I was on my commute a couple of days ago, and, as I'm up before the sun, I have the privilege of seeing the sky become lighter before the official "sunrise" begins. I wish I had my camera, but I think it was too dark to have captured what I saw anyway. The sky was a deep blue, just lighter than dark blue, which was the color of the clouds. The clouds themselves were of medium size and about the size of an average cumulus cloud, but instead of being like a fluffy cotton ball, they had the wispiness of cirrus clouds. It was if the clouds themselves were pulled and drag through the sky. The first thought through my head was "oh it looks just like a painting." Like when you use the brush and pull the paint from the central location. If the sky had been a painting that morning it oil would have been the medium.
But then I thought of my statement "the sky looks like a painting" and thought of the audacity of the claim being made. To say that God liked the work of man so much he decided to copy it is surely a contemptible position. And, of course, that is not what is meant, but that is certainly how it sounds. Would it not be more accurate to say "the painter captures the sky" and accurately portrays it in its raw beauty? For it is man who imitates the works of God, not vice versa.
So think of the phrasing you use, and how it could be connoted. And think of what you really mean, then express that aptly, without confusion. And take the time to gaze and the beauty God endowed nature with, for it is all around you. And it is breathtaking.
original image source