The only conflict occurs if one assumes that the modern English translation is an accurate scientific treaste of the events. I don’t have a conflict because I read Genesis as a pesher (the ‘why’ of Creation and our place in the world.)
The only conflict occurs if one assumes that the modern English translation is an accurate scientific treaste of the events. I don’t have a conflict because I read Genesis as a pesher (the ‘why’ of Creation and our place in the world.)
I'm only vaguely familiar with the Qumran Pesharim, but, in my opinion, there is no conflict between Genesis 1:5 and Genesis 1:14....at least not a necessary one.
The former, is from the perspective of God, and the latter is from our perspective. Now, one can argue that they could indicate two different lengths of time for the definition of day, but one can not say that such a proposal is inferred, or necessary.
The lights that were created in the firmament of the heavens on day four, the sun, the moon (reflective light) the stars, etc., were different from the "light" that was created on day one. At least that's the way I read it. What that light was....I don't know, and I don't pretend to know, but there is nothing in the language of the text that indicates both frames of reference, God on day one, and ours, or the earth, on day four, must necessarily infer two distinct time durations.
If, from God's perspective, on day one, he created light and divided it from the darkness as representing what we know as a twenty-four day, then I see nothing in the text that contradicts it...and it seems perfectly reasonable that he would do the same for us, as to be seen from our perspective via the sun, on day four.
I can understand reasonable people making arguments that might imply something different, but it is not reasonable to make an argument that such is necessarily inferred. There simply is no evidence for that.
Genesis 1:5 has the light, day/night etc being created before the Earth, Genesis 1:14 has it happening after.
The only conflict occurs if one assumes that the modern English translation is an accurate scientific treaste of the events. I don’t have a conflict because I read Genesis as a pesher (the ‘why’ of Creation and our place in the world.)
I'm only vaguely familiar with the Qumran Pesharim, but, in my opinion, there is no conflict between Genesis 1:5 and Genesis 1:14....at least not a necessary one.
The former, is from the perspective of God, and the latter is from our perspective. Now, one can argue that they could indicate two different lengths of time for the definition of day, but one can not say that such a proposal is inferred, or necessary.
The lights that were created in the firmament of the heavens on day four, the sun, the moon (reflective light) the stars, etc., were different from the "light" that was created on day one. At least that's the way I read it. What that light was....I don't know, and I don't pretend to know, but there is nothing in the language of the text that indicates both frames of reference, God on day one, and ours, or the earth, on day four, must necessarily infer two distinct time durations.
If, from God's perspective, on day one, he created light and divided it from the darkness as representing what we know as a twenty-four day, then I see nothing in the text that contradicts it...and it seems perfectly reasonable that he would do the same for us, as to be seen from our perspective via the sun, on day four.
I can understand reasonable people making arguments that might imply something different, but it is not reasonable to make an argument that such is necessarily inferred. There simply is no evidence for that.