How do you define 'day'

[Geoff m]

How would you define a 'day' at the time of creation?
In the past I would have called it 24 hours, but after investigating 'time' a little, and understanding what 'time' actually is as we know it, my view on creationism has changed in order to understand the age of the earth, why there is dinosaur bones etc... although I am still in favour of creation.
What is your view on the time scale of the days of creation and why? I would be greatful for any response because I would like to see if my theory holds any water. I don't want to post it just yet, I'd rather hear yours first........

 

[Biblewriter]

How would you define a 'day' at the time of creation?
In the past I would have called it 24 hours, but after investigating 'time' a little, and understanding what 'time' actually is as we know it, my view on creationism has changed in order to understand the age of the earth, why there is dinosaur bones etc... although I am still in favour of creation.
What is your view on the time scale of the days of creation and why? I would be greatful for any response because I would like to see if my theory holds any water. I don't want to post it just yet, I'd rather hear yours first........

I assume you are basing your theory on an assumption that the Bible is true, but the days in Genesis were actually long periods of time.

But this theory does not "work." This is because the genesis account has plants before there is a sun.

Now it expressly says that God made the plants "before they were in the ground." It is well known that it is a good idea to protect a transplanted plant for 24 hours before exposing it to direct sunlight. So this part of the account "works" in a 24 hour "day."

But it the "days" were actually long periods of time, then the Biblical account is saying that there were plants here on the earth eons before there was a sun to keep them alive. This assumption does not "work," for the plants couild not exist for eons without a sun.

 

[Van]

The hebrew word translated day, "and there was evening and there was morning the first day" is "yom" and refers to an indeterminate period of time, could be less than 24 hours, could be 24 hours, or could be a very long period of time.

Proponents of the "Gap" theory of interpretation, think these are days of "re-creation" and are twenty-four hours long. Proponents of 6 day creationism, where the Universe was created less than 10,000 years ago believe these days are twenty-four hours long. Proponents of the "Day-Age" theory of interpretation think the days of Genesis 1 are long periods of time, covering the period between the big bang, billions of years ago, and when humans first inhabited the earth, less than 100,000 years ago.

But what about the order of creation, the sequence does not mesh with science? These "difficulties" have been addressed many times. Lets take verse 11 through verse 13, the third day. The way the 24 hour day folks understand the verses is that everything that happened, initially happened "before" the end of the third day. So fruit trees bearing fruit spouted (verse 11) and matured so they bore fruit with seeds within 24 hours. However, if we adopt the "process began which culminated in the listed accomplishments" view then plant life began on day three, but evolved over time as the rest of creation was put in place, like sunlight and insects.

But what about the Sun and moon being created on day 4, after the earth was created and had plant life? Actually 14 does not say God created the moon and the Sun on day 4, it says the light from those bodies was put in place on day 4. When the sun ignited after it was formed, the fusion process generated solar wind which blew the dark clouds of dust away, revealing the light of the stars and sun and the reflected light of the moon. So the actual sequence is consistent with science.

Hopefully, you will realize either view (24 hour or long period of time) has difficulties and therefore to be dogmatic about the details when Job 38 tells us in no uncertain terms that we do not know just how God did it, is unwise.

 

[busterdog]

How would you define a 'day' at the time of creation?
In the past I would have called it 24 hours, but after investigating 'time' a little, and understanding what 'time' actually is as we know it, my view on creationism has changed in order to understand the age of the earth, why there is dinosaur bones etc... although I am still in favour of creation.
What is your view on the time scale of the days of creation and why? I would be greatful for any response because I would like to see if my theory holds any water. I don't want to post it just yet, I'd rather hear yours first........

There are some very hard physical problems that must be overcome in order for a 15 billion year old universe to happen as advertised. It takes enormous but unobserved quantities of material and energy. Yet, there are types of energy that can do the job in 24 hour days. If you substitute electrical energy for all that "missing mass", in a rough kind of way, you can balance the equation and get it done within 6 days. So whats all the fuss about?

 

[The Barbarian]

In Christian tradition, the usual explanation is that of St. Augustine:

In "The Literal Interpretation of Genesis" Augustine took the view that everything in the universe was created simultaneously by God, and not in seven calendar days like a plain account of Genesis would require. He argued that the six-day structure of creation presented in the book of Genesis represents a logical framework, rather than the passage of time in a physical way - it would bear a spiritual, rather than physical, meaning, which is no less literal.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustine_of_Hippo

 

[busterdog]

In Christian tradition, the usual explanation is that of St. Augustine:

In "The Literal Interpretation of Genesis" Augustine took the view that everything in the universe was created simultaneously by God, and not in seven calendar days like a plain account of Genesis would require. He argued that the six-day structure of creation presented in the book of Genesis represents a logical framework, rather than the passage of time in a physical way - it would bear a spiritual, rather than physical, meaning, which is no less literal.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustine_of_Hippo

Augustine was fairly predictable on such matters. In many ways he reconciles with a TE perspective. Obviously the guy was a genius and he wrote foundational works. But, guys like me would argue he really did not fully understand things like the nature of the nation of Israel and end times prophecy. He spiritualized everything, which is akin to making it all metaphorical, but not completely the same. The spiritual reality he writes of does exist in many cases, but to the extent that he chooses it as an alternative to literal truth, we part company and say it is both/and, not either/or.

I am not arguing against your position in particular, I am just noting a division within the Church and what it looks like.

 

[mark kennedy]

Usually it's a regular 24 hour day. In some passages it can refer to something else but in Genesis the meaning is a regular 24 hour day. I have studied the word in the original using dictionaries, commentaries and concordances and it means a regular 24 hour day.

 

[mark kennedy]

Augustine was fairly predictable on such matters. In many ways he reconciles with a TE perspective. Obviously the guy was a genius and he wrote foundational works. But, guys like me would argue he really did not fully understand things like the nature of the nation of Israel and end times prophecy. He spiritualized everything, which is akin to making it all metaphorical, but not completely the same. The spiritual reality he writes of does exist in many cases, but to the extent that he chooses it as an alternative to literal truth, we part company and say it is both/and, not either/or.

I am not arguing against your position in particular, I am just noting a division within the Church and what it looks like.

Augustine was no theistic evolutionist:

Let us, then, omit the conjectures of men who know not what they say, when they speak of the nature and origin of the human race. For some hold the same opinion regarding men that they hold regarding the world itself, that they have always been... They are deceived, too, by those highly mendacious documents which profess to give the history of many thousand years, though, reckoning by the sacred writings, we find that not 6000 years have yet passed.

– Augustine, Of the Falseness of the History Which Allots Many Thousand Years to the World’s Past, The City of God, Book 12: Chapt. 10 [AD 419].

For it was not fit that His creature should blush at the work of his Creator; but by a just punishment the disobedience of the members was the retribution to the disobedience of the first man, for which disobedience they blushed when they covered with fig-leaves those shameful parts which previously were not shameful.

– Augustine, Against Two Letters of the Pelagians​

The man was a creationist as was Peter, Paul, Luke and Christ. By the way, Rome has not rejected a 24 hour day in Genesis 1 and certainly not embracing a chimpanzee/human common ancestry.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Geoff m]

well whatever was going on in my head has been blown out of the water. my idea helped me get to grips with it but if the general consensus is 24hrs i will try to accept it. the only thing is - that time is a measurement of the speed of light, and the heavens and the earth were created before light, in effect before the creation of time. any thoughts?

 

[70x7]

well whatever was going on in my head has been blown out of the water. my idea helped me get to grips with it but if the general consensus is 24hrs i will try to accept it. the only thing is - that time is a measurement of the speed of light, and the heavens and the earth were created before light, in effect before the creation of time. any thoughts?

God is outside of time, but the creation week had a very specific timetable set to it...7 days (literally). I cannot say that it hits 24hrs on the dot, but it would be close to what we have now. The sun rising and the moon setting defined a day.
Anything longer would not fit the outline given in Genesis. Creation says the earth before the sun, plants before light. Eons old contridicts this.
The biggest problem I find is that people try to define God with the laws that WE know. Compared to God, we know nothing, but yet think we can define Him with our few "discoveries".

 

[Geoff m]

Good point 70x7. I think its a question with only one answer

 

[Assyrian]

well whatever was going on in my head has been blown out of the water. my idea helped me get to grips with it but if the general consensus is 24hrs i will try to accept it. the only thing is - that time is a measurement of the speed of light, and the heavens and the earth were created before light, in effect before the creation of time. any thoughts?

If you are looking for a general consensus you should take your question out into the main Origins Theology area. You won't find a general consensus of course , but you will hear from a lot of believers who aren't supposed to debate in this subforum. Here you will mainly get people who are into six literal days.

 

[busterdog]

If you are looking for a general consensus you should take your question out into the main Origins Theology area. You won't find a general consensus of course , but you will hear from a lot of believers who aren't supposed to debate in this subforum. Here you will mainly get people who are into six literal days.

Consensus?

As a gentlemen (painted blue and howling) of the celtic race, you must know how our ancestors feel about matters of principle. Hugh MacDiarmid said that the division with England could be remedied by a simple trench between England and Scotland along the entire border. Then you would just have to fill it with English blood. But, of course, he was a poetic/academic type.

 

[Assyrian]

An 80% approval rating is close enough.
Congratulations on your new President, Bd. Really amazing.

 

[shernren]

If you are looking for a general consensus you should take your question out into the main Origins Theology area. You won't find a general consensus of course , but you will hear from a lot of believers who aren't supposed to debate in this subforum. Here you will mainly get people who are into six literal days.

General Consensus, was he the one leading the war on terror?

 

[Assyrian]

Nice to be able to bring busterdog and shernren together on something. Now back off, it wasn't even my phrase

 

[The Barbarian]

The man was a creationist as was Peter, Paul, Luke and Christ.

Since Christ was God, and since God is the author of Genesis, we can be certain that He wasn't a YE creationist.

By the way, Rome has not rejected a 24 hour day in Genesis 1 and certainly not embracing a chimpanzee/human common ancestry.

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. While the story of human origins is complex and subject to revision, physical anthropology and molecular biology combine to make a convincing case for the origin of the human species in Africa about 150,000 years ago in a humanoid population of common genetic lineage. However it is to be explained, the decisive factor in human origins was a continually increasing brain size, culminating in that of homo sapiens.
Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI,
INTERNATIONAL THEOLOGICAL COMMISSION
COMMUNION AND STEWARDSHIP:
Human Persons Created in the Image of God

The Church doesn't require people to accept evolution or any other scientific theory. But it has no objections to it, and the last two popes have personally accepted it.