"Day" in Genesis 1:5

How should we understand the word day in Genesis 1? Let's focus on Genesis 1:5 for simplicity.

Should this only be understood as a literal 24-hour day, or should it be something else? Does science allow for a 24-hour day?

Tagged:
«134

Comments

  • JanJan Posts: 277

    The Hebrew word Yom can mean all kinds of time periods, and only in roughly half of all occurrences means a literal 24 hour period.

    The majority of science would reject the "six 24 hour days model", but majority doesn't define truth. Still it begs the question whether Genesis 1-2 can be consistently understood and interpreted when "Yom" is taken as an undefined long time period.

    I personally believe that this can be done. Best evidence for that would be the 7th day, the day of God's rest. According to Hebrews 4:10, this day is not yet complete. Therefore, the 7th day is quite clearly a long period of time. Which is consistent with the lack of "there was evening and there was morning" after day 7.

    As for the previous 6 "time periods", the evening and morning in between them could separate long time periods just in the same was as 24-hour periods.

  • Dave_LDave_L Posts: 2,345

    I believe Moses meant literal days when he said ; “For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth and the sea and all that is in them, and he rested on the seventh day; therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and set it apart as holy.” (Exodus 20:11) (NET)

    And it underscores the miraculous nature of creation. In a few seconds, Jesus turned water into wine, recognized by a winebibber as being the best.

  • C McC Mc Posts: 3,541

    Jan, thanks for the questions and challenges for clarification. We need more questions stemming from the actual text. However, it is the biblical context that would bring correct understanding to be true, to the revelation and the writers of the Bible, under inspiration to his audience and application to the readers of today.

    The phrase that means a full 24-hour day definitely, absolutely: “evening-morning.” The only phrase that means an exact 24 hours. Here are the facts on this:

    • In English, “day” can mean the daylight hours or a 24-hour day. This is a flaw in the English language.
    • In Hebrew, “day” means the daylight hours and “night” means the night hours; but sometimes “day” means a 24-hour day.

    Two other phrases which are also used in the Hebrew Old Testament for a fairly full day should be mentioned—but they are far different than the Hebrew “evening-morning” which means an exact 24-hour day.

    • These are “day and night” and (less often) “night and day” (Neh 1:6; 4:9). Both phrases were also found in the Babylonian literature.
      • Night and day” is used eight times in the New Testament (Acts 20:31; Rom 13:12).
      • While “day and night” is found 10 times (Matt 4:2; 12:40).

    IN Genesis we see the power of God in creating our world in six days. In order to make it very clear that each day was a literal 24-hour day, the phrase chosen to represent each 24-hour day was “evening-morning” (‘ereb boqer)—the very same phrasing used in Daniel 8:14. The only place outside of Genesis 1 where ‘ereb boqer is used.

    In Genesis 1:5, 8, 13, 19, 23, 31, with His own mouth, God spoke ‘ereb boqer at the end of each day of Creation Week. "Ereb boqer" as the meaning of a 24-hour day—not two half days—is as solid as is the days of Creation Week! To deny the one is to deny the other!

    One is inclined to ask why is “morning-evening” used to signify a 24- hour day? The simple reason would be in the Bible. The day starts at sunset. That pattern was given us during Creation Week (Gen 1:5, 8, 13, 19, 23, 31). It is confirmed by the statement in Leviticus 23:32, “From even unto even, shall ye celebrate your Sabbath.”

    The designation "day" in Genesis 1 is meant to communicate a 24-hour day, respectively, a solar day. The most widely recognized Hebrew lexicons and dictionaries of the Hebrew language published in the twentieth century affirm this.

    I hope this helps and prevents sincere students of the Word from being confused by the long ages demanded by naturalistic evolution. CM

    SOURCES:

    -- Benjamin Shaw, “The Literal Day Interpretation,” in Did God Create in Six Days? (ed. Joseph A. Pipa, Jr., and David W. Hall; Taylors: Southern Presbyterian, 1999), 199-220.
    -- Andrew E. Steinmann, “Yom as an Ordinal Number and the Meaning of Genesis 1:5,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 45 (2002): 577-584.
    -- Robert V. McCabe, “A Defense of Literal Days in the Creation Week,” Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal 5 (2000): 97-123.
    -- Henry M. Morris, Studies in the Bible and Science (Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1966), 36

  • JanJan Posts: 277

    The Hebrew word yom can have four meanings:

    1. a portion of a day
    2. sunrise to sunset
    3. sunset to sunset
    4. any segment of time (e.g. Genesis 2:4)

    Many prophets used the word yom to indicate extremely long periods of time, e.g. Hosea 6:2.

    The Hebrew words ereb and boqer refer to the beginning and end of a yom. If yom is a literal 24 hours day, then their meaning is evening and morning. If yom is another unspecified time period, then their meaning is the beginning and end of that time period.

    The expression "and there was evening, and there was morning" occurs exclusively in Genesis 1. Therefore we have no references to the exact meaning of the phrase.

    Further, there is no other Hebrew word Moses could have used to refer to a very long time period, besides the word yom.

    Source:

    Ross, H. (2004). A matter of days: resolving a creation controversy. Colorado Springs, CO: NavPress.

  • reformedreformed Posts: 2,777

    @Jan said:
    The Hebrew word yom can have four meanings:

    1. a portion of a day
    2. sunrise to sunset
    3. sunset to sunset
    4. any segment of time (e.g. Genesis 2:4)

    Many prophets used the word yom to indicate extremely long periods of time, e.g. Hosea 6:2.

    The Hebrew words ereb and boqer refer to the beginning and end of a yom. If yom is a literal 24 hours day, then their meaning is evening and morning. If yom is another unspecified time period, then their meaning is the beginning and end of that time period.

    The expression "and there was evening, and there was morning" occurs exclusively in Genesis 1. Therefore we have no references to the exact meaning of the phrase.

    Further, there is no other Hebrew word Moses could have used to refer to a very long time period, besides the word yom.

    Source:

    Ross, H. (2004). A matter of days: resolving a creation controversy. Colorado Springs, CO: NavPress.

    Context means everything. It does specify evening and morning.

  • C McC Mc Posts: 3,541

    Bro. Jan,

    The designation "day" in Genesis 1 is meant to communicate a 24-hour day, respectively, a solar day. A prestigious published lexicon refers to Genesis 1:5 as the first scriptural entry for the definition of "day of 24 hours" for the Hebrew term yom ("day"). It reads "day (of 24 hours)" for the creation day.

    Holladay's Hebrew- English lexicon follows suit with "day of 24 hours."

    The Brown-Driver-Briggs lexicon, the classical Hebrew-English lexicon, also defines the creation "day" of Genesis 1 as a regular "day as defined by evening and morning."

    So, the world was created in Six (6) contiguous 24-hour days. Amen! I am sure you agree. If not, why not? CM

    SOURCES:

    -- William H. Holladay, A Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1971), 130.
    -- Francis Brown, S. R. Driver, and Charles A. Briggs, A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1974), pp 398, 793-795 .
    -- Magne Saeboe, "yom," in Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, eds. G. Johannes Botterweck and Helmer Ringgren (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1990), 6:23.

  • JanJan Posts: 277

    @C_M_ said:

    So, the world was created in Six (6) contiguous 24-hour days. Amen! I am sure you agree. If not, why not? CM

    No, I don't agree, not any more anyway. I once was a YEC and held the view of six contiguous 24-hour days creation.

    Why I no longer hold this view I'm happy to explain. The problem is day 4 (creation of the stars). The furthest object we can see in the sky is around 13 billion light years away. That means the starlight of the various objects in the sky is up to 13 billion years old. For that reason. For that reason, the stars can't have been created one day before the plants on Earth were created.

    I'm very aware of the various YEC explanations (in fact, I once believed them), however, I don't see how they add up with what we actually can observe about the universe.

    Danny Faulkner, the world's leading YEC astronomer from Ken Ham's organization "Answers in Genesis", after going through all of these alleged explanations, and having to reject one after the other due to sound logic and reasoning, has only one explanation left that God miraculously transports the distant star light to us, a process that for whatever reason can neither be observed nor has any other evidence that this is actually happening.

    Have a look at this debate:

    It's a bit lengthy, but an eye opener.
    Scripture and observations from creation must necessarily agree. Both are, as revelations from God, inerrant. If they don't agree, I have to reject either the interpretation of Scripture causing the disagreement (not Scripture itself, as it is not possible to disagree), or I have to reject the observation from creation.

    This has happened before, actually multiple times. Christendom in general has mostly rejected the geocentric view of the solar system, although certain passages of Scripture can be interpreted as promoting geocentric view of the universe. This interpretation was eventually rejected.

    Similarly, interpretation of passages like Genesis 1:20 once was that living beings are spontaneously brought forth from inanimate elements ("Spontaneous generation" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_generation )
    Various experiments have finally caused Christians to reject this interpretation likewise.

    Anyway, there's no way for me to reject the observations of distant starlight without rejecting reason itself, therefore I have to reject the literal 6-days-of-24-hours interpretation of Genesis 1, and since I've done that, I found that Genesis 1 actually can be interpreted in an Old Age Creation view without any inconsistencies.

  • C McC Mc Posts: 3,541

    Jan,
    Are we sacrificing human reasoning over the plain reading of the Word of God by inspiration? Especially, when we look at the basic texts and its components of the word "Yom"? Are we making human eyes and comprehension the new standards of biblical interpretation?

    Consider along with context, let's not forget about "signification". This is the field of semantics in linguistics that deals with "the accurate evaluation of the meaning of expressions [words, phrases, clauses, sentences, etc.] which have actually been used." Semantics calls for attention to the crucial question of the exact meaning of the Hebrew word yom. This matter of semantics is particularly important in view of the fact that the Hebrew term yom in the singular and plural has a large variety of meanings, including extended meanings such as "time," "lifetime," and so on.

    The Hebrew Term Yom:

    The Hebrew term yom, in its variety of forms.

    • Can mean aside from a literal "day" also a time or period of time (Judges 14:4).
    • In a more general sense "a month [of] time" (Genesis 29:14).
    • "Two years [of] time" (2 Samuel 13:23; 14:28; Jeremiah 28:3,11).
    • "Three weeks [of] time" (Daniel 11:2, 3).

    Yom In the plural form:

    • It can mean "year" (1 Samuel 27:7).
    • A "lifetime" (Genesis 47:8), etc.

    A quality lexicon will provide a comprehensive listing of the various possibilities. Keep studying, keep it real, keep it straight. CM

    SOURCES:

    -- James Barr, The Semantics of Biblical Language, 3rd ed. (London: SCM Press, 1991), 1.
    -- Francis Brown, S. R. Driver, and Charles A. Briggs, A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1974), 398-401.


    PS. I don't have five hours to watch the video clip shared. However, I will not dismiss it off hand. Jan, do you know if there is a transcript of this presentation (video clip) online? Given its length, I would be able to get to it sooner and through it faster.

  • JanJan Posts: 277

    @C_M_ said:
    Jan,
    Are we sacrificing human reasoning over the plain reading of the Word of God by inspiration? Especially, when we look at the basic texts and its components of the word "Yom"? Are we making human eyes and comprehension the new standards of biblical interpretation?

    God has given us reason for a reason, so that we can discern facts from errors.

    I believe that interpretation of the Word of God needs to be consistent with reason, and with observation of the natural world.

    The Bible leaves this much space for interpretation whenever it touches on scientific subjects, as it was written for people of all generations, and is in that manner unique among all sacred scriptures of the various religions.

    For example, when the Hindu Vedas teach that the earth was created resting upon the back of a giant tortoise, there is not much to interpret around it, to make it match with observations of the natural world, and a Hindu would have a hard time to convince any reasonably thinking person that the Vedas are true. The Vedas in general have to be rejected because they don't even get the fundamental view of the cosmos right.

    When it comes to the creation story in Genesis, it is sufficiently detailed for us modern people to realize that it doesn't contradict scientific discoveries that were unknown at the time of writing, but also sufficiently vague as not to alienate anyone holding the ancient Semitic flat earth view of the cosmos. It doesn't even try to correct their views. However, it can only do so at the cost of leaving space for interpretation.

    200 years ago there was no scientific conflict with the six 24-hour-days view, and I can fully understand that this was the popular interpretation of Genesis 1. However, interpretation is not infallible. The text itself is infallible, but interpretation is not.

    There have been allegations that science determined the age of the earth so that there's sufficient time for evolution to take place and produce all the variety of life forms we have today. Fact is, not even 4 billion years is sufficient time for evolution to take place. Scientists start to realize that now, and instead of "correcting" the age of the earth, they come up with absolutely bizarre theories:

    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/octopus-aliens-scientists-theory-meteors-space-earth-cambrian-explosion-a8358631.html

    https://medium.com/@dema300w/the-problem-of-evolution-in-a-simulated-universe-ec078c10c7c3

    Therefore, sticking to YEC just because naturalistic evolution requires billions of years, no longer makes any sense.

    I'm quite convinced that some time in the future biology text books will no longer teach natural evolution, but switch to one of those bizarre theories.

    The Hebrew Term Yom:

    The Hebrew term yom, in its variety of forms.

    • Can mean aside from a literal "day" also a time or period of time (Judges 14:4).
    • In a more general sense "a month [of] time" (Genesis 29:14).
    • "Two years [of] time" (2 Samuel 13:23; 14:28; Jeremiah 28:3,11).
    • "Three weeks [of] time" (Daniel 11:2, 3).

    It can mean a much longer period of time. In Genesis 2:17 it must mean around 1000 years, since Adam did not die until that much later.

    PS. I don't have five hours to watch the video clip shared. However, I will not dismiss it off hand. Jan, do you know if there is a transcript of this presentation (video clip) online? Given its length, I would be able to get to it sooner and through it faster.

    I don't think there is, but the debate is only about 2 hours and a bit. Afterwards, there are reactions by other astrophysicists, and responses to their reactions. You could just skip the final three hours, and still get most of the information from the first two hours.

  • Dave_LDave_L Posts: 2,345

    How can Jan and CM both be right?

    The Six Days of Creation.

    In Hebrews 11:3 the writer says; “By faith we understand that the worlds were set in order at God’s command, so that the visible has its origin in the invisible.”

    Calvin translates it; “so that they became the visibles of things not visible,” or, not apparent. And then says; “thus the same truth is taught here, as in Rom. 1:20, where it is said, that the invisible things of God are made known to us by the creation of the world, they being seen in his works.”

    He continues; “God has given us, throughout the whole frame-work of this world, clear evidences of his eternal wisdom, goodness, and power; and though he is in himself invisible, he in a manner becomes visible to us in his works.”

    Calvin, J., & Owen, J. (2010). Commentary on the Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Hebrews (p. 266). Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software.

    But what if we took this train of thought one step further? Saying the entire universe, eternally in God’s mind and decree became visible over the course of six days. The spiritual and eternally existing now clothed on with time, space and matter? The same way metal shavings when dusted on a piece of paper with a magnet below, reveal the magnetic waves?

    Like a huge house, light-years across. Where God flips the switch and all the lights come on at once. Taking moments for what would take trillions of light-years using space-time measurements?

    This is only a theory I've been presenting to see if it holds up. But I am YEC trying to make allowances for "scientific evidence" to the contrary.

    What do you think?

  • reformedreformed Posts: 2,777

    @Jan I contend that there is still no ****scientific ****EVIDENCE to suggest that the earth could not be created in 24 hour days. The only "evidence" is a theory that is far from being proven as any ounce of fact.

  • JanJan Posts: 277

    @reformed said:
    @Jan I contend that there is still no ****scientific ****EVIDENCE to suggest that the earth could not be created in 24 hour days. The only "evidence" is a theory that is far from being proven as any ounce of fact.

    As I said, it's the stars that convinced me of OEC. There is plenty of scientific evidence that the stars were not made one day prior to the plants.

  • Bill_ColeyBill_Coley Posts: 1,949

    @Dave_L said:
    Like a huge house, light-years across. Where God flips the switch and all the lights come on at once. Taking moments for what would take trillions of light-years using space-time measurements?

    This is only a theory I've been presenting to see if it holds up. But I am YEC trying to make allowances for "scientific evidence" to the contrary.

    It seems to me that if your proposal is to hold up, Dave, then the scientific record should show evidence of some structure in the cosmos - a planet, a star, a galaxy, etc - whose "lights" were switched on all at once. To my knowledge, there is no such structure.

    Consider star-making factories known as nebulae, the Orion Nebula as a wondrous example. In them, even as we post, stars are forming, but the process of stellar formation will take hundreds of thousands to millions of years. If the stars in nebulae take that long to power up, why would we believe some original set of stars switched on in an instant?

    What do you think?

  • Bill_ColeyBill_Coley Posts: 1,949

    @reformed said:
    @Jan I contend that there is still no ****scientific ****EVIDENCE to suggest that the earth could not be created in 24 hour days. The only "evidence" is a theory that is far from being proven as any ounce of fact.

    In science, a "theory" is FAR more than a collection of speculations or best guesses. It is an explanation of observed reality that has been confirmed again and again by others in the scientific community, and that makes accurate predictions of future events.

    Einstein's "theory" of general relativity - basically, how gravity functions in cosmic (but not quantum) settings - has withstood countless tests during the century-plus since its publication. Still today its predictions are being verified (Google "gravity waves").

    I offer to you, reformed, the challenge I offered to Dave L: We know stars are in formation in nebulae, a creative process that will take hundreds of thousands to millions of years. If that's how stars are being formed today, on what rational, scientific basis would we conclude that some other set of stars formed in one day?

  • Dave_LDave_L Posts: 2,345

    @Bill_Coley said:

    @Dave_L said:
    Like a huge house, light-years across. Where God flips the switch and all the lights come on at once. Taking moments for what would take trillions of light-years using space-time measurements?

    This is only a theory I've been presenting to see if it holds up. But I am YEC trying to make allowances for "scientific evidence" to the contrary.

    It seems to me that if your proposal is to hold up, Dave, then the scientific record should show evidence of some structure in the cosmos - a planet, a star, a galaxy, etc - whose "lights" were switched on all at once. To my knowledge, there is no such structure.

    Consider star-making factories known as nebulae, the Orion Nebula as a wondrous example. In them, even as we post, stars are forming, but the process of stellar formation will take hundreds of thousands to millions of years. If the stars in nebulae take that long to power up, why would we believe some original set of stars switched on in an instant?

    What do you think?

    They are still being switched on?

  • reformedreformed Posts: 2,777

    @Jan said:

    @reformed said:
    @Jan I contend that there is still no ****scientific ****EVIDENCE to suggest that the earth could not be created in 24 hour days. The only "evidence" is a theory that is far from being proven as any ounce of fact.

    As I said, it's the stars that convinced me of OEC. There is plenty of scientific evidence that the stars were not made one day prior to the plants.

    The star problem is EASILY refuted. Your problem with day 4 is that it would take much time for the light to get to earth, correct? Well then let me ask you this, was Adam created as a baby or a man? Obviously a man, he was created with the appearance of being much older than he actually was and that time had been going much longer than it had been. Why would the stars be any different? Were plants created as saplings or did they have fruit ready to be eaten? They had to have fruit or Adam would not have survived.

  • reformedreformed Posts: 2,777

    @Bill_Coley said:

    @reformed said:
    @Jan I contend that there is still no ****scientific ****EVIDENCE to suggest that the earth could not be created in 24 hour days. The only "evidence" is a theory that is far from being proven as any ounce of fact.

    In science, a "theory" is FAR more than a collection of speculations or best guesses. It is an explanation of observed reality that has been confirmed again and again by others in the scientific community, and that makes accurate predictions of future events.

    Einstein's "theory" of general relativity - basically, how gravity functions in cosmic (but not quantum) settings - has withstood countless tests during the century-plus since its publication. Still today its predictions are being verified (Google "gravity waves").

    I offer to you, reformed, the challenge I offered to Dave L: We know stars are in formation in nebulae, a creative process that will take hundreds of thousands to millions of years. If that's how stars are being formed today, on what rational, scientific basis would we conclude that some other set of stars formed in one day?

    Created with age, see my above response to Jan.

  • Bill_ColeyBill_Coley Posts: 1,949

    @reformed said:
    Created with age, see my above response to Jan.

    But this response does not address the question I asked, reformed.

    In nebulae, we observe stars in formation - being created - NOT with age, but "from the ground up," so to speak - from their component parts, dust and gas, in a process that will take hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of years. Since new stars are NOT being created with age, on what rational, scientific basis would we conclude other stars WERE created with age, and on a single day?

  • JanJan Posts: 277

    @reformed said:
    The star problem is EASILY refuted. Your problem with day 4 is that it would take much time for the light to get to earth, correct? Well then let me ask you this, was Adam created as a baby or a man? Obviously a man, he was created with the appearance of being much older than he actually was and that time had been going much longer than it had been. Why would the stars be any different? Were plants created as saplings or did they have fruit ready to be eaten? They had to have fruit or Adam would not have survived.

    It's not so easy at all. There's a difference between the age of the stars and the age of the starlight. A newly created star might look old, but there's no way that newly created starlight can "appear" old. Watch the video with the debate.

  • Bill_ColeyBill_Coley Posts: 1,949

    @Jan said:

    It's not so easy at all. There's a difference between the age of the stars and the age of the starlight. A newly created star might look old, but there's no way that newly created starlight can "appear" old. Watch the video with the debate.

    An excellent and insightful point, Jan. Thanks.

  • reformedreformed Posts: 2,777

    @Bill_Coley said:

    @reformed said:
    Created with age, see my above response to Jan.

    But this response does not address the question I asked, reformed.

    In nebulae, we observe stars in formation - being created - NOT with age, but "from the ground up," so to speak - from their component parts, dust and gas, in a process that will take hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of years. Since new stars are NOT being created with age, on what rational, scientific basis would we conclude other stars WERE created with age, and on a single day?

    Actually I did address it. The same way humans are no longer created with age. There was a ONE TIME creation, a starting point, that set everything else into motion. Of course new stars are not being created with age just as nothing else is, it doesn't need to be. But for life to sustain itself, God had to create everything with age.

    @Jan said:

    @reformed said:
    The star problem is EASILY refuted. Your problem with day 4 is that it would take much time for the light to get to earth, correct? Well then let me ask you this, was Adam created as a baby or a man? Obviously a man, he was created with the appearance of being much older than he actually was and that time had been going much longer than it had been. Why would the stars be any different? Were plants created as saplings or did they have fruit ready to be eaten? They had to have fruit or Adam would not have survived.

    It's not so easy at all. There's a difference between the age of the stars and the age of the starlight. A newly created star might look old, but there's no way that newly created starlight can "appear" old. Watch the video with the debate.

    Did Adam appear old? Did the plants appear old? Your theory holds no water.

    @Bill_Coley said:

    @Jan said:

    It's not so easy at all. There's a difference between the age of the stars and the age of the starlight. A newly created star might look old, but there's no way that newly created starlight can "appear" old. Watch the video with the debate.

    An excellent and insightful point, Jan. Thanks.

    Not really.

  • Dave_LDave_L Posts: 2,345

    If matter (energy) is constant in the universe, how can there be new light? If there is what appears to be new stars or light, wouldn't it be more in line with what I said earlier? The eternal decree, already there spiritually, being clothed upon and made visible with the available matter in the universe, that is constant?

  • C McC Mc Posts: 3,541

    Jan,

    We can't let Danny Faulkner and astronomers have the last word over the Bible when it comes to a day, "yom" or the age of the earth. Please reconsider the biblical account.

    The Days Of Creation Are Literal 24 Hour Days

    A. Genesis 1:5-- Light = Day, Darkness = Night
    B. Genesis-- 1:5, 8, 13, 19, 23, 31 Evening and Morning = 24 Hour Day
    [Exodus 18:13, 27:21; Leviticus 24:3; Judges 19:9; 1 Samuel 17:16; 1 Chronicles 16:40; 2 Chronicles 2:4, 13:11, 31:3; Ezra 3:3; Job 4:20; Psalm 55:17; Mark 1:32; Leviticus 23:32; Leviticus 11:22-40].
    C. Genesis 1:14-- Heavenly bodies determine day length.
    D. Genesis 1:16-18 -- Sun divides the day.
    E. Genesis 4, 5:3 -- Day seven was less the 130 years.
    F. Exodus 20:8-11 -- Seventh-day literal Sabbath.
    G. Genesis 7:4,10 -- A Literal week before the flood - Genesis. 8:10,12

    H. Genesis 5-9 -- 
Literal chronology before and during the flood
.
    I. Hebrews 4:4,9 -- The Sabbath completed (Genesis 2:1-3, Exodus 20:8-11; 31:17)
    J. Hebrews 11 -- New Testament writers took Genesis literally.
    K. Isaiah 66:22-24 -- Literal week and Sabbath in the new earth.
    L. Genesis 1:11-19 -- Plants created before sunlight.
    M). Genesis 1:11-25 -- Plants created before bees.
    N). John 11:9 -- 12 Hours in the day.
    O). Genesis 1:5 -- The first day.
    P). Mark 2:28 -- The Sabbath made for man.
    Q). A Literal week and Sabbath preserved since the Tower of Babel
    R). Over 106 scientific dating methods for a young earth.
    S). A Day cannot be of a definite and indefinite length at the same time
    T). Hebrew word yom means 24-hour day
    .

    We can discover the truth when we allow The Truth, to speak His Truth and accept The Truth. CM

    A Source to consider:

    -- John Morris, The Young Earth: The Real History of the Earth—Past, Present, and Future (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 2006).

  • JanJan Posts: 277

    Did Adam appear old? Did the plants appear old? Your theory holds no water.

    There's a difference between an object, and the light that the object emits.

    Suppose God created a new star with the appearance of being old at a distance of one billion light years away at a time 6000 years ago.

    This star started to emit starlight towards our direction 6000 years ago. Now we'd have to wait another 999,994,000 years before we can see this starlight through our telescopes.

    So in order for us to see that starlight now, God would have had to create additional starlight that this particular star would have emitted into our direction 999,994,000 years ago. So when we look through our telescopes, we'd see this star in the sky.

    I have two issues with this theory:
    1. When we look at this star through a telescope, it would appear young, not old, because we'd look at starlight that would have been emitted 999,994,000 years ago, when the star would have been young (which it never was, because God created it only with the appearance of being old 999,994,000 years later).
    2. We'd have to be able to actually observe the process of God creating this "past" starlight through our telescopes at a distance of 6000 light years away - the supposed YEC view creation date.

  • reformedreformed Posts: 2,777

    @Jan said:

    Did Adam appear old? Did the plants appear old? Your theory holds no water.

    There's a difference between an object, and the light that the object emits.

    Suppose God created a new star with the appearance of being old at a distance of one billion light years away at a time 6000 years ago.

    This star started to emit starlight towards our direction 6000 years ago. Now we'd have to wait another 999,994,000 years before we can see this starlight through our telescopes.

    So in order for us to see that starlight now, God would have had to create additional starlight that this particular star would have emitted into our direction 999,994,000 years ago. So when we look through our telescopes, we'd see this star in the sky.

    I have two issues with this theory:
    1. When we look at this star through a telescope, it would appear young, not old, because we'd look at starlight that would have been emitted 999,994,000 years ago, when the star would have been young (which it never was, because God created it only with the appearance of being old 999,994,000 years later).

    False, if God created it with age it would appear as it should just as Adam and all plants and animals did.

    1. We'd have to be able to actually observe the process of God creating this "past" starlight through our telescopes at a distance of 6000 light years away - the supposed YEC view creation date.

    Why? Why must you captivate God in our limited understanding about how the universe works instead of just taking Him at His word?

  • Bill_ColeyBill_Coley Posts: 1,949

    @reformed said:
    Actually I did address it. The same way humans are no longer created with age. There was a ONE TIME creation, a starting point, that set everything else into motion. Of course new stars are not being created with age just as nothing else is, it doesn't need to be. But for life to sustain itself, God had to create everything with age.

    Doesn't the current reality of stellar formation from dust and gas rather than "with age" - a reality that you acknowledge - demonstrate that it wasn't necessary for the first stars to have been created created with age in order for "life to sustain itself"? Wouldn't ANY creative process that produced dust, gas, and gravity - star formation's principal components - have been capable of generating the first stars?

    The other matter is the finite speed of light. We know that speed to GREAT certainty and accuracy:186,282 miles/sec or 299,792 kms/sec (in a vacuum). Also with great certainty, we know that there are trillions upon trillions of stars/galaxies in the universe that are millions and billions of light years from us, which means that light from those objects has been traveling at 186,282 miles/sec for millions and billions of years to get here - and most of that light hasn't got here yet, and won't get here for millions/billions more years. How could light from an object created 6,000 years ago travel a distance light from any other source would have taken millions and billions of years to travel?

  • WolfgangWolfgang Posts: 2,413
    edited May 2018

    for some reason some folks seem to think of "light years" as a measure for time, when in fact it is a measure for distance.

    Sometimes, I wonder if the assumed "facts" that the speed of light is always constant and the light rays always travel straight are actually correct?

  • Bill_ColeyBill_Coley Posts: 1,949

    @Wolfgang said:
    for some reason some folks seem to think of "light years" as a measure for time, when in fact it is a measure for distance.

    While it is true that "light year" is a measure of distance, it is also correct to infer how long light from an object has been traveling by its distance in light years. For example, light from the Andromeda Galaxy is 2.5 million light years from us, which means its light takes 2.5 million light years to get here.

    It's a small bit akin to water when measured by volume or by weight. Eight fluid ounces of water happens to weigh approximately 8 oz. So if tell you have I have 8oz of water, I might be telling you about its measurement in fluid ounces, but in effect, I'm also telling you about its weight.

  • reformedreformed Posts: 2,777

    @Bill_Coley said:

    @reformed said:
    Actually I did address it. The same way humans are no longer created with age. There was a ONE TIME creation, a starting point, that set everything else into motion. Of course new stars are not being created with age just as nothing else is, it doesn't need to be. But for life to sustain itself, God had to create everything with age.

    Doesn't the current reality of stellar formation from dust and gas rather than "with age" - a reality that you acknowledge - demonstrate that it wasn't necessary for the first stars to have been created created with age in order for "life to sustain itself"? Wouldn't ANY creative process that produced dust, gas, and gravity - star formation's principal components - have been capable of generating the first stars?

    The other matter is the finite speed of light. We know that speed to GREAT certainty and accuracy:186,282 miles/sec or 299,792 kms/sec (in a vacuum). Also with great certainty, we know that there are trillions upon trillions of stars/galaxies in the universe that are millions and billions of light years from us, which means that light from those objects has been traveling at 186,282 miles/sec for millions and billions of years to get here - and most of that light hasn't got here yet, and won't get here for millions/billions more years. How could light from an object created 6,000 years ago travel a distance light from any other source would have taken millions and billions of years to travel?

    Actually we do NOT know that light has been travelling at that distance for billions of years to get to us. That is an assumption you make. But if Adam was created as if time had already passed for him, why can this not also be true of light and stars? You have yet to address that issue.

  • Bill_ColeyBill_Coley Posts: 1,949

    @Wolfgang said:

    Sometimes, I wonder if the assumed "facts" that the speed of light is always constant and the light rays always travel straight are actually correct?

    Science has discovered that the speed of light is NOT constant, and that light rays do NOT always travel in straight lines.

    186,000 miles/s is the speed of light in a vacuum, but not under all circumstances. When light rays pass through water, for example, they slow down to about 140,000 miles/sec. And then there's the remarkable effect called "gravitational lensing," the bending effect of gravity on light waves predicted by Einstein and verified again and again.

Sign In or Register to comment.