Genesis day 1/3 explanation

I do think people take the ANE stuff too far. There was not just one ANE monoculture, so we cannot take a random text from Mesopotamia or Egypt (Canaan is a different story), and assume that Israel was thinking in the same way.

But my concern is that some of the more bizarre elements of Genesis 1 (such as daylight before the sun) would not have been so bizarre when ancient near Eastern protoscience was considered

4 Likes

The ‘Rossian’ cosmological sequence of light before the appearance of the sun is not bizarre, though. What is bizarre is how YECs have to punt and invent an explanation that is not there. I used to be a YEC, decades ago, but I never was satisfied with YEC explanations for it.

1 Like

Ahhh… the Shekinah glory…

1 Like

…or light created in transit continuously for a few days.

1 Like

So the author of Genesis took dictation while God spoke to him? That is not the version of inspiration that I am familiar with.

You have to start with the ANE context and not add a modern understanding that is not part of the original text. As Reggie has said having daylight before the sun was not a problem for the ANE understanding of the text but it is a problem when you add the modern understanding that daylight comes from the sun.

4 Likes

It is important to look for consistency throughout the Bible. When the term “yom” is used with an ordinal number, it always describes a short period of time, such as a 24 hour period. I believe creation was revealed to an individual over a six day period, and the individual recorded the events revealed each day. This person would have to have had interpreted what was revealed in the context of their ANE background, which describes the separation from the waters above from the waters below. I think the only words provided were recorded, leaving the text up to the individual, this is consistent with how John recorded the Revelation, where he had to describe items that he was not familiar with.

The burden of proof is not to be consistent with science, but to not be conflicting. Stating Adam was the first man and he lived 6,000 years ago clearly conflicts with our current understanding of science. If Genesis 1 and 2 are sequential, the conflict goes away.

I guess I’m saying that there are other options. This is one approach. But, as Dale suggests, if one assumes that God is the author (indirectly) then another approach is to understand the text from God’s perspective. So, possibly there was some context inherent in the text that was not necessarily understood from an ANE perspective, and yet was still a timeless truth, because God inspired the text.

Dale messaged me because he’s a new user and cannot reply due to a new user limit:

@Dale So I said nothing that denoted dictation. Were the biblical authors always cognizant of all the ramifications of what they were writing?

This in response to:

1 Like

Interesting addition. I have always read the YEC position to say that it is nearly always used as a 24-hour day. Here you mention that it is used as a short period of time, such as a 24-hour day. This allows for the fact that it is a half-day (literally) due to the fact that the text says “evening to morning.” Yet, if you are to be consistent, I don’t believe that a 12-hour period is typical at all. So, then, is this not atypical?

1 Like

The phase “a short period of time, such as a 24 hour day” is a direct quote from a class on Genesis at Dallas Theological Seminary. (This is a free online class, which I highly recommend) Your question had me do a little research and I found a web site that lists all the OT uses of the term “yom” with an ordinal number. I did not see any references to anything other than a 24 hour period, I do not know why the professor choose that language specifically.

1 Like

Thanks Tom. I think that he may have chosen it because in this case, yom is not a 24-hour day. Evening and morning, the x-th day is a 12-hour day. So, by saying "a short period of time, such as a 24-hour day, it makes a point that he was hoping to make, and yet it is not consistent. I do not believe that yom plus an ordinal means 24-hours either. I’m not an expert by any means, but I’ve read many rebuttals to this theory.

Personally, I believe that yom means a “day” in this case, but I just read it as being poetic rather than literal.

Except when it doesn’t. Hosea 6:2 refers to a third day that is not a 24 hour day. And the “rule” was invented by YEC apologists.

And I just check the site you provided and it has ??? in front of Hosea 6:2. Wonder what that means? The exception that proves the rule?

Hosea is referring to the resurrection of Jesus on the third day

The versus are talking about Israel. The third day was a period of time. You can interpret it to mean something different, but we are talking about a “rule” that is violated in this verse in it’s original context.

1 Like

Not necessarily. @Swamidass (who no longer posts here) will be publishing a book in December that makes the case for a recent (c. 10k years ago) Adam and Eve who were called by God to form a new covenant community in the midst of an existing H. Sapiens population. This Genealogical Adam and Eve couple would be consistent with scientific evidence.

This is not the order of events as determined by geologists and paleontologists. The great oxygenation event (that cleared the atmosphere) happened over a billion years ago with algae predecessors. Sea creatures and fish existed long before the first land plants. There is a gap of over a billion years in the viewability of celestial objects and the fulfillment of their purpose.

I like Hugh Ross and everything he says about astronomy and physics. He is very generous and godly, as I know from personal experience. That’s why I wish I could agree with his concordist approach…but I cannot.

Best,
Chris

3 Likes

@TGLarkin said Adam was the first man. By that, I assume he means the “first H. sapiens male,” which is how virtually everyone reads the Genesis account. (Correct me if you meant something else, Tom.) Tom is correct that science rules out a “first man” and “first woman” as the origin of our species anytime within the last 500,000 years.

The “genealogical Adam” scenario proposes that Adam was not the first man, as far as I can tell.

1 Like

As I understand it, the genealogical Adam and Eve relies on a distinction between the biological definition of H Sapiens and the theological definition of humanity as those created in God’s image (and thereby called to a covenant relationship with God). I want to read the book so I can understand this distinction better. Until then, I simply note that Adam and Eve could be the first theological human beings even though H Sapiens had a long evolutionary history prior to them.

1 Like

A distinction without a difference? I guess we’ll find out. Either way, I think your restatement is a fair representation of the concept.

        The Hebrew Word “Yom” Used with a Number in Genesis 1

Jesus was raised on the third day according to the scripture. Hosea is the only prophecy where the third day is mentioned which is why I feel that this was understood by Paul and the Gospel writers to be a Messianic prophecy.

No problem with it being a prophecy. You are the one that says the “rule” forces “third day” to be a literal 24 hour day, when the context for the phrase plainly shows it does NOT refer to a 24 hour day. This means the rule is useless as it doesn’t always apply.