Response plz?: When "evening and morning" are used with a day in Genesis it implies 24 hours

(Ronald Myers) #202

So… a day is really really important to get right … but God didn’t think it was important to make the Sun first … so that all the days would follow from that? So, instead, God goes Four (4) days without the sun … because humans will just “know” what He means?.. even though there was no human alive to see any of it?

Mainly due to tidal effects, the Earth’s rotational period is not constant, resulting in minor variations for both solar days and stellar “days”. The Earth’s day has increased in length over time. This phenomenon is due to tides raised by the Moon which slow Earth’s rotation. Because of the way the second is defined, the mean length of a day is now about 86 400.002 seconds, and is increasing by about 1.7 milliseconds per century (an average over the last 2 700 years).

So the time interval ‘day’ is not even constant If we use it as a precise time interval, do we use year 2000? year 1900? year 33? or the year God spoke to Abraham?

Our use of day, and it appears to be the same in Hebrew, is the interval between events in particular, either successive sunsets, sunrises or noons or midnights… Used this way changes in absolute length are irrelevant. If different events are used, the day length could be different. If it is a time period, then the day of a specific year needs to be specified.

As you can see this last idea can get ridiculous. The Holy Spirit did not give us the information to do this and the Providential One gives us what we need for faith, so to use ‘day’ as precise unit of time measurement must be discarded.

(Ronald Myers) #203

There is also the point that in Genesis 2 the Hebrew word for ‘day’ is not used for a specific time period

Gen. 2:4 This is the history of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens, NKJV.

The day is ‘Yom’ singular, the same word repeated over six times in Genesis 1:1 to 2:3. So one or the other or both uses are not literal.


Tidal effects do pull on our measurement of time by their very nature so we make minor adjustments of course. We must keep in mind that it is but a measurement for us to gauge our life rhythms and order.

Time used to be considered a constant but now science sees the speed of light as a universal constant. Again, it is a redefined measurement that science uses to measure stellar distance.

Yes, I agree that it was gauged to reflect sunrise/sunset etc. Currently, we measure these and adjust our time accordingly to remain accurate or approximate depending on how we view it. The Bible attributes different durations to a day so we can see that the length of a day varies depending on the length of a series of events, seasons or cycles are being considered.

A day can be roughly 24 Hrs or a thousand years in the bible or if the Hindu texts are considered then they have these time cycles and also much longer ones. They have their 24Hr day, month and year and longer divisions.

To discard the measurement of a day is debatable of course, and we debate what precise actually is. The Buddhists and Greeks had their definitions of time and so to see and measure time must be in human nature to try to do so. I appreciate your thoughts.


So we might presume that the source of light was attributed to the sun by its observation on sunny days. Noon and the solstices were also observed by the ancients.


All I offer are my thoughts, of course, dear friend. Let’s consider this… “that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures” Cor 15.4. So there was an initial burial and then a miracle of appearance.

Then later according to scripture after appearing in the flesh to the chosen he ascended in his spiritual body as the flesh cannot enter heaven as we are told. So the body of flesh would have probably been buried once more.

“And just as we have borne the image of the earthly man, so shall we bear the image of the heavenly man.” Cor 15.49. The heavenly man and spiritual body are not, in my understanding, the earthly man/body. I am reading scripture of course.


We all surrender to the scripture of the Lord. God bless.

(Edward Miller) #208

That is true brother Jeremy; however, that does not mean that we always agree on certain points of scripture. I have been a Southern Baptist most of my life; however, the Virginia Conference of United Methodists and our bishop nominated me as clergyman in the UMC. The Baptists, Lutherans, Catholics, and others agree with me; therefore, I am going to write down what the Methodists believe on life after death and burial. Perhaps that will show that I understand what you mean:

The United Methodist Church allows for cremation and organ donation. Methodism does believe in the resurrection of Christ’s body after his crucifixion and the resurrection of believers after death. However, acknowledging human biology and history and citing the apostle Paul, the church focuses on spiritual, rather than physical, resurrection for believers. Accordingly the church considers cremation a viable alternative to burial.

This is called in theology “instantaneous resurrection.” Read Colossians 3:1-4.

(Mervin Bitikofer) #209

It should it be said, instead, that we all surrender to the Lord of scripture.


In context, I do agree with you of course.

(Edward Miller) #211

Are you United Methodist, Jeremy, or some branch thereof?

The United Methodist Church accepts Theistic Evolution as the mean by which the Triune God created the universe and all life.


I am a Christian and of the Father, my friend. I do agree that cremation is a viable alternative.

(Edward Miller) #213

As long as you accept the Holy Trinity, the concept of how and when one is resurrected is not important. I used to believe in instantaneous resurrection; however, I have changed my mind since the funeral of my father in 1985. Let me quote what I accept:

The Statement of Resurrection of the dead of Southern Baptist Theology Seminary-
XIX. The Resurrection
The bodies of men after death return to dust, but their spirits return immediately to God-the righteous to rest with Him; the wicked, to be reserved under darkness to the judgment. At the last day, the bodies of all the dead, both just and unjust, will be raised (and reunited with their spirits).

(Chris Falter) #214

In addition, light appears before the sun in the morning, and lingers in the evening after the sun sets.

We know now that the sun is a huge, dense, hot ball of hydrogen that conveys warmth and light to us via radiation. They certainly didn’t know that 3000 years ago. It is also possible that they did not realize that the sun is the source of light on earth.

(Phil) #215

That is interesting to consider, though I think even as a child, I realized the sun as the source of light just through seeing sunrise and sunset, watching shadows, and seeing how clouds made shadows. I may have not realized the moonlight was secondary to the sun, but feel that most who observed the phases of the moon realized its illumination from the sun.
I think the proclamation of light on day one in Genesis, preceding the sky on day two, is an acknowledgment that God is the source of spiritual light that drives away the darkness, at least by those ancients that thought more deeply about it.
It is interesting that Genesis describes the sun and moon as greater and lesser lights. No doubt they had names at the time of writing, but those names referred to gods, and the author wanted to make clear they were not.


The Egyptians and the Greeks certainly knew the sun was the source of light. To the more primitive also, an eclipse would give the game away!

(Edward Miller) #217

But not always in the same way.


That is Gnosticism with a twist.

(Christy Hemphill) #219

I have not closely followed this discussion in all its meanderings, but since it’s still going on and I was reading an article related to a discussion elsewhere, I thought I’d pop in for a minute and share what I learned for what it is worth.

This JOT article has quite a bit of summary of relevant ANE cosmology and it mentions that in the ANE conception, darkness and light were considered entities in and of themselves and day and night were conceived of as separate from the sun. The sun was considered the source of warmth not light and though its appearance coincided with day, it was not conceived of as the reason for daylight.

There is a rather lengthy but pertinent citation from Aalen (1978) that shows that the light created on day one is conceived of as separate from the light of the sun everywhere in the OT.

So there you go. This whole “how could there be light without the sun” question is a modern one that would not have been asked by the ancients, given their understanding of how the world worked. I think we can also say that they did not conceive of days as functions of the earth’s relationship to the sun either. The alternation of day and night was its own separate phenomenon in their minds.

Help! Common Arguments For Literal Genesis
(Edward Miller) #220

You are still wrong about the resurrection body of Jesus. If he died again, there would be no eternal life. You also do not understand 1 Corinthians 15:35-58. I will not respond again to this. Circular arguments lead absolutely nowhere.

(Richard Wright) #221

Hello Chris,

Hope you and your family are enjoying this Mother’s Day.

I’m sorry, but I just don’t buy that. Here’s the text in the NIV (Genesis 1:5):

God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

The light was called, “day”. Even a child can see that the sun can cause daylight on a cloudy day. Following the day came the darkness, now called, “night”, when the sun disappeared. I therefore just don’t see how an ancient would have see the light in day 1 as anything other than from the sun, per the text and experience.