Creation scientists

[4WD]

The holy scriptures do not address electrons, protons, electricity, and so on and so forth. They do directly address the issue of time. Many times over.

Yes they do directly address the issue of time, and they show that the definition is not, as you claim, limited to a 24-hour period of time.

Nor do any creationists deny or debate the existence of the scientific realities you mentioned above.

Yeah, they do.  And so do you.  So many times have we read how the laws of nature must have changed.  I point that out just recently in one of the videos you posted.

[Alan]

That is a big fat negative. Within the theory of evolution are many other supporting theories regarding time, slow development over time, different mechanisms of change, this, that, and the other. Many of which have been proved wrong. The following video addresses just a few of these theories regarding the development of humanity proved wrong over the course of time.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3ZmfgnpUdE

And that's a big fat false video that proves only that a guy on YouTube can convince the gullible people out there. 

[Amo]

The holy scriptures do not address electrons, protons, electricity, and so on and so forth. They do directly address the issue of time. Many times over.

Yes they do directly address the issue of time, and they show that the definition is not, as you claim, limited to a 24-hour period of time.

Here we are, show us where the scriptures show us that all the translations of scripture to date, are wrong for depicting seven literal days in the creation account. Enforced by the parameters of morning and evening concerning each. Finalized by a seventh day of rest at the end of creation, forming the seven day week which we still maintain to this day. Reinforced by the fourth commandment of God, which He spoke to humanity with His own mouth, and wrote in tables of stone with His own finger for humanity, twice. Where do the scriptures suggest or state that the days of the creation account, were not literal days divided by evening and morning as they still are to date? 

Nor do any creationists deny or debate the existence of the scientific realities you mentioned above.

Yeah, they do.  And so do you.  So many times have we read how the laws of nature must have changed.  I point that out just recently in one of the videos you posted.

I call bull****. Where do they deny these present observable realities? Declaring that God is not subject to these observable realities, is not denying them. Nor is suggesting that they may have been different in the past, which they no doubt most certainly were, before creation, and or the global flood. Not that these observable realities didn't exist before the flood, but that they may most certainly have been different, in a world where no death or decay was or was intended to be present. But then again, you do not believe this either, do you?

[Amo]

And that's a big fat false video that proves only that a guy on YouTube can convince the gullible people out there. 

So you deny that scientists of yesteryear, once promoted theories concerning these supposed links in the evolution of humanity, which were peer reviewed as it were, and accepted and promoted by many of them? That should be easy to prove. As I know I can easily prove that this was the case. Laugh all you want, but I do not advocate laughing at the truth. It just isn't a healthy habit.

[4WD]

Here we are, show us where the scriptures show us that all the translations of scripture to date, are wrong for depicting seven literal days in the creation account.

Here we are, show us where the scriptures show us that all the translations of scripture to date, are wrong for depicting the sun revolving around the earth.

[Rella]

Yes they do directly address the issue of time, and they show that the definition is not, as you claim, limited to a 24-hour period of time.

Here we are, show us where the scriptures show us that all the translations of scripture to date, are wrong for depicting seven literal days in the creation account.

Hi Amo....

Look, if you are happy to call creation done in 144 hours of everything happening, I am happy for you but will never agree.

The following has a sense of agreeing with you... yet with no proof either but by general consensus.

NO ONE KNOWS FOR SURE. 

Yes.... God ( the Word) .... from what we have been told in Genesis... spoke everything into being.

AFTER.... the Spirit stop moving upon the face of the waters..... in the darkness... so God (Word) said... Let there be light.

(This was before he made the great light ( sun) vs. 16).. Obviously to see. We ddo not know how long the Spirit was moving in the dark....

But aside from that.... LOOK AT what others said about the length of a day and how some notables just decided to "go along" with that 144 hours.

The following paragraphs are each under a specific subject... I find, the first  The Reformers' Understanding of "Day" in Genesis 1-2 to be not only interesting but quite informative.

1 The Reformers' Understanding of "Day" in Genesis 1-2

2 The Modern "Scientific" Understanding of "Day" in Genesis 1-2

3 A Grammatical-Historical Interpretation of "Day" in Genesis 1-2

4 The Context of Genesis 1-2

5 The Usage of "Day"in the Hebrew Bible and Genesis 1-2

6 The Meaning of "Day" in Exodus 20:9-11

7 Conclusion

8 Notes

https://chalcedon.edu/magazine/the-meaning-of-day-in-genesis-1-2

The Meaning of "Day" in Genesis 1-2
By William O. Einwechter
September 01, 1998
Genesis 1:1-2:3 explicitly states that God created the world in six days. A straightforward reading of the Biblical text leads one to believe that the days of creation were six, literal, twenty-four-hour days. Each day is numbered (the first day, the second day, etc.); each day is elucidated by the phrase, "And the evening and morning were the . . . day"; and the creative activity of God on each day is described. In spite of this, the "days" of Genesis 1 and 2 have not always been understood in the church to refer to normal twenty-four-hour days and the doctrine of six-day creation has subsequently been denied.

The Reformers' Understanding of "Day" in Genesis 1-2
Augustine, Bishop of Hippo, believed that the world and all that is therein was created at once and not in the course of six days. They taught that God's work of creation took place in a single moment, and that the days of the creation were not literal days. "Augustine understood these days as allegorical representations of angelic cognitions."1 As Luther explains: "Augustine trifles with the six days in a strange way, making them days of hidden meaning, according to the knowledge of angels, and does not let them be six natural days."2 Many in the church followed Augustine in assigning an allegorical meaning to the six days of creation, and it prevailed as a common interpretation of the creation account of Genesis. But with the Reformation and the doctrine of sola Scriptura came a return to the grammatical-historical interpretation of the Scriptures. The fanciful exegesis (i.e., eisegesis) of the allegorical method that was often used in the interpretation of the Bible was set aside for a faithful exegesis of the text that focused on the meaning of the words of Scripture according to their ordinary, historical sense. This approach to interpretation caused the Reformers to reject the figurative meaning that Augustine and others had given to the days of creation, and to advocate instead a literal understanding of the six days of Genesis 1-2. Luther states:

      But since we cannot understand the details of these days, especially why God wanted to have this time distinction, let us
      confess our ignorance and not needlessly regard and interpret these words in a figurative sense. So far as the opinion of
      St. Augustine is concerned, I hold that Moses spoke literally and not figuratively or allegorically, telling us that the world
      with all its creatures was made within six days, just as the words read.3

"Just as the words read" — this was the perspective of Luther and the other Reformers. Calvin, after asserting that violence is done to the text by the view that the world was made in a moment, and that Moses distributes the work of God over six days for the mere purpose of instruction, upholds the literal meaning of the Genesis account, saying, "Let us rather conclude that God himself took the space of six days, for the purpose of accommodating his works to the capacity of men."4 Turretin rejects the allegorical view of Augustine because, "among other things, of the simple and historical Mosaic narration, which mentions six days and ascribes a particular work to each . . . ."5 The Westminster divines, who held that the true sense of Scripture is not manifold, but one (i.e., the one determined by the grammatical-historical interpretation of the text), make a literal six-day creation part of confessional orthodoxy by stating that "God created the world and all things therein, whether visible or invisible, in the space of six days, and all very good."6

The Modern "Scientific" Understanding of "Day" in Genesis 1-2

Through the Reformers' insistence on the plain sense of Scripture, the allegorical interpretation of the days of creation was overthrown and the Protestant church understood Genesis 1:1-2:3 to teach that God created all things in six normal days. The Bible said that creation took place over the space of six days, and there was no reason to understand the Hebrew word for "Day"(yom) in any other way than its ordinary denotation of an actual day.

But all this changed with the coming of the Enlightenment, Newtonian science, and its stepchild, the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution was a purely naturalistic explanation of the origin of life and of the complex variety of species on earth. Instead of the supernatural work of God in the special creation of all things in six days, the theory of evolution said that all life evolved spontaneously through the processes of natural selection and the survival of the fittest over billions of years. Hence, the theory of evolution was a repudiation of the Biblical account of creation, and the early chapters of Genesis were labeled as "myth." In time, the primary support for the theory of evolution came from the geological record of fossil remains. From the fossil record geologists constructed a geological table, complete with dates and names for various ages, that traced the evolution of life from its lowest forms to man himself. Eventually, the theory of evolution and geological timetable became the unquestioned orthodoxy of science and the view of all "educated and reasonable men."

This created an apologetical problem for the church: How can the Biblical account of creation be reconciled with the "assured results of modern science"? It also produced a problem for evangelical Christians who were scientists and who desired acceptance in the scientific community, yet who also professed faith in the Bible as the word of God. The answer to this dilemma was the theory of theistic evolution. Theistic evolution is a compromise between Newtonian science and the Biblical text. It states that God is the Creator of all things, as the Bible says, but that evolution is the means that God used to bring about the complexity of life and the variety of species. Theistic evolution maintains that both the Bible and modern science are correct; the Bible teaches us the fact of God's superintendence of creation, and the theory of evolution teaches us the mechanism of creation. The view of theistic evolution also seeks to reconcile the Genesis account of creation with the geological record by stating that the six "days" of creation were actually six "ages." Therefore, the days of creation are not to be understood as being literal days, but rather should be viewed as six periods of time (each stretching millions of years), and that the days of Genesis 1 correspond generally to the geological ages. Theistic evolution became very popular both within the Christian scientific community and within the church. It is still widely held today.

Therefore, the confessing church of today finds itself in a similar situation in respect to the Biblical doctrine of creation as did the Reformers: a literal understanding of the Genesis account of the days of creation has been set aside for a figurative interpretation. However, the modern evangelical "day-age"interpretation of Genesis 1-2 is far more serious, in that it gives validation to an alien worldview and assumes that the Bible should be interpreted in the light of modern scientific views. How should we respond to this attack on the integrity of the word of God and the Faith of the church? The same way that the Reformers responded to the allegorical views on the meaning of the days of Genesis held by Augustine and others: an assertion of the authority of the Biblical text as understood in its grammatical and historical sense.

A Grammatical-Historical Interpretation of "Day" in Genesis 1-2

A grammatical-historical interpretation of the meaning of "day"in Genesis 1-2 is based on three primary considerations: the context, the meaning of the Hebrew word Yom, and the teaching of Exodus 20:9-11.

The Context of Genesis 1-2

The purpose of Genesis 1 and 2 is to reveal God as the Creator of all things, including man and man's home, the earth. The Biblical doctrine of creation is foundational to our understanding of God, of man, and of God's covenant with man. The eternal power, wisdom, and glory of God are manifest in the creation account. The absolute distinction between the creature and the Creator is established by God's transcendent holiness. We learn that man is made in the image of God, and that his purpose is to serve and glorify God by taking dominion in the earth. Genesis 3 reveals the Fall, its consequences, and God's purpose to redeem man from sin by the seed of the woman. God's plan involves the choice of one man and his family to be the channel of redemption to all the world and this plan finds expression in God's covenant with Abraham (Gen. 12:1ff.). The book of Genesis was written by Moses for the sons of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob to explain to them the origin of all things and the basis for God's covenant with them at Sinai.

The context of Genesis 1-2 is the history of the creation of the universe and all things therein. The creation account was originally written by Moses to enable the people to understand the foundation of their Faith and the purpose of God's covenant. As is the rest of the book, it is presented as sober, historical narrative.7 Therefore, since Genesis 1-2 is historical narrative, we should interpret the words of the creation account in that light, including the word "day."In historical narrative, we assume the literal, contextual meaning of words unless something in the text makes it clear that a figurative sense is intended. There are no indications in the text of Genesis 1-2 that "day"should be understood in the non-literal sense of "ages." Consequently, the context definitely favors a literal meaning. When Moses wrote "Day"in the creation account there is no reason to believe that either he or the people he was writing to understood the word in any other way than its normal sense of a twenty-four hour day.

The Usage of "Day"in the Hebrew Bible and Genesis 1-2

The Hebrew word that is translated "day" in Genesis 1-2 is YomYom appears about two thousand times in the Hebrew Bible. It is used to denote: day, i.e., the period of light, as opposed to night; a twenty-four-hour day as a standard division of time; or day, in the general sense of time. Sometimes Yom is used with prepositions and qualifying phrases for more specialized expressions of time (e.g., the day of the Lord; "in that day"). In the vast majority of instances when Yom and its plural form yamim are used in the Old Testament, they refer to literal days.8 The contention that the word Yom can refer to a long period of time (such as a geological "age"of a million years or more) is unknown in actual Hebrew usage.

Significantly, the precise meaning of Yom in Genesis 1-2 is established for us by God through the use of the qualifying phrase of "evening and morning."Thus the boundaries of time indicated by Yom in Genesis 1-2 are fixed as the normal course of a twenty-four-hour day marked by the rising and setting of the sun. Furthermore, the use of a numerical adjective ("first,""second,"etc.) with Yom in Genesis 1-2 indicates a specific day. As Whitcomb notes, "In historical narratives the numerical adjective always limits the word to a twenty-four hour period (cf. Num. 7 for a remarkable parallel)."9

Thus, the context, the normal usage of Yom, the qualifying phrase "evening and morning," and the numerical adjectives all
combine to make it certain that Yom refers to a literal day, and not an "age" or eon of time. But that is not all. Custance
states:

      Hebrew has a perfectly good word ('olam), for what we mean by a geological age which would surely have been used if this
      were the intention [in Genesis 1-2]. 'olam would have been the logical choice, since it means a long period of time with
      very ill-defined boundaries. It is virtually impossible to think of any way in which God could have made it more obvious
      that He did not mean ages than by the deliberate avoidance of the word. The text could not have made it clearer than it is
      that ordinary days are intended.10

Custance also indicates that in regard to the meaning of Yom in Genesis 1-2,

      The weight of authority is in favor of literal days. One can scarcely find a single reputable Hebrew scholar who supports the
      view that the word Yom in Genesis can properly be understood to mean anything other than a literal day. Personal
      correspondence with the heads of the Semitic Departments of a number of universities including Columbia, Harvard, McGill,
      Yale, Toronto, and Manitoba and the head of Near and Middle East Department of the University of London (England)
      confirmed in writing that they all believe the word as employed in Genesis 1 can only be taken to mean a period of twenty-
      four hours. These authorities were asked to express an opinion on purely linguistic grounds without regard to problems this
      may create in reconciling Genesis with modern geological views.11

All told, the meaning of Yom in Genesis 1-2 is clear and unambiguous. It refers to a literal day, and on no account can it legitimately be made to mean an "age." If context, syntax, and lexicography mean anything in interpretation, then Yom means "day" in Genesis 1-2.

The Meaning of "Day" in Exodus 20:9-11

The Fourth Commandment provides important confirmation that the days of the creation week were literal days. This commandment reads:

      Six days shalt thou labor, and do all thy work: but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not
      do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger
      that is within thy gates: for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested on
      the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day, and hallowed it. (Ex. 20:9-11)

The Fourth Commandment is based on a literal understanding of the seven "days" of the creation week; otherwise, it makes no sense at all. Would anyone actually advocate that Moses uses "days" in two different senses here, and is saying, "Six days shalt thou labor . . . for in six ages (of varying and undefined length) the Lord made heaven and earth . . . ."? If the command to man to labor six days and rest one day refers to literal days, and no one disputes that it does, then it follows that the days of the creation week, which are set forth as the basis for man's week, are also literal days. The Fourth Commandment establishes the doctrine that creation took place "in the space of six days,"and thus confirms that the days of Genesis 1-2 were normal, twenty-four-hour days.

Conclusion

The teaching of Genesis 1-2 is that creation took place in six literal days. This doctrine was challenged by Augustine and others who held to an instantaneous creation of all things. The Reformers met this aberration by an appeal to the authority of Scripture and a grammatical-historical interpretation of the text of Genesis 1-2. By so doing they restored to the church the true doctrine of six-day creation.

In our day, the doctrine of six-day creation has been denied by Christians who hold to theistic evolution. Their denial is based not on exegetical considerations, but on a desire to reconcile Scripture with the theory of evolution.12 To accomplish their compromise between the Bible and modern science and its reading of the geological record, they claim that the "days" of Genesis 1-2 are not literal days but really "geological ages." Their attempt to reconcile Scripture with the theory of evolution is a dangerous attack on the Faith and the integrity of Scripture.

How should we meet this attack? In the same way that the Reformers met the false teaching of an instantaneous creation: by an assertion of the absolute authority of Scripture in all spheres of life and knowledge, and by an appeal to the grammatical-historical meaning of the text of Genesis 1-2. The context of Genesis 1-2, the meaning of "day"(Yom), and the teaching of Exodus 20:9-11 all point to the fact that the word "day" in Genesis 1-2 refers to a literal, twenty-four-hour day. Hence, the church must confidently assert that God created all things "in the space of six days," just as the words read, and in spite of the claim of modern evolutionary science and of those in the church who have been seduced by it.

Notes

1. Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, 3 vols., trans. George M. Giger, ed. James T. Dennison (Phillipsburg, NJ [1688], 1992), 1:444.

2. Martin Luther, Commentary on Genesis, 2 vols., trans. J. Theodore Muller (Grand Rapids, 1958), 4.

3. Ibid., 5.

4. John Calvin, Commentaries on the First Book of Moses Called Genesis, 2 vols., trans. John King (Grand Rapids [1554], 1989), 1:78.

5. Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, 1:444.

6. The Westminster Confession of Faith, Chap. IV., Art. I. This creedal statement on six-day creation was adopted verbatim by the English and American Calvinistic Baptists in the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith, and the English and American Congregationalists in the Savoy Declaration.

7. Arthur Custance asks: "At what point in the narrative [of Genesis] did geological ages end and normal years replace them in the account of events which happened in the first five chapters of Genesis? By the time we reach the sixth chapter we know that the days are real days and real years. Where is the changeover point? It is impossible to find room for its insertion without making nonsense of a narrative which runs unbrokenly from Adam to Noah in a way that is clearly intended to be plain sober human history"("A translation of Genesis 1:1-2:4 with Notes,"in Hidden Things of God's Revelation, vol. vii., The Doorway Papers).

8. ". . . the normal meanings of Yom and yamim are 'day' and 'days' respectively. If a parabolic or metaphorical meaning is intended, it is made obvious in the context. In approximately 95% of its occurrences, the literal meaning is intended,"Henry M. Morris, ed., Scientific Creationism, General Edition (San Diego, 1974), 223.

9. John C. Whitcomb, Jr., The Early Earth (Winona Lake, IN, 1972), 27.

10. Custance, "A Translation of Genesis 1:1 to 2:4,"294.

11. Ibid., 296.

12. Gary North states that theistic evolution is "a sell-out of Christianity to the humanists who run the academic world. The irony is that the humanists regard the whole charade of theistic evolution as either a crude joke or else a self-serving fraud deserving of contempt"(Political Polytheism [Tyler, TX, 1989], 15).

Now, this is long enough and I am out of time... but there are others to be posted... but not quite as fun as the first part of this.

Happy Memorial Day 

Later

[Wycliffes_Shillelagh]

1 The Reformers' Understanding of "Day" in Genesis 1-2

2 The Modern "Scientific" Understanding of "Day" in Genesis 1-2

3 A Grammatical-Historical Interpretation of "Day" in Genesis 1-2

4 The Context of Genesis 1-2

5 The Usage of "Day"in the Hebrew Bible and Genesis 1-2

6 The Meaning of "Day" in Exodus 20:9-11

7 Conclusion

I have a question for you.

If the creation took a long time - how do you suppose the Biblical authors writing 3,000+ years ago would have expressed it?  Ancient Hebrew doesn't have a word for millions or billions, and in the earliest parts of the Bible they weren't even using years (they were using generations).  So...

[DaveW]

You guys are throwing around a term I am not familiar with:  "deep time."  I would like to understand what that is and why it is part of this discussion. 

Are you perhaps referring to the OTHER time dimension recently discovered?

https://www.sciencealert.com/a-new-quantum-phase-of-matter-behaves-like-it-has-two-time-dimensions

[DaveW]

Hebrew has a perfectly good word ('olam), for what we mean by a geological age which would surely have been used if this were the intention [in Genesis 1-2]. 'olam would have been the logical choice, since it means a long period of time with  very ill-defined boundaries.

Olam is not properly stated in your article Rella.  It is a much more interesting term.

In certain contexts, it refers to the physical world.  Most Jewish blessings start with the words "Baruch atah Adonai Elohenu, Melech haolam ..."   That is translated" Blessed are You O Lord our God, King of the world ..." In this case olam is referring to the physical universe. 

In other cases the phrase "... l'olam va-ed" is used. That is usually translated "forever and ever" or "for all eternity."  Thus olam also has a time meaning.  Many instances in the Hebrew scriptures where it is translated "forever" the word is olam.

The KJV translates Strong's H5769 in the following manner: ever (272x), everlasting (63x), old (22x), perpetual (22x), evermore (15x), never (13x), time (6x), ancient (5x), world (4x), always (3x), alway (2x), long (2x), more (2x), never (with H408) (2x), miscellaneous (6x).

Apparently it means all of what we would call "time-space."

[Alan]

You guys are throwing around a term I am not familiar with:  "deep time."  I would like to understand what that is and why it is part of this discussion. 

It's a made up expression by the opposer(s) of the genuine facts surrounding the creation of our universe.

[Rella]

I have a question for you.

If the creation took a long time - how do you suppose the Biblical authors writing 3,000+ years ago would have expressed it?  Ancient Hebrew doesn't have a word for millions or billions, and in the earliest parts of the Bible they weren't even using years (they were using generations).  So...

This is my 3rd try to reply to you.

If this one vanishes no more

Only one comment. I dont know.

You mention generations.... and Gen 2:4 says These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens,

I have often asked what is meant by generations to the 6 day people. I get no answer.

[Wycliffes_Shillelagh]

Olam is not properly stated in your article Rella.  It is a much more interesting term.

In certain contexts, it refers to the physical world.  Most Jewish blessings start with the words "Baruch atah Adonai Elohenu, Melech haolam ..."   That is translated" Blessed are You O Lord our God, King of the world ..." In this case olam is referring to the physical universe. 

In other cases the phrase "... l'olam va-ed" is used. That is usually translated "forever and ever" or "for all eternity."  Thus olam also has a time meaning.  Many instances in the Hebrew scriptures where it is translated "forever" the word is olam.

Apparently it means all of what we would call "time-space."

Olam properly refers to a thing (or things) that is hidden, or is beyond seeing.

Melech haolam is King of Everything, with the idea being that God rules over the province of that which mankind cannot see or understand.  It's a far bigger idea than "the world."

When used with regards to time, it precisely means that something continues past the ability of the speaker to see or even imagine in the future.  In practical use, that's just forever, and the word is used that way.

A special case that only applies in the Bible - If a prophet has had a vision, olam may only mean that something is beyond his sight - whatever it was has not been shown to him in the vision.  Its up to the reader to figure out whether it means "forever" or just "God didn't show me that!"

Jarrod

[Rella]

This is for all of you 144 hour people.

I offer no opinions... just asking a question.

Why do you suppose in Genesis 1:

3 Then God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light.

4 God saw that the light was good; and God 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, one day.

Then

14 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;

15 and let them be for lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth"; and it was so.

16 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.

17 God placed them in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth,

18 and to govern the day and the night, and to separate the light from the darkness; and God saw that it was good.

19 There was evening and there was morning, a fourth day.

If in Verse 3 God made light that is said to

4 God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness.

5 God called the light day, and the darkness He called night.

Then 3 days later

14 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;


15 and let them be for lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth"; and it was so.

16 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.

17 God placed them in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth,

18 and to govern the day and the night, and to separate the light from the darkness; and God saw that it was good.

19 There was evening and there was morning, a fourth day.

WHY DID GOD NEED 2 DAYS TO MAKE LIGHT?          Verse 3 ONE DAY......Verse 19 A FOURTH DAY

[Wycliffes_Shillelagh]

This is my 3rd try to reply to you.

If this one vanishes no more

Only one comment. I dont know.

You mention generations.... and Gen 2:4 says These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens,

I have often asked what is meant by generations to the 6 day people. I get no answer.

The forum is cranky this morning.

In other writings from the ancient Near East, when the author wanted to express the passage of time, they added repetitive phrases.  Rather than telling the audience how much time went past, the hearers experienced the passage of time as the story-teller caused them a little boredom by repeating the same thing over and over and over.

I think Genesis 1 does the same thing, and those repeated phrases (there was evening and there was morning, and it was good, etc) are meant to cause the audience to experience a delay and thus understand that the creation took a long time.

Jarrod

[Amo]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NFNDdKn8_-M

Good video about science and faith.

[Alan]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NFNDdKn8_-M

Good video about science and faith.

Why would you quote a guy that believes as I do, and in your opinion is a part of "fallen humanity"?

[Amo]

Why would you quote a guy that believes as I do, and in your opinion is a part of "fallen humanity"?

First, I have no choice but to quote people who are part of fallen humanity, since we have no written words or testimony from Adam or Eve before the fall. We only have observations and testimony from those after the fall, which are in agreement or not, with God's divinely inspired word. Nor do we obviously disagree about everything. We both believe in creation, we just do not agree upon the actual mechanisms of the same. As in evolution, or unsearchable mechanisms of special creation by God in six literal days. We may also disagree upon whether "science" is to remain completely separated from faith in God's word as well, or is and can be a crucial part of the same. Though I do not know exactly where you stand upon that issue.

[4WD]

We may also disagree upon whether "science" is to remain completely separated from faith in God's word as well, or is and can be a crucial part of the same. Though I do not know exactly where you stand upon that issue.

It is only people like you and atheists that think that science is completed separated from faith in God's word.  Perhaps you should view to more of John Lennox's Videos.

[Amo]

This is for all of you 144 hour people.

I offer no opinions... just asking a question.

Why do you suppose in Genesis 1:

3 Then God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light.

4 God saw that the light was good; and God 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, one day.

Then

14 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;

15 and let them be for lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth"; and it was so.

16 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.

17 God placed them in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth,

18 and to govern the day and the night, and to separate the light from the darkness; and God saw that it was good.

19 There was evening and there was morning, a fourth day.

If in Verse 3 God made light that is said to

4 God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness.

5 God called the light day, and the darkness He called night.

Then 3 days later

14 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;


15 and let them be for lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth"; and it was so.

16 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.

17 God placed them in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth,

18 and to govern the day and the night, and to separate the light from the darkness; and God saw that it was good.

19 There was evening and there was morning, a fourth day.

WHY DID GOD NEED 2 DAYS TO MAKE LIGHT?          Verse 3 ONE DAY......Verse 19 A FOURTH DAY

I'm not sure why this question should be posed to six day creationists in particular. What do these specifics have to do with literal days or not? The short answer to your question though, is I don't know. Again, creationists are not the ones who claim to know the how of creation, it is the evolutionists that give greater attempt at explaining the actual how's of creation.

My best guess though, would be that the subject of light, is much deeper and broader than we can now understand or even comprehend. Scripture testifies that God is light, light therefore is an infinitely deep subject. We know that light effects how we see, and therefore comprehend, and therefore relate to a certain degree also, to everything around us. Light also of course has both physical effect and implications upon our reality, and deep spiritual meaning and implications upon the same.

God is light, and the self existing one, apart from whom there is nothing. So along with the physical aspect of light giving sight, it also gives self awareness, consciencesness, and therefore actual existence. Which alone comes from God who created all that there is, and is Himself light. So that the giving of light, encompasses far more than simple physical being, but also self awareness and therefore actual existence. True darkness therefore, is also not just a lack of light, but the dregs and depths of the darkness of non existence. Presently, we do not begin to fully comprehend the major significances of either or. As we do not begin at all to fully comprehend God either, who is verily light. As the self existing one from eternity, He is also the self aware one from eternity, from whom all else is. Encompassing within Himself all the physical and spiritual manifestations of light, which the saved shall no doubt study throughout the endless ages.

https://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/refrn/Lesson-1/Refraction-and-Sight

Quote below from article at above link.

Refraction and Sight

In Unit 13 of The Physics Classroom Tutorial, it was emphasized that we are able to see because light from an object can travel to our eyes. Every object that can be seen is seen only because light from that object travels to our eyes. As you look at Mary in class, you are able to see Mary because she is illuminated with light and that light reflects off of her and travels to your eye. In the process of viewing Mary, you are directing your sight along a line in the direction of Mary. If you wish to view the top of Mary's head, then you direct your sight along a line towards the top of her head. If you wish to view Mary's feet, then you direct your sight along a line towards Mary's feet. And if you wish to view the image of Mary in a mirror, then you must direct your sight along a line towards the location of Mary's image. This directing of our sight in a specific direction is sometimes referred to as the line of sight.

God created us, our physical being and therefore mechanisms of sight, which includes how we perceive light, and the environment we exist within. All of which are also subject to change by God. Scripture indicates that our environment was changed after the fall, in that we cannot any longer see and or converse directly with God as Adam and Eve apparently did in the garden before the fall. We are restricted from seeing God and apparently the heavenly beings called angels, and fallen angels, who scripture testifies are all around us in different dimensions as it were. Perhaps different dimensions as we comprehend, are simply environments which have more light than we can presently perceive according as God desires, or require mechanisms of sight we no longer have, which allow us to perceive the greater light and or dimensions within which they exist.

In any case, the scriptures testify that when Christ returns this present world will be destroyed by the brightness of His coming. The saved however, who at the time will be changed from mortal to immortal, will also be able to look upon and exist apart from the destruction going on around them, in that brightness. At which time scripture also testifies that we see as we have been seen, by those of greater light no doubt. The wicked will perish in part, because they will not be changed into those who can bear the pure, holy, undefiled, shining and infinitely bright and illuminating presence of God. In both the physical and spiritual realms. Having rejected His plan for their salvation, they will remain in a condition which naturally causes destruction in His presence. There is so very much more to light than we now comprehend.

Heb 12:18 For ye are not come unto the mount that might be touched, and that burned with fire, nor unto blackness, and darkness, and tempest, 19 And the sound of a trumpet, and the voice of words; which voice they that heard intreated that the word should not be spoken to them any more: 20 (For they could not endure that which was commanded, And if so much as a beast touch the mountain, it shall be stoned, or thrust through with a dart: 21 And so terrible was the sight, that Moses said, I exceedingly fear and quake:) 22 But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels, 23 To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect, 24 And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel. 25 See that ye refuse not him that speaketh. For if they escaped not who refused him that spake on earth, much more shall not we escape, if we turn away from him that speaketh from heaven: 26 Whose voice then shook the earth: but now he hath promised, saying, Yet once more I shake not the earth only, but also heaven. 27 And this word, Yet once more, signifieth the removing of those things that are shaken, as of things that are made, that those things which cannot be shaken may remain. 28 Wherefore we receiving a kingdom which cannot be moved, let us have grace, whereby we may serve God acceptably with reverence and godly fear: 29 For our God is a consuming fire.

[Amo]

An afterthought concerning my previous post. As I posed questioned in another previous post as well. Is not dark matter which scientists profess to be the far greater potion of what exists than we can presently observe and or comprehend, exactly that which we do not have light regarding? That which God has removed from our sight presently, much of which we might have been able to see, prior to the fall? Which will be revealed and or come to light as it were, when Christ returns. Which will overwhelm and destroy the wicked, because they will not be changed from mortal to immortal at that time? No doubt, only time will tell.

[Amo]

Hi Amo....

Look, if you are happy to call creation done in 144 hours of everything happening, I am happy for you but will never agree.

The following has a sense of agreeing with you... yet with no proof either but by general consensus.

NO ONE KNOWS FOR SURE. 

Correct. Which is pretty much what I argue all along. It is one's faith which determines what one's world view will be. YEC's by faith. OE's by faith. DTE's by faith. Each examining and or viewing the evidence according to their faith. Some just will not admit of their faith, but insist their faith is fact, rather than submitting the facts as evidence of their faith. By faith, I consider YEC to be fact. I therefore present and view the evidence in support of that faith. As all others do, concerning that which is beyond present observable and or testable evidence.

Rom 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. 17 For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith. 18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; 19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. 20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:[/b] 21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, 23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. 24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: 25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

Heb 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. 2 For by it the elders obtained a good report. 3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

[Amo]

You mention generations.... and Gen 2:4 says These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens,

I have often asked what is meant by generations to the 6 day people. I get no answer.

http://www.gracecentered.com/christian_forums/general-discussion-forum/yec-believers-a-question-or-two-please/

Observe post reply number 33 from the linked thread above.

http://www.gracecentered.com/christian_forums/general-discussion-forum/giants-103956/175/

It seems this question was addressed at the above link as well. Post replies 197&198.

I'm pretty sure I have addressed this same topic several times over the years on these boards. The above are two examples though, answering the question for you. When I read your quoted statement above, I remembered that I had addressed it before. Though I did not remember exactly who I was addressing. Turns out in my search, it was you. Not to worry, memories fade, especially with age. As I well know and understand concerning myself. A problem our God will remedy along with all others, in the near future. Amen.

[Rella]

Though I did not remember exactly who I was addressing. Turns out in my search, it was you. Not to worry, memories fade, especially with age. As I well know and understand concerning myself. A problem our God will remedy along with all others, in the near future. Amen.

Yep... the old memory just is not what it used to be.....   Thanks for the refresher.

Actually.... from reply 33 in http://www.gracecentered.com/christian_forums/general-discussion-forum/yec-believers-a-question-or-two-please/

You said.

Pretty simple actually. The word generations does not always refer to generations of human beings. Rather simply denoting from one cycle, phase, or event to the next, of any particular time, subject, and or time and subject. For example, genealogies are concerning the passing of one generation to the next within a determined time frame. In the case of creation, it would be concerning the separate phases or days of creation and what was created on those phases or days. As a look at the Strong's Hebrew Lexicon points out concerning the word.

THIS is what I see that we disagree on.

You say that 6- 24 hour periods are  "Rather simply denoting from one cycle, phase, or event to the next, of any particular time, subject, and or time and subject." Correct?

I say that one cycle, phase, or event to the next, of any particular time, subject, and or time and subject
cannot be confined to a 24 hour day nor 6 of them of 144 hours in length total.

Webster defines Cycle as

noun: Note especially #4

1: an interval of time during which a sequence of a recurring succession of events or phenomena is completed a 4-year cycle of growth and development

2
     a: a course or series of events or operations that recur regularly and usually lead back to the starting
         point
        ... the common cycle of birth, growth, senescence, and death.
         —T. C. Schneirla and Gerard Piel
     b: one complete performance of a vibration, electric oscillation, current alternation, or other periodic
        process

     c: a permutation of a set of ordered elements in which each element takes the place of the next and
         the last becomes first
     
     d: a takeoff and landing of an airplane

3: a circular or spiral arrangement: such as

    a: an imaginary circle or orbit in the heavens

    b: RING sense 10

4: a long period of time : AGE

verb:

1
     a: to pass through a cycle

     b: to recur in cycles

Webster defines Phase as

Although phase can function as a verb – it is found especially in combinations such as phase out, phase in, and phase into, meaning "to end, begin, etc. in phases" – the word is most commonly encountered as a noun, in which it typically carries a meaning related to steps in a process, cycles, or stages of development (as in "phases of the moon").

phase
noun

1 : a particular appearance or state in a regularly recurring cycle of changes
     phases of the moon
2
     a: a distinguishable part in a course, development, or cycle
        the early phases of her career

     b: an aspect or part (as of a problem) under consideration

3: the point or stage in a period of uniform circular motion, harmonic motion, or the periodic changes of any magnitude varying according to a simple harmonic law to which the rotation, oscillation, or variation has advanced from its standard position or assumed instant of starting

4: a homogeneous, physically distinct, and mechanically separable portion of matter present in a nonhomogeneous physicochemical system

5: an individual or subgroup distinguishably different in appearance or behavior from the norm of the group to which it belongs

verb
phased; phasing

1: to adjust so as to be in a synchronized condition

2: to conduct or carry out by planned phases

3: to introduce in stages —usually used with in

Transitive verb:

: to cause to go through a cycle


NOW I shall stop with the  Webster dictionary definitions and just say that adding

"or event to the next, of any particular time, subject, and or time and subject." to Phase and Cycle
in NO way gives a specific time limit such as say 6 cycles would arrive at 144 hours.

But you mentioned Strong's and I further looked into King James dictionary

Jimmy says this:  "Gen. 2:4, "These are the generations," means the "history." Nothing about a day, cycle, phase, or event to the next, of any particular time, subject, and or time and subject.

BUT WAIT A MINUTE  You all know I don't follow Jimmy much so I looked elsewhere

Easton's Bible Dictionary - Generation
Genesis 2:4 , "These are the generations," means the "history." WOW, again Nothing about a day, cycle, phase, or event to the next, of any particular time, subject, and or time and subject.

The generations of the heavens ( from Bible Hub)
Genesis 2:4. The generations of the heavens — That is, a true and full account of their origin or beginning, and of the order in which the sundry parts and creatures therein were formed.

So we can see from all that is described about generations... there is no specific suggestion that each cycle, or whatever term you wish to use for generation(s) in Gen 2:4  that would mean a 24 hour period

So it is still up in the air IMO

And one last comment from reply #197

You said "The generation was the time which transpired between when it was not, and when it was."

You cannot make your point with this statement.... for everything did not come about at the same instant.  Everything had a start and followed from there. I agree. But disagree that everything had a start in 144 hours.

I am still working on why light to separate the darkness took 2 days. Why not just do it on the first day?

What could have transpired that would make the sun and the moon happen on the fourth day?

Day one says 3 Then God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good; and God 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, one day.

Day four says 14 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; 15 and let them be for lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth"; and it was so....18 and to govern the day and the night, and to separate the light from the darkness; and God saw that it was good. 19 There was evening and there was morning, a fourth day.

Both creations were to separate the light from the darkness.

Why?

I assume that God, in his wisdom.... (hmmmm)... change that to brilliance knew when the Spirit was hovering over the waters in the beginning that He was going to make something far greater than an overly large koi pond?

But on day one, He wanted light. Then 72 hours later ( actually less, because Gen 1:3 says God said let there be light and then it is declared day 1 at the end of things.... Then He wanted a different light. One that would be needed to grow the vegetation from the third day.

This makes sense if the creation periods were longer then just 24 hours each. First light so it could easily be seen what was happening.. then the sun for the planted and growing vegetation... that would not be needed at first. Nor would the stars be needed yet.

Just sayin....

[Amo]

Yep... the old memory just is not what it used to be.....   Thanks for the refresher.

Actually.... from reply 33 in http://www.gracecentered.com/christian_forums/general-discussion-forum/yec-believers-a-question-or-two-please/

You said.

THIS is what I see that we disagree on.

You say that 6- 24 hour periods are  "Rather simply denoting from one cycle, phase, or event to the next, of any particular time, subject, and or time and subject." Correct?

I say that one cycle, phase, or event to the next, of any particular time, subject, and or time and subject
cannot be confined to a 24 hour day nor 6 of them of 144 hours in length total.

Webster defines Cycle as

noun: Note especially #4

1: an interval of time during which a sequence of a recurring succession of events or phenomena is completed a 4-year cycle of growth and development

2
     a: a course or series of events or operations that recur regularly and usually lead back to the starting
         point
        ... the common cycle of birth, growth, senescence, and death.
         —T. C. Schneirla and Gerard Piel
     b: one complete performance of a vibration, electric oscillation, current alternation, or other periodic
        process

     c: a permutation of a set of ordered elements in which each element takes the place of the next and
         the last becomes first
     
     d: a takeoff and landing of an airplane

3: a circular or spiral arrangement: such as

    a: an imaginary circle or orbit in the heavens

    b: RING sense 10

4: a long period of time : AGE

verb:

1
     a: to pass through a cycle

     b: to recur in cycles

Webster defines Phase as

Although phase can function as a verb – it is found especially in combinations such as phase out, phase in, and phase into, meaning "to end, begin, etc. in phases" – the word is most commonly encountered as a noun, in which it typically carries a meaning related to steps in a process, cycles, or stages of development (as in "phases of the moon").

phase
noun

1 : a particular appearance or state in a regularly recurring cycle of changes
     phases of the moon
2
     a: a distinguishable part in a course, development, or cycle
        the early phases of her career

     b: an aspect or part (as of a problem) under consideration

3: the point or stage in a period of uniform circular motion, harmonic motion, or the periodic changes of any magnitude varying according to a simple harmonic law to which the rotation, oscillation, or variation has advanced from its standard position or assumed instant of starting

4: a homogeneous, physically distinct, and mechanically separable portion of matter present in a nonhomogeneous physicochemical system

5: an individual or subgroup distinguishably different in appearance or behavior from the norm of the group to which it belongs

verb
phased; phasing

1: to adjust so as to be in a synchronized condition

2: to conduct or carry out by planned phases

3: to introduce in stages —usually used with in

Transitive verb:

: to cause to go through a cycle


NOW I shall stop with the  Webster dictionary definitions and just say that adding

"or event to the next, of any particular time, subject, and or time and subject." to Phase and Cycle
in NO way gives a specific time limit such as say 6 cycles would arrive at 144 hours.

But you mentioned Strong's and I further looked into King James dictionary

Jimmy says this:  "Gen. 2:4, "These are the generations," means the "history." Nothing about a day, cycle, phase, or event to the next, of any particular time, subject, and or time and subject.

BUT WAIT A MINUTE  You all know I don't follow Jimmy much so I looked elsewhere

Easton's Bible Dictionary - Generation
Genesis 2:4 , "These are the generations," means the "history." WOW, again Nothing about a day, cycle, phase, or event to the next, of any particular time, subject, and or time and subject.

The generations of the heavens ( from Bible Hub)
Genesis 2:4. The generations of the heavens — That is, a true and full account of their origin or beginning, and of the order in which the sundry parts and creatures therein were formed.

So we can see from all that is described about generations... there is no specific suggestion that each cycle, or whatever term you wish to use for generation(s) in Gen 2:4  that would mean a 24 hour period

So it is still up in the air IMO

And one last comment from reply #197

You said "The generation was the time which transpired between when it was not, and when it was."

You cannot make your point with this statement.... for everything did not come about at the same instant.  Everything had a start and followed from there. I agree. But disagree that everything had a start in 144 hours.

I am still working on why light to separate the darkness took 2 days. Why not just do it on the first day?

What could have transpired that would make the sun and the moon happen on the fourth day?

Day one says 3 Then God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good; and God 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, one day.

Day four says 14 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; 15 and let them be for lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth"; and it was so....18 and to govern the day and the night, and to separate the light from the darkness; and God saw that it was good. 19 There was evening and there was morning, a fourth day.

Both creations were to separate the light from the darkness.

Why?

I assume that God, in his wisdom.... (hmmmm)... change that to brilliance knew when the Spirit was hovering over the waters in the beginning that He was going to make something far greater than an overly large koi pond?

But on day one, He wanted light. Then 72 hours later ( actually less, because Gen 1:3 says God said let there be light and then it is declared day 1 at the end of things.... Then He wanted a different light. One that would be needed to grow the vegetation from the third day.

This makes sense if the creation periods were longer then just 24 hours each. First light so it could easily be seen what was happening.. then the sun for the planted and growing vegetation... that would not be needed at first. Nor would the stars be needed yet.

Just sayin....

Of course, God is not limited by our perceptions or conceptions of time, or time restraints as it were. What is time to the eternal self existing one, who always has been, and always will be? Is there as limit upon His creative power, constrained by time? What need does God have, to take longer than a day to make anything happen? Or to express what he has done in a metaphorical or symbolic way, which none can ever know or understand, without suggesting He has done so anywhere in His word? While to the contrary, backing up the testimony of six literal days several times over? God has no comprehension, expression, or communication problems. We do.

The Sabbath was made for man, on the seventh day of creation. How long do you think that took? How long did it take God to pronounce a blessing upon that day, and sanctify it? Was God's power of creation constrained the other six days of creation, that is, limited by time constraints? Is or can God be constrained or limited by such? What significance would the seventh day have, if the sixth day in which man was created, lasted a very long time which in fact included countless evenings and mornings? What makes anyone consider the days specified in Genesis and or the fourth commandment, to mean or be much longer than an evening or morning, or one day as they are numbered in both accounts? If it is not scripture then what? If it is not scripture, then what is such faith in, since it is obviously not in scripture? If it is in scripture, then please do share such scriptures, and how they support the view of long ages rather than single days of creation. I don't mean simply stating that the word used for day can be  used in different ways, I mean scripture that actually and contextually suggest any such thing.

If in fact there is no such thing in scripture, then it should be understood, that such belief is not based upon faith in God's word. It is extra biblical. Which is and has been my point. We can of course all believe whatever we wish. Such does not necessarily have anything to do with biblical faith though, and often does not. Context is of course paramount to proper interpretation.

[Rella]

Of course, God is not limited by our perceptions or conceptions of time, or time restraints as it were. What is time to the eternal self existing one, who always has been, and always will be? Is there as limit upon His creative power, constrained by time? What need does God have, to take longer than a day to make anything happen? Or to express what he has done in a metaphorical or symbolic way, which none can ever know or understand, without suggesting He has done so anywhere in His word? While to the contrary, backing up the testimony of six literal days several times over? God has no comprehension, expression, or communication problems. We do.

The Sabbath was made for man, on the seventh day of creation. How long do you think that took? How long did it take God to pronounce a blessing upon that day, and sanctify it? Was God's power of creation constrained the pother six days of creation, that is, limited by time constraints? Is or can God be constrained or limited by such? What significance would the seventh day have, if the sixth day in which man was created, lasted a very long time which in fact included countless evenings and mornings? What makes anyone consider the days specified in Genesis and or the fourth commandment, to mean or be much longer than an evening or morning, or one day as they are numbered in both accounts? If it is not scripture then what? If it is not scripture, then what is such faith in, since it is obviously not in scripture? If it is in scripture, then please do share such scriptures, and how they support the view of long ages rather than single days of creation. I don't mean simply stating that the word used for day can be  used in different ways, I mean scripture that actually and contextually suggest any such thing.

If in fact there is no such thing in scripture, then it should be understood, that such belief is not based upon faith in God's word. It is extra biblical. Which is and has been my point. We can of course all believe whatever we wish. Such does not necessarily have anything to do with biblical faith though, and often does not. Context is of course paramount to proper interpretation.

"The Sabbath was made for man, on the seventh day of creation. How long do you think that took?"

It could well have been 24 hours from Mose's perspective ( see below)  or whoever the author was based of the suggested time frame of Genesis (also see below)....Fact is... that was not written into the creation
6 days ( periods ) And likely not written by the same Gen 1 author.

I read the first and second chapters of Genesis and I see a difference in the way they are written.
As if they are from 2 different people.

Many will argue that Moses wrote neither.... I DO NOT CARE WHO DID... only the general context.

Context defined as (Webster)
1
: the parts of a discourse that surround a word or passage and can throw light on its meaning
2
: the interrelated conditions in which something exists or occurs : ENVIRONMENT, SETTING

I personally do believe Moses wrote Genesis 2.  Likely AFTER reading Genesis 1 from whomever initially wrote it... and this is why.

Genesis 1 gives a list of individual creations for 6 creation periods....Or... as your choice would be... 6 creation days.AND it ends there.

Someone recorded the creation either as they were inspired to do so... but not specifically complete... OR
they recorded, at last, what had been handed down through the generations of how things came to be
and wanted something solid to be passed on to the future generations.

We can not know which.

Now enters Genesis 2.


If, as suggested the 10 commandments were given to Moses in 1446BC, which certainly ties in with

https://www.gotquestions.org/Book-of-Genesis.html

Date of Writing: The Book of Genesis does not state when it was written. The date of authorship is likely between 1440 and 1400 B.C., between the time Moses led the Israelites out of Egypt and his death.

https://www.allaboutcreation.org/when-was-genesis-written-faq.htm

Bible scholars believe that Genesis was written by Moses, under inspiration of the Holy Spirit, during the forty years that the children of Israel wandered in the wilderness (1450 - 1410 B.C.). Moses was chosen by God to deliver the children of Israel from Egyptian bondage.

And we know the books of The Bible did not have chapters and verses until many centuries after it was written, so the change of chapters and even verses do not necessarily coincide with a change of passages or a change of authorship.

So If Moses had a copy of what is titled Genesis 1 and was inspired to write the rest of Genesis....
In starting Genesis two (different style from Gen 1) .... AFTER receiving the 10 commandments... it could well be why

In Gen 2 verse 2 to 4 were written the way they were ...

2 By the seventh day God completed His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done. 3 Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested from all His work which God had created and made.

Where do you read in Gen 1 that God gave instructions to man and woman to "remember the Sabbath" the 7thd day... to keep it holy?

The only things these people were told to do was to

26 .... 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."
28 ...."Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth."
29 ....every plant yielding seed that is on the surface of all the earth, and every tree which has fruit yielding seed; it shall be food for you; (AS VEGITARIANS)
31 .... the sixth day.

The end of Chapter 1.

So enter Chapter 2.... and the ie 7th day instruction.

I ask if it is possible that vs 2 & 3 ... If Moses was the author... put that in there because of having received the 4th commandment and felt it necessary.... because the rest of chapter two only seems like a sketch of Chapter 1 and gets more into Adam and such.

An the fact that vs 2-3 here indicate a 7th day.... Could that possibly be because the 4th commandment
specifically was God telling Moses that the Sabbath must be for His people?

We have absolutely no proof from anywhere that in Genesis 1 that when they talk of days, that that was even the authors wording. We simply do not know.

I still question why there needed to be 2 creation days of light ... if God know that he would plant
things needing sun to grow~  Day 1... light ~ Day 3 ... Vegetation ~ Day 4... Sun. (Barely 48 hours of separation.. if one considers that the sun was called forth at the beginning of day 4, and God knew
the plan for creation.... why not make the sun (at least) on day 1 (the moon and the rest could wait until day 4?) 

Unless    there was a longer time... even by a few months... or a few years... between the creation days. 


[/size]

[Amo]

"The Sabbath was made for man, on the seventh day of creation. How long do you think that took?"

It could well have been 24 hours from Mose's perspective ( see below)  or whoever the author was based of the suggested time frame of Genesis (also see below)....Fact is... that was not written into the creation
6 days ( periods ) And likely not written by the same Gen 1 author.

I read the first and second chapters of Genesis and I see a difference in the way they are written.
As if they are from 2 different people.

Many will argue that Moses wrote neither.... I DO NOT CARE WHO DID... only the general context.

Context defined as (Webster)
1
: the parts of a discourse that surround a word or passage and can throw light on its meaning
2
: the interrelated conditions in which something exists or occurs : ENVIRONMENT, SETTING

I personally do believe Moses wrote Genesis 2.  Likely AFTER reading Genesis 1 from whomever initially wrote it... and this is why.

Genesis 1 gives a list of individual creations for 6 creation periods....Or... as your choice would be... 6 creation days.AND it ends there.

Someone recorded the creation either as they were inspired to do so... but not specifically complete... OR
they recorded, at last, what had been handed down through the generations of how things came to be
and wanted something solid to be passed on to the future generations.

We can not know which.

Now enters Genesis 2.


If, as suggested the 10 commandments were given to Moses in 1446BC, which certainly ties in with

https://www.gotquestions.org/Book-of-Genesis.html
https://www.allaboutcreation.org/when-was-genesis-written-faq.htm
And we know the books of The Bible did not have chapters and verses until many centuries after it was written, so the change of chapters and even verses do not necessarily coincide with a change of passages or a change of authorship.

So If Moses had a copy of what is titled Genesis 1 and was inspired to write the rest of Genesis....
In starting Genesis two (different style from Gen 1) .... AFTER receiving the 10 commandments... it could well be why

In Gen 2 verse 2 to 4 were written the way they were ...
Where do you read in Gen 1 that God gave instructions to man and woman to "remember the Sabbath" the 7thd day... to keep it holy?

The only things these people were told to do was to

The end of Chapter 1.

So enter Chapter 2.... and the ie 7th day instruction.

I ask if it is possible that vs 2 & 3 ... If Moses was the author... put that in there because of having received the 4th commandment and felt it necessary.... because the rest of chapter two only seems like a sketch of Chapter 1 and gets more into Adam and such.

An the fact that vs 2-3 here indicate a 7th day.... Could that possibly be because the 4th commandment
specifically was God telling Moses that the Sabbath must be for His people?

We have absolutely no proof from anywhere that in Genesis 1 that when they talk of days, that that was even the authors wording. We simply do not know.

I still question why there needed to be 2 creation days of light ... if God know that he would plant
things needing sun to grow~  Day 1... light ~ Day 3 ... Vegetation ~ Day 4... Sun. (Barely 48 hours of separation.. if one considers that the sun was called forth at the beginning of day 4, and God knew
the plan for creation.... why not make the sun (at least) on day 1 (the moon and the rest could wait until day 4?) 

Unless    there was a longer time... even by a few months... or a few years... between the creation days. 

A lot of ifs in the above. You may of course speculate and or believe whatever extra biblical ideas you wish. Every single translator that I know of, remained faithful to the numbering of first to seventh day cycles of the creation account, and the evening and morning boundaries concerning them. Save the seventh, which many suggest has great implications, which perhaps it does. Then again, it might simply be because there was no day after it, in the creation account or cycle as it were. As well was being the standard for the seven day week we still observe today.

Two questions for you regarding the following scriptures -

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

Does the above testimony truly seem to you, to suggest long drawn out processes of slowly developing creation?

Exo 20:8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. 9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: 10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: 11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

Who do you think or believe wrote the above commandment? Who is the author of it? Leaving Genesis aside, do you see good reason to question whether or not the above days are literal ones?

Of course we may all question whatever we wish, as you do this particular subject. Still, our questions and or speculations are just that. The real question is what motivates our questions. You have again presented several questions, but quoted no scripture suggesting a reason for the question. Presenting questions about who may or may not have written Genesis and or different chapters of it. Do you think holy scripture is the divinely inspired word of God or not? If so, what difference does it make exactly who wrote which chapters? Since the bible does definitely employ repetition and enlargement in many cases, which is not meant to change the meaning of that being expounded upon by the repetition, why choose to believe it is intended to do the same in this instance? If Moses wanted to change the creation account, then why not start over, rather than write a contradictory account right after the first one? Such would obviously create confusion regarding the matter. Is our God a God of confusion, or clarity?

1Co 14:32 And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets. 33 For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.

It seems to me, that God speaking the fourth commandment audibly to an entire nation, and then writing it tables of stone with His own finger twice, would be a declaration of finality and clarity on the subject.

Psa 119:142  Thy righteousness is an everlasting righteousness, and thy law is the truth.

[4WD]

size=10pt]Does the above testimony truly seem to you, to suggest long drawn out processes of slowly developing creation? [/size]

First, to God who exists quite outside of time, 13+ billion years is not a long drawn out process.  Second, it didn't take God even the six days that you are so hung up about.  I have noted before that in the creation account, there are only three specific cases in which it is declared that God created. The first one is Genesis 1:1.  There God created the heavens and the earth. That is the entirety of the inanimate universe.  That didn't take even a day.   I maintain that occurred with what is referred to as the big bang which even science says that was an instantaneous event.  The second one is Genesis 1:21. There God created sea creatures and every living creature that moves.  I maintain that was the creation of biological life.  There is no reason to think that took God anymore than an instant. The third and last one is Genesis 1:27. That was the creation of man, specifically the spirit of man which was in the image of God. That one also is not describe as requiring any real passage of time.  So in each case where it says in Genesis that God created, that creation occurred in an instant.  Thus we have three instances of creation, the entire inanimate universe, biological life, the spirit of man. That is the case whether you wish to believe that completed scenario happened over a period of six 24-days or 13+billion years.  Nothing about creation required any passage of time whatsoever.  There were no "drawn out processes of slowly developing creation".  All creation is and was instantaneous.

The problem here is that you insist on interpreting such statements as "let there be lights" as creation.  That is simply wrong.  There is nothing in such statements to suggest creation.  It is simply a natural result of the creation described in Genesis 1:1, the entire inanimate universe including God's natural law controlling it.  In the case of light, we know the physics of what occurred then.

[Rella]

Amo said:

A lot of ifs in the above. You may of course speculate and or believe whatever extra biblical ideas you wish.

I WANT to know why there were 2 days of daylight creation?

FROM NASB95 Bible:

5 God called the light day, and the darkness He called night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day.

16 God made the two great lights, the greater light to govern the day  19 There was evening and there was morning, a fourth day.

On day one light came into play for the daytime hours. On day four another light came into play for daylight hours.  At the very longest that is 48 hours apart using a 24 hour day.

WHY. You are all about the bible only self explanations.... WHY?

Would it be reasonable to suppose the when God had his plan formulated in His mind and sent the Spirit out to scout about that He was going to do it "off the cuff" ?  So that when he got to day 3 and made vegetation He then had to come up with the Sun?  OR is it possible that

Gen 1: 14 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; 15 and let them be for lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth"; and it was so. 16 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. 17 God placed them in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth, 18 and to govern the day and the night, and to separate the light from the darkness; and God saw that it was good.

knowing that man was going to come into being he created more splendor in the skies for him?

We do not know cause nothing has ever been mentioned about this as to why.... But I want to know therefore my only option is outside sources.... Which BTW you use, as needed yourself but wont get into that.....[/size][/color]

Every single translator that I know of, remained faithful to the numbering of first to seventh day cycles of the creation account, and the evening and morning boundaries concerning them.

Nope....do not use the word cycle here when you mean 7- 24 hour periods.... This is my terminology in part.

Cycle
noun
An interval of time during which a characteristic, often regularly repeated event or sequence of events occurs.

A single complete execution of a periodically repeated phenomenon.

A periodically repeated sequence of events.

Nothing in cycle says a limited number of hours... or days for that matter.

Save the seventh, which many suggest has great implications, which perhaps it does. Then again, it might simply be because there was no day after it, in the creation account or cycle as it were. As well was being the standard for the seven day week we still observe today.

You said above " Every single translator that I know of, remained faithful to the numbering of first to seventh day cycles"

I have no idea what your preferred biblical translation is but I prefer the ,[/size]

NASB 95 ~ and there was morning, one day.

Legacy Standard ~and there was morning, one day.

Amplified ~and there was morning, one day.

Christian Standard~  there was a morning: one day. (note they added a)

American Standard ~ and there was morning, one day.

Aramaic in plain English ~ and it was dawn, day one.

Douay-Rheims Bible ~ and morning one day.

English Revised ~and there was morning, one day.

JPS Tanakh 1917~ and there was morning, one day.

New Heart English~ and there was morning, one day.

Now... these are the ones I found under Bible Hub.... My personal bible links are on the PC that just died and I need a new one wot transfer them over.

There saying one day does not even mean it was the first... but we can assume by reading it is .

Even those translations that say the first day such as KJV and the morning were the first day. Followed by
And the evening and the morning were the second day. DOES NOT say only 24 hours had passed.

Especially if you consider the cycles you mentioned and the meaning of cycle.

NASB95 says about the second period this way.

And there was evening and there was morning, a second day.

Saying it like this.... "A" second day while it might indicate a 24 hour period we do not know when that second day happened.[/color]

Two questions for you regarding the following scriptures -

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

[/size]

Does the above testimony truly seem to you, to suggest long drawn out processes of slowly developing creation?

Long drawn out? Maybe. Not the actual speaking part but yes... in developing the entirety of creation I dont think God , through the word rattled it off  at random.

Have you ever wondered why it took 6 days and not just a single creation period so that it was all accomplished with the words let it be?

Why 6 and not 10 or 12?

What if there was a planning phase to get thing all lined up and then the Word came and spoke them into existence?

There could have been one day where light was spoken into existence... then more planning for what ever length of time... then day 2... then more planning etc.

We do not know, but I don't believe it is  wrong to wonder about such things.[/color]

Exo 20:8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. 9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: 10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: 11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.[/size]

Who do you think or believe wrote the above commandment? Who is the author of it? Leaving Genesis aside, do you see good reason to question whether or not the above days are literal ones?

Amo, we Know God said this. And I am not disputing that the Word got everything spoken in 6 cycles... What I am disputing is that they are consecutive days.

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

The Word spoke the plans into existence... therefore making them a reality. But can you honestly believe that all the universes out there came into being and everything here on earth in 144 hours? The Word must have been might horse at the end.

Of course we may all question whatever we wish, as you do this particular subject. Still, our questions and or speculations are just that. The real question is what motivates our questions. You have again presented several questions, but quoted no scripture suggesting a reason for the question. Presenting questions about who may or may not have written Genesis and or different chapters of it. Do you think holy scripture is the divinely inspired word of God or not? If so, what difference does it make exactly who wrote which chapters? Since the bible does definitely employ repetition and enlargement in many cases, which is not meant to change the meaning of that being expounded upon by the repetition, why choose to believe it is intended to do the same in this instance? If Moses wanted to change the creation account, then why not start over, rather than write a contradictory account right after the first one? Such would obviously create confusion regarding the matter. Is our God a God of confusion, or clarity?

1Co 14:32 And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets. 33 For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.

It seems to me, that God speaking the fourth commandment audibly to an entire nation, and then writing it tables of stone with His own finger twice, would be a declaration of finality and clarity on the subject.

Psa 119:142  Thy righteousness is an everlasting righteousness, and thy law is the truth.[/size]

[/quote]

[Cobalt1959]

It's a made up expression by the opposer(s) of the genuine facts surrounding the creation of our universe.

Genuine facts, according to  . . . Who?

Every group supporting something trots out what they call "genuine facts."  When applied to science it is a meaningless term unless it is based on actual observable parameters that can be replicated under real-life circumstances.

[Alan]

Genuine facts, according to  . . . Who?

Every group supporting something trots out what they call "genuine facts."  When applied to science it is a meaningless term unless it is based on actual observable parameters that can be replicated under real-life circumstances.

If you walk into any library you will find a plethora of material that defines the age of our universe, how they derive at the figures, what equipment is utilized, and how they verify the data. None of that information will make claims that the universe is 6000 years old.

[Rella]

If you walk into any library you will find a plethora of material that defines the age of our universe, how they derive at the figures, what equipment is utilized, and how they verify the data. None of that information will make claims that the universe is 6000 years old.

And all of that material agrees with each other?

But the most important thing is to know which of the authors of this plethora of material will offer proof that Adam , himself, is more then 6000 years old.... Do not include those claiming earth is 13,000 years old.

[Cobalt1959]

If you walk into any library you will find a plethora of material that defines the age of our universe, how they derive at the figures, what equipment is utilized, and how they verify the data. None of that information will make claims that the universe is 6000 years old.

False dichotomy.

You will also find a plethora of material that says God does not exist.  Since you, nor I, nor anyone else actually know the exact age of the Earth, anything that is written about it is a best guess.  It isn't fact.  It is not 100% testable as absolutely truth.  Using that material to form a world view means a person is placing their faith in that, instead of the God they claim to believe in.  As Dave W. said, I don't have to completely understand how the mechanism works, or have a flow chart in front of me with dates, times, carbon dating, and eye witness testimony to believe it, and I don't need the endless minutiae of it explained to me to believe.  I trust God enough to know He told me everything I need to know about it.  Anything beyond that is just my personal conjecture, and I am pragmatic enough to know that while science and God cannot be separated, the majority of scientists today are highly biased and every study they do is geared around whatever bias lens is that they wear.  That includes YEC, OEC, and secular scientists.  Bias is a package deal.

[Wycliffes_Shillelagh]

But the most important thing is to know which of the authors of this plethora of material will offer proof that Adam , himself, is more then 6000 years old....

It's not that hard to date Adam.  Archaeology tells us the kingdom of Edom begins the 14th or 13th century BC.  The city of Admah near the shores of the Dead Sea dates to Early Bronze Age III... the same period.

So... a lot less than 6000 years old.  Also, not the beginning of all mankind.

[4WD]

Since you, nor I, nor anyone else actually know the exact age of the Earth, anything that is written about it is a best guess.  It isn't fact.  It is not 100% testable as absolutely truth. 

The tools used to determine the age of the Earth are indeed testable.  Nothing is 100% testable, but the tools used here are testable to a very high degree.

Using that material to form a world view means a person is placing their faith in that, instead of the God they claim to believe in.

There is not direct connection between using those tools in a scientific endeavor and a faith in God.  That, Cobalt, is the false dichotomy.

[4WD]

So... a lot less than 6000 years old.  Also, not the beginning of all mankind.

I would argue that the beginning of all "mankind" was Adam, even if he was not the beginning of all Homo beings.  The significant distinction between mankind, the human being, and the rest of the population of Homo beings is the spirit of man formed in him by God. Genesis, if nothing else, indicates that Adam was the first human being even if not the first Homo being.