thoughts on creationism

[Tristen]

 

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.

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

 

“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”

 

- And an unnecessary assumption if you define days in terms of time, rather than planetary cycles of sunlight.

 

 

 

 

“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.”

 

Evenings and mornings are periods of time defined by the presence of dark and light – independent of the sun for the first three days. I don’t see any need to assume anything beyond this definition. Now that we have the sun governing the day – sure. But that’s not relevant to the first 3 days of creation.

 

You seem to be requiring a statement in scripture reassuring us that the first 3 days were the same length as the last 4 days. I'm not sure that's a reasonable standard. I think it is far more reasonable to consider identical words and phrases, presented in an identical grammatical context, to mean the same thing - unless otherwise evidenced in the text itself.

[Ezra]

You seem to be requiring a statement in scripture reassuring us that the first 3 days were the same length as the last 4 days. I'm not sure that's a reasonable standard.

 

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.

[alphaparticle]

 

You seem to be requiring a statement in scripture reassuring us that the first 3 days were the same length as the last 4 days. I'm not sure that's a reasonable standard.

 

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.

 

 

 

You seem to be requiring a statement in scripture reassuring us that the first 3 days were the same length as the last 4 days. I'm not sure that's a reasonable standard.

 

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.

[alphaparticle]

 

 

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.

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

“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”

 

- And an unnecessary assumption if you define days in terms of time, rather than planetary cycles of sunlight.

 

 

 

 

“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.”

 

Evenings and mornings are periods of time defined by the presence of dark and light – independent of the sun for the first three days. I don’t see any need to assume anything beyond this definition. Now that we have the sun governing the day – sure. But that’s not relevant to the first 3 days of creation.

 

You seem to be requiring a statement in scripture reassuring us that the first 3 days were the same length as the last 4 days. I'm not sure that's a reasonable standard. I think it is far more reasonable to consider identical words and phrases, presented in an identical grammatical context, to mean the same thing - unless otherwise evidenced in the text itself.

 

 

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.

[alphaparticle]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Exo 20:9  Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 

Exo 20:10  but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the LORD your God. In it you shall do no work: you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your male servant, nor your female servant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger who is within your gates. 

Exo 20:11  For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it. 

 

 

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?

[Steve_S]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Exo 20:9  Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 

Exo 20:10  but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the LORD your God. In it you shall do no work: you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your male servant, nor your female servant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger who is within your gates. 

Exo 20:11  For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it. 

 

 

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.

[alphaparticle]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Exo 20:9  Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 

Exo 20:10  but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the LORD your God. In it you shall do no work: you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your male servant, nor your female servant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger who is within your gates. 

Exo 20:11  For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it. 

 

 

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.

[Tristen]

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

“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”

 

- And an unnecessary assumption if you define days in terms of time, rather than planetary cycles of sunlight.

 

 

 

 

“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.”

 

Evenings and mornings are periods of time defined by the presence of dark and light – independent of the sun for the first three days. I don’t see any need to assume anything beyond this definition. Now that we have the sun governing the day – sure. But that’s not relevant to the first 3 days of creation.

 

You seem to be requiring a statement in scripture reassuring us that the first 3 days were the same length as the last 4 days. I'm not sure that's a reasonable standard. I think it is far more reasonable to consider identical words and phrases, presented in an identical grammatical context, to mean the same thing - unless otherwise evidenced in the text itself.

 

 

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’.

[domenic]

The 24 hour day is only here on earth. and the is because at its widest it is 24,000 miles. if it, or the sun moved around it at 1,000 miles per hour, you would have 24 hours. lets look at everything God did. The heavens, the earth, you, and me...everything we see is made of one material...the atom. The distance between atoms is three times the size of an atom...that means 90% of everything is empty space. He created the day, and the night.  that does not mean he put those creations into effect at that time. Edison made the light bulb, but it gave no light until it was given power. We have the earth moving around the sun. I talked to NASA. When they make their calculations to send a ship in space, all their calculations are done with the earth not moving, but everything, even the sun moving around the earth. NASA says, "We have no way to tell what is moving, the earth, or the universe." NASA says, "If we send a rocket ship straight up, above the earth until it is out of earths gravity,  the spot it left from will not move.  The Bible says ,"God stopped the sun for one day." The truth is, man has no point they can say is not moving for sure, so we don't know if the universe moves around the earth, or if our earth is moving. God says, "Nothing can move the earth."

 

There is one thing God did not create from the atom, mans awareness. Science has no idea were to even start looking to figure that out. man does not know as much as he claims...most things he knows for sure are in fact just theories.

Science says man has been here for billions of years. if that is true, where are all the bones?

[Guest]

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.

 

~

 

Why Would One Throw God's Word In His Face

 

Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever. Psalms 119:160

 

Especially When He Seals

 

And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ: Ephesians 3:9

 

Them With His

 

Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.

 

And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.

 

And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made. Genesis 2:1-3

 

Sabbath

 

Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.

 

Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:

 

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:

 

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. Exodus 20:8-11

 

~

 

Beloved I Pray That Helps Separate The Straw

 

And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God. Luke 4:4

 

From The Wheat

 

Thy word have I hid in mine heart, that I might not sin against thee. Psalms 119:11

 

Love, Your Brother Joe