A Question for Creationists

February 5th, 2002 | Sabertooth

[Sabertooth]

A Question for Creationists

Genesis 1:

1   In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
2   And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness [was] upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
3    And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
4   And God saw the light, that [it was] good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
5   And God called the light Day , and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

6   And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
7   And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which [were] under the firmament from the waters which [were] above the firmament: and it was so.
8   And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
9   And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry [land] appear: and it was so.
10   And God called the dry [land] Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that [it was] good.
11   And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, [and] the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed [is] in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
12   And the earth brought forth grass, [and] herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed [was] in itself, after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good.
13   And the evening and the morning were the third day.

14   And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
15   And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
16   And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day , and the lesser light to rule the night: [he made] the stars also.
17   And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
18   And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that [it was] good.
19   And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

20   And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl [that] may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
21   And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good.
22   And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.
23   And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.

24   And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
25   And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good.

26   And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
27    So God created man in his [own] image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
28    And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
29    And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which [is] upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which [is] the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.
30    And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein [there is] life, [I have given] every green herb for meat: and it was so.
31    And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, [it was] very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

So there we have it, right? God created the heavens and the Earth and every living thing, including man, in six days. Six, 24-hour days.

And then…

Genesis 2:

1   Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.
2   And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.
3   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.

Here at the begininning of Genesis 2, we see the seventh day. Now we have seven twenty-four hour days.

So far, so good?

And then the next few lines of Genesis 2…

4   These [are] the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,
5   And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and [there was] not a man to till the ground.
6   But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.

These verses are a recapitulation of the Genesis 1 account of creation, when God created the heavens and the earth. They further explain the antediluvian conditions on that day, before there was ever rain, when a mist would rise up from the ground and…

Wait.

The heavens were created on the second day, but there was no ground until God separated the waters from the earth on the third day of Creation. Look again at Genesis 1 : 6-10.

Genesis 1:

6   And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
7   And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which [were] under the firmament from the waters which [were] above the firmament: and it was so.
8   And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
9   And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry [land] appear: and it was so.
9   And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry [land] appear: and it was so.
10   And God called the dry [land] Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that [it was] good.

How can the heavens be created on the same day there was a mist rising from the ground in Genesis 2, when these things occurred on different days in Genesis 1?

The word "day" in Genesis 1 and 2 is translated from the Hebrew "yom." It's the same word in all of the places I've highlighted in red. In fact, about 99% of the time the word "day" is found in the Old Testament, the original Hebrew is "yom."

If the word "day" in the Genesis 1 is a normal 24-hour day, rather than an allegorical phrasing for a much longer period of time (as seen elsewhere in the Bible, Ps. 90:4 and 2 Peter 3: 8 being good examples), and the word "day" in Genesis 2:4 is also a 24 hour day, we appear to have a contradiction between Genesis 1 and 2. The only way Genesis 2:4 can be reconciled is if "day" refers to a period of longer than 24 hours.

But if the word "day" is figurative in Genesis 2:4, then why not in Genesis 1?

Why does the word "day" in Genesis 1 have to mean a literal 24-hour period?

[vikingchick]

Nice graphics!

[MeekOneGOP]

ping. . .

[RaceBannon]

Please see post #28. The verse about 1000 years = one day is often mis-interpreted

[RaceBannon]

It doesn't logically follow that the only case where the 1000 year reference applies is in the context of God's mercy. The comment is a poetic illustration of the Eternity of God. The phrase could as easily have been a billion years.

'If you think that is true, then find me another reference where a 1000 years = one day. The reference of time when God is speaking either is an absurd number, like the billion you mention, or it is a number Humans can grasp and understand. God uses the long time period of 1000 years being equal to a day because it is a metaphor used to speak of God's willingness to wait for us to repent.

This passage has NOTHING to do with Creation at all!! Those who use it to defend some long term age or whatever are misusing the verse. It is clear that this reference to 1000 years is about God's mercy, not the creation of the world in any sense at all.

[GSWarrior]

uh...so what is the question?

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the heads up!

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the heads up!

[woollyone]

"Yet it seems on the whole, you found my reply unsatisfactory...Mind if I ask why?

Certainly.

With absolute respect intended here, I don't sense that you are genuinely asking questions that will help you unerstand the Word better, but are asking for the sake of rhetorical discourse.

The prime question you have asked here is; "Why does the word "day" in Genesis 1 have to mean a literal 24-hour period?"

It seems clear that by the bracketing of each day with "morning and evening" shows that each was a literal day, and that in 2:4 it is meant as a period of time.
By your own words, it is also apparent that you understand this truth already, but that you simply aren't satisfied with it, because it goes against some other preconceived notions which you have about the universe or of God. In a sense, you sound much like the professor in post #68.

A simple analogy to ponder...
The specific time I am scheduled to be at work is at 7:30AM until 5:00PM, on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday. During that time, I am to be ready and willing to fully surrender my personal agendas to the agendas of my employer.
The first usage of time is clearly a specific time and the second usage is of general nature, yet both usages are true. Does the application of the second general usage mean that I can show up to work at any time of my choosing? No. Does the usage in the second sense nullify the validity of the exact time in the first statement? No.

Now, if you would believe that I could use the word 'time' in two different contexts and have them both be true, why can you not accept it when the Soveriegn of the universe uses similar vernacular? I am certainly not more trustworthy than He is!

With this in mind, I sense that it is not the creationists or the evolutionists with whom you have issue, but with the Author of the Book, as you are doubting what he declares, in light of your preferred preconceptions. No amount of debate here will stir you from your position. The only resolution you will find will come out of some personal one-on-one time with Him. All we can do here is to argue in our pride about what we claim to know absolutely about the One Who is not absolutely knowable.

In this, I see only pride being served and the Lord not being glorified, but rather, being ridiculed as being mistaken about His own Word and His own testimony of the events to which He was the principle party.

Numbers 23:19...God [is] not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do [it]? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?"

It is one thing for us to believe the Word is God's Word.
It is another thing entirely for us to actually believe God's Word.

My response to you is not in any way intended to be insulting or to be taken as some personal attack, but merely as a respectful reply to your questions.
Wishing His peace to you.

[Sabertooth]

If you think that is true, then find me another reference where a 1000 years = one day.

I referenced Psalm 90:4 in the article, but here you go again...

Psalm 90:

1  Lord, thou hast been our dwelling place in all generations.
2  Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God.
3  Thou turnest man to destruction; and sayest, Return, ye children of men.
4  For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night.
5  Thou carriest them away as with a flood; they are as a sleep: in the morning they are like grass which groweth up.
6  In the morning it flourisheth, and groweth up; in the evening it is cut down, and withereth.
7  For we are consumed by thine anger, and by thy wrath are we troubled.
8  Thou hast set our iniquities before thee, our secret sins in the light of thy countenance.
9  For all our days are passed away in thy wrath: we spend our years as a tale that is told.
10  The days of our years are threescore years and ten; and if by reason of strength they be fourscore years, yet is their strength labour and sorrow; for it is soon cut off, and we fly away.
11  Who knoweth the power of thine anger? even according to thy fear, so is thy wrath.
12  So teach us to number our days, that we may apply our hearts unto wisdom.
13  Return, O LORD, how long? and let it repent thee concerning thy servants.
14  O satisfy us early with thy mercy; that we may rejoice and be glad all our days.
15  Make us glad according to the days wherein thou hast afflicted us, and the years wherein we have seen evil.
16  Let thy work appear unto thy servants, and thy glory unto their children.
17  And let the beauty of the LORD our God be upon us: and establish thou the work of our hands upon us; yea, the work of our hands establish thou it.

Verse 4 is interesting, because the surrounding verses reference Creation, Salvation, and the Flood.

Also, take note of verse 10, where 70 "days" is used figuratively to mean 70 "years."

The reference of time when God is speaking either is an absurd number, like the billion you mention, or it is a number Humans can grasp and understand. God uses the long time period of 1000 years being equal to a day because it is a metaphor used to speak of God's willingness to wait for us to repent.

As seen in Psalm 90, that's just not the only possible context for that metaphor. You are asserting an interpretation that is far too limited, simply to uphold other limited interpretations.

This passage has NOTHING to do with Creation at all!! Those who use it to defend some long term age or whatever are misusing the verse. It is clear that this reference to 1000 years is about God's mercy, not the creation of the world in any sense at all.

In what literal sense is the 1000 year equation being applied to humans? None of us live to 1000.

The sense being used is a poetic sense describing the Eternity of God. That sense of God's Eternity is intrinsic, not merely an aspect of His mercy.

[aruanan]

If the word "day" in the Genesis 1 is a normal 24-hour day, rather than an allegorical phrasing for a much longer period of time (as seen elsewhere in the Bible, Ps. 90:4 and 2 Peter 3: 8 being good examples), and the word "day" in Genesis 2:4 is also a 24 hour day, we appear to have a contradiction between Genesis 1 and 2. The only way Genesis 2:4 can be reconciled is if "day" refers to a period of longer than 24 hours.

And? Talk about belaboring the obvious. In Genesis 1, 'yom' is being used in the context of a seven day week during each day of which something occurs. The meaning of 'yom' is a day, sundown to sundown. In Genesis, 'yom' is being used as a description of the event of G-d's creation, ie., "On the occasion of G-d's creating the heavens and the earth." There's no contradiction when the context sets the meaning. The "contradiction" only comes in when someone, such as yourself, chooses to define the words in such a way as to create (evolve?) one. Also, you may as well say that, since "day" is also used to refer to a period shorter than a day, ie., "The Day of the Lord" (2 Peter 3:10), each of the "days" of creation could be less than a literal 24 hour day. For that matter, you mistake the import of 2 Peter 3:8. An equally valid interpretation is that in a single day the Lord can accomplish what would appear to take a thousand years. This isn't the main point of the passage, though, which is to tell the reader that G-d has his own time table and that the point of it all is due to his beneficence toward man ("He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance." 2 Peter 3:9). At any rate, there is no contradiction in these passages but the one you have contrived.

[rebdov]

Hi. Are you asking me a question? I haven't followed this thread. I don't usually go to Creationism/Evolution threads.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

Has anyone seen Manny Festo lately? I think he was researching a book on these topics and turned me on to some sites referencing the early Church leaders' opinions on these topics. They were very good and very helpful.

[Sabertooth]

You've lost me.

I don't have a conflict, the literalists do. I'm perfectly fine with anallegorical reading of Genesis 1 and 2.

My question goes to how they reconcile their conflict. They inisist on literalism when they insist on literalism, and a figurative interpretation when literalism doesn't work out for them.

I'm sorry if I've misunderstood your post, but I can't figure out if you're a literalist or if you've mistaken me for one.

[woollyone]

"They inisist on literalism when they insist on literalism, and a figurative interpretation when literalism doesn't work out for them."

This is an interesting accusation by you Saber. Certainly it is more applicable to the liberal interpreter than the conservative one.

For instance, do you take the whole counsel of God to be allegorical? Do you claim that Jesus was a literal man? How about Job? How about Noah? How about Jonah? How about the great fish? How about the three days and three nights?

Jesus believed all of these things to be literal! Are you saying He was mistaken?

In order for you to justifiably accuse only conservative interpreters of such liable, you must therefore mean to say that all of the Bible is allegory and that it contains no truth. For if you say that even one fact in the Bible is literal, such as the existance of the man Christ Jesus, then you stand accused of the same by which you accuse others; namely creative twisting of the meaning of Scripture.

However...there is a difference...
The liberal interpreter implies allegory when the plain usage and clear implication is not consistant with his preconceived world view, or when he doesn't have complete authoritative understanding of the passage.
The conservative interpreter reads a meaning as allegorical when the plain meaning of the passage implies an allegorical context.

Thus the difference between exegesis and eisegesis.

So which is it Saber...
Is the whole Bible, every single word, allegorical?
Or, do you take some of the Bible to be literal?

If your answer is the second choice, then please rescind your previously false accusation or wear it yourself.

[aruanan]

I'm sorry if I've misunderstood your post, but I can't figure out if you're a literalist or if you've mistaken me for one.

Neither. I'm saying that there are many places where the same word is used in different ways. This is no less true of Hebrew than it is of English. The sense of the use is determined by the context in which the word is found. The fact that a word means one thing in one context and another thing in another doesn't at all mean that either is a contradiction of the other. For instance, "My dog is a really vicious bitch" and "My girlfriend is a really vicious bitch" both feature "really vicious bitch". Both sentences are valid uses of "really vicious bitch", but both have completely different meanings. To insist that either phrase must have the same meaning as the other (because they manifest the same surface features of the language) or else there is a contradiction is simply to ignore what language is and how it is used. It would also give some unique, thoroughly unintended (by the speaker), and, in this case, funny, meanings of the words.

[Sabertooth]

I'm saying that there are many places where the same word is used in different ways. This is no less true of Hebrew than it is of English. The sense of the use is determined by the context in which the word is found.

Gotcha, and I agree.

I would add that the context which informs us as to the meaning of a word is more than just the text in which it occurs... it is also in the subtext in the surrounding circumstances.

An statement like, "What an idiot" might be an insult or it might be a joke, depending on the reationships between the speaker, the listener, and the person being spoken of. But we can't know which from the text. True?

[aruanan]

Es la verdad.

[RaceBannon]

There you go, making me think again...

I forgot about Psalm 90, but my point is still valid. Whenever we read of inordinate time periods, they are metaphors. The use of the word day here is also clearly NOT a literal 24 hour day, but a metaphorical day, and the verse says that clearly. In genesis, though, these are NOT metaphors, check the language usage. It is only when someone assumes a theory on the language that the metaphor problem comes up, but in Genesis, the language is clearly not metaphorical.

But you did get me on Psalm 90!

[Michael2001]

What is a day to God?