Let there be Light! Part 2

Q: I agree with some of what you stated but two things stood out to me. First, you had a rhetorical question regarding light with the very first sentence of your answer. However, Genesis 1:5 says "God called the light 'day,' and He called the darkness 'night." God did define the presence of light as "day". So, regarding your Point Barrows, AK, analogy, two months of darkness would be one night and, conversely, an extended period of light would be one day. Biblically, the earth's rotation is irrelevant because God defined the presence of light as a "day" in Genesis 1:5. Second, a third form of light is an interesting possibility but the interpretation must be backed up biblically, first, then scientifically. If a third form of light is the answer, than I would expect there to be other biblical passages in support of that interpretation along with some scientific evidence. Merely claiming a possibilty does not make it true. While God CAN do anything, that is not the issue. The question is: DID God actually use a third form of light as you claim? So, my follow up question would be: Can you cite other biblical passages (that is, provide context and precedence) that support your interpretation of a third form of light and is there any scientific evidence that supports that biblical interpretation?

A: I beg to differ. There are different uses for the word "day." When God talks about Him calling the light day and darkness night, that is a different usage of the word then what I was discussing in regards to my example of Barrow, Alaska. When I mentioned Barrow, Alaska, it was in reference to your usage of the phrase "solar cycle" in your original question. To me, when you say "solar cycle" I think of a 24 hour day, not the light of day. So, while you are correct in saying we could say that a day is two months long and the night is two months long, you are not comparing apples to apples. I was showing that regardless of whether there is light, there is a day. Although, the light God called day, in Genesis 1:5, doesn't appear to be around any longer, because we have the Sun, we still refer to the light the Sun emits during the daylight hours as "day."  This is consistent with Genesis 1:5. Given the context in which you asked your question, biblically, the rotation of the earth is very relevant because you brought up the subject. The third usage of light is backed up biblically as I said in my original answer. One, God is Light (1 John 1:5). Two, God created light (Genesis 1:3). Three, you have the light of the Sun, moon and stars (Genesis 1:14-19). There may not always be a biblical answer to all the questions we ask. We can only use what God revealed to us and trust that He will reveal the meaning to us as we study and search for answers. And He can allow for science to speak for Him because science is not in opposition to the Word of God. I never claimed that my answer was the definite truth. I can only reveal to you the evidence that has convinced me of what I believe and share it with you (1 Peter 3:15). If it doesn't convince you, as I said, you can continue to search for an answer and pray about it.

God's ability to do anything is the issue. It isn't difficult for an uncreated, infinitely powerful God to step into His creation as He creates it. God can operate inside and outside of our dimension. As 2 Peter 3:8 states, "But you must not forget this one thing, dear friends: A day is like a thousand years to the Lord, and a thousand years is like a day." God is not bound by our limitations. You originally asked, "how can God, who is not created, be the source of light when the the light itself is detailed in Scripture as a creation event?" I never said God was the source of light for those three days. The light used for the first three days was also created by God. So, yes, it would appear God used a third form of light. Am I dogmatic about this? No. But, that would seem to be the clear interpretation of the text. But, I admit I was not there, so I am relying on the text and what I believe God has revealed to me. Just for your information, I am not the author of the original article written. My answers are my own and not a defense of the article. Other passages that could be used to support my views are Acts 9:3, 2 Corinthians 4:6, Isaiah 60:19 and Revelations 21:23. I wouldn't presume to believe that there is any scientific evidence to support these passages simply because the use of this "light" seems relegated to times that we have not experienced. Nobody alive today was around when Paul was converted. We were not around during the first three days of Creation. We have not yet experienced the glory of the New Jerusalem. It is something we have to take on faith. A faith supported by the evidence, personally and scientifically, of those things we are certain of. After two years of study, I don't presume to think that a handful of paragraphs will answer all your questions.  But, hopefully, it has led you in the right direction. Grace and Peace.