wross at farmerstel.com
Tue Aug 29 21:57:04 EDT 2000
>I have always read "light" being used in the Genesis context as meaning
Would that be an anachronistic reading?
Gen 1 records the creation of man, so the source of the information was God,
not man. The concepts are bigger than ancient Hebrew could accommodate, but,
while I don't "need" it to read that way, it seems to fit the physics. I
mean, if we really understood our physics, we might conclude that the whole
shooting match is actually based on light, since some theories describe all
matter as organized energy.
I don't feel the need to insist that the one who penned Genesis understood
it. And while we have deep insights into energy and matter, we have not
plumbed its depths. I doubt our current language would suffice to express
the profound relationships of various physical phenomenon, did we understand
I do see the term referring to light, but sense that it relates to all of
energy, just as the reference to "He formed the stars also" to include
nebulae, comets, etc.
More information about the b-hebrew