What does the word 'day' mean in Genesis?

[Hank]

OK, i'll be the devil's advocate again.

Time measured is relative to the observer. Where it may have taken God one day to create a given item in His reference frame it could have been everything from one day to millions of years in the reference frame as it is experienced on earth. Thus it is really irrelevant how long those periods, described in Genesis, were. We can not know either way. We have ample scientific evidence that the creation of and on earth was longer then our 24hrs. I realy have no clue why anyone would assume that time described by an everlasting entity could be understood in the first place, or to be taken at our limited standards.

Thus I quote Moses

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.

 

Time dilation in simple terms
http://www.glenbrook.k12.il.us/gbssci/phys/Class/relativity/reltoc.html

 

[Hank]

Hey TheBear, I did not realize onlt literalist are supposed to post here. If I am out of lunch, let me know and I delete

 

[Sinai]

And after you have expressed your opinion about what "day" means, please register your opinion here as to how to measure that day.

Thank you.

 

[TheBear]

Originally posted by Sinai
And after you have expressed your opinion about what "day" means, please register your opinion here as to how to measure that day.

Thank you.

Hey! You stole my thunder!

 

[TheBear]

Originally posted by Hank
Hey TheBear, I did not realize onlt literalist are supposed to post here. If I am out of lunch, let me know and I delete

Not at all, Hank.

 

[LouisBooth]

"What does `ereb boquer mean?"

Its the hebrew for part of the passage. there was evening and then morning.

What's funny is that throughout the bible you see these words used in relation ONLY to a 24 hour period, ie a day. I'd love to see where its not used in that way, as for proving the point bear, that phrase alone is the nail in your coffin.

 

[Sinai]

Originally posted by LouisBooth:
"What does `ereb boquer mean?"

Its the hebrew for part of the passage. there was evening and then morning.

What's funny is that throughout the bible you see these words used in relation ONLY to a 24 hour period, ie a day. I'd love to see where its not used in that way, as for proving the point bear, that phrase alone is the nail in your coffin.

Why is it that each creative day begins with evening and ends with morning? That’s backwards from the way we as humans think of a day, since we begin the day when we get up in the morning and end it when we go to bed at night. Sure, some might point out that it is Jewish tradition to begin the day at sunset and end it at the next sunset. But that’s begging the question, since the reason for that Jewish tradition is the wording in the first chapter of Genesis. Could there be another reason or a greater cosmic thought that Genesis One is telling us?

The Hebrew for “evening” is erev. The root of erev means “mixed-up, stirred together, disorderly”—which tends to be our visual sensation of being in the dark.

The Hebrew for “morning” is voqer or boker. Its root means “discernible, able to be distinguished, orderly”—which tends to be our visual sensation at the coming of day.

Ancient Jewish commentaries on Genesis indicate that the root meanings help the phrase take on cosmic significance—perhaps of sufficient importance to be repeated at the close of each of God’s creative days: Throughout the time of God’s creative activity, there was a systematic flow from chaos and disorder (“evening”) to order (“morning”). God brought order from chaos in the creation of both the universe and of our own world. The Bible also informs us that God desires to bring order from chaos in our own personal lives….

 

[LouisBooth]

"Why is it that each creative day begins with evening and ends with morning? That’s backwards from the way we as humans think of a day"

nope, its not in terms of the jewish culture. The day to them was evening to sunrise.

"The Hebrew for “evening” is erev. The root of erev means “mixed-up, stirred together, disorderly”—which tends to be our visual sensation of being in the dark.

The Hebrew for “morning” is voqer or boker. Its root means “discernible, able to be distinguished, orderly”—which tends to be our visual sensation at the coming of day."

Please show me the two actual words used in a place in scripture that did not mean a literal evening or a literal morning, then I will take your points up for consideration based on the text. Until them, its a nail in the coffin

 

[Sinai]

Originally posted by LouisBooth:
"Why is it that each creative day begins with evening and ends with morning? That’s backwards from the way we as humans think of a day"

nope, its not in terms of the jewish culture. The day to them was evening to sunrise.

Good example of how you often tend to pick and choose certain words and phrases and ignore others that would answer your question if you would only read and comprehend them. The entire paragraph said, "Why is it that each creative day begins with evening and ends with morning? That’s backwards from the way we as humans think of a day, since we begin the day when we get up in the morning and end it when we go to bed at night. Sure, some might point out that it is Jewish tradition to begin the day at sunset and end it at the next sunset. But that’s begging the question, since the reason for that Jewish tradition is the wording in the first chapter of Genesis. Could there be another reason or a greater cosmic thought that Genesis One is telling us?

Please note the following points about the parts you chose to ignore:

1. We humans generally tend to think of days as beginning when we get up in the morning. Do you deny that that is a general tendency?

2. Jewish tradition is different (as we both pointed out)--but "that’s begging the question, since the reason for that Jewish tradition is the wording in the first chapter of Genesis." Do you deny what I said?

3. I did not deny the possibility of your interpretation being correct, but rather asked "Could there be another reason or a greater cosmic thought that Genesis One is telling us?"

I then set out the Hebrew root meanings of the words in question. Do you deny that the Hebrew root meanings are what I said? For that matter, do you deny that on each day of creation, God brought greater order out of what had been disorder and chaos, and that each creative day brought creation closer to establishing a suitable habitat for humanity?

Please show me the two actual words used in a place in scripture that did not mean a literal evening or a literal morning, then I will take your points up for consideration based on the text.

Try the first chapter of Genesis, Louis. How do you have a "literal evening or a literal morning" without the sun (doesn't definitely show up in the scriptures until the fourth day) or probably the earth (doesn't definitely show up in the scriptures until the third day, though it is possible to place it earlier depending upon one's interpretation of various words and phrases). And by the way, Louis: Although I have asked several times, you still have not presented any scientific evidence supporting your contention that the universe is only 6000 years old.

 

[Hank]

Originally posted by Sinai
Why is it that each creative day begins with evening and ends with morning? That’s backwards from the way we as humans think of a day,

A Jewish day starts at sunset.

Thus "And there was evening, and there was morning" means evening to morning and morning to evening.

The idea that the day starts at midnight is Roman.

 

[Hank]

Why is a day for God equal to one for humans? (Measured in time.)

Did God not tell King David to build a living place for Him is ridiculous? 2 Samuel 7: 5 Thus I think since God does not live on earth his days should be measured differently, or not at all.

 

[Sinai]

Originally posted by Hank
A Jewish day starts at sunset. Thus "And there was evening, and there was morning" means evening to morning and morning to evening.

Yes, we are all in agreement on that point, Hank. But as I originally added in the next sentence, "some might point out that it is Jewish tradition to begin the day at sunset and end it at the next sunset. But that’s begging the question, since the reason for that Jewish tradition is the wording in the first chapter of Genesis."

The question was not whether the Jews traditionally started the day at sunset. The question was whether there might be a reason for Moses' use of the terms in that order. Ancient Jewish commentators thought there was significance in the root terms--and I merely passed that on.

 

[Hank]

Originally posted by Sinai
Yes, we are all in agreement on that point, Hank. But as I originally added in the next sentence, "some might point out that it is Jewish tradition to begin the day at sunset and end it at the next sunset. But that’s begging the question, since the reason for that Jewish tradition is the wording in the first chapter of Genesis."

The question was not whether the Jews traditionally started the day at sunset. The question was whether there might be a reason for Moses' use of the terms in that order. Ancient Jewish commentators thought there was significance in the root terms--and I merely passed that on.

I did not realize. :o

 

[Sinai]

Originally posted by Hank
Why is a day for God equal to one for humans? (Measured in time.)

Did God not tell King David to build a living place for Him is ridiculous? 2 Samuel 7: 5 Thus I think since God does not live on earth his days should be measured differently, or not at all.

You may have something there, Hank: Prior to the creation of mankind, who would have been measuring the time involved?

The perspective of the time keeper could be a key point.....

 

[LouisBooth]

"Do you deny that that is a general tendency?"

Yup, I do. I see it as the evening since I work at night

"How do you have a "literal evening or a literal morning" without the sun "

because its a time period. Just like you can have a score without a scoreboard

I'm still waiting for you to show me ANYWHERE in the scriptures that those words are used for something other then a literal morning and evening. I can show you TONS where they are. the conclusion is that it was a literal 24 hour period. As for no day and there was a sun, this is a historical account written after the fact. Thus a day was in exsistance and was used as a reference. Think it through Sinai.

 

[sakamuyo]

Each day was a period that had darkness and lightness in that order. The next period of darkness and lightness was the next day.

How many hours in our current understanding of an hour these days lasted is not answerable. Who says that the earth spun at the same speed then that it does now? Who is to say God did not have a different source of light than then sun during creation?

If you believe in a Creator, scientific evidence means nothing. The world did not have to work according to our rules as discovered through empirical science during the time of creation. It is quite possible that God created the universe before setting into motion the "natural laws" that we see in effect today.

Getting off topic - think about it this way. We have absolutely NO evidence that a single dinosaur ever walked on this earth. We do have evidence that there are large bones buried in the earth that carbon date to millions of years ago. The idea that a dinosaur actually existed is one possible hypothesis discerned from the evidence. But, isn't it equally possible that dinos never really existed? Maybe, just maybe, God created the physical body of earth we think of with the bones already in it?

Getting this back on topic, who is to say that God did not create the universe in a period of only 6 "24-hour" days, but that the world he created had features in it that we have mis-understood to mean that the earth is actually older than it really is?

This may sound silly, but please don't just flame me. I'm not asking you to agree. I don't have any clue if this is what happened. I just know that rationally speaking, it is a possibility. Moreover, it is a possibility that actually fits with the Biblical story.

Another random thought: Maybe God was sitting at the true north pole, where there is exactly 6 months of dark followed by 6 months of light & therefore each "day" would be one full rotation around the sun, not one rotation of the earth?

 

[Sinai]

Sinai: "1. We humans generally tend to think of days as beginning when we get up in the morning. Do you deny that that is a general tendency?"

LouisBooth: "Yup, I do. I see it as the evening since I work at night.

The question asked about general tendencies for humans as a whole. It might be noted, however, that the reason you gave for your answer ("since I work at night") indicates that your "day" begins when you get ready for work.

Sinai: "2. Jewish tradition is different (as we both pointed out)--but "that’s begging the question, since the reason for that Jewish tradition is the wording in the first chapter of Genesis." Do you deny what I said?

LouisBooth: NO ANSWER.

Sinai: "3. I did not deny the possibility of your interpretation being correct, but rather asked 'Could there be another reason or a greater cosmic thought that Genesis One is telling us?'

I then set out the Hebrew root meanings of the words in question. Do you deny that the Hebrew root meanings are what I said? For that matter, do you deny that on each day of creation, God brought greater order out of what had been disorder and chaos, and that each creative day brought creation closer to establishing a suitable habitat for humanity?"

LouisBooth: NO ANSWER.

Sinai: "Try the first chapter of Genesis, Louis. How do you have a "literal evening or a literal morning" without the sun (doesn't definitely show up in the scriptures until the fourth day) or probably the earth (doesn't definitely show up in the scriptures until the third day, though it is possible to place it earlier depending upon one's interpretation of various words and phrases). "

LouisBooth: "because its a time period. Just like you can have a score without a scoreboard"

Very good, Louis! I'm proud of you! Although you did not actually answer the question asked and although you may not currently recognize the full import of your answer, it is very possible that you may have just taken the first small step toward reaching the full measure of what the Bible could be telling us in the first chapter of Genesis.

 

[LouisBooth]

"Sinai: "2. Jewish tradition is different (as we both pointed out)--but "that’s begging the question, since the reason for that Jewish tradition is the wording in the first chapter of Genesis." Do you deny what I said?

LouisBooth: NO ANSWER."

I answered you. I said and showed by my example, it is by situation weather you think it starts in evening or night and thus has no bearing on the interpreation.

"I then set out the Hebrew root meanings of the words in question. "

*sigh* I say the sky is blue and you go off in a rant about the latin root for the meaning of the work sky? Its pretty apparent that EVERYTIME those words are used it is in reference to a literal morning and evening. I asked you to find where it is used in another way...

Sinai: NO ANSWER


"it is very possible that you may have just taken the first small step toward reaching the full measure of what the Bible could be telling us in the first chapter of Genesis. "

Exactly, that it is a period of time in this case as in every other case with a literal morning and evening, its a 24 hour period.

 

[Sinai]

Sorry, Louis, but I did answer you. In case you missed it, I said, "Try the first chapter of Genesis, Louis."


I had also previously told Hank, "The question was not whether the Jews traditionally started the day at sunset. The question was whether there might be a reason for Moses' use of the terms in that order. Ancient Jewish commentators thought there was significance in the root terms--and I merely passed that on."

 

[LouisBooth]

""Try the first chapter of Genesis, Louis.""

I did, can you give me a specific verse?

"How do you have a "literal evening or a literal morning" without the sun "

This is the only thing you said and is not a showing of it at all. The time period was 24 hours, sorry, that's just the way it is. EVERY other time it is used it is 24 literal hours. You can't use the passages in question in proving your point..LOL..you have to have a supporting passage. Now, please find one or you'll be forced to conceed the point.