody took note that they were with Him.

Why Am I Still Alive?

"All Who Are Among The Living Have Hope." (Eccl.9:4)

The very fact that we are alive is proof that God has a reason to keep us alive, a plan and a purpose He’s busy about even if we aren’t able to see that now! That realization is summed up in the word HOPE.

As Viktor Frankl said, do not ask, "What can I expect from life?" Rather ask, "What does life expect from me?" In his words, "Ultimately, man should not ask what the meaning of his life is, but rather must recognize that it is he who is asked. In a word, each man is questioned by life; and he can only answer to life by answering for his own life; to life he can only respond by being responsible.”

Nothing is by random and chance in this world. "Chance" is just a catchword that humans use for something they aren't able to understand in deterministic terms. God is in control of all things.

"Are not five sparrows sold for two pennies? Yet not one of them is forgotten by God. Indeed, the very hairs of your head are all numbered. Don’t be afraid; you are worth more than many sparrows." (Luke 12:6-7)
"Everyone will hate you because of me. But not a hair of your head will perish. Stand firm, and you will win life." (Luke 21:17-19)

One needs to recognize HOPE, the fact of life is the fact of hope; the fact that we are alive is the fact that we HAVE hope. And, if one fails to recognize this, one ends up becoming depressed and sick in heart. Hope is that desire and longing, that dream that wishes to be fulfilled. It is a tree of life.

Hope deferred makes the heart sick, but a longing fulfilled is a tree of life. (Prov.13:12)

What is your dream today? Do not keep staring at the others or at circumstances and adversities around. Do not look back. Do not look at your commas as if they are full stops. Look ahead. Look to the calling and the longing that God has placed inside your heart, and pursue God.

"The Spirit that lives in us wants us to be his own." (James 4:5, GW)

Can Satan Read Our Minds?

Quickly, the answer is No. 1 Kings 8:39 tells us that only God knows our heart and 1 Corinthians 2:11 asks, "For what man knows the things of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him?"
But, this raises a number of questions:

• How do angels and demons hear or communicate?


• Do they have a language? Is that language verbal or mental?


• What is the anatomy of their hearing? Do they have ears (of spirit-substance) that can pick up material soundwaves and decode them in some brain?


• Do spirit beings also need to learn every human language to know what is being spoken?

The Bible clearly states that the devil can inject thoughts in a person's mind (Lk.22:3; Acts 5:3). Also, we have several accounts of angels appearing in human form and communicating with words. But, nowhere does it say that anyone other than the person who had the thoughts and God can know a person's hearts. There are some who claim to have psychic abilities and there are also mentalists who use trickery to create an illusion of mindreading. But, the truth is that none except God can know the thoughts of a person's heart.

The Bible mentions the languages of angels and of humans (1Corinthians 13:1). This implies that there is no communication even between angelic beings without the use of a language. In other words, they use language (whatever it is (to communicate and do not just read minds, being able to exactly understand the meaning intended. If they could read minds, there would be nothing mysterious left for them to search for. But, even angels have curiosity.

Even angels long to look into these things. (1Peter 1:12)

With regard to spirit beings knowing human languages, this is not impossible given their intelligence and longevity.

However, they can also not understand the words spoken with the gift of tongues, since this is a divine gift whose words are only given and understood by God.

For he who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God, for no one understands [him;] however, in the spirit he speaks mysteries.(1Cor.14:2)

Demons were angels who transgressed against God and fell into condemnation. They have spiritual bodies but their place is reserved in the lake of fire. Hell was created for the devil and his angels (Matt.25:41). Demons are angels of Satan. Satan can move around, enter people, inject thoughts, and will be bound for judgement; but, he cannot read anybody's mind. He is not omniscient. Only God is. Only God can see through our thoughts.

"For the word of God [is] living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. And there is no creature hidden from His sight, but all things [are] naked and open to the eyes of Him to whom we [must give] account." (Heb.4:12-13)

Are Multiverses (or Multiple Universes) Possible?

(Multiverses. Screenshot from Google Image Search) 
Theologically, it is not an impossibility, given the notion of the "three worlds" or more as some tend to subdivide each. However, one must choose between whether to look atthe various "realms" as part of the one Universe or look at reality as containing multiple Universes not closed to each other. 

It is apparent from the biblical narrative that the gateway (or stairway as in Jacob's dream) between the three worlds is open for angels, and Satan is said to ascend from the pit and move to and fro. The Genesis narrative tells us that the gateway to Eden is closed to man and he is specifically designated as dust that must return to dust. However, there are exceptional cases of Elijah and Enoch taken away to God. 

The term "above" (that also includes pictorial language of dreams and visions) relates to God and life, while the term "below" relates to death and the grave, also pointing to gravitation towards dust and entropy. 

Obviously, theologically, it is impossible for man to get out of this world to any other except through death, or unless God chooses. Also, man cannot create any device to travel to and fro between the worlds. 

There is only one Man who descended from above, descended below, and has ascended above, and will descend again the second time: Christ.