thoughts on creationism

[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.

 

 

 

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.

[Ezra]

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.

Can you imagine the chaos if we would apply this illogical and irrational principle to the rest of Scripture -- indeed to the rest of everything? 

 

True is False, False is True, Day is Night, Night is Day, Black is White, White is Black?  I trust you get the absurdity of your idea.

[alphaparticle]

 

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.

Can you imagine the chaos if we would apply this illogical and irrational principle to the rest of Scripture -- indeed to the rest of everything? 

 

True is False, False is True, Day is Night, Night is Day, Black is White, White is Black?  I trust you get the absurdity of your idea.

 

Not all. This is completely unique insofar this involves the very beginning of physical anything. The only other time this could possibly come up as a source of confusion is perhaps when God talks about ending history. Chaos is not lurking around the corner.

[JohnD]

 

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'? 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.

 

Just means the light source was not a fixed source like a star / sun. The previous versus essentially establish that time itself and wave lengths were being introduced / created. While there is no precise evidence as to how long an interval these events were, it is an educated guess that they were 24 hours long since the realm being set up would reverberate based on that cycle length. The rhythm of life.

 

Also too the cycle of the week / weekly sabbath was not 6 eons shall you work and on the 7th eon you shall rest. A thing God could have done with the antediluvians... making a week about 7 generations long. So there's no reason to believe he shortened thousands of years to 7 days (week) because people don't live so long to memorialize the creation week.

[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'? 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.

 

Just means the light source was not a fixed source like a star / sun. The previous versus essentially establish that time itself and wave lengths were being introduced / created. While there is no precise evidence as to how long an interval these events were, it is an educated guess that they were 24 hours long since the realm being set up would reverberate based on that cycle length. The rhythm of life.

 

Also too the cycle of the week / weekly sabbath was not 6 eons shall you work and on the 7th eon you shall rest. A thing God could have done with the antediluvians... making a week about 7 generations long. So there's no reason to believe he shortened thousands of years to 7 days (week) because people don't live so long to memorialize the creation week.

 

Yes but you are making a few assumptions here. One is, it makes sense to have a morning/evening with a fixed light source other than the sun, that was there, and there was a 'morning and evening' in 24 hr increments. None of this is actually stated. I'm not seeing how this is the an 'obvious' interpretation of the text at all. It seems as though some people think that days ought to be read as 24 hr periods, even with the creation account, then see how that could work given the potential difficulty I posted about. But, if you aren't going into it thinking that, it's not clear to me why you'd land on that position.

[JohnD]

The Hebrew week and sabbath were based on the creation week. Almost never told to keep sabbath without mentioning creation week.

 

To alter this literal reference without ant evidence that creation week was not 6-7 24-hour days... is unwarranted. From this same stance some try to depict Earth with a Venus atmosphere others try to explain that light was all wave or all particle and later became both.

 

I'll interpret it as a 168 hour time period.