You're welcome. I've learned important things about God I couldn't realize at first: His works are always good, He has many purposes for everything He does or say, His creation is made according to His power and His wisdom, and He is Holy. Thus all things He makes are complete and glorify His name. I've also learned that nothing or no one can defy God long enough without being eventually destroyed, it's like an obsolete useless suicidal attempt that proves nothing and deemed to reach nowhere, but doom.
God created all things and all creatures seen and hidden, all the spiritual and all the material. It is incorrect for us to stick to the spiritual alone leaving out the material or to stick to the material alone and leave out the spiritual: in life ideally both should go side by side, in parallel without any conflict. The law of entropy explains that matter is expected to eventually degrade so we know at the end the spiritual must prevail. We must never separate the spiritual from the scientific, while giving a clear priority to what God reveals.
One of the known tools used by atheist scientists is to deprive us from relying on the solid reference of God's word by saying that it is scientifically irrelevant so it cannot be considered. Leaving His Wisdom aside we are candidly caught in this trap.
Since we have a limited creature level wisdom, there are many things we cannot fully understand without His precious guidance and there are so many things we can never know of without His direct revelation.
I had many stumbling questions like: how come and why did God create the Earth before the sun and moon? Answers are often simple because God is addressing humanity of all levels of intellect and culture: He created the Earth with the purpose of preparing it for life. So the sun and the moon were made to serve His creation of a great balanced life system on Earth, God is the one who has set early this rule of Earth day-night cycles for them to follow. It is God Himself who had started the counting of days not us. He surely did not need the sun/moon to count them. Obviously Adam could never calculate by himself how many days were present before he was created without God telling him so.
Κηφᾶς,
By my logic..? Where did I say that ALL Scripture must be taken literally?
The Holy Bible consists of books of prophecy, others historical, poetic, instructional, visions etc.
Genesis is the first of the historical Scriptural books describing crucial facts and purposes about God and the first two humans. Jesus Christ was sometimes teaching using parables but He also literally made so many miracles, i.e. supernatural works that defy all science. Since you believe in His miraculous works stated in the Gospels, that they are literal, why do you think what He communicated to us with details of His creation works is a big allegory?
By my logic..? Where did I say that ALL Scripture must be taken literally?
Never said you did. Though the quote from Christ was certainly not a parable, and therefore, should be taken literally (if you think only parables are meant to be taken allegorically).
[quote author=John_S2000 link=topic=11835.msg141730#msg141730 date=1311315634] The Holy Bible consists of books of prophecy, others historical, poetic, instructional, visions etc.
Thanks, I know. If you notice in Genesis, there's a lot of repetition used (poetic). This was a memory tool to allow a fairly accurate oral transmission of a story to be passed from one generation to the next.
[quote author=John_S2000 link=topic=11835.msg141730#msg141730 date=1311315634] Genesis is the first of the historical Scriptural books describing crucial facts and purposes about God and the first two humans. Jesus Christ was sometimes teaching using parables but He also literally made so many miracles, i.e. supernatural works that defy all science. Since you believe in His miraculous works stated in the Gospels, that they are literal, why do you think what He communicated to us with details of His creation works is a big allegory?
Historical? I don't know about that. It's certainly not on par (historically speaking) as, say, 1 and 2 Chronicles or even Exodus. As for Christ, see my comment above regarding His statement about plucking out one's eye or cutting off one's hand. Also, let me turn your last question around on you:
Since you believe Christ spoke in parables to reveal spiritual truths to those who were not intellectually equipped to handle them except by parables, why do you think He communicated to us with details of His creation literally?
I also noticed how you didn't answer any of the questions I raised in my previous post, choosing rather to jump to then very end.
I do not think that you believe I implied that we must take the whole Bible literally. Nevertheless, there are many many passages in the Bible that are literal. if that were not so, how else are we going to know what God is trying to communicate to us? For example, when Jesus quoted from the OT ,it was clearly literal interpretation.When Jesus told his disciples to go out and preach His word, it is literal commandment. When Jesus told us to believe in Him to be saved, it is literal commandment. When Jesus said “I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture.” (John 10:9),then this is a metaphor and and I do not think you would believe (at least I hope so) that I would take this verse (and other obvious similar verses) to mean Jesus was literally a wooden door. I believe,the first pages of Genesis record actual historical events of creation. It was written as historical narrative.History is the study of past events,thus you can not simply dismiss the book of genesis as non-historical!
The commandment is regarding the Sabbath and keeping it holy. Regarding what 'morning and evening' means, that's simple, it's merely symbolic/allegorical. Once again, the concept of a solar day did not come into existence until the fourth 'day' when the sun was created. It is utterly illogical to speak about a solar day existing before the means of measuring a solar day came into existence.
Furthermore, we don't commemorate the Sabbath as the Jews do anymore. The Christian Sabbath is the first day of the week, not the seventh. Have we disobeyed God's commandment? Of course not. In Christianity, all days are holy and belong to the Lord, and the first day of the week holds the highest honour as it is the day Christ defeated Death and rose from the dead.
My emphasize with the verse in Exodus is not on the Sabbath but on the word DAYS. DAYS is plural to indicate the 24 hours cycle.I will include the whole verses so that you see nothing is taken out of context. In Exodus 19:9 God told Moses, he was going to come to the israelites in a dense cloud, so that the people hear Him speaking with Moses. In other words, God is speaking directly to the people:
1 And God spoke all these words: 2 “I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery.
3 “You shall have no other gods before[a] me.
4 “You shall not make for yourself an image in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. 5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, 6 but showing love to a thousand generations of those who love me and keep my commandments.
7 “You shall not misuse the name of the LORD your God, for the LORD will not hold anyone guiltless who misuses his name.
8 “Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. 9 Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 10 but the seventh day is a sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your male or female servant, nor your animals, nor any foreigner residing in your towns. 11 For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.
12 “Honor your father and your mother, so that you may live long in the land the LORD your God is giving you.
13 “You shall not murder.
14 “You shall not commit adultery.
15 “You shall not steal.
Would you still think, God would speak in metaphor regarding the 4th commandment, but uses literal language for the remaining 9 commandments?
Regarding what 'morning and evening' means, that's simple, it's merely symbolic/allegorical
You are answering this with absolute certainty, but what makes you so sure about that? A symbol to indicate what on the first day of creation?
I shall also be grateful if you could tell me where in the Bible it says that the seventh day is still going on. As far as I know, God is working and not resting.
I am sad to see how backward some arguments are here. The Bible was purely created for spiritual purposes; if you decide to only use science according to the Bible then you are going to run into many dead ends. I would've found it hard for God to instruct Moses to write a scientifically correct history of the universe which would've taken away from the actual goal of scripture. Also I suspect that the Jews and all humans at the time wouldn't have comprehended anything from that. Instead they received a short simple summarized version while focusing on more important issues like God's relationship with his creation. You couldn't seriously have expected the Bible to have hundreds of pages on reactivity, expanding gases, planets, etc. which is neither pertinent to the goal of the Bible and would not have been comprehended by the people of that age and even today only one or two percent of the world would comprehend it. Instead, a short tale is given so as the whole book is focused on spirituality and faith and becomes comprehensible to people of all ages and times to understand. And as previously mentioned what difference would it make? Science will never answer who created the universe. Genesis as the rest of the Bible focuses spirituality not the physical properties of the universe.
where in the Bible it says that the seventh day is still going on. As far as I know, God is working and not resting.
In the story of creation, the time as it relates to man had not yet started for man was not created. Thus, when it says "the evening and the morning", we should not take it literally because God is not subject to time as we do.
The narrative, however, had to use language that is comprehensible to humans. St. Peter explains this as follows:
2 Peter 3:8 NKJV But, beloved, do not forget this one thing, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
Clearly this discussion has run its course. It seems despite the position of a Coptic Orthodox priest and scholar, H.H. the Pope, Church Fathers and logic itself, some will insist on a literal reading of the creation myth found in Genesis (and before you jump on me about using the word myth, look the word up). Some just insist on remaining intellectually dishonest. Such is life. I post one last article from a non-orthodox individual since people seem to hold pseudo-scientists such as 'Dr.' Kent Hovind and his ilk in higher esteem then Orthodox fathers. Enjoy.
Biblical Evidence for Long Creation Days by Rich Deem Introduction
The age of the earth and the universe is no longer disputed among most scientists. Science tells us the earth is ~4.5 x 109 years old. The universe is ~14 x 109 years old. There have been several Christian scientists who have attempted to propose theories and find "scientific" evidence that the earth is only 6,000 years old. All "evidence" for a recent creation of the earth is flawed in some way (for a discussion of this topic, see Dr. Hugh Ross' book, A Matter of Days). Hebrew Words
Literal translations of the Hebrew word, yom, like our English word "day," can refer to a 24 hour day, sunrise to sunset (12 hours), or a long, unspecified period of time (as in "the day of the dinosaurs"). The Hebrew word ereb, translated evening also means "sunset," "night" or "ending of the day." The Hebrew word boqer, translated morning, also means "sunrise," "coming of light," "beginning of the day," or "dawning," with possible metaphoric usage (1). Our English expression: "The dawning of an age" serves to illustrate this point. This expression in Hebrew could use the word, boqer, for dawning, which, in Genesis 1, is often translated morning.
Do all the instances of "morning" and evening" refer to a literal period of time? Here is an example from Moses:
In the morning it [grass] flourishes, and sprouts anew; Toward evening it fades, and withers away. (Psalm 90:6)
This verse refers to the life cycle of grass (compared to the short life span of humans). Obviously, the grass does not grow up in one morning and die by the same evening. The period of time refers to its birth (morning) and its death (evening) at least several weeks (if not months) later.
The first thing one notices when looking at Genesis 1 is the unusual construction surrounding the words morning and evening together with day. This combination is very rare, occurring only ten times in the Old Testament, six of which, of course, are in the Genesis creation account. The remaining four verses (NASB) are listed below:
"This is the offering which Aaron and his sons are to present to the LORD on the day when he is anointed; the tenth of an ephah of fine flour as a regular grain offering, half of it in the morning and half of it in the evening." (Leviticus 6:20) Now on the day that the tabernacle was erected the cloud covered the tabernacle, the tent of the testimony, and in the evening it was like the appearance of fire over the tabernacle, until morning. (Numbers 9:15) "For seven days no leaven shall be seen with you in all your territory, and none of the flesh which you sacrifice on the evening of the first day shall remain overnight until morning." (Deuteronomy 16:4) "And the vision of the evenings and mornings which has been told is true; but keep the vision secret, for it pertains to many days in the future." (Daniel 8:26)
The first three verses obviously refer to 24 hour days, since this is readily apparent from the context. The fourth one refers to many evenings and mornings, which "pertains to many days in the future." This verse actually refers to events that are yet to happen, which is 3000 years of days from when it was originally written. One could easily say that these mornings and evenings represent thousands of years.
However, none of these verses have the form which is seen in the Genesis account. Let's look at the form of these "evenings and mornings:"
And God called the light day, and the darkness He called night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day. (Genesis 1:5) And God called the expanse heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, a second day. (Genesis 1:8 ) And there was evening and there was morning, a third day. (Genesis 1:13) And there was evening and there was morning, a fourth day. (Genesis 1:19) And there was evening and there was morning, a fifth day. (Genesis 1:23) And God saw all that He had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day. (Genesis 1:31)
The actual number of words in Hebrew is much fewer than that of the English translations. The words "and there was" are not in the Hebrew, but added to make the English flow better. The actual translation is "evening and morning 'n' day." There is no way to discern from the context that the text is referring to 24 hour days.
How would God have changed the text if He intended it to indicate 24 hour days? If God were to have created in 24 hour days, I would have expected the Genesis text to have begun with a statement to the effect that "God did 'x' in the morning" and "God did 'y' in the evening," as opposed to the very unusual construction of telling all God did and then ending with both evening and morning side by side at the end of the "day." So, the order indicates the end (evening) of one day is followed by the dawning (morning) of the next day. In addition, one would expect that if God chose to create the world in a few days He would have indicated it was all created in a few days instead of one day (Genesis 2:4) (2). This verse indicates to me that the Genesis days are other than 12 or 24 hour periods of time. Scripture Declares the Days to be Long
Specific biblical examples of evidence for long creation days include:
The "Day of the Lord" refers to a seven year period of time. Genesis 2:4 refers to all 6 days of creation as one day, "This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made earth and heaven." The seventh day of Genesis is not closed. In all other days, "there is the evening and the morning, the n day." In the book of Hebrews, the author tells us to labor to enter into God's seventh day of rest. By any calculation, God's seventh day of rest has been at least 6,000 years long:
For He has thus said somewhere concerning the seventh day, "And God rested on the seventh day from all His works"... Let us therefore be diligent to enter that rest, lest anyone fall through following the same example of disobedience. (Hebrews 4:4-11)
The psalmist (Moses, the author of Genesis) says "For a thousand years in Thy sight are like yesterday when it passes by, or as a watch in the night." (Psalm 90:4). The apostle Peter tells us with God "A thousand years is as one day" (2 Peter 3:8 ). The third day must have been longer than 24-hours, since the text indicates a process that would take a year or longer. On this day, God allowed the land to produce vegetation, tress and fruit. The text specifically states that the land produced trees that bore fruit with seed in it (3). Any horticulturist knows that fruit-bearing trees requires several years to grow to produce fruit. However, the text states that the land produced these trees (indicating a natural process) and that it all occurred on the third day. Obviously, such a "day" could not have been only 24 hours long. The events of the sixth day of creation require time beyond 24 hours. On this day, God created the mammals and mankind. He also planted a garden, watered it, let it grow, and put man in it, with instruction on its care and maintenance. Then God brought all the animals to Adam to be named. This job, in itself would take many days or weeks. Next, God put Adam to sleep and created Eve. It is very unlikely all of this could take place in 24 hours, since much of it was dependent upon Adam, who did not have the abilities of God. The Bible itself states that the covenant and laws of God have been proclaimed to a "thousand generations" (Deuteronomy 7:9, 1 Chronicles 16:15, Psalm 105:8 ). Even if a generation is considered to be 20 years, this adds up to at least 20,000 years. A biblical generation is often described as being 40 years, which would represent at least 40,000 years. However, since the first dozen or more generations were nearly 1,000 years, this would make humans nearly 50,000 years old, which agrees very well with dates from paleontology and molecular biology (see Descent of Mankind Theory: Disproved by Molecular Biology).
Early Church Fathers Believed the Creation Days were Long
The belief that creation days are long periods of time is not just a recent interpretation of the scriptures, but was prevalent since the first century. Dr. Ross has published a book entitled Creation and Time, which documents in detail what first century Jewish scholars and the early Christian church fathers said regarding their interpretation of creation chronology (5). Jewish scholars include Philo and Josephus, while Christian fathers include Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Hippolytus (through writings of Ambrose), Clement, Origen, Lactantius, Victorinus, Methodius, Augustine, Eusebius, Basil, and Ambrose. Among this group, nearly all acknowledged the likelihood that the creation days were longer than 24 hours. The evidence presented in Creation and Time is both overwhelming and well documented (all references are given). You can read and/or download translations of the actual text of all of the early church fathers at Wheaton College's server. The collection consists of nearly forty files, averaging ~2 mb each. Alternatively, these writings can be obtained on CD from Logos Research.
All of this biblical and historical evidence has led us to conclude that the days of Genesis 1 are not literal 24 hour days, but long periods of time during which God chose to create different species of life. Appearance of Age
If God had created the universe in an instant, there would be no evidence from nature that He created it. The Bible states God has shown himself to all men through His creation so that men are without excuse in rejecting God (6). In addition, the universe declares God's glory, which is a sum of God's innate and unchangeable character (7). The Bible also states the universe declares God's righteousness (8 ). God's righteousness prevents Him from sinning. The scriptures say God cannot lie (9).
Therefore, from the Bible, we conclude that God does not lie or deceive, either from His word or from His record of nature. The heavens declare the universe to be at least 10 billion years old. In addition, we have the ability to see galaxies in the universe which are billions of light years away. If one claims the universe is 6,000 years old, he must state that God created the light from these distant galaxies in transit less than 6,000 light years from the earth. There are signs that the light has indeed been in transit for very long periods of time and was not somehow created in space relatively recently. Frequencies of known spectral lines show spreading or broadening which would occur after long travel times through space containing dust and debris. Since this light appears to be very old and to have originated from a point billions of light years away, if the universe is actually 6,000 years old, the heavens must be declaring a lie, an apparently old universe which is actually very young.
Let me give one example. For now let us assume the universe is 6 to 10 thousand years old and God created the light-beams already in place. Say we are watching a star in our telescope which is two million light years away, and we notice that it explodes (yes, supernova explosions have been observed). That means the light reaching us now is carrying the information recording this distant happening. Now trace this part of the light beam backwards in time along the path of the light beam. By the time you get back to the time of creation (6 to 10 thousand years ago) you have reached a point which is less than 1 percent of the distance to the star. This would mean that the "explosion" part of the light-beam began its journey from here - and not from the star! Thus, the information recording this explosion had to be "built-in" to the light beam, so what we see as having happened to that star may never have happened at all. The idea that observation of things further than around 10,000 light-years away is not necessarily linked to physical reality would be unsettling from both a scientific and theological viewpoint. I cannot accept a God who lies by creating deceptions. Appearance of Age Rebuttals
Many have asked the following question: Since God probably created Adam full grown and mature why couldn't God have done the same thing with the universe? First, note that God had a choice of creating Adam adult sized, or as a baby. Obviously if Adam was created as a baby, God would have to provide a means of nurturing him. This would require some special agency or being, or God could have made Adam a very special baby who did not require special care. Although God could have done any of these things, we believe God operates according to the principle of simplicity. Thus, He simply created the first man full-sized. However, Adam's body did not necessarily have signs of age. Size by itself is not an indication of age except perhaps to tell that the person is not a child. If a doctor examines an adult to determine age he might look at skin condition, liver spot progression, hair, teeth, cholesterol level, metabolism, scars, etc. I believe that Adam's body had none of these signs of age. God created Adam sinless, with no spiritual deterioration, and I believe He also created Adam with a perfect body, with no physical deterioration. Thus I do not believe Adam had an "apparent age."
Other arguments often used to support the appearance of age argument is the wine that Jesus made from water. It was the best wine, implying that it was aged. However, the wine may or may not have had the chemical components of aged wine.
Ultimately, the downfall of the appearance of age argument is that the Bible never supports this idea with regard to the creation. The Bible explains the miracles of God and tells us when things were made as if they were old (like the wine that Jesus made from water). In contrast, there is not one verse in the Bible that suggests that God made the Earth look older than it actually is.
Clearly this discussion has run its course. It seems despite the position of a Coptic Orthodox priest and scholar, H.H. the Pope, Church Fathers and logic itself, some will insist on a literal reading of the creation myth found in Genesis (and before you jump on me about using the word myth, look the word up). Some just insist on remaining intellectually dishonest. Such is life. I post one last article from a non-orthodox individual since people seem to hold pseudo-scientists such as 'Dr.' Kent Hovind and his ilk in higher esteem then Orthodox fathers. Enjoy.
Cephas,
Logic has no place in faith, you should know. And what church fathers are you talking about? I thought ,few replies ago, you found them 'ambigious' . I ask in order to know and understand better.That is exactly what I am doing in this thread. But instead of answering what Exodus 20:1:21 is talking about or where the bible says we are still in day 7, you dodge the question and find it convenient to label me or others as "intellectually dishonest" whatever that means.But never mind my friend, such is life as you correctly stated. And thank you for sharing your views.
Imikahail,
2 Peter 3:8 NKJV But, beloved, do not forget this one thing, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
The full context of the verse is about God's patience. The comparison between a day and thousand years is to underscore that time does not bind God ( in this case His patience). God created time and he is not limited by it. That is my understanding.
Here is the full verse: But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. 9 The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. Instead he is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.
2 Peter 3:8 NKJV But, beloved, do not forget this one thing, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
The full context of the verse is about God's patience. The comparison between a day and thousand years is to underscore that time does not bind God ( in this case His patience). God created time and he is not limited by it. That is my understanding.
Here is the full verse: But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. 9 The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. Instead he is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.
yes God created time when He created the world. Billions of years are like a twinling of an eye to God for everything is exposed to Him. So, having the earth to age millions of years does not contradict the verse in Ex 20:11.
The wine at Cana of Galilee was a miracle and was not part of the creation of the world. It had a purpose; the belief of the disciples.
Please, for the love of all that is holy and sacred, tell me this is a joke. Our faith is not an illogical faith. To think so makes a mockery of Christ. There is nothing illogical about Orthodoxy. This is, by far, one of the most ridiculous and dangerous statements I have ever seen on these forums.
[quote author=Ηεζεκιελ link=topic=11835.msg141972#msg141972 date=1311711957] And what church fathers are you talking about? I thought ,few replies ago, you found them 'ambigious' .
I noticed you edited your reply here, since you said previously that I said they were ignorant of science. Clearly you were putting words in my mouth and attempting to cover it up. Here is what I did say:
[quote author=Κηφᾶς link=topic=11835.msg141343#msg141343 date=1310488644] Forgive me, but a number of the Fathers you have quoted are just as ambiguous in their use of the word 'day' as the Moses was in the book of Genesis. Further, there is no reason to think that science and faith are somehow incompatible with each other. As I've stated before, the purpose of the Bible is not to provide a scientific explanation of how things came into existence. The purpose of the Bible is to reveal spiritual truths about God and His relationship with man and the rest of creation and reveal God's plan of salvation for mankind. Full stop. Science, which is something God Himself has created, is used to explain how the material world exists and behaves. It is not somehow implicitly atheistic. Science looks at the material world, and attempts to explain how it behaves, through the scientific method. The scientific method is entirely areligious. To somehow set up a dichotomy between faith and science is to say that a Christian cannot be a scientist and vice versa. That is ridiculous, entirely false and, quite frankly, a dangerous mindset.
The fact that some feel they can pick and choose what they believe when it comes to scientific theories is no less dangerous than those who feel they can pick an choose what they believe when it comes to matters of faith. There is nothing in science that contradicts the faith.
Can you deny that the Fathers themselves learned about the natural sciences? Can you deny that the Fathers themselves would have based their interpretations based on the science of the day? The psalmist himself testifies that even that natural world gives testament to the glory of God. Science is not an enemy of faith.
[quote author=Ηεζεκιελ link=topic=11835.msg141972#msg141972 date=1311711957] I ask in order to know and understand better.That is exactly what I am doing in this thread.
I don’t believe this for a second. You have already made up your mind on the issue and refuse to accept anything that is contrary to your literalist perspective.
[quote author=Ηεζεκιελ link=topic=11835.msg141972#msg141972 date=1311711957] But instead of answering what Exodus 20:1:21 is talking about
I have addressed this. Read carefully: [quote author=Κηφᾶς link=topic=11835.msg141671#msg141671 date=1311130362] + Irini nem ehmot,
Ηεζεκιελ,
[quote author=Ηεζεκιελ link=topic=11835.msg141664#msg141664 date=1311106250] Cephas, thanks for your comments.
if you read Exodus 20:1 - 21, You will note that God is speaking.He is giving his commandments.That is why I said,the verses are not meant to be analogy.If in verse 13, God says, 'you shall not commit murder', he means just that.Therefore, I think he also means just that when he said he created the universe in six days and rested on the seventh day. You say that 'a day" could be a thousand years with the Lord as the bible writes. Yet, let me ask one more question as to what 'morning and evening' mean with the Lord in His book.
The commandment is regarding the Sabbath and keeping it holy. Regarding what 'morning and evening' means, that's simple, it's merely symbolic/allegorical. Once again, the concept of a solar day did not come into existence until the fourth 'day' when the sun was created. It is utterly illogical to speak about a solar day existing before the means of measuring a solar day came into existence.
Furthermore, we don't commemorate the Sabbath as the Jews do anymore. The Christian Sabbath is the first day of the week, not the seventh. Have we disobeyed God's commandment? Of course not. In Christianity, all days are holy and belong to the Lord, and the first day of the week holds the highest honour as it is the day Christ defeated Death and rose from the dead.
[quote author=Ηεζεκιελ link=topic=11835.msg141972#msg141972 date=1311711957] or where the bible says we are still in day 7, you dodge the question
Yet again, I have addressed this. Read here: [quote author=Κηφᾶς link=topic=11835.msg141671#msg141671 date=1311130362] [quote author=Ηεζεκιελ link=topic=11835.msg141664#msg141664 date=1311106250] In Genesis 1:3, God says:
And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day. ,
The words 'evening and morning' indicate a rotating earth,resulting in day and night.No rotation, no day/night would ensue. This suggests to me the source of Light ,whatever it is, that God created in the first day was used to separate day from night until the final creation of the sun in the 4th day. If you do not agree , that the spinning earth must have produced the 'morning and evening' in the first day, why would you think the meaning of the words 'morning and evening' should mean something else in Genesis 3 than the same words that are mentioned throughout the Holy Bible?
It means something different because of the context. You cannot read a verse, a sentence or a phrase in a vacuum. You have to read it in its proper context. Let me ask you something, you seem particularly fixated on a literal 7 days of creation. Would it truly matter if it was, in fact, not literal but allegorical? Would it have such a significant bearing on your faith as to utterly uproot it? Finally, ask yourself this, every 'day' in this supposed literal days of creation ends with the expression 'and the morning and evening were the [insert number] day' correct? What about the seventh 'day'? Why is there no mention that this 'day' has ended? Please don't tell me you think it's implied, because there is no valid reason to assume that it is. In fact, Moses made a point of stating that the first 6 'days' ended. Yet why not the seventh? Perhaps because we are living in the seventh day. If we are living in the seventh 'day', then why should each of the other 6 days be literal whereas the seventh is somehow the exception?
Here is something Christ said:
[quote=Matthew 5:29-30] And if thy right eye cause the to stumble, remove it and cast it from thee; for it is profitable for thee that one of they members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast in Gehenna. And if thy right hand cause thee to stumble, cut it off and cast it from thee; for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into Gehenna.
By your logic, we should take this literally, because God said it. Do you see why taking things so literally is dangerous?
[quote author=Ηεζεκιελ link=topic=11835.msg141972#msg141972 date=1311711957] and find it convenient to label me or others as "intellectually dishonest" whatever that means.
Intellectually Dishonest: Intellectual dishonesty is dishonesty in performing intellectual activities like thought or communication. Examples are: • the advocacy of a position which the advocate knows or believes to be false or misleading • the advocacy of a position which the advocate does not know to be true, and has not performed rigorous due diligence to ensure the truthfulness of the position • the conscious omission of aspects of the truth known or believed to be relevant in the particular context. ;)
PS. Did you even read the article I posted? No comments?
Biblical Evidence for Long Creation Days by Rich Deem Introduction The age of the earth and the universe is no longer disputed among most scientists. Science tells us the earth is ~4.5 x 109 years old. The universe is ~14 x 109 years old. There have been several Christian scientists who have attempted to propose theories and find "scientific" evidence that the earth is only 6,000 years old. All "evidence" for a recent creation of the earth is flawed in some way (for a discussion of this topic, see Dr. Hugh Ross' book, A Matter of Days).
That's what I could call very dishonest, with full confidence. Obviously the author is misleading himself and also his readers: there is still a very real ongoing strong disagreement on this subject among many honest scientists (that's right they're PhDs) - or may be this author landed from another planet. His use of the word Evidence in the title is clearly flawed: many authors can use the same title formula to denote just the opposite. This author is mixing religion and science in a manner conveniently suiting his purpose, isn't he? For me it is just propaganda to break the ice: nothing in the 'long days' usage proves or gets even close to any billion of years hypothesis.
I consider that 'backward' describes well those non flexible scientists who make facts out of scientifically unproven hypotheses - unlike real scientists who research subjects from all the possible sides.
It is frequently noticed that when real scientists who are researching this controversial area if they get their hands on interesting results they are quickly accused of doing false science by hypocrites while the opposite is true.
There are also many honest 'pseudo scientists' who get instructed or read only one side of the story because the other side of it is banned. When these are allowed the opportunity to know more on the subject they can then chose a well established opinion. People are not stupid or blind, they are rather mislead by educational systems who decide what to instruct them and what to shun from them.
Psalm 33 6 By the word of the LORD the heavens were made, And all the host of them by the breath of His mouth. 7 He gathers the waters of the sea together as a heap; He lays up the deep 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 spoke, and it was done; He commanded, and it stood fast.
Compare the immediate creation by the command of God, with example from Genesis: 11 Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb that yields seed, and the fruit tree that yields fruit according to its kind, whose seed is in itself, on the earth”; and it was so.
Further, the information that God is revealing to us in Genesis goes much beyond the length of days discussion. It is obvious that the Lord has wisely created all things in a special sequence that will always puzzle our proud scientists.
I have read all links. Have you read and watched my links?
Biblical Evidence for Long Creation Days by Rich Deem Introduction The age of the earth and the universe is no longer disputed among most scientists. Science tells us the earth is ~4.5 x 109 years old. The universe is ~14 x 109 years old. There have been several Christian scientists who have attempted to propose theories and find "scientific" evidence that the earth is only 6,000 years old. All "evidence" for a recent creation of the earth is flawed in some way (for a discussion of this topic, see Dr. Hugh Ross' book, A Matter of Days).
That's what I could call very dishonest, with full confidence. Obviously the author is misleading himself and also his readers: there is still a very real ongoing strong disagreement on this subject among many honest scientists (that's right they're PhDs) - or may be this author landed from another planet. His use of the word Evidence in the title is clearly flawed: many authors can use the same title formula to denote just the opposite. This author is mixing religion and science in a manner conveniently suiting his purpose, isn't he? For me it is just propaganda to break the ice: nothing in the 'long days' usage proves or gets even close to any billion of years hypothesis.
I consider that 'backward' describes well those non flexible scientists who make facts out of scientifically unproven hypotheses - unlike real scientists who research subjects from all the possible sides.
It is frequently noticed that when real scientists who are researching this controversial area if they get their hands on interesting results they are quickly accused of doing false science by hypocrites while the opposite is true.
There are also many honest 'pseudo scientists' who get instructed or read only one side of the story because the other side of it is banned. When these are allowed the opportunity to know more on the subject they can then chose a well established opinion. People are not stupid or blind, they are rather mislead by educational systems who decide what to instruct them and what to shun from them.
Psalm 33 6 By the word of the LORD the heavens were made, And all the host of them by the breath of His mouth. 7 He gathers the waters of the sea together as a heap; He lays up the deep 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 spoke, and it was done; He commanded, and it stood fast.
Compare the immediate creation by the command of God, with example from Genesis: 11 Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb that yields seed, and the fruit tree that yields fruit according to its kind, whose seed is in itself, on the earth”; and it was so.
Further, the information that God is revealing to us in Genesis goes much beyond the length of days discussion. It is obvious that the Lord has wisely created all things in a special sequence that will always puzzle our proud scientists.
I have read all links. Have you read and watched my links?
GBU
So let me get this straight. It's ok to use the word 'evidence' if it fits in with your literalist, psuedo-scientific reading of Genesis, but not ok when it doesn't? I find it funny that the only psuedo-scientists that support a literalist reading of Genesis and a young earth are predominantly fundy protestants, whereas the real scientists who actually make use of the Scientific Method come from all religious backgrounds, including Christianity. Huh, I wonder which will be more unbiased and areligious?
Tell me, since, according to you, the expression '[God] commanded, and it was so' seems to indicate something occurring in a literal day, why should I believe you? Why not take it further and say it means it was created instantaneously. Further, since God can create instantaneously, why should the 6 'days' in Genesis be literal days. Why not hours, or minutes, or seconds. Hell, why not say God created everything instantaneously, in the blink of an eye (or even faster). Is God not able to do so?
PS. I did go through your links. Thanks, they were fun, though I'll stick with 'The Big Bang Theory'. It's funnier. ;)
All you skeptics shut up. A day is not literal in Genesis. The Universe was not created in 6 days, it was created in billions of years. I hate people taking everything literally, try reading some POETRY, that will lighten you guys up! Christ.
Thanks, they were fun, though I'll stick with 'The Big Bang Theory'. It's funnier.
I agree it's funnier: man you could hold the whole universe in the palm of your hand :D See, a blob made of nothing exploded into a biiiiig bang, wow! and that also blew so many brains! but you've just got to believe it.
All you skeptics shut up.
You meant skeptics about the Genesis account? (advice regarding the big bang: watch out for your ears ;) )
Some here seem so sure, yet they are unable to prove it was created in billions of years.
Thanks, they were fun, though I'll stick with 'The Big Bang Theory'. It's funnier.
I agree it's funnier: man you could hold the whole universe in the palm of your hand :D See, a blob made of nothing exploded into a biiiiig bang, wow! and that also blew so many brains! but you've just got to believe it.
GBU
I'm not sure which is sadder, the fact that the joke was lost on you or the fact that I now need to explain the joke to you.
[quote author=John_S2000 link=topic=11835.msg142264#msg142264 date=1312059294] Some here seem so sure, yet they are unable to prove it was created in billions of years.
The evidence is there for those who wish to see. It is you who has no proof that Genesis creation myth is literal and not allegorical. You have not proved that Genesis is, in fact, a science text and not a religious text.
The age of the earth and the universe is no longer disputed among most scientists. Science tells us the earth is ~4.5 x 109 years old. The universe is ~14 x 109 years old. There have been several Christian scientists who have attempted to propose theories and find "scientific" evidence that the earth is only 6,000 years old. All "evidence" for a recent creation of the earth is flawed in some way (for a discussion of this topic, see Dr. Hugh Ross' book, A Matter of Days).
Hebrew Words Literal translations of the Hebrew word, yom, like our English word "day," can refer to a 24 hour day, sunrise to sunset (12 hours), or a long, unspecified period of time (as in "the day of the dinosaurs"). The Hebrew word ereb, translated evening also means "sunset," "night" or "ending of the day." The Hebrew word boqer, translated morning, also means "sunrise," "coming of light," "beginning of the day," or "dawning," with possible metaphoric usage (1). Our English expression: "The dawning of an age" serves to illustrate this point. This expression in Hebrew could use the word, boqer, for dawning, which, in Genesis 1, is often translated morning.
Do all the instances of "morning" and evening" refer to a literal period of time? Here is an example from Moses:
In the morning it [grass] flourishes, and sprouts anew; Toward evening it fades, and withers away. (Psalm 90:6)
This verse refers to the life cycle of grass (compared to the short life span of humans). Obviously, the grass does not grow up in one morning and die by the same evening. The period of time refers to its birth (morning) and its death (evening) at least several weeks (if not months) later.
The first thing one notices when looking at Genesis 1 is the unusual construction surrounding the words morning and evening together with day. This combination is very rare, occurring only ten times in the Old Testament, six of which, of course, are in the Genesis creation account. The remaining four verses (NASB) are listed below:
"This is the offering which Aaron and his sons are to present to the LORD on the day when he is anointed; the tenth of an ephah of fine flour as a regular grain offering, half of it in the morning and half of it in the evening." (Leviticus 6:20) Now on the day that the tabernacle was erected the cloud covered the tabernacle, the tent of the testimony, and in the evening it was like the appearance of fire over the tabernacle, until morning. (Numbers 9:15) "For seven days no leaven shall be seen with you in all your territory, and none of the flesh which you sacrifice on the evening of the first day shall remain overnight until morning." (Deuteronomy 16:4) "And the vision of the evenings and mornings which has been told is true; but keep the vision secret, for it pertains to many days in the future." (Daniel 8:26) The first three verses obviously refer to 24 hour days, since this is readily apparent from the context. The fourth one refers to many evenings and mornings, which "pertains to many days in the future." This verse actually refers to events that are yet to happen, which is 3000 years of days from when it was originally written. One could easily say that these mornings and evenings represent thousands of years.
However, none of these verses have the form which is seen in the Genesis account. Let's look at the form of these "evenings and mornings:"
And God called the light day, and the darkness He called night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day. (Genesis 1:5) And God called the expanse heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, a second day. (Genesis 1:8) And there was evening and there was morning, a third day. (Genesis 1:13) And there was evening and there was morning, a fourth day. (Genesis 1:19) And there was evening and there was morning, a fifth day. (Genesis 1:23) And God saw all that He had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day. (Genesis 1:31) The actual number of words in Hebrew is much fewer than that of the English translations. The words "and there was" are not in the Hebrew, but added to make the English flow better. The actual translation is "evening and morning 'n' day." There is no way to discern from the context that the text is referring to 24 hour days.
How would God have changed the text if He intended it to indicate 24 hour days? If God were to have created in 24 hour days, I would have expected the Genesis text to have begun with a statement to the effect that "God did 'x' in the morning" and "God did 'y' in the evening," as opposed to the very unusual construction of telling all God did and then ending with both evening and morning side by side at the end of the "day." So, the order indicates the end (evening) of one day is followed by the dawning (morning) of the next day. In addition, one would expect that if God chose to create the world in a few days He would have indicated it was all created in a few days instead of one day (Genesis 2:4) (2). This verse indicates to me that the Genesis days are other than 12 or 24 hour periods of time.
Scripture Declares the Days to be Long Specific biblical examples of evidence for long creation days include:
The "Day of the Lord" refers to a seven year period of time. Genesis 2:4 refers to all 6 days of creation as one day, "This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made earth and heaven." The seventh day of Genesis is not closed. In all other days, "there is the evening and the morning, the n day." In the book of Hebrews, the author tells us to labor to enter into God's seventh day of rest. By any calculation, God's seventh day of rest has been at least 6,000 years long: For He has thus said somewhere concerning the seventh day, "And God rested on the seventh day from all His works"... Let us therefore be diligent to enter that rest, lest anyone fall through following the same example of disobedience. (Hebrews 4:4-11) The psalmist (Moses, the author of Genesis) says "For a thousand years in Thy sight are like yesterday when it passes by, or as a watch in the night." (Psalm 90:4). The apostle Peter tells us with God "A thousand years is as one day" (2 Peter 3:8). The third day must have been longer than 24-hours, since the text indicates a process that would take a year or longer. On this day, God allowed the land to produce vegetation, tress and fruit. The text specifically states that the land produced trees that bore fruit with seed in it (3). Any horticulturist knows that fruit-bearing trees requires several years to grow to produce fruit. However, the text states that the land produced these trees (indicating a natural process) and that it all occurred on the third day. Obviously, such a "day" could not have been only 24 hours long. The events of the sixth day of creation require time beyond 24 hours. On this day, God created the mammals and mankind. He also planted a garden, watered it, let it grow, and put man in it, with instruction on its care and maintenance. Then God brought all the animals to Adam to be named. This job, in itself would take many days or weeks. Next, God put Adam to sleep and created Eve. It is very unlikely all of this could take place in 24 hours, since much of it was dependent upon Adam, who did not have the abilities of God. The Bible itself states that the covenant and laws of God have been proclaimed to a "thousand generations" (Deuteronomy 7:9, 1 Chronicles 16:15, Psalm 105:8). Even if a generation is considered to be 20 years, this adds up to at least 20,000 years. A biblical generation is often described as being 40 years, which would represent at least 40,000 years. However, since the first dozen or more generations were nearly 1,000 years, this would make humans nearly 50,000 years old, which agrees very well with dates from paleontology and molecular biology (see Descent of Mankind Theory: Disproved by Molecular Biology). Early Church Fathers Believed the Creation Days were Long The belief that creation days are long periods of time is not just a recent interpretation of the scriptures, but was prevalent since the first century. Dr. Ross has published a book entitled Creation and Time, which documents in detail what first century Jewish scholars and the early Christian church fathers said regarding their interpretation of creation chronology (5). Jewish scholars include Philo and Josephus, while Christian fathers include Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Hippolytus (through writings of Ambrose), Clement, Origen, Lactantius, Victorinus, Methodius, Augustine, Eusebius, Basil, and Ambrose. Among this group, nearly all acknowledged the likelihood that the creation days were longer than 24 hours. The evidence presented in Creation and Time is both overwhelming and well documented (all references are given). You can read and/or download translations of the actual text of all of the early church fathers at Wheaton College's server. The collection consists of nearly forty files, averaging ~2 mb each. Alternatively, these writings can be obtained on CD from Logos Research.
All of this biblical and historical evidence has led us to conclude that the days of Genesis 1 are not literal 24 hour days, but long periods of time during which God chose to create different species of life.
Appearance of Age If God had created the universe in an instant, there would be no evidence from nature that He created it. The Bible states God has shown himself to all men through His creation so that men are without excuse in rejecting God (6). In addition, the universe declares God's glory, which is a sum of God's innate and unchangeable character (7). The Bible also states the universe declares God's righteousness (8). God's righteousness prevents Him from sinning. The scriptures say God cannot lie (9).
Therefore, from the Bible, we conclude that God does not lie or deceive, either from His word or from His record of nature. The heavens declare the universe to be at least 10 billion years old. In addition, we have the ability to see galaxies in the universe which are billions of light years away. If one claims the universe is 6,000 years old, he must state that God created the light from these distant galaxies in transit less than 6,000 light years from the earth. There are signs that the light has indeed been in transit for very long periods of time and was not somehow created in space relatively recently. Frequencies of known spectral lines show spreading or broadening which would occur after long travel times through space containing dust and debris. Since this light appears to be very old and to have originated from a point billions of light years away, if the universe is actually 6,000 years old, the heavens must be declaring a lie, an apparently old universe which is actually very young.
Let me give one example. For now let us assume the universe is 6 to 10 thousand years old and God created the light-beams already in place. Say we are watching a star in our telescope which is two million light years away, and we notice that it explodes (yes, supernova explosions have been observed). That means the light reaching us now is carrying the information recording this distant happening. Now trace this part of the light beam backwards in time along the path of the light beam. By the time you get back to the time of creation (6 to 10 thousand years ago) you have reached a point which is less than 1 percent of the distance to the star. This would mean that the "explosion" part of the light-beam began its journey from here - and not from the star! Thus, the information recording this explosion had to be "built-in" to the light beam, so what we see as having happened to that star may never have happened at all. The idea that observation of things further than around 10,000 light-years away is not necessarily linked to physical reality would be unsettling from both a scientific and theological viewpoint. I cannot accept a God who lies by creating deceptions.
Appearance of Age Rebuttals Many have asked the following question: Since God probably created Adam full grown and mature why couldn't God have done the same thing with the universe? First, note that God had a choice of creating Adam adult sized, or as a baby. Obviously if Adam was created as a baby, God would have to provide a means of nurturing him. This would require some special agency or being, or God could have made Adam a very special baby who did not require special care. Although God could have done any of these things, we believe God operates according to the principle of simplicity. Thus, He simply created the first man full-sized. However, Adam's body did not necessarily have signs of age. Size by itself is not an indication of age except perhaps to tell that the person is not a child. If a doctor examines an adult to determine age he might look at skin condition, liver spot progression, hair, teeth, cholesterol level, metabolism, scars, etc. I believe that Adam's body had none of these signs of age. God created Adam sinless, with no spiritual deterioration, and I believe He also created Adam with a perfect body, with no physical deterioration. Thus I do not believe Adam had an "apparent age."
Other arguments often used to support the appearance of age argument is the wine that Jesus made from water. It was the best wine, implying that it was aged. However, the wine may or may not have had the chemical components of aged wine.
Ultimately, the downfall of the appearance of age argument is that the Bible never supports this idea with regard to the creation. The Bible explains the miracles of God and tells us when things were made as if they were old (like the wine that Jesus made from water). In contrast, there is not one verse in the Bible that suggests that God made the Earth look older than it actually is.
Get out your Bibles and be prepared for a shock. You are about to read the Genesis creation account and see (probably) for the first time what the text really says. My only request is that you pray for spiritual guidance, since the Holy Spirit can teach us what our pride usually rejects.
Holy Spirit, teach us what you told Moses about what you were doing during the creation of the earth and life upon it. In Jesus name we pray. Amen.
Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth."
Volumes have been written about the first verse of Genesis. There are a two main interpretations of what this verse really means. Some say that the verse is a summary of the rest of the Genesis creation account. Others say that the verse represents the first creative act of God. How can we tell which interpretation is correct?
Day 1 The answer is really quite simple - keep reading! Reading Genesis 1:1 or any other Bible verse outside its context is one of the worst things that a person can do.2 When we look at Genesis 1:2,3 we see that it begins with the conjunction "and." This fact immediately tells us that Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 are part of one continuous thought. Remove the period at the end of Genesis 1:1 and read it as originally intended:
"In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth and the earth was formless and void...
The conjunction at the beginning of Genesis 1:2 tells us that Genesis 1:1 is not a summary of the creation account! This verse is a factual statement of what God did at the beginning of the first day. There are other context clues that tell us that this is not a summary statement. If we continue reading the Genesis creation account, we come to the real summary at the end (Genesis 2:1).4 It would be superfluous to have a second summary at the beginning. As we continue to read Genesis one, we will notice how succinct the creation account really is.
So, we conclude that the text claims that God created the heavens and earth on the first day. What do the heavens consist of? Stars, galaxies, etc. So, we know that God created, at minimum, the stars and the earth. Actually, the Hebrew phrase translated "heaven and earth" refer to the entire created universe. Some people claim that God created the earth first and that the rest of the heavenly bodies were created later. However, we are led to contemplate why God said that He created the "heavens and the earth." To accept this interpretation, we would have to say that God created "nothing" and the earth. If God had only created the earth, the Genesis 1:1 would have said, "In the beginning God created the earth." So, we can safely say that God created the entire heavens and earth at the beginning of the first creation day.
Genesis 1:2 - the early earth Keep your Bible open as we zoom on to Genesis 1:2. Those interpretations that claim Genesis 1:1 is just a summary have a problem in this next verse. If Genesis 1:1 is just a summary, then there is no mention in Genesis of God creating matter - it is just suddenly mentioned as if it had existed all along. Such a model is compatible with the LDS (Mormon) theology, but not Christianity.
It is important in Genesis 1:2 to examine the context and the perspective to determine where the action is happening. Let's read the text:
And the earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep; and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters. (Genesis 1:2)
Where is God? In heaven? In outer space? NO! God, our personal Creator and Savior, is on the surface of the waters of the earth doing His creating "up close and personal." Imagine that - God personally came to earth to create and shape it for habitation! The important thing about this verse is that it defines the conditions as they appeared from God's perspective on the surface of the earth. What are the conditions? "...the earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep..." Why was the earth dark? Genesis one does not say, but other creation accounts in the Bible do say. In fact, in the book of Job, God Himself tells us the answer:
"Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth? ...When I made a cloud its garment, And thick darkness its swaddling band" (Job 38:4-9)5
How long is day 1? Many Christians assume that all the Genesis creation days are exactly 24-hours long. Neither the Genesis 1 text nor other Bible verses directly address how long the first day was. However, there were a lot of things that happened on the first day. God created the entire universe. There are other Bible verses that address at least part of how God created the universe. No fewer than 11 verses from five different inspired authors claim that God stretches out the heavens.6 Many of these verses use present tense, indicating that God is still stretching out the heavens. How long did it take to stretch out the trillions and trillions of stars. The Bible doesn't say, but if we measure the current rate that the universe is being stretched, it would suggest a very long time.
So, we know that when God created the earth it was dark because it was covered with thick clouds. This fact will be important to understand the next few verses.
"Let there be light" Genesis 1:3 begins with another conjunction, so we know it is part of the continuing action. God is still on the surface of the earth. "And God said, 'Let there be light,' and there was light." Where is the light? It's on the surface of the earth for the first time. Where does the light come from. The text does not say directly, but it gives a lot of clues. Did God create the light? No! If God had created the light, the text would have said so, like it does in the rest of Genesis one. It says that God "let it be." Let's read the rest of the first day to get the clues.
"And God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness. And God called the light day, and the darkness He called night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day." (Genesis 1:4-5)
Notice that every thought is begun with a conjunction, so we know that all of this is part of the continuing action. The text says that there was day and night on the earth on the first day. This tells us that the light that was shining on the earth was directional (from one source). Let's put it all together. God created the earth with a thick layer of clouds around it that caused it to be dark. When God said "Let there be light" it is most logical to conclude that God removed at least some of those thick clouds so that light would fall on the surface of the earth. Where did the light come from? The Sun shining on a rotating earth. You might protest, "But the text never said God created the Sun." It actually does. As stated previously, the Hebrew term "the heavens and the earth" in Genesis 1:1 refers to the entire created universe. So, the Sun, stars, and earth were all created at the beginning of day 1.
Day 2 How long is day 2? It is difficult to say how long the second day was. Part of the verse indicates that God " let the separation be" (suggesting natural process), but then the text goes on to explain that God "made" the separation. The Hebrew word asah10 translated "made" suggests that God formed the separation from materials that already existed, rather than creating it brand new. As such, the formation could involve both supernatural and natural processes. If the separation was allowed to form on its own, it would be expected that the second day could be a very long period of time.
On the second day, God allows a separation of the waters above from the waters below (Genesis 1:6-7).7 The text seems to be describing the setting up of a water cycle on the earth. The waters above (i.e., clouds) are separated from the waters below (the "deep" or seas mentioned in verse 2). The separation is called "heaven"8 (also translated "skies").9
Day 3 God did a couple things on the third day. God's first action was the formation of dry land:
Then God said, "Let the waters below the heavens be gathered into one place, and let the dry land appear"; and it was so. And God called the dry land earth, and the gathering of the waters He called seas; and God saw that it was good. (Genesis 1:9-10)
Similar to the first two days, God "let" the dry land appear. The land already existed, although it was underneath the original seas. Psalm 104 (the "creation Psalm") tells us how God accomplished the appearance of the land. According to the Psalm, "The mountains rose; the valleys sank down To the place which Thou didst establish for them."11 The description suggests that God used some form of tectonic activity to form the dry land. If tectonic activity were used by God to form the dry land, it would suggest that the beginning of the third day would be a very long period of time.
How long is day 3? There is no plant in the world that can germinate and produce seeds within a 24-hour period of time. It gets worse for the 24-hour interpretation. Not only do we have plants, we have trees that grow and produce fruit with seed in it. It takes fruit trees several years of growth before they produce any fruit. You might say that God could have caused everything to happen super-quick. However, God says, "Let the earth sprout vegetation..." and the text says, "And the earth brought forth vegetation..." In order to claim that God miraculously created all the plants, seed, etc. in 24-hours, one would have to claim God was a liar. Not a good accusation to make! So we know that the second part of the third day was at least several years long.
Creation of plants Then God said, "Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees bearing fruit after their kind, with seed in them, on the earth"; and it was so. And the earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed after their kind, and trees bearing fruit, with seed in them, after their kind; and God saw that it was good. (Genesis 1:11-12)
On the third day God allows the earth to produce plants through germination (sprouting) and growth until seeds are produced. The Hebrew word dasha refers to a plant that sprouts from a seed until the seedling turns green.12 This verb tells us that God used processes identical to what we see on the earth today. Plants spouted, grew to maturity, and produced seeds. Several kinds of plants are described. The Hebrew word deshe13 refers primarily to grasses; the word eseb14 refers primarily to herbs and the words peri15 ets16 refer to fruit trees.
Day 4 Many people believe that the text about day 4 says that God created the Sun, moon and stars on the fourth day. This is not what the text actually says, so let's read it again.
Then God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night, and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years; (Genesis 1:14) and let them be for lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth"; and it was so. (Genesis 1:15) And God made the two great lights, the greater light to govern the day, and the lesser light to govern the night; He made the stars also. (Genesis 1:16) And God placed them in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth, (Genesis 1:17) and to govern the day and the night, and to separate the light from the darkness; and God saw that it was good. (Genesis 1:18) How can a day be longer than 24-hours? Even though the Genesis text clearly indicates that the days are longer than 24-hours, some Christians insist that any interpretation of Genesis 1 that deviates from 24-hour days is not literal. The problem is that the Hebrew word yom17 has three literal definitions - 12 hour daylight period, 24 period of time, or a long, but indefinite period of time. A careful reading of the Genesis creation account reveals that the 24-hour interpretation is ruled out by the actual Genesis text. The first definitive example of a day that is longer than 24-hours can be found in the beginning of the Genesis 2 creation account, which says that the entire six days of creation are one day.18
In verse 14 we have that unusual construction again of "let there be." It is not a statement of creation, but a statement of appearance. At this point, the clouds present at the initial creation of the earth were completely removed so that the bodies themselves appeared for the first time on the surface of the earth. The passage tells us that the lights were allowed "to be" so that they could be signs of the seasons, days, and years. It was necessary for the creatures of day 5 that the heavenly bodies be visible. We know that many of the migratory birds (created on day 5) require visible stars to navigate, hence the need to actually see these bodies. Verse 18 gives us another hint. The lights were placed in the sky to "separate the light from the darkness." Does this sound familiar? It is the exact Hebrew phrase used for God's work on the first day when, "God separated the light from the darkness" (Genesis 1:4) By using this phrase, the text is recounting the formation of the Sun, moon and stars from the first day. If we accept that God created the Sun, moon and stars on the fourth day, then He didn't really create the heavens in verse one. So, the 24-hour day interpretation suffers a contradiction between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:16.
Day 5 On the fifth day, God created the animals described by the Hebrew word nephesh.
Then God said, "Let the waters teem with swarms of living creatures [nephesh], and let birds fly above the earth in the open expanse of the heavens." (Genesis 1:20) And God created the great sea monsters, and every living creature [nephesh] that moves, with which the waters swarmed after their kind, and every winged bird after its kind; and God saw that it was good. (Genesis 1:21) And God blessed them, saying, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth." (Genesis 1:22) The word nephesh is used of both animals and human beings, and primarily has the meaning "soul."19 The term encompasses the ideas of mind, will, and emotion. These characteristics apply to the higher animals, such as the birds and mammals. The kinds of creature created includes many different kinds of birds (Genesis 1:21) and the "great sea monsters," probably referring to the whales (also referred to as nephesh beings). These creatures were created in great abundance, as indicated by the verbs sharats20 and ramas.21 The fossil record confirms that there was a massive introduction of bird and mammal species at the beginning of the tertiary age.22
Day 6 The sixth days describes the creation of animals that impact mankind and the creation of mankind himself.
Then God said, "Let the earth bring forth living creatures [nephesh] after their kind: cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth after their kind"; and it was so. (Genesis 1:24) God made the beasts of the earth after their kind, and the cattle after their kind, and everything that creeps on the ground after its kind; and God saw that it was good. (Genesis 1:25) Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth." (Genesis 1:26) God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. (Genesis 1:27) The sixth day begins with the creation of more nephesh creatures. These include the cattle (behemah23), creeping (remes24) nephesh (probably rodents), and "beasts (chay25) of the earth" (translated "wild animals" in the NIV, usually referring to the wild carnivores).
The ultimate nephesh creation is mankind, created at the end of the sixth day. Genesis 1:27 tells us that God created mankind as males and females. However, Genesis 2 tells us more about the sixth day. From Genesis 1:27, we know that the sixth day extended at least through the creation of Eve, since the text indicates that God created both males and females on the sixth day. The following events took place after the creation of Adam
God planted a garden in Eden (Genesis 2:8)26 God caused the garden to sprout and grow (Genesis 2:9)27 God brought all the birds, cattle and wild animals to Adam to name (Genesis 2:19-20)28 God put Adam to sleep, took a part of him and formed Eve (Genesis 2:21-22)29 The events of the sixth day seem to require longer than 24 hours also. The text indicates that God planted a garden. This garden was not planted full-grown, since the text says that the trees were caused to sprout or grow (Hebrew tsamach30). The amount of time allowed for the garden to grow is not stated, but would presumably take longer than 24-hours. After the garden had grown sufficiently, the man was placed into the garden to cultivate it.31 By this time, the trees were producing fruit so that Adam could eat.32 This process takes a period of time greater than 24 hours. Next, Adam was given the assignment of naming the birds, cattle and wild animals. The list includes only birds and mammals and does not mention fish or other lower life forms. Even so, it would require that Adam name at least 14,600 species (8,600 species of birds and 4,000 species of mammals). This would require Adam to name more than 10 species per minute (assuming he had the entire 24 hours). For those who believe in a young earth, it would require that Adam name not only all of the existing birds and mammals but all the ones in the fossil record also (since they would all have to be alive on day 6 - no animal death before the fall). Such a task would probably double the number of species to be named. However, Adam did not have the entire 24 hours, since part of it was required for the planting and growing of the garden, Adam tending the garden, and God putting Adam to sleep to create Eve. Realistically, Adam would have to name at least 20 species per minute, including all the species found in the fossil record. Following this naming of the animals, no suitable helper was found for Adam. So, God put Adam to sleep, took at piece of Adam's side, and created Eve. Adam's response to Eve's creation is also telling. Upon seeing Eve for the first time, Adam says "at last."33 This is not exactly the response one would expect from a person who had waited for less than one day. So, we must conclude that the sixth day was most certainly longer than 24 hours, and probably took at least several years from Adam's response.
Conclusion We are left with only one internally consistent interpretation for the days of Genesis one. The literal, clearly indicated, meaning of yom for Genesis one must be an unspecified, long period of time. Since the Genesis text says that the third day must be at least several years long, none of the other days would be expected to be limited to 24-hours. All or nearly all of the other creation days would seem to require long periods of time, although the text does not clearly indicate the specific amount of time required.
[quote author=Κηφᾶς link=topic=11835.msg141254#msg141254 date=1310421943] + Irini nem ehmot,
Forgive me, but it's a mistake to think the earth is only 10,000 years old based on: a) Genesis and b) the Genealogy found in Matthew and Luke. Here are a few reasons.
1. Assuming that the genealogies are entirely complete, the length of time that constitutes a 'generation' is ambiguous. 2. The genealogies begin (or end) with Adam. Adam was the last of God's creation. What about the 6 other 'days' prior? 3. A 'day' in Genesis simply refers to a passage of time. It is not 24 hours. It is not 1000 years. It is not 1 billion years. A 'day' just means a period of time has passed. If I recall, the sun was not created until the third or fourth day, so a literal day is clearly out of the question.
Genesis is not a science book and should not be used to try and explain the physical world. Science is what is used to describe the material world. Genesis is meant to reveal spiritual truths about God and God's relationship with man and the rest of creation. Nothing more.
I find the above words reasonable, thanks Κηφᾶς! A very interesting topic!
Comments
You're welcome. I've learned important things about God I couldn't realize at first: His works are always good, He has many purposes for everything He does or say, His creation is made according to His power and His wisdom, and He is Holy. Thus all things He makes are complete and glorify His name. I've also learned that nothing or no one can defy God long enough without being eventually destroyed, it's like an obsolete useless suicidal attempt that proves nothing and deemed to reach nowhere, but doom.
God created all things and all creatures seen and hidden, all the spiritual and all the material. It is incorrect for us to stick to the spiritual alone leaving out the material or to stick to the material alone and leave out the spiritual: in life ideally both should go side by side, in parallel without any conflict. The law of entropy explains that matter is expected to eventually degrade so we know at the end the spiritual must prevail. We must never separate the spiritual from the scientific, while giving a clear priority to what God reveals.
One of the known tools used by atheist scientists is to deprive us from relying on the solid reference of God's word by saying that it is scientifically irrelevant so it cannot be considered. Leaving His Wisdom aside we are candidly caught in this trap.
Since we have a limited creature level wisdom, there are many things we cannot fully understand without His precious guidance and there are so many things we can never know of without His direct revelation.
I had many stumbling questions like: how come and why did God create the Earth before the sun and moon? Answers are often simple because God is addressing humanity of all levels of intellect and culture: He created the Earth with the purpose of preparing it for life. So the sun and the moon were made to serve His creation of a great balanced life system on Earth, God is the one who has set early this rule of Earth day-night cycles for them to follow. It is God Himself who had started the counting of days not us. He surely did not need the sun/moon to count them. Obviously Adam could never calculate by himself how many days were present before he was created without God telling him so.
Κηφᾶς,
By my logic..? Where did I say that ALL Scripture must be taken literally?
The Holy Bible consists of books of prophecy, others historical, poetic, instructional, visions etc.
Genesis is the first of the historical Scriptural books describing crucial facts and purposes about God and the first two humans. Jesus Christ was sometimes teaching using parables but He also literally made so many miracles, i.e. supernatural works that defy all science. Since you believe in His miraculous works stated in the Gospels, that they are literal, why do you think what He communicated to us with details of His creation works is a big allegory?
An interesting critical scientific review of the current dating systems (4 parts 15' ea):
http://www.answersingenesis.org/media/video/ondemand/dating-fossils-and-rocks/dating-fossils-and-rocks
We have the tendency to simply take many things 100% for granted.
GBU
John_S2000,
I wasn't addressing you in my previous post, but since you have taken it upon yourself to respond, allow me:
[quote author=John_S2000 link=topic=11835.msg141730#msg141730 date=1311315634]
Κηφᾶς,
By my logic..? Where did I say that ALL Scripture must be taken literally?
Never said you did. Though the quote from Christ was certainly not a parable, and therefore, should be taken literally (if you think only parables are meant to be taken allegorically).
[quote author=John_S2000 link=topic=11835.msg141730#msg141730 date=1311315634]
The Holy Bible consists of books of prophecy, others historical, poetic, instructional, visions etc.
Thanks, I know. If you notice in Genesis, there's a lot of repetition used (poetic). This was a memory tool to allow a fairly accurate oral transmission of a story to be passed from one generation to the next.
[quote author=John_S2000 link=topic=11835.msg141730#msg141730 date=1311315634]
Genesis is the first of the historical Scriptural books describing crucial facts and purposes about God and the first two humans. Jesus Christ was sometimes teaching using parables but He also literally made so many miracles, i.e. supernatural works that defy all science. Since you believe in His miraculous works stated in the Gospels, that they are literal, why do you think what He communicated to us with details of His creation works is a big allegory?
Historical? I don't know about that. It's certainly not on par (historically speaking) as, say, 1 and 2 Chronicles or even Exodus. As for Christ, see my comment above regarding His statement about plucking out one's eye or cutting off one's hand. Also, let me turn your last question around on you:
Since you believe Christ spoke in parables to reveal spiritual truths to those who were not intellectually equipped to handle them except by parables, why do you think He communicated to us with details of His creation literally?
I also noticed how you didn't answer any of the questions I raised in my previous post, choosing rather to jump to then very end.
I do not think that you believe I implied that we must take the whole Bible literally. Nevertheless, there are many many passages in the Bible that are literal. if that were not so, how else are we going to know what God is trying to communicate to us? For example, when Jesus quoted from the OT ,it was clearly literal interpretation.When Jesus told his disciples to go out and preach His word, it is literal commandment. When Jesus told us to believe in Him to be saved, it is literal commandment. When Jesus said “I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture.” (John 10:9),then this is a metaphor and and I do not think you would believe (at least I hope so) that I would take this verse (and other obvious similar verses) to mean Jesus was literally a wooden door. I believe,the first pages of Genesis record actual historical events of creation. It was written as historical narrative.History is the study of past events,thus you can not simply dismiss the book of genesis as non-historical! My emphasize with the verse in Exodus is not on the Sabbath but on the word DAYS. DAYS is plural to indicate the 24 hours cycle.I will include the whole verses so that you see nothing is taken out of context. In Exodus 19:9 God told Moses, he was going to come to the israelites in a dense cloud, so that the people hear Him speaking with Moses. In other words, God is speaking directly to the people:
1 And God spoke all these words:
2 “I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery.
3 “You shall have no other gods before[a] me.
4 “You shall not make for yourself an image in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. 5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, 6 but showing love to a thousand generations of those who love me and keep my commandments.
7 “You shall not misuse the name of the LORD your God, for the LORD will not hold anyone guiltless who misuses his name.
8 “Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. 9 Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 10 but the seventh day is a sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your male or female servant, nor your animals, nor any foreigner residing in your towns. 11 For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.
12 “Honor your father and your mother, so that you may live long in the land the LORD your God is giving you.
13 “You shall not murder.
14 “You shall not commit adultery.
15 “You shall not steal.
Would you still think, God would speak in metaphor regarding the 4th commandment, but uses literal language for the remaining 9 commandments? You are answering this with absolute certainty, but what makes you so sure about that? A symbol to indicate what on the first day of creation?
I shall also be grateful if you could tell me where in the Bible it says that the seventh day is still going on. As far as I know, God is working and not resting.
Thanks.
The narrative, however, had to use language that is comprehensible to humans. St. Peter explains this as follows:
2 Peter 3:8 NKJV
But, beloved, do not forget this one thing, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
Clearly this discussion has run its course. It seems despite the position of a Coptic Orthodox priest and scholar, H.H. the Pope, Church Fathers and logic itself, some will insist on a literal reading of the creation myth found in Genesis (and before you jump on me about using the word myth, look the word up). Some just insist on remaining intellectually dishonest. Such is life. I post one last article from a non-orthodox individual since people seem to hold pseudo-scientists such as 'Dr.' Kent Hovind and his ilk in higher esteem then Orthodox fathers. Enjoy. Source
Logic has no place in faith, you should know. And what church fathers are you talking about? I thought ,few replies ago, you found them 'ambigious' . I ask in order to know and understand better.That is exactly what I am doing in this thread. But instead of answering what Exodus 20:1:21 is talking about or where the bible says we are still in day 7, you dodge the question and find it convenient to label me or others as "intellectually dishonest" whatever that means.But never mind my friend, such is life as you correctly stated. And thank you for sharing your views.
Imikahail,
The full context of the verse is about God's patience. The comparison between a day and thousand years is to underscore that time does not bind God ( in this case His patience). God created time and he is not limited by it. That is my understanding.
Here is the full verse: But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. 9 The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. Instead he is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.
The wine at Cana of Galilee was a miracle and was not part of the creation of the world. It had a purpose; the belief of the disciples.
[quote author=Ηεζεκιελ link=topic=11835.msg141972#msg141972 date=1311711957]
Cephas,
Logic has no place in faith, you should know.
Please, for the love of all that is holy and sacred, tell me this is a joke. Our faith is not an illogical faith. To think so makes a mockery of Christ. There is nothing illogical about Orthodoxy. This is, by far, one of the most ridiculous and dangerous statements I have ever seen on these forums.
[quote author=Ηεζεκιελ link=topic=11835.msg141972#msg141972 date=1311711957]
And what church fathers are you talking about? I thought ,few replies ago, you found them 'ambigious' .
I noticed you edited your reply here, since you said previously that I said they were ignorant of science. Clearly you were putting words in my mouth and attempting to cover it up. Here is what I did say:
[quote author=Κηφᾶς link=topic=11835.msg141343#msg141343 date=1310488644]
Forgive me, but a number of the Fathers you have quoted are just as ambiguous in their use of the word 'day' as the Moses was in the book of Genesis. Further, there is no reason to think that science and faith are somehow incompatible with each other. As I've stated before, the purpose of the Bible is not to provide a scientific explanation of how things came into existence. The purpose of the Bible is to reveal spiritual truths about God and His relationship with man and the rest of creation and reveal God's plan of salvation for mankind. Full stop. Science, which is something God Himself has created, is used to explain how the material world exists and behaves. It is not somehow implicitly atheistic. Science looks at the material world, and attempts to explain how it behaves, through the scientific method. The scientific method is entirely areligious. To somehow set up a dichotomy between faith and science is to say that a Christian cannot be a scientist and vice versa. That is ridiculous, entirely false and, quite frankly, a dangerous mindset.
The fact that some feel they can pick and choose what they believe when it comes to scientific theories is no less dangerous than those who feel they can pick an choose what they believe when it comes to matters of faith. There is nothing in science that contradicts the faith.
Can you deny that the Fathers themselves learned about the natural sciences? Can you deny that the Fathers themselves would have based their interpretations based on the science of the day? The psalmist himself testifies that even that natural world gives testament to the glory of God. Science is not an enemy of faith.
[quote author=Ηεζεκιελ link=topic=11835.msg141972#msg141972 date=1311711957]
I ask in order to know and understand better.That is exactly what I am doing in this thread.
I don’t believe this for a second. You have already made up your mind on the issue and refuse to accept anything that is contrary to your literalist perspective.
[quote author=Ηεζεκιελ link=topic=11835.msg141972#msg141972 date=1311711957]
But instead of answering what Exodus 20:1:21 is talking about
I have addressed this. Read carefully:
[quote author=Κηφᾶς link=topic=11835.msg141671#msg141671 date=1311130362]
+ Irini nem ehmot,
Ηεζεκιελ,
[quote author=Ηεζεκιελ link=topic=11835.msg141664#msg141664 date=1311106250]
Cephas, thanks for your comments.
if you read Exodus 20:1 - 21, You will note that God is speaking.He is giving his commandments.That is why I said,the verses are not meant to be analogy.If in verse 13, God says, 'you shall not commit murder', he means just that.Therefore, I think he also means just that when he said he created the universe in six days and rested on the seventh day. You say that 'a day" could be a thousand years with the Lord as the bible writes. Yet, let me ask one more question as to what 'morning and evening' mean with the Lord in His book.
The commandment is regarding the Sabbath and keeping it holy. Regarding what 'morning and evening' means, that's simple, it's merely symbolic/allegorical. Once again, the concept of a solar day did not come into existence until the fourth 'day' when the sun was created. It is utterly illogical to speak about a solar day existing before the means of measuring a solar day came into existence.
Furthermore, we don't commemorate the Sabbath as the Jews do anymore. The Christian Sabbath is the first day of the week, not the seventh. Have we disobeyed God's commandment? Of course not. In Christianity, all days are holy and belong to the Lord, and the first day of the week holds the highest honour as it is the day Christ defeated Death and rose from the dead.
[quote author=Ηεζεκιελ link=topic=11835.msg141972#msg141972 date=1311711957]
or where the bible says we are still in day 7, you dodge the question
Yet again, I have addressed this. Read here:
[quote author=Κηφᾶς link=topic=11835.msg141671#msg141671 date=1311130362]
[quote author=Ηεζεκιελ link=topic=11835.msg141664#msg141664 date=1311106250]
In Genesis 1:3, God says:
And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day. ,
The words 'evening and morning' indicate a rotating earth,resulting in day and night.No rotation, no day/night would ensue. This suggests to me the source of Light ,whatever it is, that God created in the first day was used to separate day from night until the final creation of the sun in the 4th day. If you do not agree , that the spinning earth must have produced the 'morning and evening' in the first day, why would you think the meaning of the words 'morning and evening' should mean something else in Genesis 3 than the same words that are mentioned throughout the Holy Bible?
It means something different because of the context. You cannot read a verse, a sentence or a phrase in a vacuum. You have to read it in its proper context. Let me ask you something, you seem particularly fixated on a literal 7 days of creation. Would it truly matter if it was, in fact, not literal but allegorical? Would it have such a significant bearing on your faith as to utterly uproot it? Finally, ask yourself this, every 'day' in this supposed literal days of creation ends with the expression 'and the morning and evening were the [insert number] day' correct? What about the seventh 'day'? Why is there no mention that this 'day' has ended? Please don't tell me you think it's implied, because there is no valid reason to assume that it is. In fact, Moses made a point of stating that the first 6 'days' ended. Yet why not the seventh? Perhaps because we are living in the seventh day. If we are living in the seventh 'day', then why should each of the other 6 days be literal whereas the seventh is somehow the exception?
Here is something Christ said:
[quote=Matthew 5:29-30]
And if thy right eye cause the to stumble, remove it and cast it from thee; for it is profitable for thee that one of they members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast in Gehenna. And if thy right hand cause thee to stumble, cut it off and cast it from thee; for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into Gehenna.
By your logic, we should take this literally, because God said it. Do you see why taking things so literally is dangerous?
[quote author=Ηεζεκιελ link=topic=11835.msg141972#msg141972 date=1311711957]
and find it convenient to label me or others as "intellectually dishonest" whatever that means.
Intellectually Dishonest:
Intellectual dishonesty is dishonesty in performing intellectual activities like thought or communication. Examples are:
• the advocacy of a position which the advocate knows or believes to be false or misleading
• the advocacy of a position which the advocate does not know to be true, and has not performed rigorous due diligence to ensure the truthfulness of the position
• the conscious omission of aspects of the truth known or believed to be relevant in the particular context.
;)
PS. Did you even read the article I posted? No comments?
I consider that 'backward' describes well those non flexible scientists who make facts out of scientifically unproven hypotheses - unlike real scientists who research subjects from all the possible sides.
It is frequently noticed that when real scientists who are researching this controversial area if they get their hands on interesting results they are quickly accused of doing false science by hypocrites while the opposite is true.
There are also many honest 'pseudo scientists' who get instructed or read only one side of the story because the other side of it is banned. When these are allowed the opportunity to know more on the subject they can then chose a well established opinion. People are not stupid or blind, they are rather mislead by educational systems who decide what to instruct them and what to shun from them.
Psalm 33
6 By the word of the LORD the heavens were made,
And all the host of them by the breath of His mouth.
7 He gathers the waters of the sea together as a heap;
He lays up the deep 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 spoke, and it was done;
He commanded, and it stood fast.
Compare the immediate creation by the command of God, with example from Genesis:
11 Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb that yields seed, and the fruit tree that yields fruit according to its kind, whose seed is in itself, on the earth”; and it was so.
Further, the information that God is revealing to us in Genesis goes much beyond the length of days discussion. It is obvious that the Lord has wisely created all things in a special sequence that will always puzzle our proud scientists.
I have read all links. Have you read and watched my links?
GBU
[quote author=John_S2000 link=topic=11835.msg142005#msg142005 date=1311764788] That's what I could call very dishonest, with full confidence. Obviously the author is misleading himself and also his readers: there is still a very real ongoing strong disagreement on this subject among many honest scientists (that's right they're PhDs) - or may be this author landed from another planet. His use of the word Evidence in the title is clearly flawed: many authors can use the same title formula to denote just the opposite. This author is mixing religion and science in a manner conveniently suiting his purpose, isn't he? For me it is just propaganda to break the ice: nothing in the 'long days' usage proves or gets even close to any billion of years hypothesis.
I consider that 'backward' describes well those non flexible scientists who make facts out of scientifically unproven hypotheses - unlike real scientists who research subjects from all the possible sides.
It is frequently noticed that when real scientists who are researching this controversial area if they get their hands on interesting results they are quickly accused of doing false science by hypocrites while the opposite is true.
There are also many honest 'pseudo scientists' who get instructed or read only one side of the story because the other side of it is banned. When these are allowed the opportunity to know more on the subject they can then chose a well established opinion. People are not stupid or blind, they are rather mislead by educational systems who decide what to instruct them and what to shun from them.
Psalm 33
6 By the word of the LORD the heavens were made,
And all the host of them by the breath of His mouth.
7 He gathers the waters of the sea together as a heap;
He lays up the deep 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 spoke, and it was done;
He commanded, and it stood fast.
Compare the immediate creation by the command of God, with example from Genesis:
11 Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb that yields seed, and the fruit tree that yields fruit according to its kind, whose seed is in itself, on the earth”; and it was so.
Further, the information that God is revealing to us in Genesis goes much beyond the length of days discussion. It is obvious that the Lord has wisely created all things in a special sequence that will always puzzle our proud scientists.
I have read all links. Have you read and watched my links?
GBU
So let me get this straight. It's ok to use the word 'evidence' if it fits in with your literalist, psuedo-scientific reading of Genesis, but not ok when it doesn't? I find it funny that the only psuedo-scientists that support a literalist reading of Genesis and a young earth are predominantly fundy protestants, whereas the real scientists who actually make use of the Scientific Method come from all religious backgrounds, including Christianity. Huh, I wonder which will be more unbiased and areligious?
Tell me, since, according to you, the expression '[God] commanded, and it was so' seems to indicate something occurring in a literal day, why should I believe you? Why not take it further and say it means it was created instantaneously. Further, since God can create instantaneously, why should the 6 'days' in Genesis be literal days. Why not hours, or minutes, or seconds. Hell, why not say God created everything instantaneously, in the blink of an eye (or even faster). Is God not able to do so?
PS. I did go through your links. Thanks, they were fun, though I'll stick with 'The Big Bang Theory'. It's funnier. ;)
See, a blob made of nothing exploded into a biiiiig bang, wow! and that also blew so many brains! but you've just got to believe it. You meant skeptics about the Genesis account?
(advice regarding the big bang: watch out for your ears ;) )
Some here seem so sure, yet they are unable to prove it was created in billions of years.
GBU
[quote author=John_S2000 link=topic=11835.msg142264#msg142264 date=1312059294] I agree it's funnier: man you could hold the whole universe in the palm of your hand :D
See, a blob made of nothing exploded into a biiiiig bang, wow! and that also blew so many brains! but you've just got to believe it.
GBU
I'm not sure which is sadder, the fact that the joke was lost on you or the fact that I now need to explain the joke to you.
The Big Bang Theory. Click and learn.
[quote author=John_S2000 link=topic=11835.msg142264#msg142264 date=1312059294]
Some here seem so sure, yet they are unable to prove it was created in billions of years.
The evidence is there for those who wish to see. It is you who has no proof that Genesis creation myth is literal and not allegorical. You have not proved that Genesis is, in fact, a science text and not a religious text.
Hebrew Words
Literal translations of the Hebrew word, yom, like our English word "day," can refer to a 24 hour day, sunrise to sunset (12 hours), or a long, unspecified period of time (as in "the day of the dinosaurs"). The Hebrew word ereb, translated evening also means "sunset," "night" or "ending of the day." The Hebrew word boqer, translated morning, also means "sunrise," "coming of light," "beginning of the day," or "dawning," with possible metaphoric usage (1). Our English expression: "The dawning of an age" serves to illustrate this point. This expression in Hebrew could use the word, boqer, for dawning, which, in Genesis 1, is often translated morning.
Do all the instances of "morning" and evening" refer to a literal period of time? Here is an example from Moses:
In the morning it [grass] flourishes, and sprouts anew; Toward evening it fades, and withers away. (Psalm 90:6)
This verse refers to the life cycle of grass (compared to the short life span of humans). Obviously, the grass does not grow up in one morning and die by the same evening. The period of time refers to its birth (morning) and its death (evening) at least several weeks (if not months) later.
The first thing one notices when looking at Genesis 1 is the unusual construction surrounding the words morning and evening together with day. This combination is very rare, occurring only ten times in the Old Testament, six of which, of course, are in the Genesis creation account. The remaining four verses (NASB) are listed below:
"This is the offering which Aaron and his sons are to present to the LORD on the day when he is anointed; the tenth of an ephah of fine flour as a regular grain offering, half of it in the morning and half of it in the evening." (Leviticus 6:20)
Now on the day that the tabernacle was erected the cloud covered the tabernacle, the tent of the testimony, and in the evening it was like the appearance of fire over the tabernacle, until morning. (Numbers 9:15)
"For seven days no leaven shall be seen with you in all your territory, and none of the flesh which you sacrifice on the evening of the first day shall remain overnight until morning." (Deuteronomy 16:4)
"And the vision of the evenings and mornings which has been told is true; but keep the vision secret, for it pertains to many days in the future." (Daniel 8:26)
The first three verses obviously refer to 24 hour days, since this is readily apparent from the context. The fourth one refers to many evenings and mornings, which "pertains to many days in the future." This verse actually refers to events that are yet to happen, which is 3000 years of days from when it was originally written. One could easily say that these mornings and evenings represent thousands of years.
However, none of these verses have the form which is seen in the Genesis account. Let's look at the form of these "evenings and mornings:"
And God called the light day, and the darkness He called night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day. (Genesis 1:5)
And God called the expanse heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, a second day. (Genesis 1:8)
And there was evening and there was morning, a third day. (Genesis 1:13)
And there was evening and there was morning, a fourth day. (Genesis 1:19)
And there was evening and there was morning, a fifth day. (Genesis 1:23)
And God saw all that He had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day. (Genesis 1:31)
The actual number of words in Hebrew is much fewer than that of the English translations. The words "and there was" are not in the Hebrew, but added to make the English flow better. The actual translation is "evening and morning 'n' day." There is no way to discern from the context that the text is referring to 24 hour days.
How would God have changed the text if He intended it to indicate 24 hour days? If God were to have created in 24 hour days, I would have expected the Genesis text to have begun with a statement to the effect that "God did 'x' in the morning" and "God did 'y' in the evening," as opposed to the very unusual construction of telling all God did and then ending with both evening and morning side by side at the end of the "day." So, the order indicates the end (evening) of one day is followed by the dawning (morning) of the next day. In addition, one would expect that if God chose to create the world in a few days He would have indicated it was all created in a few days instead of one day (Genesis 2:4) (2). This verse indicates to me that the Genesis days are other than 12 or 24 hour periods of time.
Scripture Declares the Days to be Long
Specific biblical examples of evidence for long creation days include:
The "Day of the Lord" refers to a seven year period of time.
Genesis 2:4 refers to all 6 days of creation as one day, "This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made earth and heaven."
The seventh day of Genesis is not closed. In all other days, "there is the evening and the morning, the n day."
In the book of Hebrews, the author tells us to labor to enter into God's seventh day of rest. By any calculation, God's seventh day of rest has been at least 6,000 years long:
For He has thus said somewhere concerning the seventh day, "And God rested on the seventh day from all His works"... Let us therefore be diligent to enter that rest, lest anyone fall through following the same example of disobedience. (Hebrews 4:4-11)
The psalmist (Moses, the author of Genesis) says "For a thousand years in Thy sight are like yesterday when it passes by, or as a watch in the night." (Psalm 90:4).
The apostle Peter tells us with God "A thousand years is as one day" (2 Peter 3:8).
The third day must have been longer than 24-hours, since the text indicates a process that would take a year or longer. On this day, God allowed the land to produce vegetation, tress and fruit. The text specifically states that the land produced trees that bore fruit with seed in it (3). Any horticulturist knows that fruit-bearing trees requires several years to grow to produce fruit. However, the text states that the land produced these trees (indicating a natural process) and that it all occurred on the third day. Obviously, such a "day" could not have been only 24 hours long.
The events of the sixth day of creation require time beyond 24 hours. On this day, God created the mammals and mankind. He also planted a garden, watered it, let it grow, and put man in it, with instruction on its care and maintenance. Then God brought all the animals to Adam to be named. This job, in itself would take many days or weeks. Next, God put Adam to sleep and created Eve. It is very unlikely all of this could take place in 24 hours, since much of it was dependent upon Adam, who did not have the abilities of God.
The Bible itself states that the covenant and laws of God have been proclaimed to a "thousand generations" (Deuteronomy 7:9, 1 Chronicles 16:15, Psalm 105:8). Even if a generation is considered to be 20 years, this adds up to at least 20,000 years. A biblical generation is often described as being 40 years, which would represent at least 40,000 years. However, since the first dozen or more generations were nearly 1,000 years, this would make humans nearly 50,000 years old, which agrees very well with dates from paleontology and molecular biology (see Descent of Mankind Theory: Disproved by Molecular Biology).
Early Church Fathers Believed the Creation Days were Long
The belief that creation days are long periods of time is not just a recent interpretation of the scriptures, but was prevalent since the first century. Dr. Ross has published a book entitled Creation and Time, which documents in detail what first century Jewish scholars and the early Christian church fathers said regarding their interpretation of creation chronology (5). Jewish scholars include Philo and Josephus, while Christian fathers include Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Hippolytus (through writings of Ambrose), Clement, Origen, Lactantius, Victorinus, Methodius, Augustine, Eusebius, Basil, and Ambrose. Among this group, nearly all acknowledged the likelihood that the creation days were longer than 24 hours. The evidence presented in Creation and Time is both overwhelming and well documented (all references are given). You can read and/or download translations of the actual text of all of the early church fathers at Wheaton College's server. The collection consists of nearly forty files, averaging ~2 mb each. Alternatively, these writings can be obtained on CD from Logos Research.
All of this biblical and historical evidence has led us to conclude that the days of Genesis 1 are not literal 24 hour days, but long periods of time during which God chose to create different species of life.
Appearance of Age
If God had created the universe in an instant, there would be no evidence from nature that He created it. The Bible states God has shown himself to all men through His creation so that men are without excuse in rejecting God (6). In addition, the universe declares God's glory, which is a sum of God's innate and unchangeable character (7). The Bible also states the universe declares God's righteousness (8). God's righteousness prevents Him from sinning. The scriptures say God cannot lie (9).
Therefore, from the Bible, we conclude that God does not lie or deceive, either from His word or from His record of nature. The heavens declare the universe to be at least 10 billion years old. In addition, we have the ability to see galaxies in the universe which are billions of light years away. If one claims the universe is 6,000 years old, he must state that God created the light from these distant galaxies in transit less than 6,000 light years from the earth. There are signs that the light has indeed been in transit for very long periods of time and was not somehow created in space relatively recently. Frequencies of known spectral lines show spreading or broadening which would occur after long travel times through space containing dust and debris. Since this light appears to be very old and to have originated from a point billions of light years away, if the universe is actually 6,000 years old, the heavens must be declaring a lie, an apparently old universe which is actually very young.
Let me give one example. For now let us assume the universe is 6 to 10 thousand years old and God created the light-beams already in place. Say we are watching a star in our telescope which is two million light years away, and we notice that it explodes (yes, supernova explosions have been observed). That means the light reaching us now is carrying the information recording this distant happening. Now trace this part of the light beam backwards in time along the path of the light beam. By the time you get back to the time of creation (6 to 10 thousand years ago) you have reached a point which is less than 1 percent of the distance to the star. This would mean that the "explosion" part of the light-beam began its journey from here - and not from the star! Thus, the information recording this explosion had to be "built-in" to the light beam, so what we see as having happened to that star may never have happened at all. The idea that observation of things further than around 10,000 light-years away is not necessarily linked to physical reality would be unsettling from both a scientific and theological viewpoint. I cannot accept a God who lies by creating deceptions.
Appearance of Age Rebuttals
Many have asked the following question: Since God probably created Adam full grown and mature why couldn't God have done the same thing with the universe? First, note that God had a choice of creating Adam adult sized, or as a baby. Obviously if Adam was created as a baby, God would have to provide a means of nurturing him. This would require some special agency or being, or God could have made Adam a very special baby who did not require special care. Although God could have done any of these things, we believe God operates according to the principle of simplicity. Thus, He simply created the first man full-sized. However, Adam's body did not necessarily have signs of age. Size by itself is not an indication of age except perhaps to tell that the person is not a child. If a doctor examines an adult to determine age he might look at skin condition, liver spot progression, hair, teeth, cholesterol level, metabolism, scars, etc. I believe that Adam's body had none of these signs of age. God created Adam sinless, with no spiritual deterioration, and I believe He also created Adam with a perfect body, with no physical deterioration. Thus I do not believe Adam had an "apparent age."
Other arguments often used to support the appearance of age argument is the wine that Jesus made from water. It was the best wine, implying that it was aged. However, the wine may or may not have had the chemical components of aged wine.
Ultimately, the downfall of the appearance of age argument is that the Bible never supports this idea with regard to the creation. The Bible explains the miracles of God and tells us when things were made as if they were old (like the wine that Jesus made from water). In contrast, there is not one verse in the Bible that suggests that God made the Earth look older than it actually is.
Holy Spirit, teach us what you told Moses about what you were doing during the creation of the earth and life upon it. In Jesus name we pray. Amen.
Genesis 1:1
"In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth."
Volumes have been written about the first verse of Genesis. There are a two main interpretations of what this verse really means. Some say that the verse is a summary of the rest of the Genesis creation account. Others say that the verse represents the first creative act of God. How can we tell which interpretation is correct?
Day 1
The answer is really quite simple - keep reading! Reading Genesis 1:1 or any other Bible verse outside its context is one of the worst things that a person can do.2 When we look at Genesis 1:2,3 we see that it begins with the conjunction "and." This fact immediately tells us that Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 are part of one continuous thought. Remove the period at the end of Genesis 1:1 and read it as originally intended:
"In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth and the earth was formless and void...
The conjunction at the beginning of Genesis 1:2 tells us that Genesis 1:1 is not a summary of the creation account! This verse is a factual statement of what God did at the beginning of the first day. There are other context clues that tell us that this is not a summary statement. If we continue reading the Genesis creation account, we come to the real summary at the end (Genesis 2:1).4 It would be superfluous to have a second summary at the beginning. As we continue to read Genesis one, we will notice how succinct the creation account really is.
So, we conclude that the text claims that God created the heavens and earth on the first day. What do the heavens consist of? Stars, galaxies, etc. So, we know that God created, at minimum, the stars and the earth. Actually, the Hebrew phrase translated "heaven and earth" refer to the entire created universe. Some people claim that God created the earth first and that the rest of the heavenly bodies were created later. However, we are led to contemplate why God said that He created the "heavens and the earth." To accept this interpretation, we would have to say that God created "nothing" and the earth. If God had only created the earth, the Genesis 1:1 would have said, "In the beginning God created the earth." So, we can safely say that God created the entire heavens and earth at the beginning of the first creation day.
Genesis 1:2 - the early earth
Keep your Bible open as we zoom on to Genesis 1:2. Those interpretations that claim Genesis 1:1 is just a summary have a problem in this next verse. If Genesis 1:1 is just a summary, then there is no mention in Genesis of God creating matter - it is just suddenly mentioned as if it had existed all along. Such a model is compatible with the LDS (Mormon) theology, but not Christianity.
It is important in Genesis 1:2 to examine the context and the perspective to determine where the action is happening. Let's read the text:
And the earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep; and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters. (Genesis 1:2)
Where is God? In heaven? In outer space? NO! God, our personal Creator and Savior, is on the surface of the waters of the earth doing His creating "up close and personal." Imagine that - God personally came to earth to create and shape it for habitation! The important thing about this verse is that it defines the conditions as they appeared from God's perspective on the surface of the earth. What are the conditions? "...the earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep..." Why was the earth dark? Genesis one does not say, but other creation accounts in the Bible do say. In fact, in the book of Job, God Himself tells us the answer:
"Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth? ...When I made a cloud its garment, And thick darkness its swaddling band" (Job 38:4-9)5
How long is day 1?
Many Christians assume that all the Genesis creation days are exactly 24-hours long. Neither the Genesis 1 text nor other Bible verses directly address how long the first day was. However, there were a lot of things that happened on the first day. God created the entire universe. There are other Bible verses that address at least part of how God created the universe. No fewer than 11 verses from five different inspired authors claim that God stretches out the heavens.6 Many of these verses use present tense, indicating that God is still stretching out the heavens. How long did it take to stretch out the trillions and trillions of stars. The Bible doesn't say, but if we measure the current rate that the universe is being stretched, it would suggest a very long time.
So, we know that when God created the earth it was dark because it was covered with thick clouds. This fact will be important to understand the next few verses.
"Let there be light"
Genesis 1:3 begins with another conjunction, so we know it is part of the continuing action. God is still on the surface of the earth. "And God said, 'Let there be light,' and there was light." Where is the light? It's on the surface of the earth for the first time. Where does the light come from. The text does not say directly, but it gives a lot of clues. Did God create the light? No! If God had created the light, the text would have said so, like it does in the rest of Genesis one. It says that God "let it be." Let's read the rest of the first day to get the clues.
"And God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness. And God called the light day, and the darkness He called night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day." (Genesis 1:4-5)
Notice that every thought is begun with a conjunction, so we know that all of this is part of the continuing action. The text says that there was day and night on the earth on the first day. This tells us that the light that was shining on the earth was directional (from one source). Let's put it all together. God created the earth with a thick layer of clouds around it that caused it to be dark. When God said "Let there be light" it is most logical to conclude that God removed at least some of those thick clouds so that light would fall on the surface of the earth. Where did the light come from? The Sun shining on a rotating earth. You might protest, "But the text never said God created the Sun." It actually does. As stated previously, the Hebrew term "the heavens and the earth" in Genesis 1:1 refers to the entire created universe. So, the Sun, stars, and earth were all created at the beginning of day 1.
Day 2
How long is day 2?
It is difficult to say how long the second day was. Part of the verse indicates that God " let the separation be" (suggesting natural process), but then the text goes on to explain that God "made" the separation. The Hebrew word asah10 translated "made" suggests that God formed the separation from materials that already existed, rather than creating it brand new. As such, the formation could involve both supernatural and natural processes. If the separation was allowed to form on its own, it would be expected that the second day could be a very long period of time.
On the second day, God allows a separation of the waters above from the waters below (Genesis 1:6-7).7 The text seems to be describing the setting up of a water cycle on the earth. The waters above (i.e., clouds) are separated from the waters below (the "deep" or seas mentioned in verse 2). The separation is called "heaven"8 (also translated "skies").9
Day 3
God did a couple things on the third day. God's first action was the formation of dry land:
Then God said, "Let the waters below the heavens be gathered into one place, and let the dry land appear"; and it was so. And God called the dry land earth, and the gathering of the waters He called seas; and God saw that it was good. (Genesis 1:9-10)
Similar to the first two days, God "let" the dry land appear. The land already existed, although it was underneath the original seas. Psalm 104 (the "creation Psalm") tells us how God accomplished the appearance of the land. According to the Psalm, "The mountains rose; the valleys sank down To the place which Thou didst establish for them."11 The description suggests that God used some form of tectonic activity to form the dry land. If tectonic activity were used by God to form the dry land, it would suggest that the beginning of the third day would be a very long period of time.
How long is day 3?
There is no plant in the world that can germinate and produce seeds within a 24-hour period of time. It gets worse for the 24-hour interpretation. Not only do we have plants, we have trees that grow and produce fruit with seed in it. It takes fruit trees several years of growth before they produce any fruit. You might say that God could have caused everything to happen super-quick. However, God says, "Let the earth sprout vegetation..." and the text says, "And the earth brought forth vegetation..." In order to claim that God miraculously created all the plants, seed, etc. in 24-hours, one would have to claim God was a liar. Not a good accusation to make! So we know that the second part of the third day was at least several years long.
Creation of plants
Then God said, "Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees bearing fruit after their kind, with seed in them, on the earth"; and it was so. And the earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed after their kind, and trees bearing fruit, with seed in them, after their kind; and God saw that it was good. (Genesis 1:11-12)
On the third day God allows the earth to produce plants through germination (sprouting) and growth until seeds are produced. The Hebrew word dasha refers to a plant that sprouts from a seed until the seedling turns green.12 This verb tells us that God used processes identical to what we see on the earth today. Plants spouted, grew to maturity, and produced seeds. Several kinds of plants are described. The Hebrew word deshe13 refers primarily to grasses; the word eseb14 refers primarily to herbs and the words peri15 ets16 refer to fruit trees.
Day 4
Many people believe that the text about day 4 says that God created the Sun, moon and stars on the fourth day. This is not what the text actually says, so let's read it again.
Then God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night, and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years; (Genesis 1:14)
and let them be for lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth"; and it was so. (Genesis 1:15)
And God made the two great lights, the greater light to govern the day, and the lesser light to govern the night; He made the stars also. (Genesis 1:16)
And God placed them in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth, (Genesis 1:17)
and to govern the day and the night, and to separate the light from the darkness; and God saw that it was good. (Genesis 1:18)
How can a day be longer than 24-hours?
Even though the Genesis text clearly indicates that the days are longer than 24-hours, some Christians insist that any interpretation of Genesis 1 that deviates from 24-hour days is not literal. The problem is that the Hebrew word yom17 has three literal definitions - 12 hour daylight period, 24 period of time, or a long, but indefinite period of time. A careful reading of the Genesis creation account reveals that the 24-hour interpretation is ruled out by the actual Genesis text. The first definitive example of a day that is longer than 24-hours can be found in the beginning of the Genesis 2 creation account, which says that the entire six days of creation are one day.18
In verse 14 we have that unusual construction again of "let there be." It is not a statement of creation, but a statement of appearance. At this point, the clouds present at the initial creation of the earth were completely removed so that the bodies themselves appeared for the first time on the surface of the earth. The passage tells us that the lights were allowed "to be" so that they could be signs of the seasons, days, and years. It was necessary for the creatures of day 5 that the heavenly bodies be visible. We know that many of the migratory birds (created on day 5) require visible stars to navigate, hence the need to actually see these bodies. Verse 18 gives us another hint. The lights were placed in the sky to "separate the light from the darkness." Does this sound familiar? It is the exact Hebrew phrase used for God's work on the first day when, "God separated the light from the darkness" (Genesis 1:4) By using this phrase, the text is recounting the formation of the Sun, moon and stars from the first day. If we accept that God created the Sun, moon and stars on the fourth day, then He didn't really create the heavens in verse one. So, the 24-hour day interpretation suffers a contradiction between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:16.
Day 5
On the fifth day, God created the animals described by the Hebrew word nephesh.
Then God said, "Let the waters teem with swarms of living creatures [nephesh], and let birds fly above the earth in the open expanse of the heavens." (Genesis 1:20)
And God created the great sea monsters, and every living creature [nephesh] that moves, with which the waters swarmed after their kind, and every winged bird after its kind; and God saw that it was good. (Genesis 1:21)
And God blessed them, saying, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth." (Genesis 1:22)
The word nephesh is used of both animals and human beings, and primarily has the meaning "soul."19 The term encompasses the ideas of mind, will, and emotion. These characteristics apply to the higher animals, such as the birds and mammals. The kinds of creature created includes many different kinds of birds (Genesis 1:21) and the "great sea monsters," probably referring to the whales (also referred to as nephesh beings). These creatures were created in great abundance, as indicated by the verbs sharats20 and ramas.21 The fossil record confirms that there was a massive introduction of bird and mammal species at the beginning of the tertiary age.22
Day 6
The sixth days describes the creation of animals that impact mankind and the creation of mankind himself.
Then God said, "Let the earth bring forth living creatures [nephesh] after their kind: cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth after their kind"; and it was so. (Genesis 1:24)
God made the beasts of the earth after their kind, and the cattle after their kind, and everything that creeps on the ground after its kind; and God saw that it was good. (Genesis 1:25)
Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth." (Genesis 1:26)
God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. (Genesis 1:27)
The sixth day begins with the creation of more nephesh creatures. These include the cattle (behemah23), creeping (remes24) nephesh (probably rodents), and "beasts (chay25) of the earth" (translated "wild animals" in the NIV, usually referring to the wild carnivores).
The ultimate nephesh creation is mankind, created at the end of the sixth day. Genesis 1:27 tells us that God created mankind as males and females. However, Genesis 2 tells us more about the sixth day. From Genesis 1:27, we know that the sixth day extended at least through the creation of Eve, since the text indicates that God created both males and females on the sixth day. The following events took place after the creation of Adam
God planted a garden in Eden (Genesis 2:8)26
God caused the garden to sprout and grow (Genesis 2:9)27
God brought all the birds, cattle and wild animals to Adam to name (Genesis 2:19-20)28
God put Adam to sleep, took a part of him and formed Eve (Genesis 2:21-22)29
The events of the sixth day seem to require longer than 24 hours also. The text indicates that God planted a garden. This garden was not planted full-grown, since the text says that the trees were caused to sprout or grow (Hebrew tsamach30). The amount of time allowed for the garden to grow is not stated, but would presumably take longer than 24-hours. After the garden had grown sufficiently, the man was placed into the garden to cultivate it.31 By this time, the trees were producing fruit so that Adam could eat.32 This process takes a period of time greater than 24 hours. Next, Adam was given the assignment of naming the birds, cattle and wild animals. The list includes only birds and mammals and does not mention fish or other lower life forms. Even so, it would require that Adam name at least 14,600 species (8,600 species of birds and 4,000 species of mammals). This would require Adam to name more than 10 species per minute (assuming he had the entire 24 hours). For those who believe in a young earth, it would require that Adam name not only all of the existing birds and mammals but all the ones in the fossil record also (since they would all have to be alive on day 6 - no animal death before the fall). Such a task would probably double the number of species to be named. However, Adam did not have the entire 24 hours, since part of it was required for the planting and growing of the garden, Adam tending the garden, and God putting Adam to sleep to create Eve. Realistically, Adam would have to name at least 20 species per minute, including all the species found in the fossil record. Following this naming of the animals, no suitable helper was found for Adam. So, God put Adam to sleep, took at piece of Adam's side, and created Eve. Adam's response to Eve's creation is also telling. Upon seeing Eve for the first time, Adam says "at last."33 This is not exactly the response one would expect from a person who had waited for less than one day. So, we must conclude that the sixth day was most certainly longer than 24 hours, and probably took at least several years from Adam's response.
Conclusion
We are left with only one internally consistent interpretation for the days of Genesis one. The literal, clearly indicated, meaning of yom for Genesis one must be an unspecified, long period of time. Since the Genesis text says that the third day must be at least several years long, none of the other days would be expected to be limited to 24-hours. All or nearly all of the other creation days would seem to require long periods of time, although the text does not clearly indicate the specific amount of time required.
+ Irini nem ehmot,
Forgive me, but it's a mistake to think the earth is only 10,000 years old based on: a) Genesis and b) the Genealogy found in Matthew and Luke. Here are a few reasons.
1. Assuming that the genealogies are entirely complete, the length of time that constitutes a 'generation' is ambiguous.
2. The genealogies begin (or end) with Adam. Adam was the last of God's creation. What about the 6 other 'days' prior?
3. A 'day' in Genesis simply refers to a passage of time. It is not 24 hours. It is not 1000 years. It is not 1 billion years. A 'day' just means a period of time has passed. If I recall, the sun was not created until the third or fourth day, so a literal day is clearly out of the question.
Genesis is not a science book and should not be used to try and explain the physical world. Science is what is used to describe the material world. Genesis is meant to reveal spiritual truths about God and God's relationship with man and the rest of creation. Nothing more.
I find the above words reasonable, thanks Κηφᾶς! A very interesting topic!
Genesis 1:1
"In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth."
I see TIME (bginning) + SPACE (heavens) + MATTER (earth) in this sentence
Does the physical science say something differenet/new?