How can creation week be literal 24 hour days?

[AnticipateHisComing]

I do believe, however, that all six days of creation week were literal 24 hour days.

But how do we give such a literal explanation to anyone who ask, since the literal evidence (the sun made on day four) does not seem to support it?

This is an amateur scientist's argument. The length of the day is based on the rotation of the earth. It does not require the sun.

Now read the first three words of the Bible, "In the beginning". Next read verse 14 "And God said, “Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years". Time is a product of creation and lasts for the duration of this age only. In the description of the days of creation we must understand that God knows how long a day would be even before the first day. Even if there is was no way for time to be measured on the first day, the length of time God took to do something must be understood to be as described. For God to change the length of one day/24 hours some time later in the creation account would be deceptive, which is a lie. God does not lie.

Note that on the last day time ends. This exemplifies the current age never meant to be eternal and only the next age being eternal.

Revelation 22: 5 There will be no more night. They will not need the light of a lamp or the light of the sun, for the Lord God will give them light. And they will reign for ever and ever.

 

[Jamsie]

I find your logic "illusive" just then.

Of course you do, but you are unable to show me where I said not made, in order for one to criticize a person for lacking logic it would seem reasonable that they in fact had a modicum of such. Time and again you simply demonstrate an inability to comprehend scripture except for at a superficial level...

More Bible ... less "creative writing" please.

You have yet to show where the scripture has been twisted, stretched, fluffed or any thing else. What you seem unable to comprehend is that God spoke, that is the sole operative agent of creation...that is what the Bible states plainly however, you deny this. You simply are incapable of understanding the Word of God but accuse me of distorting or gymnastics or creative writing...maybe you should try reading Genesis with fresh eyes. I have given you supporting passage but you reject them...So

SHOW me in scripture where "And God said,..." is not the all-sufficient and the sole means of creation?

What part of "MADE" are you not getting??

I asked you to define the words, still waiting. So again, what does "Made" mean in context to Genesis 1? And how does it relate to God's spoken commands?

utter nonsense .. you write as if I authored the text that you apparently so disapprove of that you cannot even bring yourself to admit the details highlighted for you over and over again.
It is the text that keeps putting "said" and "made" together for each day ... just when you insist it does not exist. How "instructive" for the unbiased objective reader.

You seriously need to improve your reading comprehension. You post scripture as if it is a "Jack and Jill" book, you have no explanation for the structure, no explanation for the words and how they relate, offer no detail to intent or meaning, but only as noted a superficial gloss over.

How does "said" and "made" relate to each other? If "And God said,..." is not all-sufficient, as you appear to imply, how does "MADE" impose a different meaning? If God's command is directly to the LAND or WATER what does that imply?

 

[Jamsie]

utter nonsense. you do it only by the tactic of ignoring entirely the texts I keep quoting for you -- about a dozen times by now.
Case in point.
in the last text of this sequence it is EXACTLY the case of "made" without "said" having full meaning.

You think that regurgitating scripture without explanation means something? Nobody has ignored the text, except you by simply posting it over and over without any explanation as to how it all relates. In fact you have never responded to the details of what I have written but believe that "utter nonsense", "gymnastics", "fluff", "imaginative", etc. is the height of intellectual engagement...in other words you offer nothing.

Define the Words? Explain the structure? Explain that Hebrew is not clauses but sentences? Explain how "And God said,..." is not all-sufficient? And if you believe that "And God said, …" is all sufficient then explain why the need for "made"? Explain the very clear and plain mediate creation? In other words have something to add other then feckless remarks....

What part of "MADE" are you not getting??

I do get it, still waiting for you to define "Made" in relation to "Said"...so what part of Said and Made don't you get?

Then respond to the detail in the texts given because they are the texts for this thread topic.

I have responded and detailed Genesis 1, you on the other hand simply post scripture with any explanation. Why not actually respond to the details I have written instead of , again your ill-conceived pointless non-responses.

You keeping saying to respond to the detail...read the posts I've made You seem incapable of comprehending what has been written, it has been explained why not respond to that instead of just your copy and paste nonsense?

 

[Jamsie]

utter nonsense .. you write as if I authored the text that you apparently so disapprove of that you cannot even bring yourself to admit the details highlighted for you over and over again.

This will be my last attempt to explain what you fail to understand, unless you choose to respond with some reasoned thought to what is written below and then detail how I am amiss, or how specifically I have skewed scripture. I would invite you to have any of your friends with such interest in Genesis 1 to also respond. If you choose to counter with your typical feckless responses do so elsewhere, or email them to yourself:

1. Genesis 1 is structured in such a way that each day states - "And God said,..." followed by the command or fiat.

2. That the command(s) of each day is the sole operative agent is clear from the narrative and supported by Psalm 33:6, Hebrews 11:3, and 2 Peter 3:5.

3. If "And God said, ..." is the sole operative agent then the efficacy of the command is all-sufficient and requiring no further action on God's part. To deny this requires the belief that God's commands/fiats were not sufficient.

4. Therefore any qualifications or words, such as "made", must relate or be explanatory to God's command. If the qualification or word does not relate or be explanatory to God's command then again God's command was not sufficient.

*Additional thought: Please show me where the lead statement, independent clause, command, or main pronouncement on any day of the Genesis narrative is "And God made,...".

5. The use of the word made, as based on #4, must be a word/term that is explanatory to the command, and be used as a "how" relation to God's creative pronouncement.

6. As to the Hebrew, the "And God said,..." would be the independent clause with the words that follow as dependent.

7. As each day is based on God's command/fiat then what follows the command must be explanatory otherwise again one is questioning the efficacy of the command. Therefore, "God made" is explanatory or parenthetical to the command, it can not stand alone. Otherwise it renders either "made" or "And God said,..." superfluous and redundant.

8. The day as designated numerically - day one, day two, etc. - relates directly to the Command of that particular day.

****Further****

9. It is clear from the text that only one day, Genesis 1:3 states immediate creation such that "Let there be light and there was light".

10. All subsequent days has God clearly commanding directly to preexisting matter or created matter such that "Let the water bring forth ..." or Let the Land produce ...". The narrative does not state "Let there be vegetation and there was vegetation" or Let there be living creatures and there was living creatures".

10. Therefore the directed commands plainly involve mediate creation.

 

[SkyWriting]

This will be my last attempt to explain what you fail to understand, unless you choose to respond with some reasoned thought to what is written below and then detail how I am amiss, or how specifically I have skewed scripture. I would invite you to have any of your friends with such interest in Genesis 1 to also respond. If you choose to counter with your typical feckless responses do so elsewhere, or email them to yourself:

1. Genesis 1 is structured in such a way that each day states - "And God said,..." followed by the command or fiat.

2. That the command(s) of each day is the sole operative agent is clear from the narrative and supported by Psalm 33:6, Hebrews 11:3, and 2 Peter 3:5.

3. If "And God said, ..." is the sole operative agent then the efficacy of the command is all-sufficient and requiring no further action on God's part. To deny this requires the belief that God's commands/fiats were not sufficient.

4. Therefore any qualifications or words, such as "made", must relate or be explanatory to God's command. If the qualification or word does not relate or be explanatory to God's command then again God's command was not sufficient.

*Additional thought: Please show me where the lead statement, independent clause, command, or main pronouncement on any day of the Genesis narrative is "And God made,...".

5. The use of the word made, as based on #4, must be a word/term that is explanatory to the command, and be used as a "how" relation to God's creative pronouncement.

6. As to the Hebrew, the "And God said,..." would be the independent clause with the words that follow as dependent.

7. As each day is based on God's command/fiat then what follows the command must be explanatory otherwise again one is questioning the efficacy of the command. Therefore, "God made" is explanatory or parenthetical to the command, it can not stand alone. Otherwise it renders either "made" or "And God said,..." superfluous and redundant.

8. The day as designated numerically - day one, day two, etc. - relates directly to the Command of that particular day.

****Further****

9. It is clear from the text that only one day, Genesis 1:3 states immediate creation such that "Let there be light and there was light".

10. All subsequent days has God clearly commanding directly to preexisting matter or created matter such that "Let the water bring forth ..." or Let the Land produce ...". The narrative does not state "Let there be vegetation and there was vegetation" or Let there be living creatures and there was living creatures".

10. Therefore the directed commands plainly involve mediate creation.

I don't see any evidence that you are considering block logic.
So likely this is the problem people are having. Many people
have some idea of block logic, even if they don't know it.
Your analysis seems to be rigid linear logic.
It does say let the land produce life, which includes unconverted man.
This suggests that creation week was more than 24 hour days.


The Philosophy of the Hebrew Language

 

[SkyWriting]

9. It is clear from the text that only one day, Genesis 1:3 states immediate creation such that "Let there be light and there was light".

I wouldn't think any of the days were different. Likely they are just explanations and not geography lessons. God seems quite indifferent to methods of Creation. Being pure Spirit, this is understandable. God doesn't even seem concerned if we die quietly in our sleep or in burning building. He is only concerned with our soul.

This is why Satanic references ARE focused on various methods of us dying. To get us to ignore our true lifes focus.

 

[Jamsie]

I don't see any evidence that you are considering block logic.
So likely this is the problem people are having. Many people
have some idea of block logic, even if they don't know it.
Your analysis seems to be rigid linear logic.
It does say let the land produce life, which includes unconverted man.
This suggests that creation week was more than 24 hour days.


The Philosophy of the Hebrew Language

I've read some on block logic, and followed some rather intense debates. It has been suggested by some that regardless of the issue of block logic the basic "rules" of logic would be required for any thorough understanding of a subject.

There is much to learn when studying Hebrew, as in the use of clauses as opposed to sentences as we read in our translations. I believe what one should gain is a sense of humility as to how the various interpretations, specifically of Genesis 1 -2 are appraised. Thank you for your thoughts....

 

[SkyWriting]

I've read some on block logic, and followed some rather intense debates. It has been suggested by some that regardless of the issue of block logic the basic "rules" of logic would be required for any thorough understanding of a subject.

There is much to learn when studying Hebrew, as in the use of clauses as opposed to sentences as we read in our translations. I believe what one should gain is a sense of humility as to how the various interpretations, specifically of Genesis 1 -2 are appraised. Thank you for your thoughts....

The basic premise is......don't follow the linear model.

Don't rule out "this" becasue of "that". Instead use "Yes! And also......"

Yes, And.... will get you much farther down the road in all situations.
Especially in scripture.

 

[Jamsie]

The basic premise is......don't follow the linear model.

Don't rule out "this" becasue of "that". Instead use "Yes! And also......"

Yes, And.... will get you much farther down the road in all situations.
Especially in scripture.

Appreciate your thoughts on this. Where we might differ is between Gen. 1:3 and subsequent creative days as based on Hebrew grammar there is a distinct change. Yes! And also ....Gen. 1:3, and this based on Genesis consisting of independent and dependent clauses, offers a direct command and fulfillment. All the subsequent command days do not state a direct command, but rather a mediate fiat. Each day is, as noted below, a collection of words to tell of an event - again, with independent and dependent clauses)

I have seen the linear verses block argued which certainly adds an interesting element to any discussion. One point made on that note was based on the context of the passage as relates to what is being written. (So for example the distinction was made as to block logic used from a near east individual of that time frame as a witness and writer as opposed to what God would of necessity have had to, through vision or "dialogue", inform the writer of the events) The further point being that if we are to take Genesis meaningfully then the words (as in Hebrew grammar - a collection of words that make a point, tell of an event, etc. via clauses) can be construed, with some qualification, to have a comprehensible meaning.

Thanks again, I would only add that any serious discussion of Genesis should, in my opinion, give substantive thought to Romans 1:20.

 

[BobRyan]

Here is my last-ditch effort to explain what you fail to understand, unless you choose to respond with some reasoned thought to the Word of God as written below

Genesis 1:3 "And God said..."
Genesis 1:4 "And God divided.." vs 5 "the first day"
Genesis 1:6 "And God said..."
Genesis 1:7 "And God MADE.." vs 8 "the second day"
Genesis 1:9 "And God said..." vs 13 "the third day"
Genesis 1:14 "And God said ..."
Genesis 1:16 "And God MADE.." vs 19 "the fourth day"

Genesis 2
Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.
2 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.
3 And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.

What part of "MADE" are you not getting??

Explain how "And God said,..." is not all-sufficient? And if you believe that "And God said, …" is all sufficient then explain why the need for "made"?

As usual -- your argument is "with the text" ... it is "the text" that has "both said and made" for each of the days. Contrary to your entire line of creative writing that we should ignore the "made" and see only "said" with the end of those 6 literal days being "nothing made" and "all incomplete".

. 11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

read.

Then respond to the detail in the texts given because they are the texts for this thread topic.

You think that regurgitating scripture without explanation means something? ?

Hint: the quotes above are blatantly obvious -- what part of the "obvious" did you want "explained" given that they SHOW that it is "both said AND made" in each of the days... not left to the reader's imagination.

Nothing left to "explain" when it comes to that blatantly obvious detail.

When in this discussion you "leave it to me" to keep "pointing out the obvious" you also leave me with the position of having all the readers "see the point" in my post. Not much hand-waiving and mental gymnastics needed to "explain it to them".

 

[BobRyan]

2. That the command(s) of each day is the sole operative agent is clear from the narrative and supported by Psalm 33:6,

repeatedly shooting your own argument in the foot is not helping your case as much as you appear to have imagined to yourself.

Psalms 33
6 By the word of the Lord were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth.
7 He gathereth the waters of the sea together as an heap: he layeth up the depth in storehouses.
8 Let all the earth fear the Lord: let all the inhabitants of the world stand in awe of him.
9 For he spake, and it was done; he commanded, and it stood fast.

The very opposite of "he spoke and nothing else happened" or "He spoke and nothing was done"

=========================

Genesis 2
Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.
2 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.
3 And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.

What part of "MADE" are you not getting??

. 11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

read.

Less creative writing - more scripture please.

 

[BobRyan]

1. "in the beginning GOD CREATED"
24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

11 For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day, and hallowed it.

The narrative does not state "Let there be vegetation and there was vegetation" or Let there be living creatures and there was living creatures"..

The historic account of creation does not say "really really truly" or "this time I really mean it just like I am saying it" with each day -- either. As I am sure we all agree.

Your expedition in creative writing is not the "substantive" argument that would hold water as compared to the actual details in Exodus 20:11 and Genesis 1:2-2:3.

Were we simply "not supposed to notice"???

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Yahweh (God) is simply able to do all that He says He did and will DO.

Men disagree a lot with Yahweh, rebelling against Him every day.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

No.
(I accidently saw this first line of this post, not looking for it) ...
However, no, it is simply not truth, not Biblical .

(maybe it is 'okay' for some or most of mankind, but since most of mankind is opposed to Life, well, ..... )

This is an amateur scientist's argument. The length of the day is based on the rotation of the earth. It does not require the sun.

 

[BobRyan]

. In fact you have never responded to the details of what I have written but believe that "utter nonsense", "gymnastics", "fluff", "imaginative", etc. is the height of intellectual engagement...in other words you offer nothing.

On the contrary -- since you have limited your argument to "debating against the obvious" you leave it to me to state the obvious and let the reader watch you argue that the obvious 'needs to be explained to you'.

Explain how "And God said,..." is not all-sufficient? And if you believe that "And God said, …" is all sufficient then explain why the need for "made"?

As usual -- your argument is "with the text" ... it is "the text" that has "both said and made" for each of the days. Contrary to your entire line of creative writing that we should ignore the "made" and see only "said" with the end of those 6 literal days being "nothing made" and "all incomplete".

In other words have something to add other than creative writing and what you call " feckless remarks "

 

[Jamsie]

On the contrary -- since you have limited your argument to "debating against the obvious" you leave it to me to state the obvious and let the reader watch you argue that the obvious 'needs to be explained to you'.

​

Somehow you believe that you have answered anything that was written to you...any reader would realize quite clearly you simply posture with nothing. Here are questions that you have failed to answer, I await you directly addressing these specifically:

Please show me where I hinted or implied deleting "made"?

Please show me where exactly I've deleted texts?

Please show what details I've ignored?

SHOW me in scripture where "And God said,..." is not the all-sufficient and the sole means of creation?

I asked you to define the words, still waiting. So again, what does "Made" mean in context to Genesis 1?

And how does it (made) relate to God's spoken commands?

How does "said" and "made" relate to each other?

If "And God said, ..." is not all-sufficient, as you imply, how does "made" impose a different meaning?

If God's command is directly to the LAND or WATER what does that imply?

Where did I say "not made"?

You wrote: Contrary to your entire line of creative writing that we should ignore the "made" and see only "said" with the end of those 6 literal days being "nothing made" and "all incomplete".

Please show me where I stated "nothing made" and "all incomplete"?

You regurgitated a number of times this:
What part of "MADE" are you not getting??

I have answered directly that "Made" must be defined in relation to "Said" - Said being God's spoken command/fiat. So that any understanding of "Made" must impose a "How" which is then stated in scripture as God spoke. You have not in any way addressed this other than your typical "creative", "gymnastics", "fluff", etc. HOWEVER, you have relied only on such verbiage but never replied in any substantive way...except in your own mind.

I will wait your answers to the above list!
​

 

[Jamsie]

On the contrary -- since you have limited your argument to "debating against the obvious" you leave it to me to state the obvious and let the reader watch you argue that the obvious 'needs to be explained to you'.
As usual -- your argument is "with the text" ... it is "the text" that has "both said and made" for each of the days. Contrary to your entire line of creative writing that we should ignore the "made" and see only "said" with the end of those 6 literal days being "nothing made" and "all incomplete".
In other words have something to add other than creative writing and what you call " feckless remarks "

Thanks Bob … as per usual you have addressed nothing that was written but simply regurgitated the same non-explanations. You continue to read the Genesis narrative as if it were a "Jack and Jill" book.

Questions Bob can't answer:

Define the Words? Explain the structure? Explain that Hebrew is not clauses but sentences? Explain how "And God said,..." is not all-sufficient? And if you believe that "And God said, …" is all sufficient then explain why the need for "made"? Explain the very clear and plain mediate creation? ​

Here is the perfect example of you inability to comprehend God's word:
​

repeatedly shooting your own argument in the foot is not helping your case as much as you appear to have imagined to yourself.

Psalms 33
6 By the word of the Lord were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth.
7 He gathereth the waters of the sea together as an heap: he layeth up the depth in storehouses.
8 Let all the earth fear the Lord: let all the inhabitants of the world stand in awe of him.
9 For he spake, and it was done; he commanded, and it stood fast.

The very opposite of "he spoke and nothing else happened" or "He spoke and nothing was done"

It is rather tiresome that you are in a sense stating falsehoods again:

Where exactly did I state that "nothing else happened" or "nothing was done"?

So let us take Psalm 33 and try and understand this passage, answer these questions.

1. Psalm 33:6 - How were the heavens made?

2. Psalm 33:6 - What does the verse mean by "breath of his mouth"

3. Psalm 33:7 - How did he gather the water?

4. Psalm 33:9 - "He spake", what does that mean?

5. Psalm 33:9 - "He spake", and it was done". What was done?

6. Psalm 33:9 - "He commanded, …" What does "commanded" mean?

7. Psalm 33:9 - "

and it ​

stood fast​

" - What stood fast?​

I have answered all of these though you chose to ignore but only to brattle on without ever addressing what scripture says. So answer these questions, and try with some sense of logic to use your answers to make a coherent view of Genesis 1.

If you are unable to answer these questions don't bother with your innocuous remarks as it will only further demonstrate that you are incapable of any meaningful counterstatements, or serious discussion for that matter.

 

[Chinchilla]

Day can be longer than 24h but that would be considered long day .
Day can albo be shorter than 24h when Sun will go down at noon Amos 8:9 and days will be shortened or else we would nuke whole earth Matthew 24:22-24.

These were "probably" 24h days , we don't know for sure . If you have problem with 7 days in Genesis 1 then you should have problem with 6th day shown in Genesis 2 in which both trees and animals plus human were created .

If you want to make it millions of years then you need to explain why in Genesis 1 there is different order of creation than in Genesis 2 .

 

[Jamsie]

Day can be longer than 24h but that would be considered long day .
Day can albo be shorter than 24h when Sun will go down at noon Amos 8:9 and days will be shortened or else we would nuke whole earth Matthew 24:22-24.

These were "probably" 24h days , we don't know for sure . If you have problem with 7 days in Genesis 1 then you should have problem with 6th day shown in Genesis 2 in which both trees and animals plus human were created .

If you want to make it millions of years then you need to explain why in Genesis 1 there is different order of creation than in Genesis 2 .

*The sixth day remains a question as to time: "So Gen. 1:27 creation of "male and female", then 2:15 God put man in the garden to "work and care", compare Gen. 1:31 to Ge. 2:18. Gen.2:19 naming of the animals, the Gen. 2:22 has Eve, and Adam uses the word "pa‛ămâh" which hints at "at last" or "now" which one would infer a passage of time. Would there not be some passage of time for Adam to work and care for the plants, etc. if not why would he need a `ezer - helper? Would it be a "stretch" to believe that Adam must have had some interaction with the variety of animals, birds, etc. in order to name them, if they were named meaningfully ...and would not that require time? So given the mediate nature of creation how is equating days to commands so far fetched...the Bible is quite clear that each day (5 days) is a command day that involves process."


Gleason L. Archer, Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, pages 60-61, Baker 1982: “ There were six major stages in this work of formation, and these stages are represented by successive days of a week. In this connection it is important to observe that none of the six creative days bears a definite article in the Hebrew text; the translations “the first day,” “ the second day,” etc., are in error. The Hebrew says, “And the evening took place, and the morning took place, day one” (1:5). Hebrew expresses “the first day” by hayyom harison, but this text says simply yom ehad (day one). Again, in v.8 we read not hayyom hasseni (“the second day”) but yom seni (“a second day”). In Hebrew prose of this genre, the definite article was generally used where the noun was intended to be definite; only in poetic style could it be omitted. The same is true with the rest of the six days; they all lack the definite article. Thus they are well adapted to a sequential pattern, rather than to strictly delimited units of time.”

Norman L. Geisler, Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, page 271, Zondervan 1999: “Numbered days need not be solar. Neither is there a rule of Hebrew language demanding that all numbered days in a series refer to twenty-four-hour days. Even if there were no exceptions in the Old Testament, it would not mean that “day” in Genesis 1 could not refer to more than one twenty-four-hour period. But there is another example in the Old Testament. Hosea 6:1-2 . . . . . . Clearly the prophet is not speaking of solar “days” but of longer periods in the future. Yet he numbers the days in series.”

 

[BobRyan]

. In fact you have never responded to the details of what I have written but believe that "utter nonsense", "gymnastics", "fluff", "imaginative", etc. is the height of intellectual engagement...in other words you offer nothing.

On the contrary -- since you have limited your argument to "debating against the obvious" you leave it to me to state the obvious and let the reader watch you argue that the obvious 'needs to be explained to you'.

Explain how "And God said,..." is not all-sufficient? And if you believe that "And God said, …" is all sufficient then explain why the need for "made"?

As usual -- your argument is "with the text" ... it is "the text" that has "both said and made" for each of the days. Contrary to your entire line of creative writing that we should ignore the "made" and see only "said" with the end of those 6 literal days being "nothing made" and "all incomplete".

In other words have something to add other than creative writing and what you call " feckless remarks "

Thanks Bob …​

You are welcomed of course.

as per usual you have addressed nothing

Until you actually "read" the post and see that I have once again "pointed out the obvious" while you "struggle with it".

your argument is "with the text" ... it is "the text" that has "both said and made" for each of the days. Contrary to your entire line of creative writing that we should ignore the "made" and see only "said" with the end of those 6 literal days being "nothing made" and "all incomplete".

Were we simply "not supposed to notice"??
​

Questions Bob can't answer:
Define the Words?​

That is not a question - obviously.

-- and it begs to have "the obvious explained".
It is left "as an exercise for the reader" to see if they think "the obvious" needs to be explained.​

Explain that Hebrew is not clauses but sentences?

A distinction without a difference in the case of Genesis 1.

Obviously.

Explain how "And God said,..." is not all-sufficient?

Circular reasoning - and the obvious logical fallacy of using your own false alternative

And if you believe that "And God said, …" is all sufficient then explain why the need for "made"?

It is in the text -- you argue as IF I wrote the text.
Your argument is "with the text".
Obviously

Explain the very clear and plain mediate creation?

You placed a question mark at the end of your own statement. Try English syntax.

God made from nothing... "3 By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.".

Less gaming... more Bible please.

It is rather tiresome that you are in a sense stating falsehoods again:

Sadly - stating "the obvious" is not stating falsehood.

Where exactly did I state that "nothing else happened" or "nothing was done"?

here

Again, you need to address this if you disagree "On each day it is clear that God has not Done something but rather to have Said something, not to have Made something but to have Commanded something." .

Genesis 2
Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.
2 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.
3 And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.

What part of "MADE" are you not getting?? You are debating against "the obvious" again.

. 11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.