Did God make two great lights or did He make the great light two? The 2019 Stack Overflow...

Didn't get enough time to take a Coding Test - what to do now?

Finding the path in a graph from A to B then back to A with a minimum of shared edges

What are these Gizmos at Izaña Atmospheric Research Center in Spain?

What aspect of planet Earth must be changed to prevent the industrial revolution?

How did the audience guess the pentatonic scale in Bobby McFerrin's presentation?

how can a perfect fourth interval be considered either consonant or dissonant?

Working through the single responsibility principle (SRP) in Python when calls are expensive

Make it rain characters

Do warforged have souls?

Does Parliament hold absolute power in the UK?

How can I protect witches in combat who wear limited clothing?

When did F become S? Why?

How to prevent selfdestruct from another contract

How do I add random spotting to the same face in cycles?

A pet rabbit called Belle

Relations between two reciprocal partial derivatives?

How are presidential pardons supposed to be used?

Difference between "generating set" and free product?

Typeface like Times New Roman but with "tied" percent sign

I could not break this equation. Please help me

How to pronounce 1ターン?

ELI5: Why do they say that Israel would have been the fourth country to land a spacecraft on the Moon and why do they call it low cost?

Empty set is subset of every set? If yes, why that...

Are my PIs rude or am I just being too sensitive?



Did God make two great lights or did He make the great light two?



The 2019 Stack Overflow Developer Survey Results Are In
Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara
Planned maintenance scheduled April 17/18, 2019 at 00:00UTC (8:00pm US/Eastern)Is “stars” the object of “made” or “rule” in Genesis 1:16?“Under heaven” or “under the heavens” on day three of creation?Does Genesis 1:14 Talk About Astrology?Why is the light in day 1 of creation not an 'it'?Plants created before the sun?Why were the waters divided in Gen 1:6?Are the luminaries of Gen. 1:14-15 the same as the stars of Gen. 1:16?In Psalm 148:4 are the waters above the highest heaven?Genesis 1:5 How can God call the light “Day” when light and day are two different concepts?In Genesis 1:14, how are the “lights in the firmament of heaven…for signs”?












2
















And God said, “Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night. And let them be for signs and for seasons, and for days and years, and let them be lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light upon the earth.” And it was so. (Genesis 1:14-15) [ESV]




The moon is not a star nor does it emit light; it only reflects the light of the sun (and a small amount of light from the earth, which also originated from the sun).




And God made the two great lights—the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night—and the stars. And God set them in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth, to rule over the day and over the night, and to separate the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good. (Genesis 1:16-18)




Physically, the sun does not change. The amount of light which reaches a specific location on the earth will vary because the earth rotates. A location will move away from direct light from the sun, but the light received (at night) is still from the sun. In other words, even when not directly visible, the sun is still the greater light (in the night sky).



The correct way to explain this system is to say there is one great light which becomes lesser by the combined factors of the earth's rotation and the presence of the moon. Or simply, God made the greater light lesser to rule at night.




וַיַּעַשׂ אֱלֹהִים אֶת־שְׁנֵי הַמְּאֹרֹת הַגְּדֹלִים אֶת־הַמָּאֹור הַגָּדֹל לְמֶמְשֶׁלֶת הַיֹּום וְאֶת־הַמָּאֹור הַקָּטֹן לְמֶמְשֶׁלֶת הַלַּיְלָה וְאֵת הַכֹּוכָבִֽים׃




While "two lights great" is plural, "the light" הַמָּא֤וֹר which rules the day is the identical with "the light" הַמָּא֤וֹר which rules the night.



Can Genesis 1:16 be read to give a more physically correct description of the system God created?










share|improve this question























  • The sun rules the day, the moon the night. Both give off their own light. Fun fact: Moonlight is actually colder than darkness. Learn more about God's creation, what world we are truly living in here: gffg.info/Jesus/FlatEarth.html

    – www.gffg.info
    6 hours ago











  • @www.gffg.info The moon is a rock. It has no light of its own. The Bible does correctly distinguish it as "light" and not a star but your "scientific" claims damage the credibility of the word of God.

    – Revelation Lad
    5 hours ago











  • Have you ever been to the moon? Does the Bible say it is a rock? We don't know, nobody has ever been to the moon. And the moon most definitely does emit it's own light. You cant believe what the heathen world teaches concerning these things but look to the word of God. People around the world have been deceived to believe that we are on a ball in "space" spinning at a thousand miles per hour floating around a massive sun in a universe so big it goes on infinitely. The ancient Hebrews knew what the world was, look up the Ancient Hebrew Conception of the world. This is all proven in...

    – www.gffg.info
    5 hours ago











  • this video: m.youtube.com/watch?v=hmBRgqRrLyM And what claims of mine damage the credibility of the word of God?

    – www.gffg.info
    5 hours ago













  • @www.gffg.info All of them?

    – Revelation Lad
    5 hours ago
















2
















And God said, “Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night. And let them be for signs and for seasons, and for days and years, and let them be lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light upon the earth.” And it was so. (Genesis 1:14-15) [ESV]




The moon is not a star nor does it emit light; it only reflects the light of the sun (and a small amount of light from the earth, which also originated from the sun).




And God made the two great lights—the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night—and the stars. And God set them in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth, to rule over the day and over the night, and to separate the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good. (Genesis 1:16-18)




Physically, the sun does not change. The amount of light which reaches a specific location on the earth will vary because the earth rotates. A location will move away from direct light from the sun, but the light received (at night) is still from the sun. In other words, even when not directly visible, the sun is still the greater light (in the night sky).



The correct way to explain this system is to say there is one great light which becomes lesser by the combined factors of the earth's rotation and the presence of the moon. Or simply, God made the greater light lesser to rule at night.




וַיַּעַשׂ אֱלֹהִים אֶת־שְׁנֵי הַמְּאֹרֹת הַגְּדֹלִים אֶת־הַמָּאֹור הַגָּדֹל לְמֶמְשֶׁלֶת הַיֹּום וְאֶת־הַמָּאֹור הַקָּטֹן לְמֶמְשֶׁלֶת הַלַּיְלָה וְאֵת הַכֹּוכָבִֽים׃




While "two lights great" is plural, "the light" הַמָּא֤וֹר which rules the day is the identical with "the light" הַמָּא֤וֹר which rules the night.



Can Genesis 1:16 be read to give a more physically correct description of the system God created?










share|improve this question























  • The sun rules the day, the moon the night. Both give off their own light. Fun fact: Moonlight is actually colder than darkness. Learn more about God's creation, what world we are truly living in here: gffg.info/Jesus/FlatEarth.html

    – www.gffg.info
    6 hours ago











  • @www.gffg.info The moon is a rock. It has no light of its own. The Bible does correctly distinguish it as "light" and not a star but your "scientific" claims damage the credibility of the word of God.

    – Revelation Lad
    5 hours ago











  • Have you ever been to the moon? Does the Bible say it is a rock? We don't know, nobody has ever been to the moon. And the moon most definitely does emit it's own light. You cant believe what the heathen world teaches concerning these things but look to the word of God. People around the world have been deceived to believe that we are on a ball in "space" spinning at a thousand miles per hour floating around a massive sun in a universe so big it goes on infinitely. The ancient Hebrews knew what the world was, look up the Ancient Hebrew Conception of the world. This is all proven in...

    – www.gffg.info
    5 hours ago











  • this video: m.youtube.com/watch?v=hmBRgqRrLyM And what claims of mine damage the credibility of the word of God?

    – www.gffg.info
    5 hours ago













  • @www.gffg.info All of them?

    – Revelation Lad
    5 hours ago














2












2








2









And God said, “Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night. And let them be for signs and for seasons, and for days and years, and let them be lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light upon the earth.” And it was so. (Genesis 1:14-15) [ESV]




The moon is not a star nor does it emit light; it only reflects the light of the sun (and a small amount of light from the earth, which also originated from the sun).




And God made the two great lights—the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night—and the stars. And God set them in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth, to rule over the day and over the night, and to separate the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good. (Genesis 1:16-18)




Physically, the sun does not change. The amount of light which reaches a specific location on the earth will vary because the earth rotates. A location will move away from direct light from the sun, but the light received (at night) is still from the sun. In other words, even when not directly visible, the sun is still the greater light (in the night sky).



The correct way to explain this system is to say there is one great light which becomes lesser by the combined factors of the earth's rotation and the presence of the moon. Or simply, God made the greater light lesser to rule at night.




וַיַּעַשׂ אֱלֹהִים אֶת־שְׁנֵי הַמְּאֹרֹת הַגְּדֹלִים אֶת־הַמָּאֹור הַגָּדֹל לְמֶמְשֶׁלֶת הַיֹּום וְאֶת־הַמָּאֹור הַקָּטֹן לְמֶמְשֶׁלֶת הַלַּיְלָה וְאֵת הַכֹּוכָבִֽים׃




While "two lights great" is plural, "the light" הַמָּא֤וֹר which rules the day is the identical with "the light" הַמָּא֤וֹר which rules the night.



Can Genesis 1:16 be read to give a more physically correct description of the system God created?










share|improve this question















And God said, “Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night. And let them be for signs and for seasons, and for days and years, and let them be lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light upon the earth.” And it was so. (Genesis 1:14-15) [ESV]




The moon is not a star nor does it emit light; it only reflects the light of the sun (and a small amount of light from the earth, which also originated from the sun).




And God made the two great lights—the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night—and the stars. And God set them in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth, to rule over the day and over the night, and to separate the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good. (Genesis 1:16-18)




Physically, the sun does not change. The amount of light which reaches a specific location on the earth will vary because the earth rotates. A location will move away from direct light from the sun, but the light received (at night) is still from the sun. In other words, even when not directly visible, the sun is still the greater light (in the night sky).



The correct way to explain this system is to say there is one great light which becomes lesser by the combined factors of the earth's rotation and the presence of the moon. Or simply, God made the greater light lesser to rule at night.




וַיַּעַשׂ אֱלֹהִים אֶת־שְׁנֵי הַמְּאֹרֹת הַגְּדֹלִים אֶת־הַמָּאֹור הַגָּדֹל לְמֶמְשֶׁלֶת הַיֹּום וְאֶת־הַמָּאֹור הַקָּטֹן לְמֶמְשֶׁלֶת הַלַּיְלָה וְאֵת הַכֹּוכָבִֽים׃




While "two lights great" is plural, "the light" הַמָּא֤וֹר which rules the day is the identical with "the light" הַמָּא֤וֹר which rules the night.



Can Genesis 1:16 be read to give a more physically correct description of the system God created?







hebrew genesis






share|improve this question













share|improve this question











share|improve this question




share|improve this question










asked 6 hours ago









Revelation LadRevelation Lad

3,2112944




3,2112944













  • The sun rules the day, the moon the night. Both give off their own light. Fun fact: Moonlight is actually colder than darkness. Learn more about God's creation, what world we are truly living in here: gffg.info/Jesus/FlatEarth.html

    – www.gffg.info
    6 hours ago











  • @www.gffg.info The moon is a rock. It has no light of its own. The Bible does correctly distinguish it as "light" and not a star but your "scientific" claims damage the credibility of the word of God.

    – Revelation Lad
    5 hours ago











  • Have you ever been to the moon? Does the Bible say it is a rock? We don't know, nobody has ever been to the moon. And the moon most definitely does emit it's own light. You cant believe what the heathen world teaches concerning these things but look to the word of God. People around the world have been deceived to believe that we are on a ball in "space" spinning at a thousand miles per hour floating around a massive sun in a universe so big it goes on infinitely. The ancient Hebrews knew what the world was, look up the Ancient Hebrew Conception of the world. This is all proven in...

    – www.gffg.info
    5 hours ago











  • this video: m.youtube.com/watch?v=hmBRgqRrLyM And what claims of mine damage the credibility of the word of God?

    – www.gffg.info
    5 hours ago













  • @www.gffg.info All of them?

    – Revelation Lad
    5 hours ago



















  • The sun rules the day, the moon the night. Both give off their own light. Fun fact: Moonlight is actually colder than darkness. Learn more about God's creation, what world we are truly living in here: gffg.info/Jesus/FlatEarth.html

    – www.gffg.info
    6 hours ago











  • @www.gffg.info The moon is a rock. It has no light of its own. The Bible does correctly distinguish it as "light" and not a star but your "scientific" claims damage the credibility of the word of God.

    – Revelation Lad
    5 hours ago











  • Have you ever been to the moon? Does the Bible say it is a rock? We don't know, nobody has ever been to the moon. And the moon most definitely does emit it's own light. You cant believe what the heathen world teaches concerning these things but look to the word of God. People around the world have been deceived to believe that we are on a ball in "space" spinning at a thousand miles per hour floating around a massive sun in a universe so big it goes on infinitely. The ancient Hebrews knew what the world was, look up the Ancient Hebrew Conception of the world. This is all proven in...

    – www.gffg.info
    5 hours ago











  • this video: m.youtube.com/watch?v=hmBRgqRrLyM And what claims of mine damage the credibility of the word of God?

    – www.gffg.info
    5 hours ago













  • @www.gffg.info All of them?

    – Revelation Lad
    5 hours ago

















The sun rules the day, the moon the night. Both give off their own light. Fun fact: Moonlight is actually colder than darkness. Learn more about God's creation, what world we are truly living in here: gffg.info/Jesus/FlatEarth.html

– www.gffg.info
6 hours ago





The sun rules the day, the moon the night. Both give off their own light. Fun fact: Moonlight is actually colder than darkness. Learn more about God's creation, what world we are truly living in here: gffg.info/Jesus/FlatEarth.html

– www.gffg.info
6 hours ago













@www.gffg.info The moon is a rock. It has no light of its own. The Bible does correctly distinguish it as "light" and not a star but your "scientific" claims damage the credibility of the word of God.

– Revelation Lad
5 hours ago





@www.gffg.info The moon is a rock. It has no light of its own. The Bible does correctly distinguish it as "light" and not a star but your "scientific" claims damage the credibility of the word of God.

– Revelation Lad
5 hours ago













Have you ever been to the moon? Does the Bible say it is a rock? We don't know, nobody has ever been to the moon. And the moon most definitely does emit it's own light. You cant believe what the heathen world teaches concerning these things but look to the word of God. People around the world have been deceived to believe that we are on a ball in "space" spinning at a thousand miles per hour floating around a massive sun in a universe so big it goes on infinitely. The ancient Hebrews knew what the world was, look up the Ancient Hebrew Conception of the world. This is all proven in...

– www.gffg.info
5 hours ago





Have you ever been to the moon? Does the Bible say it is a rock? We don't know, nobody has ever been to the moon. And the moon most definitely does emit it's own light. You cant believe what the heathen world teaches concerning these things but look to the word of God. People around the world have been deceived to believe that we are on a ball in "space" spinning at a thousand miles per hour floating around a massive sun in a universe so big it goes on infinitely. The ancient Hebrews knew what the world was, look up the Ancient Hebrew Conception of the world. This is all proven in...

– www.gffg.info
5 hours ago













this video: m.youtube.com/watch?v=hmBRgqRrLyM And what claims of mine damage the credibility of the word of God?

– www.gffg.info
5 hours ago







this video: m.youtube.com/watch?v=hmBRgqRrLyM And what claims of mine damage the credibility of the word of God?

– www.gffg.info
5 hours ago















@www.gffg.info All of them?

– Revelation Lad
5 hours ago





@www.gffg.info All of them?

– Revelation Lad
5 hours ago










4 Answers
4






active

oldest

votes


















2














The answer is simply "no", for at least two reasons.



The first reason is that there is no indication that any Biblical passage is intended to teach a technical, scientific or even historical truth. The majority of the Bible presents the religious and political viewpoints of its various authors and redactors relative to competing viewpoints at the time of their writing. These authors lived and wrote in a time before what we now call "science". Furthermore, science doesn't purport to be true or "the Truth", science only purports to providing the best current understanding of natural phenomena. Because of this mismatch in purposes it is an exercise in futility to try to back-read science into the ancient world and into the Bible in particular.



The second reason is that the grammar of the verse does not support such a reading. The main verse in question is Genesis 1:16, the MT of which is:




וַיַּ֣עַשׂ אֱלֹהִ֔ים אֶת־שְׁנֵ֥י הַמְּאֹרֹ֖ת הַגְּדֹלִ֑ים אֶת־הַמָּא֤וֹר הַגָּדֹל֙ לְמֶמְשֶׁ֣לֶת הַיּ֔וֹם וְאֶת־הַמָּא֤וֹר הַקָּטֹן֙ לְמֶמְשֶׁ֣לֶת הַלַּ֔יְלָה וְאֵ֖ת הַכּוֹכָבִֽים




The first grammatical problem is that the word מאור (ma'or) which appears three time in the verse is not the same as the word אור (or), meaning "light" as in Genesis 1:3. The word מאור in Genesis 1:16 has a mem (מ) prefix, meaning something that gives light, a source of illumination rather than light itself. This distinction is critical to correct understanding of the verse but is not apparent in any of the main English translations because in English there is no distinction between "light" meaning light itself and "a light" meaning a lamp or source of illumination. Only Young's Literal Translation comes close to providing this distinction:




And God maketh the two great luminaries, the great luminary for the rule of the day, and the small luminary -- and the stars -- for the rule of the night.




The second grammatical problem is the form of the verse, which is




God made two: this one and that one




This is a common form in the OT, for example, Exodus 29:38-39 (KJV):




Now this is that which thou shalt offer upon the altar; two lambs of the first year day by day continually. The one lamb thou shalt offer in the morning; and the other lamb thou shalt offer at even:




No one would suggest that this form indicates that the two lambs (or two sources of light) could be identical.






share|improve this answer


























  • About your point about science and its 'claims' (where we to personify the endeavor as a whole): doesn't "best" imply an objective standard?

    – Sola Gratia
    32 mins ago



















1














Quite clearly, the "lights" refer to light sources rather than more specifically light emitters (over and against reflectors—whereas both can be called emitters). The moon is a source of light for the earth, and thus a light source, even if a secondary one. It's also fitting that the maidservant of the sun should emit less light during "the darkness" which is separated from "the light."



Also, we don't expect people today to say, "I awoke at the time when the earth's rotation is such that it gives the impression that the sun is rising in the sky." We just say "sunrise." The Bible may use the same kind of language—and does.






share|improve this answer
























  • I think that may be called "phenomenally" as in "as things appear". IE: while not scientifically accurate the words describe things "as they would have appeared to the ancients" or something to that effect. Or I may have dreamed that up, dunno!

    – Ruminator
    33 mins ago













  • Even in science, relativity alone supports the truth that the sun rises from our perspective. In fact, relativity even allows us to be the 'center' of the universe, i.e. that the sun rotates around the earth. Boom.

    – Sola Gratia
    28 mins ago











  • And up is down, down is up? By the way, when you mess with relativity you also mess with time (a day is a rotation, etc).

    – Ruminator
    10 mins ago













  • Any direction is any direction you want.

    – Sola Gratia
    10 mins ago



















0














The first day of creation the being created is the law of righteousness ,Psalms 119,also Proverbs 6:23; the darkness is unlawful life before God Most High! The second time light is created is the stars like our sun also the moon, the fourth day.






share|improve this answer








New contributor




Dug is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.





















  • biblehub.com/commentaries/proverbs/6-23.htm

    – www.gffg.info
    5 hours ago











  • @www.gffg.info and Dug I'm sure there are symbolic aspects, or rather, I'm certain the God who created, created things which embody truth beyond the natural. But it is all pointless unless the natural is created in a way that does embody that truth. Otherwise, there is no truth or people who may learn of it.

    – Revelation Lad
    5 hours ago











  • I posted that so Dug can get a proper interpretation of the verse

    – www.gffg.info
    5 hours ago



















-1














From my own aspect on earth, I see two luminaries. I may, or may not, know the physics of the two objects, but what I can see is that one light is greater and one light is lesser. To me, from other places in scripture (such as, 'the sun of righteousness shall arise', Malachi 4:2) I understand that Jesus Christ is the greater light that shines upon the world of men.



In him was life and the life was the light of men, John 1 : 4.



The lesser light that ruled the night is the light of the law, the knowledge of good and evil, which law was a schoolmaster to bring me to Christ, the true light.



No, I do not think that Genesis 1:16 can be read to give a clearer understanding of the physics involved because that is not what the first chapter of Genesis is about - a technical explanation of heavenly bodies.



Genesis chapter one is a profoundly spiritual expression of what creation is, in and of itself. And a profound revelation of the new creation, for those who have eyes to see it.






share|improve this answer
























  • I dont agree with the theory of Genesis chapter one being not a literal detailed account of the first 7 days of creation. Though I do believe God could have outlined ahead of time His overall plans for the world in the events that happened in the first 7 days (the 7 days 7000 years theory).

    – www.gffg.info
    1 hour ago












Your Answer







StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("virtualKeyboard", function () {
StackExchange.virtualKeyboard.init("hebrew");
});
}, "virtkeyb");

StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "320"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});

function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});


}
});














draft saved

draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fhermeneutics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f40096%2fdid-god-make-two-great-lights-or-did-he-make-the-great-light-two%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown

























4 Answers
4






active

oldest

votes








4 Answers
4






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes









2














The answer is simply "no", for at least two reasons.



The first reason is that there is no indication that any Biblical passage is intended to teach a technical, scientific or even historical truth. The majority of the Bible presents the religious and political viewpoints of its various authors and redactors relative to competing viewpoints at the time of their writing. These authors lived and wrote in a time before what we now call "science". Furthermore, science doesn't purport to be true or "the Truth", science only purports to providing the best current understanding of natural phenomena. Because of this mismatch in purposes it is an exercise in futility to try to back-read science into the ancient world and into the Bible in particular.



The second reason is that the grammar of the verse does not support such a reading. The main verse in question is Genesis 1:16, the MT of which is:




וַיַּ֣עַשׂ אֱלֹהִ֔ים אֶת־שְׁנֵ֥י הַמְּאֹרֹ֖ת הַגְּדֹלִ֑ים אֶת־הַמָּא֤וֹר הַגָּדֹל֙ לְמֶמְשֶׁ֣לֶת הַיּ֔וֹם וְאֶת־הַמָּא֤וֹר הַקָּטֹן֙ לְמֶמְשֶׁ֣לֶת הַלַּ֔יְלָה וְאֵ֖ת הַכּוֹכָבִֽים




The first grammatical problem is that the word מאור (ma'or) which appears three time in the verse is not the same as the word אור (or), meaning "light" as in Genesis 1:3. The word מאור in Genesis 1:16 has a mem (מ) prefix, meaning something that gives light, a source of illumination rather than light itself. This distinction is critical to correct understanding of the verse but is not apparent in any of the main English translations because in English there is no distinction between "light" meaning light itself and "a light" meaning a lamp or source of illumination. Only Young's Literal Translation comes close to providing this distinction:




And God maketh the two great luminaries, the great luminary for the rule of the day, and the small luminary -- and the stars -- for the rule of the night.




The second grammatical problem is the form of the verse, which is




God made two: this one and that one




This is a common form in the OT, for example, Exodus 29:38-39 (KJV):




Now this is that which thou shalt offer upon the altar; two lambs of the first year day by day continually. The one lamb thou shalt offer in the morning; and the other lamb thou shalt offer at even:




No one would suggest that this form indicates that the two lambs (or two sources of light) could be identical.






share|improve this answer


























  • About your point about science and its 'claims' (where we to personify the endeavor as a whole): doesn't "best" imply an objective standard?

    – Sola Gratia
    32 mins ago
















2














The answer is simply "no", for at least two reasons.



The first reason is that there is no indication that any Biblical passage is intended to teach a technical, scientific or even historical truth. The majority of the Bible presents the religious and political viewpoints of its various authors and redactors relative to competing viewpoints at the time of their writing. These authors lived and wrote in a time before what we now call "science". Furthermore, science doesn't purport to be true or "the Truth", science only purports to providing the best current understanding of natural phenomena. Because of this mismatch in purposes it is an exercise in futility to try to back-read science into the ancient world and into the Bible in particular.



The second reason is that the grammar of the verse does not support such a reading. The main verse in question is Genesis 1:16, the MT of which is:




וַיַּ֣עַשׂ אֱלֹהִ֔ים אֶת־שְׁנֵ֥י הַמְּאֹרֹ֖ת הַגְּדֹלִ֑ים אֶת־הַמָּא֤וֹר הַגָּדֹל֙ לְמֶמְשֶׁ֣לֶת הַיּ֔וֹם וְאֶת־הַמָּא֤וֹר הַקָּטֹן֙ לְמֶמְשֶׁ֣לֶת הַלַּ֔יְלָה וְאֵ֖ת הַכּוֹכָבִֽים




The first grammatical problem is that the word מאור (ma'or) which appears three time in the verse is not the same as the word אור (or), meaning "light" as in Genesis 1:3. The word מאור in Genesis 1:16 has a mem (מ) prefix, meaning something that gives light, a source of illumination rather than light itself. This distinction is critical to correct understanding of the verse but is not apparent in any of the main English translations because in English there is no distinction between "light" meaning light itself and "a light" meaning a lamp or source of illumination. Only Young's Literal Translation comes close to providing this distinction:




And God maketh the two great luminaries, the great luminary for the rule of the day, and the small luminary -- and the stars -- for the rule of the night.




The second grammatical problem is the form of the verse, which is




God made two: this one and that one




This is a common form in the OT, for example, Exodus 29:38-39 (KJV):




Now this is that which thou shalt offer upon the altar; two lambs of the first year day by day continually. The one lamb thou shalt offer in the morning; and the other lamb thou shalt offer at even:




No one would suggest that this form indicates that the two lambs (or two sources of light) could be identical.






share|improve this answer


























  • About your point about science and its 'claims' (where we to personify the endeavor as a whole): doesn't "best" imply an objective standard?

    – Sola Gratia
    32 mins ago














2












2








2







The answer is simply "no", for at least two reasons.



The first reason is that there is no indication that any Biblical passage is intended to teach a technical, scientific or even historical truth. The majority of the Bible presents the religious and political viewpoints of its various authors and redactors relative to competing viewpoints at the time of their writing. These authors lived and wrote in a time before what we now call "science". Furthermore, science doesn't purport to be true or "the Truth", science only purports to providing the best current understanding of natural phenomena. Because of this mismatch in purposes it is an exercise in futility to try to back-read science into the ancient world and into the Bible in particular.



The second reason is that the grammar of the verse does not support such a reading. The main verse in question is Genesis 1:16, the MT of which is:




וַיַּ֣עַשׂ אֱלֹהִ֔ים אֶת־שְׁנֵ֥י הַמְּאֹרֹ֖ת הַגְּדֹלִ֑ים אֶת־הַמָּא֤וֹר הַגָּדֹל֙ לְמֶמְשֶׁ֣לֶת הַיּ֔וֹם וְאֶת־הַמָּא֤וֹר הַקָּטֹן֙ לְמֶמְשֶׁ֣לֶת הַלַּ֔יְלָה וְאֵ֖ת הַכּוֹכָבִֽים




The first grammatical problem is that the word מאור (ma'or) which appears three time in the verse is not the same as the word אור (or), meaning "light" as in Genesis 1:3. The word מאור in Genesis 1:16 has a mem (מ) prefix, meaning something that gives light, a source of illumination rather than light itself. This distinction is critical to correct understanding of the verse but is not apparent in any of the main English translations because in English there is no distinction between "light" meaning light itself and "a light" meaning a lamp or source of illumination. Only Young's Literal Translation comes close to providing this distinction:




And God maketh the two great luminaries, the great luminary for the rule of the day, and the small luminary -- and the stars -- for the rule of the night.




The second grammatical problem is the form of the verse, which is




God made two: this one and that one




This is a common form in the OT, for example, Exodus 29:38-39 (KJV):




Now this is that which thou shalt offer upon the altar; two lambs of the first year day by day continually. The one lamb thou shalt offer in the morning; and the other lamb thou shalt offer at even:




No one would suggest that this form indicates that the two lambs (or two sources of light) could be identical.






share|improve this answer















The answer is simply "no", for at least two reasons.



The first reason is that there is no indication that any Biblical passage is intended to teach a technical, scientific or even historical truth. The majority of the Bible presents the religious and political viewpoints of its various authors and redactors relative to competing viewpoints at the time of their writing. These authors lived and wrote in a time before what we now call "science". Furthermore, science doesn't purport to be true or "the Truth", science only purports to providing the best current understanding of natural phenomena. Because of this mismatch in purposes it is an exercise in futility to try to back-read science into the ancient world and into the Bible in particular.



The second reason is that the grammar of the verse does not support such a reading. The main verse in question is Genesis 1:16, the MT of which is:




וַיַּ֣עַשׂ אֱלֹהִ֔ים אֶת־שְׁנֵ֥י הַמְּאֹרֹ֖ת הַגְּדֹלִ֑ים אֶת־הַמָּא֤וֹר הַגָּדֹל֙ לְמֶמְשֶׁ֣לֶת הַיּ֔וֹם וְאֶת־הַמָּא֤וֹר הַקָּטֹן֙ לְמֶמְשֶׁ֣לֶת הַלַּ֔יְלָה וְאֵ֖ת הַכּוֹכָבִֽים




The first grammatical problem is that the word מאור (ma'or) which appears three time in the verse is not the same as the word אור (or), meaning "light" as in Genesis 1:3. The word מאור in Genesis 1:16 has a mem (מ) prefix, meaning something that gives light, a source of illumination rather than light itself. This distinction is critical to correct understanding of the verse but is not apparent in any of the main English translations because in English there is no distinction between "light" meaning light itself and "a light" meaning a lamp or source of illumination. Only Young's Literal Translation comes close to providing this distinction:




And God maketh the two great luminaries, the great luminary for the rule of the day, and the small luminary -- and the stars -- for the rule of the night.




The second grammatical problem is the form of the verse, which is




God made two: this one and that one




This is a common form in the OT, for example, Exodus 29:38-39 (KJV):




Now this is that which thou shalt offer upon the altar; two lambs of the first year day by day continually. The one lamb thou shalt offer in the morning; and the other lamb thou shalt offer at even:




No one would suggest that this form indicates that the two lambs (or two sources of light) could be identical.







share|improve this answer














share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer








edited 2 hours ago

























answered 3 hours ago









Abu Munir Ibn IbrahimAbu Munir Ibn Ibrahim

4,966831




4,966831













  • About your point about science and its 'claims' (where we to personify the endeavor as a whole): doesn't "best" imply an objective standard?

    – Sola Gratia
    32 mins ago



















  • About your point about science and its 'claims' (where we to personify the endeavor as a whole): doesn't "best" imply an objective standard?

    – Sola Gratia
    32 mins ago

















About your point about science and its 'claims' (where we to personify the endeavor as a whole): doesn't "best" imply an objective standard?

– Sola Gratia
32 mins ago





About your point about science and its 'claims' (where we to personify the endeavor as a whole): doesn't "best" imply an objective standard?

– Sola Gratia
32 mins ago











1














Quite clearly, the "lights" refer to light sources rather than more specifically light emitters (over and against reflectors—whereas both can be called emitters). The moon is a source of light for the earth, and thus a light source, even if a secondary one. It's also fitting that the maidservant of the sun should emit less light during "the darkness" which is separated from "the light."



Also, we don't expect people today to say, "I awoke at the time when the earth's rotation is such that it gives the impression that the sun is rising in the sky." We just say "sunrise." The Bible may use the same kind of language—and does.






share|improve this answer
























  • I think that may be called "phenomenally" as in "as things appear". IE: while not scientifically accurate the words describe things "as they would have appeared to the ancients" or something to that effect. Or I may have dreamed that up, dunno!

    – Ruminator
    33 mins ago













  • Even in science, relativity alone supports the truth that the sun rises from our perspective. In fact, relativity even allows us to be the 'center' of the universe, i.e. that the sun rotates around the earth. Boom.

    – Sola Gratia
    28 mins ago











  • And up is down, down is up? By the way, when you mess with relativity you also mess with time (a day is a rotation, etc).

    – Ruminator
    10 mins ago













  • Any direction is any direction you want.

    – Sola Gratia
    10 mins ago
















1














Quite clearly, the "lights" refer to light sources rather than more specifically light emitters (over and against reflectors—whereas both can be called emitters). The moon is a source of light for the earth, and thus a light source, even if a secondary one. It's also fitting that the maidservant of the sun should emit less light during "the darkness" which is separated from "the light."



Also, we don't expect people today to say, "I awoke at the time when the earth's rotation is such that it gives the impression that the sun is rising in the sky." We just say "sunrise." The Bible may use the same kind of language—and does.






share|improve this answer
























  • I think that may be called "phenomenally" as in "as things appear". IE: while not scientifically accurate the words describe things "as they would have appeared to the ancients" or something to that effect. Or I may have dreamed that up, dunno!

    – Ruminator
    33 mins ago













  • Even in science, relativity alone supports the truth that the sun rises from our perspective. In fact, relativity even allows us to be the 'center' of the universe, i.e. that the sun rotates around the earth. Boom.

    – Sola Gratia
    28 mins ago











  • And up is down, down is up? By the way, when you mess with relativity you also mess with time (a day is a rotation, etc).

    – Ruminator
    10 mins ago













  • Any direction is any direction you want.

    – Sola Gratia
    10 mins ago














1












1








1







Quite clearly, the "lights" refer to light sources rather than more specifically light emitters (over and against reflectors—whereas both can be called emitters). The moon is a source of light for the earth, and thus a light source, even if a secondary one. It's also fitting that the maidservant of the sun should emit less light during "the darkness" which is separated from "the light."



Also, we don't expect people today to say, "I awoke at the time when the earth's rotation is such that it gives the impression that the sun is rising in the sky." We just say "sunrise." The Bible may use the same kind of language—and does.






share|improve this answer













Quite clearly, the "lights" refer to light sources rather than more specifically light emitters (over and against reflectors—whereas both can be called emitters). The moon is a source of light for the earth, and thus a light source, even if a secondary one. It's also fitting that the maidservant of the sun should emit less light during "the darkness" which is separated from "the light."



Also, we don't expect people today to say, "I awoke at the time when the earth's rotation is such that it gives the impression that the sun is rising in the sky." We just say "sunrise." The Bible may use the same kind of language—and does.







share|improve this answer












share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer










answered 44 mins ago









Sola GratiaSola Gratia

3,725420




3,725420













  • I think that may be called "phenomenally" as in "as things appear". IE: while not scientifically accurate the words describe things "as they would have appeared to the ancients" or something to that effect. Or I may have dreamed that up, dunno!

    – Ruminator
    33 mins ago













  • Even in science, relativity alone supports the truth that the sun rises from our perspective. In fact, relativity even allows us to be the 'center' of the universe, i.e. that the sun rotates around the earth. Boom.

    – Sola Gratia
    28 mins ago











  • And up is down, down is up? By the way, when you mess with relativity you also mess with time (a day is a rotation, etc).

    – Ruminator
    10 mins ago













  • Any direction is any direction you want.

    – Sola Gratia
    10 mins ago



















  • I think that may be called "phenomenally" as in "as things appear". IE: while not scientifically accurate the words describe things "as they would have appeared to the ancients" or something to that effect. Or I may have dreamed that up, dunno!

    – Ruminator
    33 mins ago













  • Even in science, relativity alone supports the truth that the sun rises from our perspective. In fact, relativity even allows us to be the 'center' of the universe, i.e. that the sun rotates around the earth. Boom.

    – Sola Gratia
    28 mins ago











  • And up is down, down is up? By the way, when you mess with relativity you also mess with time (a day is a rotation, etc).

    – Ruminator
    10 mins ago













  • Any direction is any direction you want.

    – Sola Gratia
    10 mins ago

















I think that may be called "phenomenally" as in "as things appear". IE: while not scientifically accurate the words describe things "as they would have appeared to the ancients" or something to that effect. Or I may have dreamed that up, dunno!

– Ruminator
33 mins ago







I think that may be called "phenomenally" as in "as things appear". IE: while not scientifically accurate the words describe things "as they would have appeared to the ancients" or something to that effect. Or I may have dreamed that up, dunno!

– Ruminator
33 mins ago















Even in science, relativity alone supports the truth that the sun rises from our perspective. In fact, relativity even allows us to be the 'center' of the universe, i.e. that the sun rotates around the earth. Boom.

– Sola Gratia
28 mins ago





Even in science, relativity alone supports the truth that the sun rises from our perspective. In fact, relativity even allows us to be the 'center' of the universe, i.e. that the sun rotates around the earth. Boom.

– Sola Gratia
28 mins ago













And up is down, down is up? By the way, when you mess with relativity you also mess with time (a day is a rotation, etc).

– Ruminator
10 mins ago







And up is down, down is up? By the way, when you mess with relativity you also mess with time (a day is a rotation, etc).

– Ruminator
10 mins ago















Any direction is any direction you want.

– Sola Gratia
10 mins ago





Any direction is any direction you want.

– Sola Gratia
10 mins ago











0














The first day of creation the being created is the law of righteousness ,Psalms 119,also Proverbs 6:23; the darkness is unlawful life before God Most High! The second time light is created is the stars like our sun also the moon, the fourth day.






share|improve this answer








New contributor




Dug is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.





















  • biblehub.com/commentaries/proverbs/6-23.htm

    – www.gffg.info
    5 hours ago











  • @www.gffg.info and Dug I'm sure there are symbolic aspects, or rather, I'm certain the God who created, created things which embody truth beyond the natural. But it is all pointless unless the natural is created in a way that does embody that truth. Otherwise, there is no truth or people who may learn of it.

    – Revelation Lad
    5 hours ago











  • I posted that so Dug can get a proper interpretation of the verse

    – www.gffg.info
    5 hours ago
















0














The first day of creation the being created is the law of righteousness ,Psalms 119,also Proverbs 6:23; the darkness is unlawful life before God Most High! The second time light is created is the stars like our sun also the moon, the fourth day.






share|improve this answer








New contributor




Dug is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.





















  • biblehub.com/commentaries/proverbs/6-23.htm

    – www.gffg.info
    5 hours ago











  • @www.gffg.info and Dug I'm sure there are symbolic aspects, or rather, I'm certain the God who created, created things which embody truth beyond the natural. But it is all pointless unless the natural is created in a way that does embody that truth. Otherwise, there is no truth or people who may learn of it.

    – Revelation Lad
    5 hours ago











  • I posted that so Dug can get a proper interpretation of the verse

    – www.gffg.info
    5 hours ago














0












0








0







The first day of creation the being created is the law of righteousness ,Psalms 119,also Proverbs 6:23; the darkness is unlawful life before God Most High! The second time light is created is the stars like our sun also the moon, the fourth day.






share|improve this answer








New contributor




Dug is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.










The first day of creation the being created is the law of righteousness ,Psalms 119,also Proverbs 6:23; the darkness is unlawful life before God Most High! The second time light is created is the stars like our sun also the moon, the fourth day.







share|improve this answer








New contributor




Dug is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer






New contributor




Dug is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









answered 6 hours ago









DugDug

191




191




New contributor




Dug is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.





New contributor





Dug is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.






Dug is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.













  • biblehub.com/commentaries/proverbs/6-23.htm

    – www.gffg.info
    5 hours ago











  • @www.gffg.info and Dug I'm sure there are symbolic aspects, or rather, I'm certain the God who created, created things which embody truth beyond the natural. But it is all pointless unless the natural is created in a way that does embody that truth. Otherwise, there is no truth or people who may learn of it.

    – Revelation Lad
    5 hours ago











  • I posted that so Dug can get a proper interpretation of the verse

    – www.gffg.info
    5 hours ago



















  • biblehub.com/commentaries/proverbs/6-23.htm

    – www.gffg.info
    5 hours ago











  • @www.gffg.info and Dug I'm sure there are symbolic aspects, or rather, I'm certain the God who created, created things which embody truth beyond the natural. But it is all pointless unless the natural is created in a way that does embody that truth. Otherwise, there is no truth or people who may learn of it.

    – Revelation Lad
    5 hours ago











  • I posted that so Dug can get a proper interpretation of the verse

    – www.gffg.info
    5 hours ago

















biblehub.com/commentaries/proverbs/6-23.htm

– www.gffg.info
5 hours ago





biblehub.com/commentaries/proverbs/6-23.htm

– www.gffg.info
5 hours ago













@www.gffg.info and Dug I'm sure there are symbolic aspects, or rather, I'm certain the God who created, created things which embody truth beyond the natural. But it is all pointless unless the natural is created in a way that does embody that truth. Otherwise, there is no truth or people who may learn of it.

– Revelation Lad
5 hours ago





@www.gffg.info and Dug I'm sure there are symbolic aspects, or rather, I'm certain the God who created, created things which embody truth beyond the natural. But it is all pointless unless the natural is created in a way that does embody that truth. Otherwise, there is no truth or people who may learn of it.

– Revelation Lad
5 hours ago













I posted that so Dug can get a proper interpretation of the verse

– www.gffg.info
5 hours ago





I posted that so Dug can get a proper interpretation of the verse

– www.gffg.info
5 hours ago











-1














From my own aspect on earth, I see two luminaries. I may, or may not, know the physics of the two objects, but what I can see is that one light is greater and one light is lesser. To me, from other places in scripture (such as, 'the sun of righteousness shall arise', Malachi 4:2) I understand that Jesus Christ is the greater light that shines upon the world of men.



In him was life and the life was the light of men, John 1 : 4.



The lesser light that ruled the night is the light of the law, the knowledge of good and evil, which law was a schoolmaster to bring me to Christ, the true light.



No, I do not think that Genesis 1:16 can be read to give a clearer understanding of the physics involved because that is not what the first chapter of Genesis is about - a technical explanation of heavenly bodies.



Genesis chapter one is a profoundly spiritual expression of what creation is, in and of itself. And a profound revelation of the new creation, for those who have eyes to see it.






share|improve this answer
























  • I dont agree with the theory of Genesis chapter one being not a literal detailed account of the first 7 days of creation. Though I do believe God could have outlined ahead of time His overall plans for the world in the events that happened in the first 7 days (the 7 days 7000 years theory).

    – www.gffg.info
    1 hour ago
















-1














From my own aspect on earth, I see two luminaries. I may, or may not, know the physics of the two objects, but what I can see is that one light is greater and one light is lesser. To me, from other places in scripture (such as, 'the sun of righteousness shall arise', Malachi 4:2) I understand that Jesus Christ is the greater light that shines upon the world of men.



In him was life and the life was the light of men, John 1 : 4.



The lesser light that ruled the night is the light of the law, the knowledge of good and evil, which law was a schoolmaster to bring me to Christ, the true light.



No, I do not think that Genesis 1:16 can be read to give a clearer understanding of the physics involved because that is not what the first chapter of Genesis is about - a technical explanation of heavenly bodies.



Genesis chapter one is a profoundly spiritual expression of what creation is, in and of itself. And a profound revelation of the new creation, for those who have eyes to see it.






share|improve this answer
























  • I dont agree with the theory of Genesis chapter one being not a literal detailed account of the first 7 days of creation. Though I do believe God could have outlined ahead of time His overall plans for the world in the events that happened in the first 7 days (the 7 days 7000 years theory).

    – www.gffg.info
    1 hour ago














-1












-1








-1







From my own aspect on earth, I see two luminaries. I may, or may not, know the physics of the two objects, but what I can see is that one light is greater and one light is lesser. To me, from other places in scripture (such as, 'the sun of righteousness shall arise', Malachi 4:2) I understand that Jesus Christ is the greater light that shines upon the world of men.



In him was life and the life was the light of men, John 1 : 4.



The lesser light that ruled the night is the light of the law, the knowledge of good and evil, which law was a schoolmaster to bring me to Christ, the true light.



No, I do not think that Genesis 1:16 can be read to give a clearer understanding of the physics involved because that is not what the first chapter of Genesis is about - a technical explanation of heavenly bodies.



Genesis chapter one is a profoundly spiritual expression of what creation is, in and of itself. And a profound revelation of the new creation, for those who have eyes to see it.






share|improve this answer













From my own aspect on earth, I see two luminaries. I may, or may not, know the physics of the two objects, but what I can see is that one light is greater and one light is lesser. To me, from other places in scripture (such as, 'the sun of righteousness shall arise', Malachi 4:2) I understand that Jesus Christ is the greater light that shines upon the world of men.



In him was life and the life was the light of men, John 1 : 4.



The lesser light that ruled the night is the light of the law, the knowledge of good and evil, which law was a schoolmaster to bring me to Christ, the true light.



No, I do not think that Genesis 1:16 can be read to give a clearer understanding of the physics involved because that is not what the first chapter of Genesis is about - a technical explanation of heavenly bodies.



Genesis chapter one is a profoundly spiritual expression of what creation is, in and of itself. And a profound revelation of the new creation, for those who have eyes to see it.







share|improve this answer












share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer










answered 4 hours ago









Nigel JNigel J

6,3191426




6,3191426













  • I dont agree with the theory of Genesis chapter one being not a literal detailed account of the first 7 days of creation. Though I do believe God could have outlined ahead of time His overall plans for the world in the events that happened in the first 7 days (the 7 days 7000 years theory).

    – www.gffg.info
    1 hour ago



















  • I dont agree with the theory of Genesis chapter one being not a literal detailed account of the first 7 days of creation. Though I do believe God could have outlined ahead of time His overall plans for the world in the events that happened in the first 7 days (the 7 days 7000 years theory).

    – www.gffg.info
    1 hour ago

















I dont agree with the theory of Genesis chapter one being not a literal detailed account of the first 7 days of creation. Though I do believe God could have outlined ahead of time His overall plans for the world in the events that happened in the first 7 days (the 7 days 7000 years theory).

– www.gffg.info
1 hour ago





I dont agree with the theory of Genesis chapter one being not a literal detailed account of the first 7 days of creation. Though I do believe God could have outlined ahead of time His overall plans for the world in the events that happened in the first 7 days (the 7 days 7000 years theory).

– www.gffg.info
1 hour ago


















draft saved

draft discarded




















































Thanks for contributing an answer to Biblical Hermeneutics Stack Exchange!


  • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid



  • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

  • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fhermeneutics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f40096%2fdid-god-make-two-great-lights-or-did-he-make-the-great-light-two%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown





















































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown

































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown







Popular posts from this blog

“%fieldName is a required field.”, in Magento2 REST API Call for GET Method Type The Next...

How to change City field to a dropdown in Checkout step Magento 2Magento 2 : How to change UI field(s)...

變成蝙蝠會怎樣? 參考資料 外部連結 导航菜单Thomas Nagel, "What is it like to be a...