Re: Nikolaj into the Night
"Hmm... Scripture should be able to explain itself without relying on heathen concepts, wether or not they contain seeds of truth.", I say. As such, seeing that scripture itself does not seem to say that, at least not to my knowledge, I do not think this assumption is correct." My fingers glide over the page of this bible until they reach the first verses of the first chapter.
"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.", I read aloud and comment. "We see no mention of light, only darkness, void, waters and the deep."
My finger lowers to the next three verses. "And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day."
"Here we see the first mention of light. And that it was made by God. He spoke and it was. And He saw that it was good! How can you see something that is only still potentially there but not really? No, He saw that it was good, and so good that He set is aside from darkness. The two were separated. Later on He would shape them into stars, moon and planet and give them all their rhythm, but the light was already there.", I explain. "Imagine a potter. He does not make a pot from potential clay, neither did God make the sun, moon and stars from potential light. He took the raw resource that He had made, and refined it, added upon it even."
And there I stop, feeling silly about arguing with a robot, and quite unsure if it can make the link between theory and example. I know science is advanced here, but that would seems as if it would need a consciousness, since it needs creative thought to imagine an example and apply it to theory.