How long was the First Day?

heymikey80 · Apr 15, 2006

Looking seriously into both the interpretation of Genesis from a literal point of view I've come to an odd question. Was the First Day 24 hours long?

The reason I ask is that the Hebrew day -- defined by God and implemented into Hebrew calendars -- begins with night -- an evening -- and then moves to daylight -- a morning. Were I to apply that directly to the First Day, the night-time of the First Day would stretch into ... well, however long "darkness was over the face of the deep".

Is the darkness limited to approximately 12 hours?

rmwilliamsll · Apr 15, 2006

heymikey80 said:
Looking seriously into both the interpretation of Genesis from a literal point of view I've come to an odd question. Was the First Day 24 hours long?

The reason I ask is that the Hebrew day -- defined by God and implemented into Hebrew calendars -- begins with night -- an evening -- and then moves to daylight -- a morning. Were I to apply that directly to the First Day, the night-time of the First Day would stretch into ... well, however long "darkness was over the face of the deep".

Is the darkness limited to approximately 12 hours?

there is a couple of curious things going on:

first, the division of day and night into 12 equal periods is Babylonian, dating perhaps to the 12-15centuries BC

see:
http://www-history.mcs.st-and.ac.uk/history/HistTopics/Babylonian_mathematics.html
http://www-astronomy.mps.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast161/Unit2/time.html
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/GreekScience/Students/Jesse/CLOCK1A.html
http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=594
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decimal_time

marking time is so common with us that we miss how really difficult a question it is. and how very modern the question is. Gen 1:1-3 would not have been read by it's original readers and provoking questions like this, you are thoroughly modern in your response to the text and asking such questions of it....

btw:
the division of the day:
hebrew evening, night morning, day as you point out.
babylonian was morning, day, evening, night
roman was midnight, 1st watch to midnight, we inherit the roman way of doing it, legally
although most of our common sense talking is babylonian....
neat trick.

shernren · Apr 16, 2006

Weren't the Romans' four night watches 9pm-12mn, 12mn-3am, 3am-6am, 6am-9am? And from there counted by hours so that "the third hour to the ninth hour" was 12 noon to 6pm? As I recall.

rmwilliamsll · Apr 16, 2006

shernren said:
Weren't the Romans' four night watches 9pm-12mn, 12mn-3am, 3am-6am, 6am-9am? And from there counted by hours so that "the third hour to the ninth hour" was 12 noon to 6pm? As I recall.

i was unclear.

days are numbered/named from midnight to midnight in the roman system.

see:

In addition to the old official division of the months by the Calends (first of each month), the Nones (the fifth or seventh day) and the Ides (the thirteenth or fifteenth day), the division into weeks of seven days is subordinate to the seven planets whose movements were believed to regulate the universe. By the beginning of the third century this usage had become so firmly anchored in the popular consciousness that Dio Cassius considered it specifically Roman. With only one minor modification-the substitution of the day of the Lord, for the day of the Sun, it has in most countries of Latin speech survived both the decadence of the astrologers and the triumph of Christianity. Finally each day of the seven was divided into twenty-four hours which were reckoned to begin, not as with the Babylonians, at sunrise, nor, as among the Greeks, at sunset, but as but as is still the case with us, at midnight. This ends the analogies between time a the ancients counted it and as we do; the Latin hours, late Intruders Into the Roman day, though they bear the same name and were of the same number as ours, were in reality very different.

from: http://www.atomictimeclock.com/timehistoryroman.htm

the watches themselves, like our navy time is different. night watches start at dark and are numbered 1-4, so they are 3 hour intervals.
i thought they started at our 1800 hrs but i am unable to find evidence of it online, quickly.

the hours in Christ's time were numbered apparently from 6AM, 1st, 2nd....etc. and only daylight hours.

just goes to show how complex the topic really is.

dad · Apr 16, 2006

heymikey80 said:
Looking seriously into both the interpretation of Genesis from a literal point of view I've come to an odd question. Was the First Day 24 hours long?

The reason I ask is that the Hebrew day -- defined by God and implemented into Hebrew calendars -- begins with night -- an evening -- and then moves to daylight -- a morning. Were I to apply that directly to the First Day, the night-time of the First Day would stretch into ... well, however long "darkness was over the face of the deep".

Is the darkness limited to approximately 12 hours?

Depend where on earth we are and what time of year it is. The arctic gets very long days in the summer, 24 hour days, I think. Normally, it is closer to 12 hours.
One way to figure how long a day is is look how long Jesus' body was dead. 3 days. If some of these 'one day is a million years' types had their say of what a day is, He would still be dead!
Happy Easter.

philadiddle · Apr 16, 2006

dad said:
Depend where on earth we are and what time of year it is. The arctic gets very long days in the summer, 24 hour days, I think. Normally, it is closer to 12 hours.
One way to figure how long a day is is look how long Jesus' body was dead. 3 days. If some of these 'one day is a million years' types had their say of what a day is, He would still be dead!
Happy Easter.

lol, you do understand that the "1 day is a like a thousand years" verse has nothing to do with theistic evolution, and isn't used as a valid point to back it up. the point of that verse is that to God, time means nothing, it's a creation of Him and He is not bound to it.

dad · Apr 16, 2006

philadiddle said:
lol, you do understand that the "1 day is a like a thousand years" verse has nothing to do with theistic evolution, and isn't used as a valid point to back it up. the point of that verse is that to God, time means nothing, it's a creation of Him and He is not bound to it.

They think a day was something else. Not just a morning and an evening. No? How else can they get old ages?

philadiddle · Apr 16, 2006

dad said:
They think a day was something else. Not just a morning and an evening. No? How else can they get old ages?

i don't think a day was something else. it's not directly related to anything because it's a myth. it is true in the sense that God made everything and He is the creator and the only one worthy of worship, it's just not literal.
they get old ages from the evidence in the earth. the evidence which you always ignore in your many discussions

dad · Apr 16, 2006

philadiddle said:
philadiddle said:

i don't think a day was something else. it's not directly related to anything because it's a myth.

Click to expand...

So then a day was a day in the bible. Fine. I agree. As for the bible being a myth, no that is a myth.

it is true in the sense that God made everything and He is the creator and the only one worthy of worship, it's just not literal.

Click to expand...

So He is not literally worthy of worship? If He is, why couldn't He get it right, and make the bible true? My God got it right.

they get old ages from the evidence in the earth. the evidence which you always ignore in your many discussions

Click to expand...

Not true. If the earth was different in the past, as I have said, your take on the evidence is so far off as to be a joke. What gets me is that you simply expect us to take your word for it it was the same! 'Oh, of course it was, don't expect us to prove it, or make any solid case at all, science has always just sort of assumed that, and science couldn't be wrong like that myth book the bible now could it?'

heymikey80 · Apr 16, 2006

dad said:
So then a day was a day in the bible. Fine. I agree. As for the bible being a myth, no that is a myth.

So He is not literally worthy of worship? If He is, why couldn't He get it right, and make the bible true? My God got it right.

Not true. If the earth was different in the past, as I have said, your take on the evidence is so far off as to be a joke. What gets me is that you simply expect us to take your word for it it was the same! 'Oh, of course it was, don't expect us to prove it, or make any solid case at all, science has always just sort of assumed that, and science couldn't be wrong like that myth book the bible now could it?'

Click to expand...

Well, I'm inclined that a literal interpretation of Scripture doesn't define the first day as 24 hours. I think God legitimately defines what a day is: "evening and morning". Not a definition by time, but a definition by the existence of night, then light. I think maybe the Jewish people got it right, that's how "yom" is defined by God.

When I look at that first day it makes no indication that there was a short period of time involved. There was night, and light. The night extends into times of the past. "Darkness was on the face of the Deep" -- there's no indication how long Darkness was on the face of the Deep.

Yet by definition there was a day, "evening and morning", when God created light -- separating light from darkness.

JonF · Apr 16, 2006

Seeings how at one point there was no mass and then there was mass on the first day it’s had to say what an day means as a measure of time with our understanding of relativity. 24 hours relative to what?

dad · Apr 16, 2006

heymikey80 said:
When I look at that first day it makes no indication that there was a short period of time involved. There was night, and light. The night extends into times of the past. "Darkness was on the face of the Deep" -- there's no indication how long Darkness was on the face of the Deep.

Why would the first day be any different from the others? Likr the day that the plants were made? Plants can only live so long without the sun, no?

Yet by definition there was a day, "evening and morning", when God created light -- separating light from darkness.

Wha's the difference if morning is the latter part of a day? It still is a day.

Joh 11:9 - Jesus answered, Are there not twelve hours in the day? If any man walk in the day, he stumbleth not, because he seeth the light of this world.

ince He created the world, He oughta know!

Dennis_Hogg · Apr 17, 2006

The Bible requires all the days of creation to be normal days. The answer does not depend on wording in Genesis 1, or on the use of "yom" with numbers. Scripture is the best commentary on Scripture. Exodus 20:9-11 "Six days shall you labor and do all your work ... ...For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therfore the Lord blessed the sabbath day and made it holy"

It meant 6 days to Moses when he came down the mountain with the tablets. It meant 6 days when the Jews picked up stones to stone the Lord for healing on the sabbath. Jesus didn't correct them for their "error". It meant 6 days to Him too. How can modern man think it means something else?

rmwilliamsll · Apr 18, 2006

Dennis_Hogg said:
The Bible requires all the days of creation to be normal days. The answer does not depend on wording in Genesis 1, or on the use of "yom" with numbers. Scripture is the best commentary on Scripture. Exodus 20:9-11 "Six days shall you labor and do all your work ... ...For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therfore the Lord blessed the sabbath day and made it holy"

It meant 6 days to Moses when he came down the mountain with the tablets. It meant 6 days when the Jews picked up stones to stone the Lord for healing on the sabbath. Jesus didn't correct them for their "error". It meant 6 days to Him too. How can modern man think it means something else?

This is an example of a kind of posting i'm thinking of calling "bearing testimony", the purpose of which is simply to put the poster on record believing X. there appears to be no interaction with the rest of the thread, no evidence of having even read it, let alone interest in discovering what the thread is saying.

merely "i testify to the truth of X, X is in Scripture, I believe Scripture, therefore X is true". It's hardly illuminating, i've read this statement that yom=24 hours day= creation week probably in the area of 2000 times over the last 6 years i've been working on the issues.

do such posters really think that this is new or interesting material to people? or is the purpose to tell God that you are orthodox and trust Him? don't you think He knows without you telling Him? the only purpose seems to be to draw lines and to take sides.

really it is a waste of time to read and of good hard drive space to store.....

dad · Apr 18, 2006

rmwilliamsll said:
This is an example of a kind of posting i'm thinking of calling "bearing testimony", the purpose of which is simply to put the poster on record believing X. there appears to be no interaction with the rest of the thread, no evidence of having even read it, let alone interest in discovering what the thread is saying.

merely "i testify to the truth of X, X is in Scripture, I believe Scripture, therefore X is true". It's hardly illuminating, i've read this statement that yom=24 hours day= creation week probably in the area of 2000 times over the last 6 years i've been working on the issues.

do such posters really think that this is new or interesting material to people? or is the purpose to tell God that you are orthodox and trust Him? don't you think He knows without you telling Him? the only purpose seems to be to draw lines and to take sides.

really it is a waste of time to read and of good hard drive space to store.....

No it was a nice short post that was bang on, and very relative. No need to blather.

JonF · Apr 18, 2006

Dennis_Hogg said:
The Bible requires all the days of creation to be normal days.

And again i ask, a 24 hour perriod relative to what with mass not existing anywhere, then suddenly existing?

do such posters really think that this is new or interesting material to people? or is the purpose to tell God that you are orthodox and trust Him? don't you think He knows without you telling Him? the only purpose seems to be to draw lines and to take sides.

This post did no such thing. He Referred to other places in the bible where the creation account was referred to as a 24 hour period. A better way to object to his argument would either be, I disagree with your interpretation of scripture because or We can not assume scripture as correct because, you know something other than an Ad Hominem.

rmwilliamsll · Apr 18, 2006

Jesus didn't correct them for their "error".

Jesus didn't tell them that demons don't cause all illness, that schizophrenia is a chemical imbalance, that the heart is not the organ of the mind, that the brain is not a heat transfer organ, either.

therefore medicine is all wrong in not looking more at demons for illness.

that is the logic. we've heard it more than once, it doesn't add to the discussion, nor is it really intented to.

JonF · Apr 18, 2006

rmwilliamsll said:
Jesus didn't correct them for their "error".

Jesus didn't tell them that demons don't cause all illness, that schizophrenia is a chemical imbalance, that the heart is not the organ of the mind, that the brain is not a heat transfer organ, either.

therefore medicine is all wrong in not looking more at demons for illness.

that is the logic. we've heard it more than once, it doesn't add to the discussion, nor is it really intented to.

Specifically what is this in response too? A direct quote please.

rmwilliamsll · Apr 18, 2006

see:
http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/c/1145340644-2717.html#5

the word in Gen 1:5 for daylight is yom, as well as the designator for 24hr day.

so the question is even more interesting.
the ANE knew that the length of daylight changed during the year.

why the use of the same word-yom to designate both daylight+nighttime and daylight....
giving that the length of daylight changes throughout the year to reflect the tilt of the earth's axis and the elliptical orbit of the earth around the sun.

rmwilliamsll · Apr 18, 2006

Specifically what is this in response too? A direct quote please.

from: http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=23496472&postcount=13

Dennis_Hogg said:
The Bible requires all the days of creation to be normal days. The answer does not depend on wording in Genesis 1, or on the use of "yom" with numbers. Scripture is the best commentary on Scripture. Exodus 20:9-11 "Six days shall you labor and do all your work ... ...For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therfore the Lord blessed the sabbath day and made it holy"

It meant 6 days to Moses when he came down the mountain with the tablets. It meant 6 days when the Jews picked up stones to stone the Lord for healing on the sabbath. Jesus didn't correct them for their "error". It meant 6 days to Him too. How can modern man think it means something else?

ok?

How long was the First Day?

Quidquid Latine dictum sit, altum viditur

avid reader

you are not reading this.

avid reader

Undefeated!

Drumming circles around you

Undefeated!

Drumming circles around you

Undefeated!

Quidquid Latine dictum sit, altum viditur

Sapere Aude!

Undefeated!

Junior Member

avid reader

Undefeated!

Sapere Aude!

avid reader

Sapere Aude!

avid reader

avid reader

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency