thoughts on creationism

[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.

[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.

[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).

[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.

[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.

[Ezra]

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.

 

Since you dismiss the words of the Ten Commandments with this kind of remark, it is "obvious" that you really don't have any interest in the truth.  Any further discussion would be a complete waste of time.

[Guest Teditis]

There was still night and day as well as evening and morning...

what more do you want to suggest that it was a 24-hour period?

Or...

What is it that makes you believe that it was something else?

[Guest]

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 simplicity as 24 hr periods.

 

 

Historically

 

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 Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day. Genesis 1:3-5

 

God Does The Lighting

 

And there shall be no night there; and they need no candle, neither light of the sun; for the Lord God giveth them light: and they shall reign for ever and ever. Revelation 22:5

 

And Man's "Science"

 

Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. Hebrews 11:1

 

Remains

 

Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear. Hebrews 11:3

 

Blind

 

And the vision of all is become unto you as the words of a book that is sealed, which men deliver to one that is learned, saying, Read this, I pray thee: and he saith, I cannot; for it is sealed:

 

And the book is delivered to him that is not learned, saying, Read this, I pray thee: and he saith, I am not learned. Isaiah 29:11-12

[Tristen]

 

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.

 

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.

 

Alright, I don't want to claim that I think these are literally thousand year periods. What I want to claim, however, that the word 'day' can sometimes mean longer periods of time and indicate periods of time. I see that as almost required given Genesis 1:5 for the creation account. The speculative part of this is particularly my thought that when we are discussing cosmic scale creation relativity becomes prominent. That matters a lot insofar as now I have to wonder, when you want to assert a day has passed in one reference frame, from whose is that? According to relativity the passage of time differs for observers in different reference frames. This matters a great deal when discussing extreme conditions.

 

Back to Genesis

 

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.

 

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.

 

 

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.

[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.

 

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.

 

Alright, I don't want to claim that I think these are literally thousand year periods. What I want to claim, however, that the word 'day' can sometimes mean longer periods of time and indicate periods of time. I see that as almost required given Genesis 1:5 for the creation account. The speculative part of this is particularly my thought that when we are discussing cosmic scale creation relativity becomes prominent. That matters a lot insofar as now I have to wonder, when you want to assert a day has passed in one reference frame, from whose is that? According to relativity the passage of time differs for observers in different reference frames. This matters a great deal when discussing extreme conditions.

 

Back to Genesis

 

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.

 

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.

 

 

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.

 

 

 

“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.

 

 

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.

 

 

 

 

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.

 

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.

 

Alright, I don't want to claim that I think these are literally thousand year periods. What I want to claim, however, that the word 'day' can sometimes mean longer periods of time and indicate periods of time. I see that as almost required given Genesis 1:5 for the creation account. The speculative part of this is particularly my thought that when we are discussing cosmic scale creation relativity becomes prominent. That matters a lot insofar as now I have to wonder, when you want to assert a day has passed in one reference frame, from whose is that? According to relativity the passage of time differs for observers in different reference frames. This matters a great deal when discussing extreme conditions.

 

Back to Genesis

 

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.

 

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.

 

 

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.