alphaparticle

Private businesses should have a right to make any (okay within the limits of causing harm) requirement of their employees. Likewise, employees have a right to not work there. If a woman applies to the business and they disclose, hey, you'll need to wear a headscarf here, that ought to be within the right of the company to ask.

I agree with this. It seems like a dumb idea for several reasons, but if others ask and you insist that you aren't engaging in relations, I don't see how you can be pinned with 'avoid the appearance of evil' command. Unwise and likely to lead to sin- probably, sinful in itself? why?

I don't know that mother's day or father's day belongs in church to that extent. These are secular holidays and people should be free to take them or leave them on their own within their own families.

I can't believe I missed this topic ... I hope it's not too late. I speculate that all other things being equal a valid marriage is one that is declared to exist by the relevant parties in a public way. There doesn't seem to be a set ceremony in the bible. The only way I can see that state opinion matters biblically is that we are also told in the NT to obey authorities and laws in a general sense. But, here is something else I wonder about, it doesn't break the law if Ms. X and Mr. Y declare that they are married in their living room in front of a few witnesses, then decide that they are married and behave that way entirely. That seems like a valid marriage to me. But, then again, the social expectation in our culture is that if you are 'really' marriage you get it formalized by the state, and given that understanding you probably should do that.

Hey Aplpha, You said, “My issue isn't merely that 'morning' and 'evening' are anachronistic. My contention is that referring to those without reference to a star/planet system is metaphysically impossible.” I’m not sure why this insistence. Since days existed before the sun, then they should be defined independently of the sun’s existence; e.g. as a periods of time, each containing a cycle of dark and light (or night and day, or evening and morning). This definition appears to me to be explicit in the provided verses. The association between day and the sun are subsequent to the initial definition of day. Alright let's suppose this is the case, periods of light and darkness served to delineate between morning and evening. There are two things. First, this is an assumption on your part. It's not obvious from the verses themselves that this is how I ought to take 'morning' and 'evening', that is, I contend it is not explicit at all. That being said it's not an unreasonable assertion, so I will suppose it for the sake of argument. If that is the case I have absolutely no reason to think those periods were 24 hours at that time. Light and Dark periods do not have 24 hr ish implications. This first thing doesn't make sense to me. Why would I assume a standard period of time for a day when we know that arbitrarily depends on the rate of rotation of our planet? That is a relevant concern when we are discussing the creation of our planet, and all things, altogether. Hey Aplpha, you said, “periods of light and darkness served to delineate between morning and evening. There are two things. First, this is an assumption on your part. It's not obvious from the verses themselves that this is how I ought to take 'morning' and 'evening', that is, I contend it is not explicit at all” So here’s how I summarise/paraphrase the first 5 verses of Genesis; Initially the earth was in darkness. Then God added light. “So the evening and the morning were the first day”. So, if you prefer, it is all-but “explicit” that the darkness (which God called “Night”) and the light (which God called “Day”) refer to “the evening and morning”. This interpretation assumes very little beyond what is actually stated in the passage. Given the preponderance of evidence from the text, I would consider it to be a much bigger assumption to propose that the term “day” for days 1-3 referred to some undisclosed amount of time; different from the specific amount of time defined by its other uses. “If that is the case I have absolutely no reason to think those periods were 24 hours at that time. Light and Dark periods do not have 24 hr ish implications.” I would suggest that, since the identical term is used for days with the sun, as is used for days before the sun, and as identical patterns of phraseology are applied to days with the sun and days without the sun (namely “evening and morning” and numerical delineations), and since subsequent scriptures directly associate the creation days of God’s work with normal human days, you have “absolutely no reason to think those periods” should refer to varying time frames. “This first thing doesn't make sense to me. Why would I assume a standard period of time for a day when we know that arbitrarily depends on the rate of rotation of our planet?” I’m not sure why defining a day as a period of time is an issue at all. I think you are setting an unreasonable standard of pedantism – that would amount to redundancy for those of us who simply take the scripture to mean what it says. In order to counter this standard, the Author would have had to include the caveat that when He says “day” He really means ‘day’. I am not sure what to add to this except to repeat positions I have already stated. Having stewed on this a bit, I remain convinced that the 'obvious reading' is not that these periods of time were 24 hr periods. The fact that the language is specific and explicit (day 1, morning and evening) actually suggests to me the opposite, that perhaps something ultimately beyond our comprehension is communicated. While I may speculate about how this might 'work' in light of other things I know about the world currently, it is just that, pretty speculative. I do not think anyone else is in any better position though. I deny that YEC have the high ground in terms of promoting biblical integrity on this one.

Enoch, Your last line made me laugh. Your continuing GR counterevangelism is noted.

Gen 2:17 "...but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.”

GOd said they would die in the day of eating from the tree. They did not physically die that same day. Now I am wondering what is meant by 'no death' and have to conclude either the day there should not be taken as a 24 hr period, or death in this context does not meant physical death. Either way there is some ambiguity.

Here is my hang up with all of this: Gen 2:17 "...but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.” But, Adam and Eve did eat from that tree, and did not physically die that day. So what possible interpretation of this is there except that Gen 2:17 refers to spiritual, and not physical, death? I can think of two things, one is, God is talking about spiritual death in that verse. The second option is, 'in that day' didn't mean that same 24 hr period. Either way you are going to run into an interesting conclusion. As far as what Kan said: Gen 3:22 Then the LORD God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of us in knowing good and evil. Now, lest he reach out his hand and take also of the tree of life and eat, and live forever—” It seems like a valid possibility given the verse above.

Your line of reasoning may carry slightly more weight if we didn't have days referenced here specifically in comparison to a 7 day week. Being as how we do not, it does not. How about a pattern, insofar as, God clearly divided up His creative acts in 6 periods of time, be they 24 hr periods or something else. Something else would still work to establish a pattern of 6 periods with a 7th of rest, and still serve the purpose. I would consider this as more feasible had the verse said "For in six periods (epocs, lengths of time, seasons, etc.) the LORD made the heavens and the earth,.... However, that is not how this is worded. There is a direct correlation made between days and days here, i.e. you have a direct reference independent of Genesis also specifically delineating these as days and, not only that, to boot, you have it being *directly* compared to 7 literal 24 hour periods. It works perfectly well because the word day was *already* used in Genesis 1, so it makes perfect sense to use the same language. But then the argument does reduce again to understanding what Genesis 1 intended with the term, which goes back to #1 in my OP I disagree, insofar as there is a direct scriptural precedent involved of elucidating when periods of time are metaphorical (i.e. the 70 weeks of Daniel). The problem with this exegetical approach is that it is making the assumption that creation is meant to be understood implicitly in some special way, instead of plainly taking the words at face value, when the exclusive biblical precedent is of explicitly stating when a metaphorical device is being used. For me to believe something is subtly implicit I need a direct reference back to it disclosing it as metaphorical in nature. Otherwise, I can make the bible say anything I'd like. Also, it is clear to me that there is a bit of science being injected here, as the existence of a solar system as we currently understand it, timespace as a concept, etc., which would be at the bedrock of this exegetical approach, is necessary to take this approach. Forgetting the content of the thoughts in my second paragraph in my OP (re spacetime), and looking at the first, I ask, is it really 'scientific' to say that morning and evening imply a planet and star? What I would say more fundamentally is this. It is conceptual that morning and evening are defined with regards to a sunrise and sunset, and absent those, any 'evening' or 'morning' is *necessarily*, in the metaphysical sense, metaphorical in meaning. This is a conceptual not scientific truth. This is a matter of definitions. So if you look at the context by which Gen 1 uses day, it is clear to me that morning and evening is a part of defining what is meant, and insofar as those specific terms are used to delineate how long these days were, I know I cannot take them simpliciter as 24 hr periods. You are assuming that it is entirely impossible that God may have simply been using the word "day" as an explanatory device for the actual period of time that past retroactive (which I think is the necessary understanding of these verses in light of my earlier contention). Let's say that I take a trip to another planet in another solar system. Let's say that while on that other planet on that other solar system I determine that it takes 470 earth days for it to travel around that solar system's star and that the planet rotates at a rate that equals 1.3 earth days. Now, let's say I'm there alone for a while and then I travel back to earth. I get off the ship, decide to go down to the local diner to have myself some sweet tea and a cheeseburger, because there were no cheeseburgers on the aforementioned planet. I'm enjoying my cheeseburger and a friend that I haven't seen in a while walks up. He asks how I've been, what I've been doing with my life, etc. I respond "well, I've been out on a planet in another solar system." His response is "wow, that's quite interesting, how long did you stay?" Well, at this point, do I tell him that I stayed roughly 3 years or do I tell him that I stayed 5 years? I think virtually anybody would say 5 years, because to his understanding, 5 years is how long I was there, when, to me, it was 3 years. The fact that I was on some other planet in some other solar system does not in any way change the fact that the period which he understands as 24 hours is static. It is simply no different biblically. From the moment of creation, the period of time that passed, whether there was a solar system or not, was quantifiable by God in explicit terms. He quantified it as a day, which is understood by everybody to be the time it takes for the earth to rotate once on its axis. Quantification of a time period as an explanatory device is something you'd expect to be tailored to the audience's understanding and there is biblical precedent for this (see again the 70 weeks of Daniel). I'd find this more persuasive if the verse didn't bother to specify these periods of time with the terms morning and evening. Now it is possible that what you are saying is essentially correct, and those terms were added as a poetical feature, or decorative feature, or some such. However, I find it incredibly difficult as it is rather jarring to be reading about the creation of what I assume is all physical stuff, to find out that Light and Darkness were just separated (and I am left wondering what that refers to, a separate question), and now I am told this happened in day one, evening and morning. Now I am being told that it is most obvious to take a retroactive look at this, essentially, that everyone reading would just assume days are 24 hr periods so that is the best reading. However, I do not think that adequately reflects the absolutely unique context of these verses. I agree with you, math aside, that you ought to answer your friend you were gone the 5 years. However, you were not referring to events that occurred at the absolute beginning of the cosmos. I don't think it is entirely relevant when the events occurred per se, insofar as, if you believe "let there be light" is the beginning of the physical universe (which I think is a fairly reasonable assumption), then spacetime presumably started then as well, meaning that you can quantify everything from that instant to now in units that are based upon the rotation of the earth and its time of travel around the sun. When i say you should take a retroactive look at this, that is obvious to me, as it is an account that is written to humanity ex post facto. God obviously did not need to record the events for Himself, these were written to us. My hang up with this reading is the following. Why should we assume that God knew many people would take these days to retroactively mean 24 hour periods therefore they are definitely 24 hour periods? Why is our current knowledge of basic stuff like, the rate of days being set by the rotation of the earth irrelevant to this? The same argument you are lobbing for common understanding would apply still. God surely knew that we would find some of these basic facts out, they would become common knowledge, and would affect our 'vision' of Genesis 1. I suppose my question is this, and this is interesting to me. Were these scriptures inspired to speak to the crowd during the time they were actually penned primarily, with no thought whatsoever to speaking specially to a later group of people? Or is it legitimate to take into account facts we learn about the world, say facts about how history has actually unfolded since a scripture was penned to help interpret it? I think that it's important to remember that the scripture was not written in a vacuum when getting hung up on any one thing. The only means of interpreting scripture, accurately, is through Spirit led contextual reading of the scriptures themselves. I don't think fundamental understanding of how, in this case, the solar system functions is required for that, nor would I think that it would ever be. I don't think it's even necessary or reasonable to use *any* knowledge of facts about the universe to interpret scripture, unless the scripture itself specifically delineates the necessity of looking for real-world signs, so to speak, such as when Christ tells us to watch for the abomination, but even then, that is a prophetic event. Specifically with regards to this argument, though, I cannot speak to what group of people it was written to, as God did not say. I can, however, say pretty certainly that I don't think that any special knowledge outside of what the scripture says is necessary to interpret it accurately, outside of prophetic events coming to pass, which, one could make the argument there that they are things the bible directly tells us to look for. Nowhere does it say "you'll be able to understand this once science has advanced to the point that orbital configuration of the solar system is taught in elementary school in the united states," which is what this argument amounts to. I think it's very safe to assume that any device used (evening and morning for example) to contextually delineate what "day" is inserted to accurately qualify what "day" means. "Evening and morning" make a 24 hour day *more likely* to be the accurate reading of Genesis 1, not less, for this reason. I'm not sure why it wouldn't be relevant that we have access to facts relevant to knowing how mornings evenings work that our more ancient ancestors did not. When I am reading Genesis 1 trying to build up some sort of mental picture of what is being talked about, I am blocked by carrying out this program by such discrepancies. For instance, how should I interpret Light and Dark? As physical light? As I said to tristen, then that is electromagnetic radiation, and God separating that from darkness becomes a sort of physical process I could potentially roughly model. Or, should I interpret that as metaphorical? Or perhaps some deeper metaphysical thing I have no idea what it is? In that case, I don't really understand. Likewise, I am trying to understand how there are morning and evenings without days. People have brought up a couple possibilities here, a couple which seem reasonable enough but none of which seem like obvious readings that you would get simply by trying to understand the text as it sits. For instance yours requires that I think a lot about the target audience and guess what they'd think. I suppose what I am aiming at is this. If I go around saying I both actually understand and believe Gen 1, that means I have a reasonable picture of events, even if rough and even if I am wrong in details. I have such a 'picture' of the resurrection, for example.

The earth has been around as far as we can tell for 4.5 billion years. I believe the Genesis 1 account, but I also believe the best reading doesn't render the creation days as 24 hr periods (I have a thread up about this in doctrinal issues right now, so I won't recap the entire thing here). Carbon dating is not the way this is established because the half life of carbon 14 is too short. There are a lot of other radioactive isotopes whose half lives are known that are used for dating longer periods of time. Likewise, geological signs, strata, wear, as you mention the fossils, make the earth appear fairly old relative to us. We also can date our star, the sun, to be the age of the earth, fitting nicely independent evidence for the age of the earth. There are my thoughts. If the earth really is only 6 thousand years old, for some reason, all the sings make it look 6 orders of magnitude older... this is an impressive discrepancy.

Your line of reasoning may carry slightly more weight if we didn't have days referenced here specifically in comparison to a 7 day week. Being as how we do not, it does not. How about a pattern, insofar as, God clearly divided up His creative acts in 6 periods of time, be they 24 hr periods or something else. Something else would still work to establish a pattern of 6 periods with a 7th of rest, and still serve the purpose. I would consider this as more feasible had the verse said "For in six periods (epocs, lengths of time, seasons, etc.) the LORD made the heavens and the earth,.... However, that is not how this is worded. There is a direct correlation made between days and days here, i.e. you have a direct reference independent of Genesis also specifically delineating these as days and, not only that, to boot, you have it being *directly* compared to 7 literal 24 hour periods. It works perfectly well because the word day was *already* used in Genesis 1, so it makes perfect sense to use the same language. But then the argument does reduce again to understanding what Genesis 1 intended with the term, which goes back to #1 in my OP I disagree, insofar as there is a direct scriptural precedent involved of elucidating when periods of time are metaphorical (i.e. the 70 weeks of Daniel). The problem with this exegetical approach is that it is making the assumption that creation is meant to be understood implicitly in some special way, instead of plainly taking the words at face value, when the exclusive biblical precedent is of explicitly stating when a metaphorical device is being used. For me to believe something is subtly implicit I need a direct reference back to it disclosing it as metaphorical in nature. Otherwise, I can make the bible say anything I'd like. Also, it is clear to me that there is a bit of science being injected here, as the existence of a solar system as we currently understand it, timespace as a concept, etc., which would be at the bedrock of this exegetical approach, is necessary to take this approach. Forgetting the content of the thoughts in my second paragraph in my OP (re spacetime), and looking at the first, I ask, is it really 'scientific' to say that morning and evening imply a planet and star? What I would say more fundamentally is this. It is conceptual that morning and evening are defined with regards to a sunrise and sunset, and absent those, any 'evening' or 'morning' is *necessarily*, in the metaphysical sense, metaphorical in meaning. This is a conceptual not scientific truth. This is a matter of definitions. So if you look at the context by which Gen 1 uses day, it is clear to me that morning and evening is a part of defining what is meant, and insofar as those specific terms are used to delineate how long these days were, I know I cannot take them simpliciter as 24 hr periods. You are assuming that it is entirely impossible that God may have simply been using the word "day" as an explanatory device for the actual period of time that past retroactive (which I think is the necessary understanding of these verses in light of my earlier contention). Let's say that I take a trip to another planet in another solar system. Let's say that while on that other planet on that other solar system I determine that it takes 470 earth days for it to travel around that solar system's star and that the planet rotates at a rate that equals 1.3 earth days. Now, let's say I'm there alone for a while and then I travel back to earth. I get off the ship, decide to go down to the local diner to have myself some sweet tea and a cheeseburger, because there were no cheeseburgers on the aforementioned planet. I'm enjoying my cheeseburger and a friend that I haven't seen in a while walks up. He asks how I've been, what I've been doing with my life, etc. I respond "well, I've been out on a planet in another solar system." His response is "wow, that's quite interesting, how long did you stay?" Well, at this point, do I tell him that I stayed roughly 3 years or do I tell him that I stayed 5 years? I think virtually anybody would say 5 years, because to his understanding, 5 years is how long I was there, when, to me, it was 3 years. The fact that I was on some other planet in some other solar system does not in any way change the fact that the period which he understands as 24 hours is static. It is simply no different biblically. From the moment of creation, the period of time that passed, whether there was a solar system or not, was quantifiable by God in explicit terms. He quantified it as a day, which is understood by everybody to be the time it takes for the earth to rotate once on its axis. Quantification of a time period as an explanatory device is something you'd expect to be tailored to the audience's understanding and there is biblical precedent for this (see again the 70 weeks of Daniel). I'd find this more persuasive if the verse didn't bother to specify these periods of time with the terms morning and evening. Now it is possible that what you are saying is essentially correct, and those terms were added as a poetical feature, or decorative feature, or some such. However, I find it incredibly difficult as it is rather jarring to be reading about the creation of what I assume is all physical stuff, to find out that Light and Darkness were just separated (and I am left wondering what that refers to, a separate question), and now I am told this happened in day one, evening and morning. Now I am being told that it is most obvious to take a retroactive look at this, essentially, that everyone reading would just assume days are 24 hr periods so that is the best reading. However, I do not think that adequately reflects the absolutely unique context of these verses. I agree with you, math aside, that you ought to answer your friend you were gone the 5 years. However, you were not referring to events that occurred at the absolute beginning of the cosmos. I don't think it is entirely relevant when the events occurred per se, insofar as, if you believe "let there be light" is the beginning of the physical universe (which I think is a fairly reasonable assumption), then spacetime presumably started then as well, meaning that you can quantify everything from that instant to now in units that are based upon the rotation of the earth and its time of travel around the sun. When i say you should take a retroactive look at this, that is obvious to me, as it is an account that is written to humanity ex post facto. God obviously did not need to record the events for Himself, these were written to us. My hang up with this reading is the following. Why should we assume that God knew many people would take these days to retroactively mean 24 hour periods therefore they are definitely 24 hour periods? Why is our current knowledge of basic stuff like, the rate of days being set by the rotation of the earth irrelevant to this? The same argument you are lobbing for common understanding would apply still. God surely knew that we would find some of these basic facts out, they would become common knowledge, and would affect our 'vision' of Genesis 1. I suppose my question is this, and this is interesting to me. Were these scriptures inspired to speak to the crowd during the time they were actually penned primarily, with no thought whatsoever to speaking specially to a later group of people? Or is it legitimate to take into account facts we learn about the world, say facts about how history has actually unfolded since a scripture was penned to help interpret it?

Hey Aplpha, You said, “My issue isn't merely that 'morning' and 'evening' are anachronistic. My contention is that referring to those without reference to a star/planet system is metaphysically impossible.” I’m not sure why this insistence. Since days existed before the sun, then they should be defined independently of the sun’s existence; e.g. as a periods of time, each containing a cycle of dark and light (or night and day, or evening and morning). This definition appears to me to be explicit in the provided verses. The association between day and the sun are subsequent to the initial definition of day. Alright let's suppose this is the case, periods of light and darkness served to delineate between morning and evening. There are two things. First, this is an assumption on your part. It's not obvious from the verses themselves that this is how I ought to take 'morning' and 'evening', that is, I contend it is not explicit at all. That being said it's not an unreasonable assertion, so I will suppose it for the sake of argument. If that is the case I have absolutely no reason to think those periods were 24 hours at that time. Light and Dark periods do not have 24 hr ish implications. This first thing doesn't make sense to me. Why would I assume a standard period of time for a day when we know that arbitrarily depends on the rate of rotation of our planet? That is a relevant concern when we are discussing the creation of our planet, and all things, altogether.

Actually we do have a statement in Scripture which says exactly that (Exod 20:11) but it was dismissed out of hand as inconsequential. When Scripture says that in six days God created everything, it is understood that each of those days was identical -- each one was a 24 hour day. That is reinforced by "evening and morning" throughout the creation account. Hence "six days thou shalt labour" (v.9). What we see here is someone who has a preconceived idea about creation and will not pay any attention to what Scripture actually says. Actually we do have a statement in Scripture which says exactly that (Exod 20:11) but it was dismissed out of hand as inconsequential. When Scripture says that in six days God created everything, it is understood that each of those days was identical -- each one was a 24 hour day. That is reinforced by "evening and morning" throughout the creation account. Hence "six days thou shalt labour" (v.9). What we see here is someone who has a preconceived idea about creation and will not pay any attention to what Scripture actually says. This is a potentially circular argument. If I understand you correctly you argue that Exodus stands as an independent textual witness for your position, but I dispute that it is independent in this way. If these Exodus verses intend to draw on or refer to the Genesis account, then this is no help at all in understand Genesis 1 in its own context. It seems the latter is the most likely insofar as, standing alone the verses in Exodus about creation are incredibly bare. The dramatic assertions about my intention are unnecessary. I'd prefer to discuss the relevant arguments straight up.

Hi Alpha, You said “Here is my contention with this verse in particular. At this point, the sun and earth weren't created. In view of that, what sense can be made from a reference to 'evening' and 'morning'?” I think they make perfect sense in the context they are presented. The first day is divided into two time periods; Darkness/night/evening and light/day/morning. It is anachronistic at this point in the narrative to define these terms by a sun which didn’t yet exist. Days are periods of time designated by periods of light and dark (aka ‘evenings and mornings’). On day 4, the sun is given authority over the period of light. Since days pre-exists the sun, the movements of the sun cannot primarily define days. Likewise, since mornings pre-exist the sun, movements of the sun cannot primarily define mornings. After the sun was given rule over the periods of light we can make the anachronistic association, but not before. In other words, days were time periods containing periods of darkness and light called evening and morning - before they were time periods associated with luminaries. “I believe this creates profound difficulties for the reading of 'day' to be a 24 period as measured on earth on commonsense reading grounds. I don't think this is actually possible. This isn't a problem though if I take these days to be epochs of some sort.” Wait, what? A “day” can mean an “epoch”, but in no “commonsense” way can it possibly mean a “day”? – I don’t get it. “the word 'day' can sometimes mean longer periods of time and indicate periods of time” Yes it can. Yet, as others have already argued, the correct interpretation is determined by the grammatical context (inc. qualifiers such as “first day”, “second day” etc., each with an “evening and morning”). There is a consistent pattern of evenings and mornings from the first to last day of creation – with no evidence whatsoever in the text of a change of time period between day one and day seven; no indication at all that the creation of the sun on day four changed the measure of a day. So as much as it frustrates you, it is legitimate for us to call into question your underlying motives. We are assuming that day means day based on the preponderance of evidence from the text itself. You are trying to read varied time periods into the first day(s) so as to provide artificial consistency between “the Genesis account … and some modern scientific theories”. Consider when it is pointed out to you that Exodus 20 teaches that the Israelites were to work 6 ordinary days and rest on the seventh because God worked 6 days and rested on the seventh – that your response is to propose that maybe the first few days of God’s creation weren’t ordinary days, but God just used the word day to keep the pattern. You are reading into scripture concepts that simply aren’t there (using a flawed interpretation methodology called Eisogesis) all for the purpose of making the scriptures conform to secular models of reality. You seem desperate to find some logical, textual gap into which you can squeeze these concepts. Why would you attempt to do that unless you feel some obligation to the secular models? Is your faith in these models so unwavering that you feel the need to make the Bible fit the models – rather than scrutinizing these models in the light of divine Biblical authority? Surely you can understand why we consider such a strategy to be highly suspect. “Gen 1:4 And God saw that the light was good. And God separated the light from the darkness. For an even more speculative thought, this could very meaningfully refer to recombination, the point at which atoms started to form in the universe and it became transparent, allowing for light to propagate.” Or it could just mean what it says – that during the first day of creation, God created light and separated the light from the darkness. Why should I feel compelled to read anything into the Biblical account that isn’t there? We can’t go back in time to scientifically observe what happened – so I choose to place my faith in the witness account of the Creator. Thanks for your feedback Tristen. My major mistake in forming this thread was not keeping it to my attempted reading of the scripture. Sometimes I get overly exuberant at examining possible consequences that it distracts from my actual argument, such as it is. So, while people are already suspicious of my motives here, I seem to have fed that by injecting as a latter half to my post thoughts which I explicitly labeled as speculative. That being said though, I want to address your last point first. I speculated that might be the case because (physical) light just is electromagnetic radiation. That is its referent. So when God separates out light from darkness, naturally I am trying to figure out what that *means*. Now maybe Light and Dark refer to a non physical quantity. That is certainly plausible but I am not sure what the best reading is as far as that goes. Hi Alpha, You said “Here is my contention with this verse in particular. At this point, the sun and earth weren't created. In view of that, what sense can be made from a reference to 'evening' and 'morning'?” I think they make perfect sense in the context they are presented. The first day is divided into two time periods; Darkness/night/evening and light/day/morning. It is anachronistic at this point in the narrative to define these terms by a sun which didn’t yet exist. Days are periods of time designated by periods of light and dark (aka ‘evenings and mornings’). On day 4, the sun is given authority over the period of light. Since days pre-exists the sun, the movements of the sun cannot primarily define days. Likewise, since mornings pre-exist the sun, movements of the sun cannot primarily define mornings. After the sun was given rule over the periods of light we can make the anachronistic association, but not before. In other words, days were time periods containing periods of darkness and light called evening and morning - before they were time periods associated with luminaries. “I believe this creates profound difficulties for the reading of 'day' to be a 24 period as measured on earth on commonsense reading grounds. I don't think this is actually possible. This isn't a problem though if I take these days to be epochs of some sort.” Wait, what? A “day” can mean an “epoch”, but in no “commonsense” way can it possibly mean a “day”? – I don’t get it. “the word 'day' can sometimes mean longer periods of time and indicate periods of time” Yes it can. Yet, as others have already argued, the correct interpretation is determined by the grammatical context (inc. qualifiers such as “first day”, “second day” etc., each with an “evening and morning”). There is a consistent pattern of evenings and mornings from the first to last day of creation – with no evidence whatsoever in the text of a change of time period between day one and day seven; no indication at all that the creation of the sun on day four changed the measure of a day. So as much as it frustrates you, it is legitimate for us to call into question your underlying motives. We are assuming that day means day based on the preponderance of evidence from the text itself. You are trying to read varied time periods into the first day(s) so as to provide artificial consistency between “the Genesis account … and some modern scientific theories”. Consider when it is pointed out to you that Exodus 20 teaches that the Israelites were to work 6 ordinary days and rest on the seventh because God worked 6 days and rested on the seventh – that your response is to propose that maybe the first few days of God’s creation weren’t ordinary days, but God just used the word day to keep the pattern. You are reading into scripture concepts that simply aren’t there (using a flawed interpretation methodology called Eisogesis) all for the purpose of making the scriptures conform to secular models of reality. You seem desperate to find some logical, textual gap into which you can squeeze these concepts. Why would you attempt to do that unless you feel some obligation to the secular models? Is your faith in these models so unwavering that you feel the need to make the Bible fit the models – rather than scrutinizing these models in the light of divine Biblical authority? Surely you can understand why we consider such a strategy to be highly suspect. The rest I believe is in a similar vein. My issue isn't merely that 'morning' and 'evening' are anachronistic. My contention is that referring to those without reference to a star/planet system is metaphysically impossible. Now as Steve pointed out, it may merely be that God perfectly knowing the future assumed that the audience would be familiar with delineating days via morning and evening, and that is all there is to including those terms into the first day. But, my argument is, that seems like a rather large assumption about the intention of the text. If I am going to take it as face value as I can as a factual account of happenings, I am left with a huge problem. If I make a few assumptions, such as, the target audience would have understood days to be delineated with their morning and evening cycles, then I can make sense of it. However, that is at least one step away from what the scriptures are actually saying. I dispute that that is the 'obvious' way we ought to read these passages, though I agree it is reasonable, and my disputation is based on the nature of the subject matter. I do not believe any of that is my desperate attempt to protect scientific models.

Your line of reasoning may carry slightly more weight if we didn't have days referenced here specifically in comparison to a 7 day week. Being as how we do not, it does not. How about a pattern, insofar as, God clearly divided up His creative acts in 6 periods of time, be they 24 hr periods or something else. Something else would still work to establish a pattern of 6 periods with a 7th of rest, and still serve the purpose. I would consider this as more feasible had the verse said "For in six periods (epocs, lengths of time, seasons, etc.) the LORD made the heavens and the earth,.... However, that is not how this is worded. There is a direct correlation made between days and days here, i.e. you have a direct reference independent of Genesis also specifically delineating these as days and, not only that, to boot, you have it being *directly* compared to 7 literal 24 hour periods. It works perfectly well because the word day was *already* used in Genesis 1, so it makes perfect sense to use the same language. But then the argument does reduce again to understanding what Genesis 1 intended with the term, which goes back to #1 in my OP I disagree, insofar as there is a direct scriptural precedent involved of elucidating when periods of time are metaphorical (i.e. the 70 weeks of Daniel). The problem with this exegetical approach is that it is making the assumption that creation is meant to be understood implicitly in some special way, instead of plainly taking the words at face value, when the exclusive biblical precedent is of explicitly stating when a metaphorical device is being used. For me to believe something is subtly implicit I need a direct reference back to it disclosing it as metaphorical in nature. Otherwise, I can make the bible say anything I'd like. Also, it is clear to me that there is a bit of science being injected here, as the existence of a solar system as we currently understand it, timespace as a concept, etc., which would be at the bedrock of this exegetical approach, is necessary to take this approach. Forgetting the content of the thoughts in my second paragraph in my OP (re spacetime), and looking at the first, I ask, is it really 'scientific' to say that morning and evening imply a planet and star? What I would say more fundamentally is this. It is conceptual that morning and evening are defined with regards to a sunrise and sunset, and absent those, any 'evening' or 'morning' is *necessarily*, in the metaphysical sense, metaphorical in meaning. This is a conceptual not scientific truth. This is a matter of definitions. So if you look at the context by which Gen 1 uses day, it is clear to me that morning and evening is a part of defining what is meant, and insofar as those specific terms are used to delineate how long these days were, I know I cannot take them simpliciter as 24 hr periods. You are assuming that it is entirely impossible that God may have simply been using the word "day" as an explanatory device for the actual period of time that past retroactive (which I think is the necessary understanding of these verses in light of my earlier contention). Let's say that I take a trip to another planet in another solar system. Let's say that while on that other planet on that other solar system I determine that it takes 470 earth days for it to travel around that solar system's star and that the planet rotates at a rate that equals 1.3 earth days. Now, let's say I'm there alone for a while and then I travel back to earth. I get off the ship, decide to go down to the local diner to have myself some sweet tea and a cheeseburger, because there were no cheeseburgers on the aforementioned planet. I'm enjoying my cheeseburger and a friend that I haven't seen in a while walks up. He asks how I've been, what I've been doing with my life, etc. I respond "well, I've been out on a planet in another solar system." His response is "wow, that's quite interesting, how long did you stay?" Well, at this point, do I tell him that I stayed roughly 3 years or do I tell him that I stayed 5 years? I think virtually anybody would say 5 years, because to his understanding, 5 years is how long I was there, when, to me, it was 3 years. The fact that I was on some other planet in some other solar system does not in any way change the fact that the period which he understands as 24 hours is static. It is simply no different biblically. From the moment of creation, the period of time that passed, whether there was a solar system or not, was quantifiable by God in explicit terms. He quantified it as a day, which is understood by everybody to be the time it takes for the earth to rotate once on its axis. Quantification of a time period as an explanatory device is something you'd expect to be tailored to the audience's understanding and there is biblical precedent for this (see again the 70 weeks of Daniel). I'd find this more persuasive if the verse didn't bother to specify these periods of time with the terms morning and evening. Now it is possible that what you are saying is essentially correct, and those terms were added as a poetical feature, or decorative feature, or some such. However, I find it incredibly difficult as it is rather jarring to be reading about the creation of what I assume is all physical stuff, to find out that Light and Darkness were just separated (and I am left wondering what that refers to, a separate question), and now I am told this happened in day one, evening and morning. Now I am being told that it is most obvious to take a retroactive look at this, essentially, that everyone reading would just assume days are 24 hr periods so that is the best reading. However, I do not think that adequately reflects the absolutely unique context of these verses. I agree with you, math aside, that you ought to answer your friend you were gone the 5 years. However, you were not referring to events that occurred at the absolute beginning of the cosmos.

Your line of reasoning may carry slightly more weight if we didn't have days referenced here specifically in comparison to a 7 day week. Being as how we do not, it does not. How about a pattern, insofar as, God clearly divided up His creative acts in 6 periods of time, be they 24 hr periods or something else. Something else would still work to establish a pattern of 6 periods with a 7th of rest, and still serve the purpose. I would consider this as more feasible had the verse said "For in six periods (epocs, lengths of time, seasons, etc.) the LORD made the heavens and the earth,.... However, that is not how this is worded. There is a direct correlation made between days and days here, i.e. you have a direct reference independent of Genesis also specifically delineating these as days and, not only that, to boot, you have it being *directly* compared to 7 literal 24 hour periods. It works perfectly well because the word day was *already* used in Genesis 1, so it makes perfect sense to use the same language. But then the argument does reduce again to understanding what Genesis 1 intended with the term, which goes back to #1 in my OP I disagree, insofar as there is a direct scriptural precedent involved of elucidating when periods of time are metaphorical (i.e. the 70 weeks of Daniel). The problem with this exegetical approach is that it is making the assumption that creation is meant to be understood implicitly in some special way, instead of plainly taking the words at face value, when the exclusive biblical precedent is of explicitly stating when a metaphorical device is being used. For me to believe something is subtly implicit I need a direct reference back to it disclosing it as metaphorical in nature. Otherwise, I can make the bible say anything I'd like. Also, it is clear to me that there is a bit of science being injected here, as the existence of a solar system as we currently understand it, timespace as a concept, etc., which would be at the bedrock of this exegetical approach, is necessary to take this approach. Forgetting the content of the thoughts in my second paragraph in my OP (re spacetime), and looking at the first, I ask, is it really 'scientific' to say that morning and evening imply a planet and star? What I would say more fundamentally is this. It is conceptual that morning and evening are defined with regards to a sunrise and sunset, and absent those, any 'evening' or 'morning' is *necessarily*, in the metaphysical sense, metaphorical in meaning. This is a conceptual not scientific truth. This is a matter of definitions. So if you look at the context by which Gen 1 uses day, it is clear to me that morning and evening is a part of defining what is meant, and insofar as those specific terms are used to delineate how long these days were, I know I cannot take them simpliciter as 24 hr periods.

Your line of reasoning may carry slightly more weight if we didn't have days referenced here specifically in comparison to a 7 day week. Being as how we do not, it does not. How about a pattern, insofar as, God clearly divided up His creative acts in 6 periods of time, be they 24 hr periods or something else. Something else would still work to establish a pattern of 6 periods with a 7th of rest, and still serve the purpose. I would consider this as more feasible had the verse said "For in six periods (epocs, lengths of time, seasons, etc.) the LORD made the heavens and the earth,.... However, that is not how this is worded. There is a direct correlation made between days and days here, i.e. you have a direct reference independent of Genesis also specifically delineating these as days and, not only that, to boot, you have it being *directly* compared to 7 literal 24 hour periods. It works perfectly well because the word day was *already* used in Genesis 1, so it makes perfect sense to use the same language. But then the argument does reduce again to understanding what Genesis 1 intended with the term, which goes back to #1 in my OP

Your line of reasoning may carry slightly more weight if we didn't have days referenced here specifically in comparison to a 7 day week. Being as how we do not, it does not. How about a pattern, insofar as, God clearly divided up His creative acts in 6 periods of time, be they 24 hr periods or something else. Something else would still work to establish a pattern of 6 periods with a 7th of rest, and still serve the purpose.

Alpha, Don't make things more complicated than they should be. Your "metaphysical impossiblity" has been declared a fact within the Ten Commandments. Please note carefully (Exod 20:8-11): 8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. 9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: 10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: 11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it. I would urge you to give careful consideration to verse 11 and believe it. The context makes it very clear that God is speaking about literal 24 hour days. And please keep in mind that these Ten Commandments were written supernaturally -- "with the finger of God" -- on tablets of stone. That for each day of creation, God defines it with "evening and morning" should be sufficient to set your "conceptual difficulties" to rest. God does not play word games. Sure, they were labeled days, but when you read the *context* of what those days are I cannot say it is obvious these were 24 hr periods of time relative to the earth.

Is it? Did Adam and Eve the same day that they partook of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil? It seems to me considering that question relives some of the subtleties involved earlier.

Because they knew morning comes with sunrise. You can't take morning literally when there is no, well, morning. There's no sunrise. As to your last sentence, no. I find it frustrating to have intentions imputed to me that I did not state in my OP.

Sure, they weren't dummies, and perhaps wondered about the inclusion of specifying 'morning' and 'evening' into the verses also. What you are saying is feasible, but, then already we are having to accept that there is a certain license being taken in that we shouldn't take the morning and evening 'literally', but we should take the day that way. That really raises the question to me then why it is so obviously the case that we ought to do it that way. As to your latter paragraph, I dont' think it is relevant to the discussion.

Plenty of sense can be made from a reference to "evening" and "morning" when we see that even though the sun and the earth were not in existence, God was establishing the 24 hour day right here. "And God called the light DAY and the darkness He called NIGHT" (v.5). There is simply no getting away from the fact that we are looking at a 24 hour day. I'm most interested in this. He called the light day, and darkness night. That more strongly implies to me that we may not be looking at a normal 24 hr period here, and would/does resolve the difficulty in using morning/evening oscillations to define days. Light/darkness do not correspond to sunrise sunset in this context and therefore cannot be correlated to a 24 hr period without making a large, speculative assumption. Your "profound difficulties" are purely imaginary. God has every right to establish a 24 hour day ahead of anything else, since He is the one who "calls the shots". God anticipated the 24 hour day, and He also established the Hebrew order of reckoning by always staring with "evening" and then going to "morning". Those terms are metaphors for "DAY" (12 hours) and "NIGHT" (12 hours). They are not imaginary, but they are difficulties in my own understanding and attempt to make sense of the scriptures as they stand. I never said otherwise. THe rest is your assumption about how the verses should be read, a reading I don't think the context lends itself to easily, for reasons I outline above.

I'm not stuck in 'science mode'. My main argument, #1, has no science in it at all. It's astounding to me that the assumption is that I am somehow in 'science mode'. This isn't an issue of what God couldn't or could do. This is an issue of what the Bible *says* right now. It says God separated light from darkness, day 1, evening and morning. It says this before there is any ability to have an evening or morning based on how those terms are *defined*. WE are *forced* to speculate on what these things mean then. I reject the idea that the 24 hr earth day is obviously the best reading in light of the context in Genesis 1.