About "Day" of Creation

servantx · Sep 22, 2005

Before our God put the Sun and the Moon, there is no day nor night, how do people know it is 24 hours? The gravitation field was not set yet at that time as present.....

So I think the "Day" in Creation is not 24 hours.

Psalm 90:4
For a thousand years in your sight are like a day that has just gone by, or like a watch in the night.

2 Peter 3:8
But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day.

Critias · Sep 22, 2005

servantx said:
Before our God put the Sun and the Moon, there is no day nor night, how do people know it is 24 hours? The gravitation field was not set yet at that time as present.....

So I think the "Day" in Creation is not 24 hours.

Psalm 90:4
For a thousand years in your sight are like a day that has just gone by, or like a watch in the night.

Its fine if that is what you want to believe. In Hebrew, whenever a number is stated with a day, it always means a literal 24 hour day. And in case there would be confusion of this, it is also defined by evening and morning.

servantx said:
2 Peter 3:8
But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day.

I hear and see so often many people misinterpreting this verse - TEs/OECs and YECs alike. This verse wasn't written to say that God views time as 1000 years equals 1 day, but rather to say God's timing is not like our own. He is not bound by what we understand as time.

If you look at the above verse, it states "like". The Greek word used is "hos" which is often used for symbolism. It is used over a hundred times within Revelation to show symbolism. That alone shows us that this isn't a literal statement about God's time, but rather that God is not bound to time and that He will come when He deems it is time.

shernren · Sep 22, 2005

You would have to quote a non-literal usage from Genesis 1 to prove that it is non-literal in Genesis 1. For example, you can say that since all plants were said to have sprouted and grown within Day 4, and logically it's impossible for plants to sprout and grow within one day, thus Day 4 could not have been a literal day and thus none of the others need to be. (This was taken from a good OEC site I stumbled across - can't remember where.)

Or you could say the whole chapter is a myth and become a TE.

tweaker · Oct 10, 2005

The problem I have with nearly every approach I've seen to the creation story in genesis is that it is from a western scientific perspective. The original audience of genesis was the nomadic hebrew tribes. I've yet to hear a convincing argument that God was trying to teach them them about the physical construction of the world. I think the point of the story (be it litteral or mythical) was to teach the hebrew nation who God was and how they related to him. I think a lot of the creation story is to show them that their God is a god of order, and unlike the chaotic pagan gods of the people they were surrounded by. Trying to deduce a scientific chronology from genesis seems very speculative.

United · Oct 10, 2005

Critias said:
Its fine if that is what you want to believe. In Hebrew, whenever a number is stated with a day, it always means a literal 24 hour day. And in case there would be confusion of this, it is also defined by evening and morning.

I hear and see so often many people misinterpreting this verse - TEs/OECs and YECs alike. This verse wasn't written to say that God views time as 1000 years equals 1 day, but rather to say God's timing is not like our own. He is not bound by what we understand as time.

If you look at the above verse, it states "like". The Greek word used is "hos" which is often used for symbolism. It is used over a hundred times within Revelation to show symbolism. That alone shows us that this isn't a literal statement about God's time, but rather that God is not bound to time and that He will come when He deems it is time.

Hi there Critias,

As I understand it, the hebrew for "evening" and "morning" merely mean a change of "yom" (period). Maybe a hebrew expert and clarify?

It would be interesting to know the number of instances where "yom" is used with a number. Was it considered an unbreakable rule, or was the word "yom" best suited to the Genesis text even if a number preceeds it. We can only guess. In any case, I feel the other problems with the 24hr day theory are far bigger than this one (both biblically & scientifically).

Your last paragraph is interesting ... it seems you have been hanging around Shernren too much!

United · Oct 10, 2005

shernren said:
Or you could say the whole chapter is a myth and become a TE.

OR, you could accept a legitimate literal interpretation & still be a TE.

justified · Oct 10, 2005

Hi there Critias,

As I understand it, the hebrew for "evening" and "morning" merely mean a change of "yom" (period). Maybe a hebrew expert and clarify?

It would be interesting to know the number of instances where "yom" is used with a number. Was it considered an unbreakable rule, or was the word "yom" best suited to the Genesis text even if a number preceeds it. We can only guess. In any case, I feel the other problems with the 24hr day theory are far bigger than this one (both biblically & scientifically).

There is a very short article out there, which you may buy or possibly find on the web, written by a serious conservative named Perry Phillips who is also trained in Astronomy and Physics. Actually, the following should have the article: http://www_ibri-org/RRs/RR040/40genday_htm

I don't take the stance Perry takes. I believe the entire Genesis 1 pericope to be something other than literal, while Perry's article seeks to show from the Biblical Evidence (and he's quite the Hebrew scholar, actually) that the word day there SHOULD mean something different.

depthdeception · Oct 10, 2005

shernren said:
Or you could say the whole chapter is a myth and become a TE.

Done.

depthdeception · Oct 10, 2005

tweaker said:
The problem I have with nearly every approach I've seen to the creation story in genesis is that it is from a western scientific perspective.

Exactly. I do not see why more people cannot understand this simple notion.

The original audience of genesis was the nomadic hebrew tribes. I've yet to hear a convincing argument that God was trying to teach them them about the physical construction of the world. I think the point of the story (be it litteral or mythical) was to teach the hebrew nation who God was and how they related to him.

Again, you are right on. The purpose of the Genesis--and of Scripture as a whole--is to teach us about who God is from how God has acted in the history of God's people. To subvert the Scriptures to other motivations not only leads to improper interpretations, but even more seriously undermines the very foundation upon which they were written, thus vacating them of any actually meaningful content.

Trying to deduce a scientific chronology from genesis seems very speculative.

Not only speculative, but hermeneutically anachronistic. It assumes the writer had a post-Newtonian cosmology, as well as a fair understanding of quantum physics. Obviously, this is not the case, and I would say the writings are better off simply because of this fact.

depthdeception · Oct 10, 2005

United said:
OR, you could accept a legitimate literal interpretation & still be a TE.

If this is to mean that "literal interpretation" means interpreting the text as it was meant to be read (i.e., a mythical account meant to teach a theological lesson), then yes, you are correct. In fact, I have consistently (on other threads) advocated that the actual "literal" rendering of the creation accounts are not the "surface" readings, but are actually those interpretations which do not insist a "scientific" description of causality, mechanism, and chronology.

shernren · Oct 10, 2005

But the main argument is not that Genesis 1 is scientific, but that Genesis 1 is historical. For Genesis 1 to be historical-factual it would require and imply certain scientific truths. In other words not

Genesis 1 -> science

which is patently wrong, but

Genesis 1 - > history -> science

Remus · Oct 10, 2005

shernren said:
But the main argument is not that Genesis 1 is scientific, but that Genesis 1 is historical. For Genesis 1 to be historical-factual it would require and imply certain scientific truths. In other words not

Genesis 1 -> science

which is patently wrong, but

Genesis 1 - > history -> science

I'm not so sure about this shernren. The creation account can be "historical-factual" just like the resurrection account. Both of these deal with miracles and science is incapable of providing any truth to the matter due to its inherent limitations.

shernren · Oct 10, 2005

Sorry I didn't phrase myself well. I meant that the creation-science faction doesn't see Genesis 1 as directly making scientific statements. Instead, because they see Genesis 1 as historical-factual, and furthermore in such a way that the events they describe are scientifically investigable (which is the part I don't like about creation science). In other words their motivation is not

Genesis 1 -> science, but

Genesis 1 -> history -> science,

and I have a far bigger issue with the second link than the first.

About "Day" of Creation

Member

Critias

Guest

you are not reading this.

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

you are not reading this.

Senior Member

you are not reading this.

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency