A Literal Reading: Genesis 1

[cubinity]

We cannot determine the age of the earth by referencing Genesis 1 because we cannot determine the length of each day in the creation process when reading it literally. Let me explain.

You probably consider a day to last 24 hrs, and that duration involves one sunset and one sunrise (in no particular order). Since that is how Genesis 1 describes the passage of a day, it may seem logical to conclude that the day being described must also be 24 hrs in duration.

A few problems with this line of reasoning arise, but I'll make it easy by skipping a few of them. For example, let's pretend that even though there is no sun until the fourth day, there is in its place a light source that illumines from approximately the same locale in space. Therefore, assuming the earth is rotation the same speed, half of it will still be in shadow and days and nights will progress the same as they do today.

Okay, having excused ourselves of dealing with all that, it should be obvious that a day involving one sunrise and one sunset lasts 24 hrs, right?

Well, no. Because even today we can experience far more than 24hrs without experiencing one or both of those phenomenon. I'm not talking about polar winter or summer, although that does apply. I'm talking about travel.

London and San Francisco are eight hours apart in local time, right? So, what happens when you catch a flight in London and arrive in SF eight hours later? What time is it? How much time has passed? How much closer to the horizon is the sun? The answers: It is the same local time in SF that it was in London when you left London. Eight hours have passed, and yet the sun is not any closer to the horizon as it was when you left.

And, if you kept traveling west at that same speed, how much time could pass for you before the sun sets? Answer: An infinite amount.

But, you might argue, the author was talking about observing light and darkness from a fixed point on the earth! Was he? There was only one being on the earth at the time that could do the observing: the Holy Spirit. And, was it staying still, or was it in motion? The text says it was in motion.

Therefore, because the point of reference is moving around at an undisclosed speed and in undisclosed directions, then it would be impossible for anyone reading the text literally to be able to determine the length of those first days using arguments about known astronomy.

 

[LinuxUser]

I need to apologize I was to hasty in my post here cubinity

 

[cubinity]

We determine the length from God from, His book, who does not lie. You may make what you will about it and that's fine, but don't ridicule me and bind me to believe what you do.

First, I would never think of ridiculing you. Wow, that was out of the blue!
Second, I could care less whether you believe as I do, so no binding here.
Third, I am talking about what's in the book. What are you talking about?

 

[LinuxUser]

First, I would never think of ridiculing you. Wow, that was out of the blue!
Second, I could care less whether you believe as I do, so no binding here.
Third, I am talking about what's in the book. What are you talking about?

Sorry I seen many post here and am getting tried for us Creationists seen as idiots because we believe and take God at His Word. I am talking about the Bible of course

 

[Papias]

Linuxuser wrote:

We determine the length from God from, His book, who does not lie.

From a Catholic perspective, the RCC has made it clear many times that theistic evolution, including an old earth, are allowable positions. One of the many is the statement from the ITC, headed by the Pope:

.........The place of human beings in the history of this evolving universe, as it has been charted by modern sciences, can only be seen in its complete reality in the light of faith, as a personal history of the engagement of the triune God with creaturely persons.

63. According to the widely accepted scientific account, the universe erupted 15 billion years ago in an explosion called the “Big Bang” and has been expanding and cooling ever since. Later there gradually emerged the conditions necessary for the formation of atoms, still later the condensation of galaxies and stars, and about 10 billion years later the formation of planets. In our own solar system and on earth (formed about 4.5 billion years ago), the conditions have been favorable to the emergence of life. While there is little consensus among scientists about how the origin of this first microscopic life is to be explained, there is general agreement among them that the first organism dwelt on this planet about 3.5-4 billion years ago. Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism. Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution.......
​

The whold document is here:
Cardinal Ratzinger and International Theological Commission on Creation and Evolution


Papias

 

[Jase]

Sorry I seen many post here and am getting tried for us Creationists seen as idiots because we believe and take God at His Word. I am talking about the Bible of course

Creationists don't take God at his Word (FYI, the Bible is not the Word), you only pretend you do by taking literally that which you don't understand.

If you really took God at his Word, you would view the universe like the Ancient Hebrews, including a geocentric, flat earth, with a solid dome above it. All supported by a literal reading of the Bible. But you don't. Since a flat and geocentric earth is so obviously ridiculous even to the least scientifically minded out there, you are fine to claim those verses are "metaphor" or don't say what they actually say.


This is what the literal reading of "God's Word" requires you to believe:

 

[mark kennedy]

We cannot determine the age of the earth by referencing Genesis 1 because we cannot determine the length of each day in the creation process when reading it literally. Let me explain.

Hang on, let's take a look at what the Bible actually says and what the word 'day' actually means.

Outside of Genesis 1, yom plus a number (used 410 times) always indicates an ordinary day, i.e., a 24-hour period. The words “evening” and “morning” together (38 times) always indicate an ordinary day. Yom + “evening” or “morning” (23 times) always indicates an ordinary day. Yom + “night” (52 times) always indicates an ordinary day. (Does Genesis chapter 1 mean literal 24-hour days?)​

When it is used in connection with a number it always means a regular 24 hour day. This becomes important when you are trying to determine the original intent of the author and comparing the passage to other uses of the word. Whether you accept that God created the world for life and literally created life (fully formed) or a more modern understanding of continuous evolution the word being used in Genesis 1 means a literal 24 hour day. If you are interested in a more detailed exposition of the text and the word you have only to ask.

You either believe it or you don't.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Greg1234]

Creationists don't take God at his Word (FYI, the Bible is not the Word), you only pretend you do by taking literally that which you don't understand.

If you really took God at his Word, you would view the universe like the Ancient Hebrews, including a geocentric, flat earth, with a solid dome above it. All supported by a literal reading of the Bible. But you don't. Since a flat and geocentric earth is so obviously ridiculous even to the least scientifically minded out there, you are fine to claim those verses are "metaphor" or don't say what they actually say.


This is what the literal reading of "God's Word" requires you to believe:

The Firmament, Third Heaven, and Structure of Things Biblical

By the way, Creationism is found in the literal reading, the interpretation, and experimentation on biological systems. Stated in the Old Testamemt, reaffirmed in the New, and cemented in 3 dimensional space. All you find is Creationism. What you've basically done here is say "don't take the bible literally, interpret it according to an assertion made by a materialist you find."

 

[Hentenza]

Hang on, let's take a look at what the Bible actually says and what the word 'day' actually means.

Outside of Genesis 1, yom plus a number (used 410 times) always indicates an ordinary day, i.e., a 24-hour period. The words “evening” and “morning” together (38 times) always indicate an ordinary day. Yom + “evening” or “morning” (23 times) always indicates an ordinary day. Yom + “night” (52 times) always indicates an ordinary day. (Does Genesis chapter 1 mean literal 24-hour days?)​

When it is used in connection with a number it always means a regular 24 hour day. This becomes important when you are trying to determine the original intent of the author and comparing the passage to other uses of the word. Whether you accept that God created the world for life and literally created life (fully formed) or a more modern understanding of continuous evolution the word being used in Genesis 1 means a literal 24 hour day. If you are interested in a more detailed exposition of the text and the word you have only to ask.

You either believe it or you don't.

Grace and peace,
Mark

Not to mention that the Sabbath "day" would not make any sense if yom meant something other than a normal "day" in the Genesis account.

 

[philadiddle]

"Day" literally means "day", it's just not refering to an historical day. The framework pattern used in Genesis 1 is very poetic and captures more important meanings.

YouTube - ‪N.T. Wright on Adam and Eve‬‏

 

[cubinity]

Hang on, let's take a look at what the Bible actually says and what the word 'day' actually means.

<snip>

When it is used in connection with a number it always means a regular 24 hour day. This becomes important when you are trying to determine the original intent of the author and comparing the passage to other uses of the word. Whether you accept that God created the world for life and literally created life (fully formed) or a more modern understanding of continuous evolution the word being used in Genesis 1 means a literal 24 hour day. If you are interested in a more detailed exposition of the text and the word you have only to ask.

You either believe it or you don't.

Grace and peace,
Mark

Wow. Neat conclusions. I believe the Bible, but I don't believe these conclusions about the Bible.

I have not described anything above other than what "day" literally and actually means in the described context of Genesis 1.

The text clearly defines a day as containing one period of day and one period of night, which I have fully acknowledged and taken literally.

As far as I know, the original author of the text was not aware that days even had fixed and measurable durations apart from these phenomenon.

Furthermore, the author did not actually witness the events being described, but was told about them by the one being that was there to witness them, and that being used the occurrence of one light period and one dark period as the measure of one day, regardless of what duration that referred to in the author's other writings.

Therefore, even after studying all the other uses of Yom, the literal description of the events described in Genesis 1 still support the OP conclusion.

But, again, the conclusions these other people have made about the text are interesting, and I respect that you have chosen to believe them.

 

[cubinity]

Not to mention that the Sabbath "day" would not make any sense if yom meant something other than a normal "day" in the Genesis account.

The Sabbath day makes total sense as the OP description completely respects the meaning of "day" as the occurrence of one period of light and one period of dark, just as the text literally describes.

 

[miamited]

Hi cubinity,

You wrote: You probably consider a day to last 24 hrs, and that duration involves one sunset and one sunrise (in no particular order). Since that is how Genesis 1 describes the passage of a day,...

I disagree that that is how the account in Genesis reconciles a day. It says there was morning and there was evening. I don't think either of these terms necessarily rely on the rising or setting of the sun. I used to work a graveyard shift and when you'd meet people at 3 in the morning, notice the descriptive 'morning', you would say, 'good morning' even though the sun was nowhere to be found in the sky. Morning merely means the beginning of the day and evening is the end of the day.

I've also done some camping with my son's scout troop and gotten up before the sun rises to start a pot of coffee and a fire for warmth and as the other leaders would wake, also before the sun had come up, the normal accepted greeting was 'good morning'.

Just as a 'day' is really determined by the rotation of the earth, just as it is for every other planet in our solar system determined by the rotation of the respective planet, there is no sun or moon requirement to define a day and there is likewise no sun or moon requirement to define a morning and an evening. So the truly literal interpretation of this passage is that there was a day and it was defined by a beginning and an ending.

Also your understanding that our travel upon the earth has some bearing on the length of a day on the earth is quite simply incorrect. A day is determined by the earth making one rotation. Pick any point on the earth, travel about at the speed of light for the next 24 hours and it will have no bearing whatsoever on the point that was chosen as the starting point will come around to its same location again and a day will have passed. You can be standing on two completely different opposite points of the earth from start to finish and the earth will have still experienced and passed the time of one day. Quite honestly, you can start by standing on Mars and end up standing on Venus and when the earth has made a full rotation, a day will have passed. Where a person travels, or how fast they might travel has no bearing whatsoever on the passage of time that is called a day. What you are misunderstanding is that a day somehow has something to do with whether your eyes see a sunrise or a sunset. None of this has any bearing on a day and you are free to ask any scientist that you consider wise in these things for confirmation.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[cubinity]

Hi cubinity,

You wrote: You probably consider a day to last 24 hrs, and that duration involves one sunset and one sunrise (in no particular order). Since that is how Genesis 1 describes the passage of a day,...

I disagree that that is how the account in Genesis reconciles a day. It says there was morning and there was evening. I don't think either of these terms necessarily rely on the rising or setting of the sun. I used to work a graveyard shift and when you'd meet people at 3 in the morning, notice the descriptive 'morning', you would say, 'good morning' even though the sun was nowhere to be found in the sky. Morning merely means the beginning of the day and evening is the end of the day.

I've also done some camping with my son's scout troop and gotten up before the sun rises to start a pot of coffee and a fire for warmth and as the other leaders would wake, also before the sun had come up, the normal accepted greeting was 'good morning'.

Just as a 'day' is really determined by the rotation of the earth, just as it is for every other planet in our solar system determined by the rotation of the respective planet, there is no sun or moon requirement to define a day and there is likewise no sun or moon requirement to define a morning and an evening. So the truly literal interpretation of this passage is that there was a day and it was defined by a beginning and an ending.

Also your understanding that our travel upon the earth has some bearing on the length of a day on the earth is quite simply incorrect. A day is determined by the earth making one rotation. Pick any point on the earth, travel about at the speed of light for the next 24 hours and it will have no bearing whatsoever on the point that was chosen as the starting point will come around to its same location again and a day will have passed. You can be standing on two completely different opposite points of the earth from start to finish and the earth will have still experienced and passed the time of one day. Quite honestly, you can start by standing on Mars and end up standing on Venus and when the earth has made a full rotation, a day will have passed. Where a person travels, or how fast they might travel has no bearing whatsoever on the passage of time that is called a day. What you are misunderstanding is that a day somehow has something to do with whether your eyes see a sunrise or a sunset. None of this has any bearing on a day and you are free to ask any scientist that you consider wise in these things for confirmation.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

A few problems.

First, you ignore the fact that your custom of saying good morning to people after midnight is related to the contemporary and cultural identification of everything after midnight being considered the morning, and nothing to do with the physical universe or customs that communicate across time and ancient cultures. In other words, customary greetings do not equal factual descriptors.

Second, I identify in the OP that the sun, which is the reference point used today to measure days, did not exist until the fourth day of creation, so of course by "sunrise" and "sunset" in this context, I meant to refer to the period of light and the period of dark described in the text (you do acknowledge that those periods are described in the text, don't you? and that it is in reference to those periods specifically that the author calls the transitions between each period "morning" and "evening," right?)

Third, the author did not pick a point on the globe. He picked a traveling point of reference; the Holy Spirit. Therefore, traveling has absolutely everything to do with the observable transitions between light and dark described in the text.

To read something and take it literally involves not imposing your cultural biases upon what the text says, as you seem to be doing. Try just reading what it says.

 

[philadiddle]

Therefore, because the point of reference is moving around at an undisclosed speed and in undisclosed directions, then it would be impossible for anyone reading the text literally to be able to determine the length of those first days using arguments about known astronomy.

What difference does this make? Does that somehow change the meaning of the text?

Since the creation account isn't describing literal historical events that took place over a week, we could change the meaning of "day" to be a week, or a month, or a year, and the text would still have the same meaning. Genesis 1 was written with a framework model that explains more important truths about God. It's focus is not on the time it took for God to do it, that's just a poetic device.

 

[cubinity]

What difference does this make? Does that somehow change the meaning of the text?

Since the creation account isn't describing literal historical events that took place over a week, we could change the meaning of "day" to be a week, or a month, or a year, and the text would still have the same meaning. Genesis 1 was written with a framework model that explains more important truths about God. It's focus is not on the time it took for God to do it, that's just a poetic device.

Reread the first sentence of the OP, and you'll see the answer to your question.

This discussion is not writing the descriptions off as "just a poetic device," but is looking at the content as if it were meant to be taken literally.

That is not to discredit the good points you've made though, including, "Genesis 1 [...] explains more important truths about God. It's focus is not on the time it took for God to do it [...]"

 

[philadiddle]

Reread the first sentence of the OP, and you'll see the answer to your question.

Oh I see.

 

[cubinity]

Oh I see.

Right on.

Feel free to share your thoughts here.

 

[philadiddle]

Right on.

Feel free to share your thoughts here.

My thoughts are that this line of reasoning, whether right or wrong, is completely futile. Focusing on the meaning and context that we can agree on has more potential.

 

[cubinity]

My thoughts are that this line of reasoning, whether right or wrong, is completely futile. Focusing on the meaning and context that we can agree on has more potential.

So... are you saying that the line of reasoning that points out the futility of another line of reasoning is futile?

I feel like what I am doing here is pointing out how futile it is to argue the age of the earth from a text that was meant, as you put it, to tell us something far more important about God.

Is doing so futile?

Oh, and what in all of Christianity have you found that we can all agree on? I am yet to find anything that matches that description.