Discussion Regarding Evolution, Fact or Fiction?

[The Barbarian]

We are of course all entitled to our opinions. If disregarding as much of the bible as one has to, in order to believe in evolution rather than the biblical creation account, is not a salvific issue,

As you see, there are no conflicts between the Bible and evolution.   Genesis takes no stand on that at all.   So even some forms of creationism are consistent with the Bible.   The Bible rules out the"life ex nihilo" belief of YE creationism, but since many YE believers have ceased to accept that particular doctrine, even YE creationism, in a modified form, is consistent with Genesis.

then I'm not sure anything else could be either. Do you now suggest that the bible writers themselves did not believe in the six day creation?

I know the Author of Genesis did not believe in six literal days of creation.  After all, He actually was the Creator.

[4WD]

The Bible rules out the"life ex nihilo" belief .......

How does it do that?

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
The Bible rules out the"life ex nihilo" belief

How does it do that?

In Genesis, God says that living things were produced by previously created things.   Hence not from nothing.

[4WD]

The things, but not life, were produced from "stuff" already created. The Hebrew word "bara" is universally used only with God as the active agent and always implies "from nothing".  From Vine's OT:

Create

bara' (H1254), "to create, make." This verb is of profound theological significance, since it has only God as its subject. Only God can "create" in the sense implied by bara'. The verb expresses creation out of nothing, an idea seen clearly in passages having to do with creation on a cosmic scale: "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth" (Gen_1:1; cf. Gen_2:3; Isa_40:26; Isa_42:5). All other verbs for "creating" allow a much broader range of meaning; they have both divine and human subjects, and are used in contexts where bringing something or someone into existence is not the issue.

Bara' is frequently found in parallel to these other verbs, such as `asah, "to make" (Isa_41:20; Isa_43:7; Isa_45:7, Isa_45:12; Amo_4:13), yatsar, "to form" (Isa_43:1, Isa_43:7; Isa_45:7; Amo_4:13), and kun, "to establish." A verse that illustrates all of these words together is Isa_45:18 : "For thus saith the Lord that created [bara'] the heavens; God himself that formed [yatsar] the earth and made [`asah] it; he hath established [kun] it, he created [bara'] it not in vain, he formed [yatar] it to be inhabited: I am the Lord; and there is none else." The technical meaning of bara' (to "create out of nothing") may not hold in these passages; perhaps the verb was popularized in these instances for the sake of providing a poetic synonym.

Objects of the verb include the heavens and earth (Gen_1:1; Isa_40:26; Isa_42:5; Isa_45:18; Isa_65:17); man (Gen_1:27; Gen_5:2; Gen_6:7; Deu_4:32; Psa_89:47; Isa_43:7; Isa_45:12); Israel (Isa_43:1; Mal_2:10); a new thing (Jer_31:22); cloud and smoke (Isa_4:5); north and south (Psa_89:12); salvation and righteousness (Isa_45:8); speech (Isa_57:19); darkness (Isa_45:7); wind (Amo_4:13); and a new heart (Psa_51:10). A careful study of the passages where bara' occurs shows that in the few nonpoetic uses (primarily in Genesis), the writer uses scientifically precise language to demonstrate that God brought the object or concept into being from previously nonexistent material.

Especially striking is the use of bara' in Isaiah 40-65. Out of 49 occurrences of the verb in the Old Testament, 20 are in these chapters. Because Isaiah writes prophetically to the Jews in Exile, he speaks words of comfort based upon God's past benefits and blessings to His people. Isaiah especially wants to show that, since Yahweh is the Creator, He is able to deliver His people from captivity. The God of Israel has created all things: "I have made [`asah] the earth, and created [bara'] man upon it: I, even my hands, have stretched out the heavens, and all their host have I commanded" (Isa_45:12). The gods of Babylon are impotent nonentities (Isa_44:12-20; Isa_46:1-7), and so Israel can expect God to triumph by effecting a new creation (Isa_43:16-21; Isa_65:17-25).

Though a precisely correct technical term to suggest cosmic, material creation from nothing, bara' is a rich theological vehicle for communicating the sovereign power of God, who originates and regulates all things to His glory.
qanah (H7069), "to get, acquire, earn." These basic meanings are dominant in the Old Testament, but certain poetic passages have long suggested that this verb means "create." In Gen_14:19, Melchizedek blessed Abram and said: "Blessed be Abram by God Most High, maker [KJV, "possessor"] of heaven and earth" (RSV). Gen_14:22 repeats this divine epithet. Deu_32:6 makes this meaning certain in that qanah is parallel to `asah, "to make": "Is he not your father, who created (qanah) you, who made (`asah) you and established (kun) you?" (RSV). Psa_78:54; Psa_139:13; and Pro_8:22-23 also suggest the idea of creation.

The cognate languages usually follow the Hebrew in the basic meaning of "to get, acquire." Ugaritic, however, attests the meaning "create." In fact, qny is the primary Ugaritic term to express creation. The close relationship of Hebrew and Ugaritic and the contextual meaning of qanah as "create" in the Old Testament passages cited above argue for the use of qanah as a synonym for "create" along with bara', `asah, and yatsar.

`asah (H6213), "to create, do, make." This verb, which occurs over 2600 times in the Old Testament, is used as a synonym for "create" only about 60 times. There is nothing in- herent in the word to indicate the nature of the creation involved; it is only when `asah is parallel to bara' that we can be sure that it implies creation.

Unfortunately, the word is not attested in cognate languages contemporary with the Old Testament, and its etymology is unclear. Because `asah describes the most common of human (and divine) activities, it is ill-suited to communicate theological meaning—except where it is used with bara' or other terms whose technical meanings are clearly established.

The most instructive occurrences of `asah are in the early chapters of Genesis. Gen_1:1 uses the verb bara' to introduce the Creation account, and Gen_1:7 speaks of its detailed execution: "And God made [`asah] the firmament...." Whether or not the firmament was made of existing material cannot be determined, since the passage uses only `asah. But it is clear that the verb expresses creation, since it is used in that context and follows the technical word bara'. The same can be said of other verses in Genesis: Gen_1:16 (the lights of heaven); Gen_1:25, Gen_3:1 (the animals); Gen_1:31; Gen_2:2 (all his work); and Gen_6:6 (man). In Gen_1:26-27, however, `asah must mean creation from nothing, since it is used as a synonym for bara'. The text reads, "Let us make [`asah] man in our image, after our likeness....So God created [bara'] man in his own image...." Similarly, Gen_2:4 states: "These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created [bara'], in the day that the Lord God made [`asah] the earth and the heavens." Finally, Gen_5:1 equates the two as follows: "In the day that God created [bara'] man, in the likeness of God made [`asah] he him." The unusual juxtaposition of bara' and `asah in Gen_2:3 refers to the totality of creation, which God had "created" by "making."

It is unwarranted to overly refine the meaning of `asah to suggest that it means creation from something, as opposed to creation from nothing. Only context can determine its special nuance. It can mean either, depending upon the situation.

God created all the "stuff" (Gen 1:1). He created life in the sea (Gen 1:21). He created the spirit of man Gen 1:27; 2:7).

[The Barbarian]

Of course He created all things.   It's just that somethings were created from nothing and other things were created from existing things.

You were created by God.  You body was created from existing things, and your soul was created ex nihilo.

[4WD]

Of course He created all things.   It's just that somethings were created from nothing and other things were created from existing things. 
You were created by God.  You body was created from existing things, and your soul was created ex nihilo.

Yes, but a body made from existing, non-living things does not "come to life".  Created, by definition, requires a creator.  If it were the case that life just happened to non-living stuff, then it would be happening still and it isn't.  In fact there is not a shred of evidence anywhere that life ever has "just happened" to non-living stuff.

For what it is worth, I tend to agree with you on "evolution" generally applied following God's "creation".  But I do believe that  life is a creation.

[The Barbarian]

Yes, but a body made from existing, non-living things does not "come to life".  Created, by definition, requires a creator.

Of course.   As St. Augustine pointed out, God made the world unformed and all things proceeded from that initial creation according to His will.    Those things are His creation, just as the things created ex nihilo are His creation.

If it were the case that life just happened to non-living stuff, then it would be happening still and it isn't.

To get that, judging from the fossil record, you'd need about a billion years and a completely sterile environment.   Today, energy-rich compounds are still being formed naturally, but they are quickly utilized by existing life.

In fact there is not a shred of evidence anywhere that life ever has "just happened" to non-living stuff.

Creation didn't "just happen."   God willed life to come from the earth, and created it to do so.

For what it is worth, I tend to agree with you on "evolution" generally applied following God's "creation".  But I do believe that  life is a creation.

God creates all things, even those things He creates by natural means.   Nature is the way He does most things in this world.

[4WD]

God creates all things, even those things He creates by natural means.   Nature is the way He does most things in this world.

No, such a view trivializes the concept of creation.  God does not create each of us physically.  He created the process of procreation and that is the process by which we exist.  Physically, we are born not created.  We must not fail to distinguish between those two processes.

[The Barbarian]

No, such a view trivializes the concept of creation.  God does not create each of us physically.  He created the process of procreation and that is the process by which we exist.  Physically, we are born not created.  We must not fail to distinguish between those two processes.

I don't see reproduction as a trivial thing.   I'm in awe of a Creator who made nature so as to do His will in producing new life.

But I see your distinction.

[4WD]

I don't see reproduction as a trivial thing.   I'm in awe of a Creator who made nature so as to do His will in producing new life.

But I see your distinction.

Nor do I see reproduction as a trivial thing.  I am happy that you see the distinction, because it is a very important distinction.  A baby born with physical or mental defects is not God's creation.  God does not create bad people, or anything else bad.  It is important to understand that.

[The Barbarian]

I know quite a few people with congenital defects.   Most of them are happy to be here.    Like Pauls thorn,  I think there's a purpose to all of that.

I could be wrong, but God is fair, even if He isn't fair as we would judge it.

[4WD]

I know quite a few people with congenital defects.   

Do you really believe that God causes those congenital defects??  Please tell me you do not believe that.

I could be wrong, but God is fair, even if He isn't fair as we would judge it.

If God is not fair as we would judge it, where do we get our judgment of what is fair?  From the secular world?  I don't think so.

[The Barbarian]

Yes, I believe that God creates each of us, with our limitations and abilities for a specific reason.   So he gave St. Paul a thorn in his side for a purpose.   We all have them.

2 Corinthians 12:7 And lest the greatness of the revelations should exalt me, there was given me a sting of my flesh, an angel of Satan, to buffet me. [8] For which thing thrice I besought the Lord, that it might depart from me. [9] And he said to me: My grace is sufficient for thee; for power is made perfect in infirmity. Gladly therefore will I glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may dwell in me.

God does not create bad people.   A person with Down's syndrome is not a bad person.   

[Alan]

Yes, I believe that God creates each of us, with our limitations and abilities for a specific reason.   So he gave St. Paul a thorn in his side for a purpose.   We all have them.

2 Corinthians 12:7 And lest the greatness of the revelations should exalt me, there was given me a sting of my flesh, an angel of Satan, to buffet me. [8] For which thing thrice I besought the Lord, that it might depart from me. [9] And he said to me: My grace is sufficient for thee; for power is made perfect in infirmity. Gladly therefore will I glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may dwell in me.

God does not create bad people.   A person with Down's syndrome is not a bad person.

I don't agree with your theology here but I also don't believe it has any impact on the creation/evolution process.

[4WD]

Yes, I believe that God creates each of us, with our limitations and abilities for a specific reason.   So he gave St. Paul a thorn in his side for a purpose.   We all have them.

2 Corinthians 12:7 And lest the greatness of the revelations should exalt me, there was given me a sting of my flesh, an angel of Satan, to buffet me. [8] For which thing thrice I besought the Lord, that it might depart from me. [9] And he said to me: My grace is sufficient for thee; for power is made perfect in infirmity. Gladly therefore will I glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may dwell in me.

God does not create bad people.   A person with Down's syndrome is not a bad person.

God's dealing with the Apostle Paul should not be taken as the rule or the example of God's dealing with us.  From God's [Jesus'] first encounter with Paul [Saul] on the road to Damascus throughout his life, God dealt with Paul in a very special and separate way from the rest of us.  That of course is true for many of the prominent men and women in the Bible, whether Adam, Eve, Cain, Abraham, Joseph, Moses, etc.  And even there, we are not told that God "created" them for a special purpose; but rather that He selected them for a special purpose and dealt with them individually for that special purpose.  In all such cases those were exceptions, not the rule.

And for what it is worth, I did not say nor even suggest that a person with Down's syndrome or any other birth defect is a bad person. But no matter how you look at it, birth defects can not be considered a good thing for the person with the defect.  Bad things happen to good people all the time, and you cannot accuse God as the cause of those bad things that happen.  Unless of course you believe in Calvin's determinism.

[tooldtocare]

The aliens are here and low and behold they be US!!!

[soterion]

Yes, I believe that God creates each of us, with our limitations and abilities for a specific reason.   So he gave St. Paul a thorn in his side for a purpose.   We all have them.

2 Corinthians 12:7 And lest the greatness of the revelations should exalt me, there was given me a sting of my flesh, an angel of Satan, to buffet me. [8] For which thing thrice I besought the Lord, that it might depart from me. [9] And he said to me: My grace is sufficient for thee; for power is made perfect in infirmity. Gladly therefore will I glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may dwell in me.

God does not create bad people.   A person with Down's syndrome is not a bad person.

I can't agree. God created the cells in our bodies to function in certain ways. Any malfunction is not God's doing; it is the result of sin in the world. Whether the result is Down's syndrome, any other physical or intellectual disability, or cancer, the cells did not function as God designed.

God is not the cause, but He is the One to turn to for help.

[Alan]

The aliens are here and low and behold they be US!!!

[soterion]

Bad things happen to good people all the time, and you cannot accuse God as the cause of those bad things that happen. 

Exactly! And, the person born with the birth defect is not to blame either.

I know that should go without saying, but I just realized that as soon as somebody reads me saying that sin is to blame, then I may be credited with accusing the victim of the birth defect of being a sinner. Nope.

[Alan]

And here is me believing that we are not marionettes, and that God is NOT pushing the buttons for the outcome of humanity.

[The Barbarian]

 

God's dealing with the Apostle Paul should not be taken as the rule or the example of God's dealing with us.  From God's [Jesus'] first encounter with Paul [Saul] on the road to Damascus throughout his life, God dealt with Paul in a very special and separate way from the rest of us.

Paul would be the first to argue against that.   He points out that the infirmity given to him was specifically to keep him from being puffed up.

That of course is true for many of the prominent men and women in the Bible, whether Adam, Eve, Cain, Abraham, Joseph, Moses, etc.  And even there, we are not told  that God "created" them for a special purpose;

Jeremiah 1:5 Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.

And for what it is worth, I did not say nor even suggest that a person with Down's syndrome or any other birth defect is a bad person. But no matter how you look at it, birth defects can not be considered a good thing for the person with the defect.

Was the defect Paul had, a good thing?

People don't have defects because God can't prevent them from happening.   

Bad things happen to good people all the time, and you cannot accuse God as the cause of those bad things that happen.

God's answer is:

2 Corinthians 12:6 For even if I wish to boast, I will not be a fool, for I would be telling the truth, but I refrain from this so that no one may regard me beyond what he sees in me or what he hears from me, 7 even because of the extraordinary character of the revelations. Therefore, so that I would not become arrogant, a thorn in the flesh was given to me, a messenger of Satan to trouble me—so that I would not become arrogant. 8 I asked the Lord three times about this, that it would depart from me. 9 But he said to me, "My grace is enough for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness." So then, I will boast most gladly about my weaknesses, so that the power of Christ may reside in me. 10 Therefore I am content with weaknesses, with insults, with troubles, with persecutions and difficulties for the sake of Christ, for whenever I am weak, then I am strong.
 

Unless of course you believe in Calvin's determinism.

We can't determine what God will give us.   We can only determine what we will do with it.

[The Barbarian]

And here is me believing that we are not marionettes, and that God is NOT pushing the buttons for the outcome of humanity.

Not everyone gets the same gifts.   We don't all start in the same place, but what we do with what we have is what determines the outcome.    This is not predestination; it's the opposite of predestination.

John 9:1And Jesus passing by, saw a man, who was blind from his birth: [2] And his disciples asked him: Rabbi, who hath sinned, this man, or his parents, that he should be born blind? [3] Jesus answered: Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents; but that the works of God should be made manifest in him.

[4WD]

I said

God's dealing with the Apostle Paul should not be taken as the rule or the example of God's dealing with us. 

You responded with

Paul would be the first to argue against that. 

and then proceeded to give examples of God's dealing with Paul.  Nothing you posted contradicts what I said.

[4WD]

People don't have defects because God can't prevent them from happening.

And people don't have defects because God caused them to happen.

[4WD]

I know that should go without saying, but I just realized that as soon as somebody reads me saying that sin is to blame, then I may be credited with accusing the victim of the birth defect of being a sinner. Nope.

There are many times, for example a drug addicted mother who gives birth to a drug addicted child, a child's birth defect is the result of the mother's sinful living.  But that is not what we are talking about here.  Just as often the child's birth defect is not a result of anyone's sin, including the parents or even Adam in the Garden.

[Amo]

Barb -

AiG member Jon Safarti, on that website faked a quote from two astronomers, by editing out part of their statement:
http://aigbusted.blogspot.com/2007/10/deception-of-trueorigin.html

Thanks. I'll examine the issue.

Barb -

So far, no one has shown us any.

Well, I don't want to come right out and call you a liar, so I guess I will say that simply denying or ignoring that which has been posted regarding the same refutes nothing of the same. Numerous instances have been provided on this thread, you obviously choose to ignore them. Here is an idea, why didn't you or don't you address and refute them, rather than simply deny their existence?

Barb regarding Augustine -

The most important of the ancient Christian philosophers.   His work on Genesis was widely read throughout Christiandom.   And until the 20th century, no one thought to deny what he wrote.

It is of course your opinion that Augustine was the most important ancient Christian philosopher. You have no idea what everyone thought concerning Augustine until the 20th century. Such statements reveal just how highly you consider your own unverified opinions. I suppose I should take a look at the same to check on another of your blanket statements which exude presumptuous self confidence. I will shortly begin to address your similar blanket statement declaring that hardly anyone believed in six day creation until recently. Which is verifiably false. Nor did Augustine believe or support your theory of evolution and or deep time concerning the creation account.

Barb -

Augustine did believe the world was instantaneously created, but argued that it was created with the potential for many things, which then appeared over time.

Specifically, we're talking about Book V Chapter 7 Paragraph 20, where he lays out what his topic is: "the production of things in the course of time following the creation of the world." And the first point he makes is this: "The [Book of Genesis] appropriately begins with [water,] from which all kinds of animals, plants, and trees are born [and] develop in time...each according to its nature." This is interesting because what he's going to try to show is that every type of animal, plant, and tree was generated from water and earth and gradually developed into their present forms. In the same paragraph he also speaks of "primordial seeds, whence all flesh and all vegetation are brought forth." The reference to "seeds" is an analogy that he'll get into a bit later: he compares the origin of species to the bringing forth of trees,
which start out as a seed and then grow out of the earth into their mature form.

Moving on, a couple of paragraphs later he gets to the heart of it: "The things [that God] had potentially created...[came] forth in the course of time on different days according to their different kinds...[and] the rest of the earth [was] filled with its various kinds of creatures, [which] produc[ed] their appropriate forms in due time." (Chapter 7 Paragraph 22) That is evolutionary thinking. God didn't create all species of animals all at once,according to St. Augustine; He created them in a potential kind of way, so that they would develop later, "producing their appropriate forms in due time."But he has more to say about that: "It is obvious that in accordance with those kinds of creatures which He first made, God makes many new things which He did not make then."
http://cainaweb.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/AugustineonEvolution.pdf

He seems somewhat confused to me, as you do as well. Things developing over time, and things coming about instantaneously are to very separate and apposed ideas. Creationists not only allow for, but insist according to literal bible interpretation, that things do and have changed over time. Augustine makes no mention above about deep time required for evolution, to the contrary, he speaks only of days. Which again is self contradictory if he believed creation was instantaneous. Which was it, instantaneous, or development over time. The two are contradictory.

Amo - But it is unfair for progressive creationists to make their case using Augustine. Augustine believed the earth was created instantaneously, not progressively

Barb - It seems pretty consistent with Augustine and other theologians of the time.

No Barbarian, it is not consistent to present instant creation and deep time evolution as one and the same. This is blatantly obvious to anyone examining the issue without bias. who are the other theologians of the times? Here we are, quote them and let us examine what they have said as well, thank you.

Barb -

The science of the time had no way of knowing how old the world was.  However, Augustine stated that on such things, where scripture was not explicit, one should be willing to revise one's ideas if new evidence shows that those ideas are wrong.

Provide the quote to that effect please Barbarian, regarding the same in relation to supposed science. Its not that I don't trust you, I just don't trust you. Scientists do not know know how old the world is today either, they presume they do according to their faulty observations and speculations regarding the same. Their and your self confidence does not, never has, and never will equal truth. Having no idea of the processes, development, and details involved in creation, it is impossible for humanity to look back and determine the age of this earth. Only by denying creation altogether, can one even begin to speculate such upon the base of said faulty premise.

This is where you stand. Any unbiased Christian scientist would have to admit that without any knowledge of the conditions before, at, and immediately after creation, it is impossible to accurately determine the age of this earth. The bible itself reveals none of these conditions, and does reveal that the original condition of this planet was completely altered by a global flood. Which of course you deny, because it screws up your pet theory.

Barb -

As you see, he was quite perceptive about the nature of creation.   A sudden creation of an unformed universe, followed by a gradual unfolding of all things from that initial creation.

No Barbarian I do not see. I know you think so very very highly of your own observations and opinions, but you do not and cannot know what I see, understand, or agree and or disagree with. I'm sorry, such is beyond you, your "science" cannot know the heart and mind of others though you may presume such all you like. 

[Amo]

Barb -

As you see, there are no conflicts between the Bible and evolution.   Genesis takes no stand on that at all.   So even some forms of creationism are consistent with the Bible.   The Bible rules out the"life ex nihilo" belief of YE creationism, but since many YE believers have ceased to accept that particular doctrine, even YE creationism, in a modified form, is consistent with Genesis.

No Barbarian, again, I do not see anything because you say I do. I see someone who thinks more highly of their own views than those clearly presented by the prophets of God. YE creationism is totally consistent with what the book of Genesis plainly states accepting in the minds of those who place their own thoughts and ideas above the same.

Barb -

I know the Author of Genesis did not believe in six literal days of creation.  After all, He actually was the Creator.

Yes, I know you think you know how God created the world better than the prophets whom He Himself picked to reveal such, and inspired what they wrote. You know the mind of God on this one, don't you Barbarian?You know that HE didn't mean what He told His prophets to write, He needed to wait for you and yours to reveal the real truth. The new prophets of God. In your own mind in any case.

[Alan]

The thing is, God has left the record of how He did it, there is no use disputing the evidence.

[Amo]

The following quotes are from various "Fathers" of the church as some see it. They are presented as refutation against Barbarian's blanket statement that hardly anyone believed in the biblical literal six day creation account until the last century or so. Just the first of many to come if time and opportunity provide. All emphasis is mine.

THE EPISTLE OF BARNABAS - [A.D. 100.]

CHAPTER 15

THE FALSE AND THE TRUE SABBATH

Further, also, it is written concerning the Sabbath in the Decalogue which [the Lord] spoke, face to face, to Moses on Mount Sinai, "And sanctify ye the Sabbath of the Lord with clean hands and a pure heart." And He says in another place, "If my sons keep the Sabbath, then will I cause my mercy to rest upon them." The Sabbath is mentioned at the beginning of the creation [thus]: "And God made in six days the works of His hands, and made an end on the seventh day, and rested on it, and sanctified it." Attend, my children, to the meaning of this expression, "He finished in six days." This implieth that the Lord will finish all things in six thousand years, for a day is with Him a thousand years. And He Himself testifieth, saying, "Behold, to-day will be as a thousand years." Therefore, my children, in six days, that is, in six thousand years, all things will be finished. "And He rested on the seventh day." This meaneth: when His Son, coming [again], shall destroy the time of the wicked man, and judge the ungodly, and change the sun, and the moon, and the stars, then shall He truly rest on the seventh day.


IRENAEUS AGAINST HERESIES - [A.D. 120-202.]

BOOK 5

CHAPTER 28

THE DISTINCTION TO BE MADE BETWEEN THE RIGHTEOUS AND THE WICKED. THE FUTURE APOSTASY IN THE TIME OF ANTI-CHRIST, AND THE END OF THE WORLD

3. For in as many days as this world was made, in so many thousand years shall it be concluded. And for this reason the Scripture says: "Thus the heaven and the earth were finished, and all their adornment. And God brought to a conclusion upon the sixth day the works that He had made; and God rested upon the seventh day from all His works." This is an account of the things formerly created, as also it is a prophecy of what is to come. For the day of the Lord is as a thousand years; and in six days created things were completed: it is evident, therefore, that they will come to an end at the sixth thousand year.


CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA - [A.D. 153-193-217]

THE STROMATA,
OR MISCELLANIES

BOOK 6

CHAPTER 16 GNOSTIC EXPOSITION OF THE DECALOGUE

Wherefore Solomon also says, that before heaven, and earth, and all existences, Wisdom had arisen in the Almighty; the participation of which — that which is by power, I mean, not that by essence — teaches a man to know by apprehension things divine and human. Having reached this point, we must mention these things by the way; since the discourse has turned on the seventh and the eighth. For the eighth may possibly turn out to be properly the seventh, and the seventh manifestly the sixth, and the latter properly the Sabbath, and the seventh a day of work. For the creation of the world was concluded in six days. For the motion of the sun from solstice to solstice is completed in six months — in the course of which, at one time the leaves fall, and at another plants bud and seeds come to maturity.


ORIGEN DE PRINCIPIIS - [A.D. 185-230-254]

BOOK 4

TRANSLATED FROM THE LATIN OF RUFINUS

CHAPTER 1

12. This point, indeed, is not to be passed by without notice, viz., that there are certain passages of Scripture where this "body," as we termed it, i.e., this inferential historical sense, is not always found, as we shall prove to be the case in the following pages, but where that which we termed "soul" or "spirit" can only be understood. And this, I think, is indicated in the Gospels, where there are said to be placed, according to the manner of purification among the Jews, six water-vessels, containing two or three firkins apiece; by which, as I have said, the language of the Gospel seems to indicate, with respect to those who are secretly called by the apostle "Jews," that they are purified by the word of Scripture, — receiving indeed sometimes two firkins, i.e., the understanding of the "soul" or "spirit," according to our statement as above; sometimes even three (firkins), when in the reading (of Scripture) the "bodily" sense, which is the "historical," may be preserved for the edification of the people. Now six water-vessels are appropriately spoken of, with regard to those persons who are purified by being placed in the world; for we read that in six days — which is the perfect number — this world and all things in it were finished. How great, then, is the utility of this first "historical" sense which we have mentioned, is attested by the multitude of all believers, who believe with adequate faith and simplicity, and does not need much argument, because it is openly manifest to all; whereas of that sense which we have called above the "soul," as it were, of Scripture,


THE EXTANT WORKS AND FRAGMENTS OF HIPPOLYTUS - [A.D. 170-236]

[TRANSLATED BY THE REV. S. D. F. SALMOND]
PART 1 — EXEGETICAL

ON DANIEL

2

THE INTERPRETATION BY HIPPOLYTUS, (BISHOP) OF ROME, OF THE VISIONS OF DANIEL AND NEBUCHADNEZZAR,
TAKEN IN CONJUNCTION

And 6,000 years must needs be accomplished, in order that the Sabbath may come, the rest, the holy day "on which God rested from all His works." For the Sabbath is the type and emblem of the future kingdom of the saints, when they "shall reign with Christ," when He comes from heaven, as John says in his Apocalypse: for "a day with the Lord is as a thousand years." Since, then, in six days God made all things, it follows that 6,000 years must be fulfilled. And they are not yet fulfilled, as John says: "five are fallen; one is," that is, the sixth; "the other is not yet come."


ARCHELAUS - (A.D. 277.)

[TRANSLATED BY THE REV. S. D. F. SALMOND, M.A.]

THE ACTS OF THE DISPUTATION

WITH THE HERESIARCH MANES.

31. Listen also to what I have to say on this other expression which has been adduced, viz., "Christ, who redeemed us from the curse of the law." My view of this passage is that Moses, that illustrious servant of God, committed to those who wished to have the right vision, an emblematic law, and also a real law. Thus, to take an example, after God had made the world, and all things that are in it, in the space of six days, He rested on the seventh day from all His works by which statement I do not mean to affirm that He rested because He was fatigued, but that He did so as having brought to its perfection every creature which He had resolved to introduce. And yet in the sequel it, the new law, says: "My Father worketh hitherto, and I work." Does that mean, then, that He is still making heaven, or sun, or man, or animals, or trees, or any such thing? Nay; but the meaning is, that when these visible objects were perfectly finished, He rested from that kind of work; while, however, He still continues to work at objects invisible with an inward mode of action, and saves men.


METHODIUS - (A.D. 260-312).

[TRANSLATED BY THE REV. WILLIAM R. CLARK, M.A.,
VICAR OF ST. MARY MAGDALEN, TAUNTON.]

DISCOURSE 7

CHAPTER 5
THE SIXTY QUEENS: WHY SIXTY, AND WHY QUEENS; THE EXCELLENCE OF THE SAINTS OF THE FIRST AGE

In addition to these matters, there is this also to be considered, so that nothing may escape us of things which are necessary, why He said that the queens were sixty, and the concubines eighty, and the virgins so numerous as not to be counted from their multitude, but the spouse one. And first let us speak of the sixty. I imagine that He named under the sixty queens, those who had pleased God from the first-made man in succession to Noah, for this reason, since these had no need of precepts and laws for their salvation, the creation of the world in six days being still recent. For they remembered that in six days God formed the creation, and those things which were made in paradise; and how man, receiving a command not to touch the tree of knowledge, ran aground, the author of evil having led him astray.


DISCOURSE 8

CHAPTER 8
THE FAITHFUL IN BAPTISM MALES, CONFIGURED TO CHRIST; THE SAINTS THEMSELVES CHRISTS

Moreover, it is evident that the creation of the world was accomplished in harmony with this number, God having made heaven and earth, and the things which are in them, in six days; the word of creative power containing the number six, in accordance with which the Trinity is the maker of bodies. For length, and breadth, and depth make up a body. And the number six is composed of triangles. On these subjects, however, there is not sufficient time at present to enlarge with accuracy, for fear of letting the main subject slip, in considering that which is secondary.


DISCOURSE 9

TUSIANE

CHAPTER 1

For since in six days God made the heaven and the earth, and finished the whole world, and rested on the seventh day from all His works which He had made, and blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, so by a figure in the seventh month, when the fruits of the earth have been gathered in, we are commanded to keep the feast to the Lord, which signifies that, when this world shall be terminated at the seventh thousand years, when God shall have completed the world, He shall rejoice in us.


LACTANTIUS - (A.D. 260-330.)

[TRANSLATED BY THE REV. WILLIAM FLETCHER, D.D.]

THE DIVINE INSTITUTES

BOOK 7 OF A HAPPY LIFE

CHAPTER 13 OF THE SOUL, AND THE TESTIMONIES CONCERNING ITS ETERNITY

But we, whom the Holy Scriptures instruct to the knowledge of the truth, know the beginning and the end of the world, respecting which we will now speak in the end of our work, since we have explained respecting the beginning in the second book. Therefore let the philosophers, who enumerate thousands of ages from the beginning of the world, know that the six thousandth year is not yet completed, and that when this number is completed the consummation must take place, and the condition of human affairs be remodeled for the better, the proof of which must first be related, that the matter itself may be plain. God completed the world and this admirable work of nature in the space of six days, as is contained in the secrets of Holy Scripture, and consecrated the seventh day, on which He had rested from His works. But this is the Sabbath-day, which in the language of the Hebrews received its name from the number, whence the seventh is the legitimate and complete number. For there are seven days, by the revolutions of which in order the circles of years are made up; and there are seven stars which do not set, and seven luminaries which are called planets, whose differing and unequal movements are believed to cause the varieties of circumstances and times. Therefore, since all the works of God were completed in six days, the world must continue in its present state through six ages, that is, six thousand years. For the great day of God is limited by a circle of a thousand years, as the prophet shows, who says "In Thy sight, O Lord, a thousand years are as one day." And as God labored during those six days in creating such great works, so His religion and truth must labor during these six thousand years, while wickedness prevails and bears rule. And again, since God, having finished His works, rested the seventh day and blessed it, at the end of the six thousandth year all wickedness must be abolished from the earth, and righteousness reign for a thousand years; and there must be tranquillity and rest from the labors which the world now has long endured. But how that will come to pass I will explain in its order. We have often said that lesser things and things of small importance are figures and previous shadowings forth of great things; as this day of ours, which is bounded by the rising and the setting of the sun, is a representation of that great clay to which the circuit of a thousand years affixes its limits.


VICTORINUS

[TRANSLATED BY THE REV. ROBERT ERNEST WALLIS, PH.D.]

ON THE CREATION OF THE WORLD

To me, as I meditate and consider in my mind concerning the creation of this world in which we are kept enclosed, even such is the rapidity of that creation; as is contained in the book of Moses, which he wrote about its creation, and which is called Genesis. God produced that entire mass for the adornment of His majesty in six days; on the seventh to which He consecrated it... with a blessing. For this reason, therefore, because in the septenary number of days both heavenly and earthly things are ordered, in place of the beginning I will consider of this seventh day after the principle of all matters pertaining to the number of seven; and as far as I shall be able, I will endeavor to portray the day of the divine power to that consummation.


ORIGEN'S COMMENTARY ON THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW

BY JOHN PATRICK, D.D.

BOOK 12

36

CONCERNING THE TRANSFIGURATION OF THE SAVIOR

"Now after six days," according to Matthew and Mark, "He taketh with him Peter and James and John his brother, and leads them up into a high mountain apart, and was transfigured before them." Now, also, let it be granted, before the exposition that occurs to us in relation to these things, that this took place long ago, and according to the letter. But it seems to me, that those who are led up by Jesus into the high mountain, and are deemed worthy of beholding His transfiguration apart, are not without purpose led up six days after the discourses previously spoken. For since in six days — the perfect number — the whole world, — this perfect work of art, — was made, on this account I think that he who transcends all the things of the world by beholding no longer the things which are seen, for they are temporal, but already the things which not seen, and only the things which are not seen, because that they are eternal, is represented in the words, "After six days days Jesus took up with Him" certain persons.

As is obvious from the above quotes, and many others to come if time and opportunity will provide, Barbarian's claim that hardly anyone believed in the literal six day creation until the last century or so is a false one.

[Amo]

The thing is, God has left the record of how He did it, there is no use disputing the evidence.

The thing is, God has left the testimony of His chosen prophets recording the time frame of our creation, there is no use disputing the testimony He gave them. Unless of course you view that testimony as false. God has told us that the bible is His recorded testimony regarding truth. Where does the bible ever say to figure out for yourself the truth of creation by examining and theorizing about the world around you according to your own understanding? It does not. Nor can any theorizing produce infallible truth without any knowledge of the conditions, whys, wherefores, and hows of creation. All such is pure speculation, and only the prideful sinful heart would present their speculations as absolute truth, in contradiction to the plain testimony of scripture.

[4WD]

The thing is, God has left the testimony of His chosen prophets recording the time frame of our creation, there is no use disputing the testimony He gave them. Unless of course you view that testimony as false.

Not disputing the testimony God gave His chosen prophets; rather it is your interpretation of that testimony that I view as false.  And that is in light of all the evidence God placed here for our benefit.

[Amo]

Not disputing the testimony God gave His chosen prophets; rather it is your interpretation of that testimony that I view as false.  And that is in light of all the evidence God placed here for our benefit.

Yes, you dispute what the scriptures plainly state. There is no question concerning what they plainly state. The burden to explain what they mean is not upon those who accept what they plainly state as the truth, but rather upon those who insist they do not. So, I ask once again as I have many times over, what do they mean according to your interpretation? Do you have an interpretation, or just insist they do not mean what they plainly state? I need no interpretation because I believe they mean just what they say. You are saying they do not, please expound.

The same evidence is here for all to see. You take that evidence and say the bible's description of creation cannot be literal according to the faulty knowledge of fallen humanity. Knowledge which is built upon many a presumption. Evidence built upon presumptions, is nothing more than presumption.

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian, regarding evidence against evolution:
So far, no one has shown us any.

Well, I don't want to come right out and call you a liar, so I guess I will say that simply denying or ignoring that which has been posted regarding the same refutes nothing of the same.

So far, everything proposed has been shot down.   Which one was not addressed and adequately refuted?   

If you feel I missed one, bring it up here, and we'll take a look.

Babarian regarding St. Augustine:
The most important of the ancient Christian philosophers.   His work on Genesis was widely read throughout Christiandom.   And until the 20th century, no one thought to deny what he wrote.

It is of course your opinion that Augustine was the most important ancient Christian philosopher.

In fact, he is highly regarded by all three major branches of Christianity.

You have no idea what everyone thought concerning Augustine until the 20th century.

No, that's wrong.   For example Calvin thought very highly of him, and cited him in much of his theology.   But it wasn't just Calvin:
Augustine was the most important patristic source for the Reformation. In the centuries prior to the Reformation there was an "Augustinian Renaissance". Here I reflect on the impact Augustine had on Calvin, Luther, and Zwingli, in the areas of grace and salvation, the church and the sacraments, and predestination and freewill.

The wide dissemination of the Scriptures and the Church Fathers, due to the extraordinary success of the printing press, was a powerful contributor to the religious renewal of the sixteenth century. Remarkable among these Church Fathers, Augustine of Hippo (354-430) has been regarded as the most consequential patristic source for the Reformation. In the centuries prior to the Reformation interest in the study of Augustinian theology dramatically increased. There was an "Augustinian Renaissance".[1]
https://theglobalchurchproject.com/augustines-influence-calvin-luther-zwingli/

Such statements reveal just how highly you consider your own unverified opinions.

See above.   Anyone can use a library or check historical sources on the net.

I suppose I should take a look at the same to check on another of your blanket statements which exude presumptuous self confidence. I will shortly begin to address your similar blanket statement declaring that hardly anyone believed in six day creation until recently.

There were some, but it was never Christian orthodoxy.   And of course, YE creationism was invented in the early 20th century.   Prior to that, almost all creationists were OE.   It was the form of creationism that was presented at the scopes trial, and the form of creationism advocated by 19th century fundamentalist theologians like Spurgeon.

Which is verifiably false. Nor did Augustine believe or support your theory of evolution

His idea of evolution was for God to have created the potentiality of living things to appear, which then developed over time as conditions became right.   That's not bad, considering how little information had.

and or deep time concerning the creation account.

He acknowledge an instantaneous creation, from which other things emerged over time.  He had no idea how much time, but he quite properly rejected the idea of an eternal earth, and showed that there was no way to interpret Genesis as literal days.   He had tried for a long time, finally admitted that it was impossible.   

However, he did admit that when scripture is unclear, we should be willing to revise our beliefs as new evidence becomes known.

Specifically, we're talking about Book V Chapter 7 Paragraph 20, where he lays out what his topic is: "the production of things in the course of time following the creation of the world." And the first point he makes is this: "The [Book of Genesis] appropriately begins with [water,] from which all kinds of animals, plants, and trees are born [and] develop in time...each according to its nature." This is interesting because what he's going to try to show is that every type of animal, plant, and tree was generated from water and earth and gradually developed into their present forms. In the same paragraph he also speaks of "primordial seeds, whence all flesh and all vegetation are brought forth." The reference to "seeds" is an analogy that he'll get into a bit later: he compares the origin of species to the bringing forth of trees,
    which start out as a seed and then grow out of the earth into their mature form.

    Moving on, a couple of paragraphs later he gets to the heart of it: "The things [that God] had potentially created...[came] forth in the course of time on different days according to their different kinds...[and] the rest of the earth [was] filled with its various kinds of creatures, [which] produc[ed] their appropriate forms in due time." (Chapter 7 Paragraph 22) That is evolutionary thinking. God didn't create all species of animals all at once,according to St. Augustine; He created them in a potential kind of way, so that they would develop later, "producing their appropriate forms in due time."But he has more to say about that: "It is obvious that in accordance with those kinds of creatures which He first made, God makes many new things which He did not make then."
    http://cainaweb.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/AugustineonEvolution.pdf

He seems somewhat confused to me, as you do as well. Things developing over time, and things coming about instantaneously are to very separate and apposed ideas.

Read it again, carefully.    Augustine found an instantaneous creation, from which other things developed over time.   His was the generally accepted idea of creation until the 20th century.

Creationists not only allow for, but insist according to literal bible interpretation, that things do and have changed over time.

None that I know of will admit that new organisms evolved from the potential for them to develop.

Augustine makes no mention above about deep time required for evolution, to the contrary, he speaks only of days.

As you know, Augustine pointed out that the "days" were not literal days, but categories of creation.   

No Barbarian, it is not consistent to present instant creation and deep time evolution as one and the same.

It's quite logical to argue, as the early Christians did, that the universe was instantaneously created, and every other thing developed from that initial creation.


The science of the time had no way of knowing how old the world was.  However, Augustine stated that on such things, where scripture was not explicit, one should be willing to revise one's ideas if new evidence shows that those ideas are wrong.

Provide the quote to that effect please Barbarian, regarding the same in relation to supposed science.

I'll have to do some reading to find that passage, but I'll check on it. 
(Edit: In matters that are so obscure and far beyond our vision, we find in Holy Scripture passages which can be interpreted in very different ways without prejudice to the faith we have received. In such cases, we should not rush in headlong and so firmly take our stand on one side that, if further progress in the search for truth justly undermines this position, we too fall with it.)
St. Augustine, De Genesi ad Litteram

Its not that I don't trust you, I just don't trust you.

That was a mistake, wasn't it?

Scientists do not know know how old the world is today either

It's roughly 4.5 billion years old, and there is abundant evidence for that.  Would you like to learn about it?

This is where you stand. Any unbiased Christian scientist would have to admit that without any knowledge of the conditions before, at, and immediately after creation, it is impossible to accurately determine the age of this earth.

Obviously wrong.   For example. Lord Kelvin was an elder in the Church of Scotland, and had prepared an estimate of the Earth's age as perhaps 10 million years or so, based on heat flux.   After Rutherford discovered radioactivity, Kelvin allowed that his estimate was much too young.    Rutherford, BTW, was a practicing Anglican.   The Big Bang theory was proposed by a physicist who happened to be a Catholic priest, and was vigorously assailed by some atheists because it ruled out an eternal universe.

Affiliation of Christian Geologists *

The Affiliation of Christian Geologists is committed to the historic Christian faith and to its meaningful integration with the best available science. This effort reflects our desire to serve God with all our minds. Data from science also help us to serve our neighbors and to care for God's creation. Investigations of the Earth and the universe have been ongoing for hundreds of years using such scientific methodologies as:

    astronomical data from telescopes and satellites
    observation of the physical makeup and arrangement of earth and extraterrestrial materials
    chemical and physical analytical study of rocks, sediments, soils, water, air, ice, and meteorites found on Earth as well as lunar and Martian materials
    experimental synthesis to determine the origins of earth and extraterrestrial matter
    analytical determination of absolute ages of natural materials, and
    mathematical and computer modeling of the above observations and processes.

Beginning in the mid-1600's, geologists and astronomers (including many Christians) have consistently found that the scientific evidence clearly favors a vast age for the earth and the universe. Current scientific calculations indicate that the universe began about 13 billion years ago and the earth about 4.6 billion years ago. These conclusions are based on cumulative evidence and are refined with each new study. All scientific knowledge is constrained by the limitations of the methods of inquiry and discovery. We are limited and sometimes mistaken in our understanding of both nature and Scripture, but ultimately the two must not conflict, both coming from the same Creator. Although Scripture contains essential information on origins that gives meaning and perspective, technical details of the method and timing of creation are not major concerns of the Biblical text, and many orthodox theologians do not see a conflict between the Bible and an old creation.

https://ncse.com/library-resource/affiliation-christian-geologists

So you see, you're wrong.   You may be right in the view of your own small portion of Chrstians, but not in the view of Christians generally.

Barbarian, regarding Augustine:
As you see, he was quite perceptive about the nature of creation.   A sudden creation of an unformed universe, followed by a gradual unfolding of all things from that initial creation.

No Barbarian I do not see.

You could read and learn.

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
As you see, there are no conflicts between the Bible and evolution.   Genesis takes no stand on that at all.   So even some forms of creationism are consistent with the Bible.   The Bible rules out the"life ex nihilo" belief of YE creationism, but since many YE believers have ceased to accept that particular doctrine, even YE creationism, in a modified form, is consistent with Genesis.

No Barbarian, again, I do not see anything because you say I do.

You are struggling against it, but you do see it now.

I see someone who thinks more highly of their own views than those clearly presented by the prophets of God.

As you see, God's own word in Genesis makes it clear, and no prophet denied His word.   The "days" of  Genesis are parables for the categories of creation; the fact that there cannot be mornings and evenings without a Sun to make them is sufficient to show this.

YE creationism is totally consistent with what the book of Genesis plainly states

Except for the "life ex nihilo" doctrine of YE creationism.   But I see many YE creationists now abandoning that doctrine, so many of them are at least consistent with Genesis, as much so as evolution.   


 


   

[4WD]

Yes, you dispute what the scriptures plainly state. There is no question concerning what they plainly state. The burden to explain what they mean is not upon those who accept what they plainly state as the truth, but rather upon those who insist they do not. So, I ask once again as I have many times over, what do they mean according to your interpretation? Do you have an interpretation, or just insist they do not mean what they plainly state? I need no interpretation because I believe they mean just what they say. You are saying they do not, please expound.

From Vine's OT Expository Dictionary:

Day

yom (H3117), "daylight; day; time; moment; year." This word also appears in Ugaritic, extrabiblical Hebrew or Canaanite (e.g., the Siloam inscription), Akkadian, Phoenician, and Arabic. It also appears in post-biblical Hebrew. Attested at every era of biblical Hebrew, yom occurs about 2,304 times.

Yom has several meanings. The word represents the period of "daylight" as contrasted with nighttime: "While the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease" (Gen_8:22). The word denotes a period of twenty-four hours: "And it came to pass, as she spake to Joseph day by day..." (Gen_39:10). Yom can also signify a period of time of unspecified duration: "And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made" (Gen_2:3). In this verse, "day" refers to the entire period of God's resting from creating this universe. This "day" began after He completed the creative acts of the seventh day and extends at least to the return of Christ. Compare Gen_2:4 : "These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day [beyom] that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens...." Here "day" refers to the entire period envisioned in the first six days of creation. Another nuance appears in Gen_2:17, where the word represents a "point of time" or "a moment": "But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day [beyom] that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." Finally, when used in the plural, the word may represent "year": "Thou shalt therefore keep this ordinance in his season from year to year [yamim]" (Exo_13:10).

There are several other special nuances of yom when it is used with various prepositions. First, when used with ke ("as," "like"), it can connote "first": "And Jacob said, Sell me this day [first] thy birthright" (Gen_25:31). It may also mean "one day," or "about this day": "And it came to pass about this time, that Joseph went into the house to do his business..." (Gen_39:11). On Joseph's lips, the phrase connotes "this present result" (literally, "as it is this day"): "But as for you, ye thought evil against me; but God meant it unto good, to bring to pass, as it is this day, to save much people alive" (Gen_50:20). Adonijah used this same phrase to represent "today": "Let king Solomon swear unto me today that he will not slay his servant..." (1Ki_1:51). Yet another nuance appears in 1Sa_9:13 : "Now therefore get you up; for about this time ye shall find him." When used with the definite article ha, the noun may mean "today" (as it does in Gen_4:14) or refer to some particular "day" (1Sa_1:4) and the "daytime" (Neh_4:16).

The first biblical occurrence of yom is found in Gen_1:5 : "And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day." The second use introduces one of the most debated occurrences of the word, which is the duration of the days of creation. Perhaps the most frequently heard explanations are that these "days" are 24 hours long, indefinitely long (i.e., eras of time), or logical rather than temporal categories (i.e., they depict theological categories rather than periods of time).

The "day of the Lord" is used to denote both the end of the age (eschatologically) or some occurrence during the present age (non-eschatologically). It may be a day of either judgment or blessing, or both (cf. Isaiah 2).
It is noteworthy that Hebrew people did not divide the period of daylight into regular hourly periods, whereas nighttime was divided into three watches (Exo_14:24; Jdg_7:19). The beginning of a "day" is sometimes said to be dusk (Est_4:16) and sometimes dawn (Deu_28:66-67).