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”?

Do working physicists consider Newtonian mechanics to be "falsified"?

Why not take a picture of a closer black hole?

Why can't devices on different VLANs, but on the same subnet, communicate?

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

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

Is every episode of "Where are my Pants?" identical?

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

Can withdrawing asylum be illegal?

Does the AirPods case need to be around while listening via an iOS Device?

Does Parliament hold absolute power in the UK?

Still taught to reverse oxidation half cells in electrochemistry?

Do warforged have souls?

How to copy the contents of all files with a certain name into a new file?

Road tyres vs "Street" tyres for charity ride on MTB Tandem

Hopping to infinity along a string of digits

What information about me do stores get via my credit card?

Is this wall load bearing? Blueprints and photos attached

What was the last x86 CPU that did not have the x87 floating-point unit built in?

Difference between "generating set" and free product?

Finding degree of a finite field extension

Who or what is the being for whom Being is a question for Heidegger?

Create an outline of font

system call string length limit

How to politely respond to generic emails requesting a PhD/job in my lab? Without wasting too much time



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
    18 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
    19 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
    14 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
    18 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
    18 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
    18 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
    18 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
18 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
18 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
    19 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
    14 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
    19 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
    14 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 30 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
    19 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
    14 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
    19 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
    14 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
19 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
19 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
14 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
14 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 5 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 3 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

Are there any comparative studies done between Ashtavakra Gita and Buddhim?How is it wrong to believe that a self exists, or that it doesn't?Can you criticise or improve Ven. Bodhi's description of MahayanaWas the doctrine of 'Anatta', accepted as doctrine by modern Buddhism, actually taught by the Buddha?Relationship between Buddhism, Hinduism and Yoga?Comparison of Nirvana, Tao and Brahman/AtmaIs there a distinction between “ego identity” and “craving/hating”?Are there many differences between Taoism and Buddhism?Loss of “faith” in buddhismSimilarity between creation in Abrahamic religions and beginning of life in Earth mentioned Agganna Sutta?Are there studies about the difference between meditating in the morning versus in the evening?Can one follow Hinduism and Buddhism at the same time?Are there any prohibitions on participating in other religion's practices?Psychology of 'flow'

fallocate: fallocate failed: Text file busy in Ubuntu 17.04? Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara Planned maintenance scheduled April 17/18, 2019 at 00:00UTC (8:00pm US/Eastern)defragmenting and increasing performance of old lubuntu system with swap partitionIssue with increasing the root partition from the swapthis /usr/bin/dpkg returned error || ubuntu-16.04, 64bitDefault 17.04 swap file locationHow to Resize Ubuntu 17.04 Zesty Swap file size?Ubuntu freezes from online formsMy Laptop is not starting after upgrade ubuntu 16.04 (Kernel 4.8.0-38 to 04.10.0-36)hcp: ERROR: FALLOCATE FAILED!Not sure my swap is being usedWine 3.0 asking for more virtual free swap

Where else does the Shulchan Aruch quote an authority by name?Parashat Metzora+HagadolPesach/PassoverShulchan Aruch UTF-8Anonymous glosses in the Shulchan AruchWhy is the Shulchan Aruch definitive?Siman 32, Kitzur Shulchan Aruch: UntranslatedLitvaks/Yeshivish and Shulchan AruchBuying a Shulchan AruchEnglish version of SHULCHAN ARUCHIs there any place where Shulchan Aruch rules with the Rosh against the Rif and Rambam?Are there practices where Sepharadim do not hold by Shulchan Aruch?5th part of the shulchan aruch