In the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit; One God, Amen. Many viewers requested a video on the literality of the creation days in Genesis 1. But, to be completely honest, I am making this video as a concession as I understand that this is a standard follow-up question to the video we have recently done on the Big Bang theory; however, I strongly believe that a scientific approach to Genesis 1 is an oversight of the fundamental message conveyed by the author. The language in the first chapters of Genesis is semi-poetic in nature. And, it is not meant to be read through a scientific lens. So, I will present in a future video, how a Christian ought to properly approach Genesis 1; but in the meantime, I will answer the question of the literality of the days for the sake of those who need an answer.
Many viewers requested a video on the literality of the creation days. A scientific approach to Genesis 1 is an oversight of the fundamental message
copticorthodoxanswers.org
Legal code in Ex 20:11 agrees fully with Gen 2:1-3 on the literal seven days of creation week with a single "evening and morning" for each day.
No wonder that even the atheist/agnostic scholars in Hebrew and OT studies in all world-class universities agree that the language in Gen 1-2 is presented to the reader as literal days. The newly freed slaves from Egypt were not "darwinists" and were not going to read darwinism 'into the text"
Professor James Barr, Regius Professor of Hebrew at the University of Oxford, has written:
‘Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university
who does not believe that the writer(s) of
Genesis 1–11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that:
(a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience
(b) the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story
(c) Noah’s flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark.
Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the "days" of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know.’
Atheists often don't mind "admitting" to what the Bible says - they simply reject the idea that what it says is actually true. As in rejecting the virgin birth, the bodily ascension of Christ, the miracles of the bible and in this example they freely admit to what the Bible says - while rejecting it as 'truth'.
================================
IN Genesis 1 even before the first day "water covered the surface of the deep".
So the oceans existed and the rock surface under our oceans also existed.
The earth returns to that desolate stated during the Millennium as we see in Jer 4: 23 "I
beheld the earth, and, lo, it was without form, and
void; and the heavens, and they had no light."
And to the heavens, and they had no light.
24 I looked on the mountains, and behold, they were quaking,
And all the hills jolted back and forth.
25 I looked, and behold, there was
no human,
And all the
birds of the sky had fled.
26 I looked, and behold, the fruitful land was a wilderness,
And
all its cities were pulled down
Before the Lord, before His fierce anger.
