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

(George Brooks) #21


So, you think God stores human spirits underground?

As for the water canopy… you accept it because it is written. So why all the fuss about rejecting the firmament as firm? If the water is gone… so is the firmament, right?

(John Warren) #22

Storehouse of snow sounds like a beautifully poetic depiction of clouds.

(John Warren) #23

Why couldn’t it have referred to a meteor? Perhaps their definition of star was more generic than ours.

(George Brooks) #24


Right… a big stone building filled with snow… and the stone building is orbiting around the Earth. Does that still sound poetic? And he says he stores it there for when he needs it.

(George Brooks) #25


Either way, something is erroneous. If the word refers to meteors, then they think there are glowing meteors in the night sky… just hovering there.

So… are they all gone now, and God put millions of stars out in space … really far away … to make up for the missing meteors?

(John Warren) #26

Sorry, gotta put kids down.

(John Warren) #27

No. Clouds. Poetic language. And don’t clouds store precipitation? I don’t see why you’re so incredulous.

(Ryan weatherly) #28

24 hour ,Moses gets 24 hour days of visions/dreams / information from God …
This is 1 answer I found intriguing …
It also explains how God created days , months , and years in one day and sees it is good …
As though Moses witnessed a time lapse film of creation

(Ryan weatherly) #29

Another point , how long is God’s day ?
" God is a spirit " - Jesus

Where was the spirit of God standing ? At the equator daylight lasts 12 hours …
Some places up north daylight can last a month
From the international space station part of the earth is always night ,part always day …
24 hour days with blue sky in day time is from an earth bound perspective …in space it’s always a night sky , the sun always visible unless eclipsed …

Where was the spirit of God positioned during creation ?

(George Brooks) #30


The word cloud wasn’t used… the word for warehouses was used. Ancient warehouses weren’t made of pretty sheets of glass. They were made of mud brick, or stone, or wood.

If you can mark these sentences as figurative, I can mark “days” as figurative.

(Lynn Munter) #31

George, I’m afraid this is one argument I wouldn’t buy for a penny. Hebrew had many fewer words than English does, and while we in modern times define star as ‘body large enough for nuclear fusion,’ the ancient definition of ‘small point of light in the sky’ is perfectly understandable.

Genesis also implies a flat earth, a solid sky, and a literal, physical, presently-existing-on-Earth walled Garden of Eden guarded by cherubs with flaming swords. So, are we obligated to believe everything the Bible implies? Or is there a substantive difference between all that the Bible implies and all that the Bible teaches?

(Andrew M. Wolfe) #32

Heyy, now. Are you saying that you have personally mapped every square foot of land on earth? How do you know that there isn’t a walled Garden of Eden somewhere guarded by cherubs with flaming swords?

Yeah, I didn’t think so. Q. E. D.

(George Brooks) #33


I think you have been numbed by the constant Creationist onslaught.

The point of this dispute is what is the test for something being “figurative” or “literal” when the reader doesn’t know how Earth’s solar system works.

If God can say “I am that I am”, he could have provided Hebrew with a distinction between a hot burning rock that lands on the Earth, and a giant ball of fusion that is a million times bigger than ‘eretz’.

I could counter that in a language so confined, it is hardly surprising that “day” is used in the Genesis account. But if the YECs are going to reject the thought on principle, I’m going to reject the relevance of Hebrew being limited (on principle).

Your final paragraph is exactly my point to the Creationists. You seem to be picking up the “vibe” that I’m trying to prove the Bible contains errors. It certainly sounds like I am, for sure. But my real point is that when a Creationist presents an apologia to get the Bible consistent with the real world, it is the same exercise as when an Evolutionist presents the apologia that “day” is not a literal 24 hour period.

Now… about your skepticism regarding flaming swords … how long have you been in such denial?

(Phil) #34

Well, if the YEC view is correct, the Garden of Eden would be under thousands of feet of sediments left by the flood, so might be a little hard to find.
I try not to be snarky on some of these things, but the truth is that if one tries to make Genesis literally conform to naturalistic mechanisms, you some get such outlandish and convoluted proposals that is makes the approach literally ridiculous. It is ironic that those who tend toward science accept that methodological naturalism is inadequate to understand God’s revelation to us in Genesis.

(Andrew M. Wolfe) #35

I admire your restraint.

I see what you did there! :slight_smile:

All the more reason why @Lynn_Munter can’t rule out its existence, am I right? :smiley:

(Lynn Munter) #36

Probably the walls God built around it were good enough to exist indefinitely at the bottom of the ocean and all the animals and fruit trees there are still fine. Maybe that’s even where the non-sun Light went!

(Joshua Hedlund) #37

If you already assume the days must be 24 hours, then by conclusion there must have been some kind of light source, unmentioned, unnamed, and completely unknown both to science and theology, located and producing light and keeping time exactly like the sun did before God replaced it precisely with the sun for the exact same purpose, despite never mentioning its creation nor its destruction. Yes, it is logically possible if you already assume the constraints that require it.

However, if you do not already assume the days must be 24 hours, it is not entirely clear that the logical conclusion of that possibility is a more reasonable or plausible interpretation than one that takes a more metaphorical outlook. In fact, the “days” can literally meet the definition of “24 hour days”, but the “24 hour days” themselves can be a metaphor for something else (as William Lane Craig says, just as the “arm of the Lord” refers to the “literal” definition of an arm, i.e. one with elbows, as opposed to a “metaphorical” definition such as an “arm” that is a weapon, but that “literal” arm is itself used as a metaphor for something else, not implying that God has elbows!)

(Lynn Munter) #38

I spent most of the time since seeing this comment trying to google the ancient Hebrew for “planet,” and according to here, they called them “walking stars.” And Mercury was simply called, “Star.” So if planets are walking stars, meteors being called stars that fall to earth is not really an error.

Now if we really want to have a discussion we can try to work out what all the Morning Star/Evening Star references were about.

(Matthew Pevarnik) #39

Yes, the text itself says that ‘day’ was giving the light before the sun, a perfectly natural reading of the text and of an ancient observer. After all, even when the sun is covered up it can still be ‘day’ implying that day itself actually had the property of ‘light.’ So there would be no conflict to an Ancient Israelite as we tend to imagine there being but only because the text itself tells us what they thought. No need for us to imagine strange things into Genesis when the text itself, read literally, tells us how the day’s light existed before the sun.

Ah it looks like @gbrooks9 has already described this to you:

As for the CMB, do you know how it was produced? Why did it occur at the background temperature it did and why do we measure it to be the temperature it is today? The CMB cannot just appear on day one after the earth and ‘waters’ already existed and certainly could do no such thing to only shine for half a day as it is constant radiation coming from everywhere all the time. It does not dip in intensity for half of a day and then increase during ‘daytime.’

Furthermore, to squeeze 13.799 billion years worth of space expanding into a single day plus 6,000 years would be measurable not to mention the entire night sky would be completely dark with only a small handful of stars whose light has had enough time to reach us.

Anyways, I hope that you will at the very least stop imaging that the CMB somehow can be any source of light for ‘day’ on Genesis’ day 1. As I’ve outline, neither the text itself supports that idea nor does anything in the observable universe.

(George Brooks) #40


The very word “planet” comes from Greek, and it means “Wanderer”. So for the Hebrew to call their planets “walking stars” is not really a breakthrough. Whatever the Hebrew thought a “star” was, a planet is a wandering version of it.

The point, naturally, is that the Hebrew thought that stars and walking stars couldn’t be that huge, since they were relatively close. And so when they fell to Earth, it would be dramatic, but not Earth-Ending!

The Dead Sea literature implies that righteous men take their place in the heavens as another star of Yahweh. So if a “falling star” (aka meteorite) was seen to hit somewhere nearby, they must have been a little unsettled to see a fuming piece of stone or metal in a crater … instead of “good ol’ Moshe” who died during the last Passover!

So, you can either accept that the Hebrew didn’t know that stars were bigger than the Earth, or they didn’t know that meterorites were, in fact, not stars.

You can’t combine the two observations and then reassure everyone that the Hebrew scribes had things “just about right”.