[Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit]

I have a question that might make this thread a bit more interesting than a box of metamucial.

I always get agitated by accounts of time in the Bible. The primary reason for this is that the measurement of time is an invention of man, based on our relative position in the universe.

Since time is, in fact, relative,and God is a timeless being that exists on many planes, for Him, the human concept of time would be competely irrelavant. Thus, we cannot understand phrases in the Bible such as "six days" or "forty days and forty nights" or "1000 years" to be literal explanations of human time. Especially since the methods of keeping time have developed throughout human history. And, if one takes the creation story literally, before the creation of the earth and the sun, there would been no such thing as a "day", because that measure of the time is based on period of rotation of the earth.

These are just the thoughts that run through my head. Would love to har how others react to them.

[xzins]

You are asking about time being relative in the bible. Am I correct?

It is a good question. Any use of time in the bible must be based on the context in which it is found. There must be something that decidedly says we should take the time element "figuratively" rather than "literally" for us NOT to assume a normal reading.

If there is not specific indication that a referral to "days, months, years" is to be taken figuratively, then one can never PROVE their position that it is to be taken figuratively. However, everyone is always free to hypothesize and speculate.

[Jean Chauvin]

"And, if one takes the creation story literally, before the creation of the earth and the sun, there would been no such thing as a "day", because that measure of the time is based on period of rotation of the earth."

I've never liked this argument against the "literalness" of the "day" in genesis. (I personally do not hold to a 'literal' 24 hour day -I won't explain here, but if any question this I'd be glad to answer.) This was the premise of Howard VanTill's "The Fourth Day" which was a theistic evolutionist assault on the Genesis Creation account.

Just because the "unit of measure" (1 earth rotation in relation to the sun) did not yet exist does not ~NECESSARILY~ mean that the "unit" (24 hours) did not exist.

Think of this analogy (I must admit, it ~just~ popped into my head). At the completion of creation, there certainly was water. However, there was no 128 oz. 'gallon' of which to measure the water. This does not ~NECESSARILY~ negate the fact that there was "X" ('X' being a knowable exact amount) "units" of what would later be defined as "gallons" existant on the earth.

In other words, did the 'rate' of time differ for the universe from before the sun and earth were created to after the sun and earth were created? While "24 Hours" as being defined as "one earth rotation" was not yet "known", that does not ~necessarily~ mean that this duration was unknowable or unrealized.

In other words, if Genesis's creation account was intended to denote a literal "24 hours", could it not be that God created the universe ("creation") in the period of what we, today, know as 24 hours and could it not be that God determined that "one earth rotation" in relation to the "sun" would be the "unit of measure" for that time period?

At 12:00 am (and no brewskies, OP), I hope that you can follow my thinking.

Jean