thoughts on creationism

[alphaparticle]

I guess I'm missing something because in verse 5 it says

that there was Morning and Evening... night and day.

There just wasn't (apparently) a Sun and Moon.

 

So there is implication in my little brain that the 24-hour

cycle was there even if the Sun and Moon were not.

That's precisely the difficulty. The concept of morning requires some sort of planet/star system, yet those terms are explicitly used and used to define 'day'. That is why I contend we cannot blithely assume these are 'ordinary earth days'. The text doesn't really allow that.

[Guest Teditis]

Now I think that your stuck in "science-mode"... there could be other possibilities

that we just aren't aware of yet...why couldn't the source of light have been God Himself?

[alphaparticle]

Now I think that your stuck in "science-mode"... there could be other possibilities

that we just aren't aware of yet...why couldn't the source of light have been God Himself?

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.

[Ezra]

I have some latest thoughts on creation from Genesis 1.

 Gen 1:5

God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day.

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'?

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.

 

And, if sense cannot be readily made from that, then on what grounds do I understand the term 'day'? 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.

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).

 

This leads me to my more speculative thought.2Pe 3:8 But do not overlook this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

This has nothing whatsoever to do with the creation account.  What it tells us is that time means nothing to God, who is outside time and space.

All this leads me to think that there is no necessary issue between the Genesis account, taken very seriously, and some modern scientific theories, not necessarily anyway.

Since these theories are purely speculative, whereas the Genesis account is Divine revelation, there is definitely a conflict, and one has to make up his mind right here.  If we cannot believe the first chapter of the Bible as a sober, factual, historical, and chronoligical account, then we cannot, and should not, believe the Gospel either. We don't get to pick and choose what we believe is "credible" and what is not (unless we are theological liberals, in which case the Bible is not really the Word of God).

[alphaparticle]

 

I have some latest thoughts on creation from Genesis 1.

 Gen 1:5

God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day.

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'?

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.

 

 

 

And, if sense cannot be readily made from that, then on what grounds do I understand the term 'day'? 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.

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.

[Guest shiloh357]

Evening and Morning  are modifiers for the word "day."   They actually re-enforce the concept of what "day" means.    Keep in mind that God is speaking to people who understand what morning and evening is.   He uses that kind of plain language all through the Bible.   Ancient people were not dummies and could have understood the concept of long epochs of time.   So if that is what God meant, the words existed in the Hebrew language to make that point.   God, could have made it clear that creation was over a long period of millions of years if that's what He meant.

 

The Bible is always right, 100% of the time.  Science is subservient and subordinate to Scripture.  The whole Bible comes from an perfect all knowing God who doesn't make mistakes.  Science comes from flawed, sinful, error prone, little men  who are nothing before God but worms and wretches.   If science and the Bible are at odds, then science simply needs more time to catch up with the Bible.  

[alphaparticle]

Evening and Morning  are modifiers for the word "day."   They actually re-enforce the concept of what "day" means.    Keep in mind that God is speaking to people who understand what morning and evening is.   He uses that kind of plain language all through the Bible.   Ancient people were not dummies and could have understood the concept of long epochs of time.   So if that is what God meant, the words existed in the Hebrew language to make that point.   God, could have made it clear that creation was over a long period of millions of years if that's what He meant.

 

The Bible is always right, 100% of the time.  Science is subservient and subordinate to Scripture.  The whole Bible comes from an perfect all knowing God who doesn't make mistakes.  Science comes from flawed, sinful, error prone, little men  who are nothing before God but worms and wretches.   If science and the Bible are at odds, then science simply needs more time to catch up with the Bible.  

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.

[Guest shiloh357]

Why would they have wondered about morning and evening if God is simply speaking in plain terms???

 

Why would we need to take license that morning and evening should not be taken literally??   Where are the textual indicators that God didn't mean to be taken "literally?" 

 

The last paragraph is relevant,  I think.  It's relevant because you seem to see science and the Bible as competing authorities, as we are having to reconcile two equally authoritative views.  I was simply pointing out that the Bible is always correct and thus superior to science.

[alphaparticle]

Why would they have wondered about morning and evening if God is simply speaking in plain terms???

 

Why would we need to take license that morning and evening should not be taken literally??   Where are the textual indicators that God didn't mean to be taken "literally?" 

 

The last paragraph is relevant,  I think.  It's relevant because you seem to see science and the Bible as competing authorities, as we are having to reconcile two equally authoritative views.  I was simply pointing out that the Bible is always correct and thus superior to science.

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.

[Openly Curious]

I have some latest thoughts on creation from Genesis 1.

 

God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day.

 

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'? And, if sense cannot be readily made from that, then on what grounds do I understand the term 'day'? 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.

You are making a contention that does not exist in the scriptures in Genesis 1. But the contention in which you say you have is based solely on your own flawed personal interpretation and thoughts that are not founded in the said scripture. In light of your flawed views of creation you will continue fighting against the record God gave to us concerning His Creation in the beginning. Scripture plainly tells us in...

Genesis 1:1-5 - IN THE beginning God created the "heavens" 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". 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 the Day, and the darkness he called Night". And the "evening" and the "morning" were the first day.

First off on the "first day" of creation God created all of these these here 1) the heavens (being his abode and celestial beings, being seperate from the heavens he created in the earth on the second day of creation). 2) the earth as the earth on the first day of creation was created without form and was void of any life form as the earth was in complete darkness without any light. But the Spirit of God moved over the face of the deep waters that covered the earth on that first day and said "Let there Light" so 3) "the Light" came into existence for the very first time on the first day of God's creation as darkness was pierced by the Light. God said that the light was good. Then God 4) "seperated" or divides the light from the darkness he makes a distinction between the two of them as not being the same but two seperate creations. God further makes a distinction between the two by giving them two seperate names. Those 5) "two seperate names" God used to make the distinction between the two were he called the light "Day" and he the darkness "Night". The seperation and division that God made on the first day of His creation between the light of day and the darkness of night established in the earth what we know as our 6} "mornings" and "evenings".

The Sun itself did not exist until another day but the Light existed before the sun did and was seperated and divided by God one represented the "day" and the other represented the "night". When God created on another day both the Sun and the Moon what they did was to regulate the light and darkness that was created and shinned both together on the first day. The creation of the Sun and Moon later regulated the evenings (nights)and mornings (days}so that the light of day would rule part of the time and the darkness of night would rule part of the time as the sun and moon regulates our days and nights.

The Sun itself did not exist in the earth on the first day because the day (light, mornings) and the night (darkness, evenings) were not regualted on the first day. But the earth in fact surely did exist on the first day of creation in which you said did not exist I have shown in the scriptures above the flaws in you interpretaition of day one of creation. So it really doesn't matter how you want to interpret "Day" to be either 24 hours days, 1000 years or a certain period of time unknown to man. But the time in which humans live within are regulated to a 24 hour period of time and that suffices me greatly. I don't see any of your speculative thoughts concerning how to interpret "DAY" to be of any importance. However the proper understanding of the Genesis account is of the utmost importance if you no longer wish to have contention and strife in your life with God's record of his Creation written in the Word of God to mankind. The Word of God is factual and not a bunch of scientific theories.