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


(James McKay) #101

Hi John,

I fully understand that this may be the case, but you do need to realise that you’re dealing with a complex technical subject that is also the subject of a lot of misinformation and quite frankly outlandish claims. If you want to discuss it with any credibility you do need to make sure you know what you’re talking about and that your facts are straight. Incoherent, ignorant or demonstrably false claims will just undermine your credibility in the eyes of anyone who checks you out, or is otherwise confronted with evidence that contradicts you.

Unfortunately, this does take time and effort. If you aren’t able to find the time to study a relevant science subject (preferably to unviersity degree level at least), it’s probably best to just admit that you don’t know what you don’t know and stick to discussing what you do. There’s no condemnation in not having all the answers – remember 1 Corinthians 13:12: “For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.” Your personal testimony – what God has done in your own life and how you know the saving power of Christ on the Cross for yourself – will speak far more to people than anything you have to say about the age of the earth or evolution.


#102

Peter 3.8 “With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day.”

Psalm 90:4 “A thousand years in your sight are like a day that has just gone by, or like a watch in the night.”

Here we have reference to the passing of a night likened to a day which in the lord’s mind is like a thousand years.


#103

Psalm 90:4 “A thousand years in your sight are like a day that has just gone by, or like a watch in the night.”

Here we have reference to the passing of a night or evening and morning, likened to a day which in the lord’s mind is like a thousand years.


(John Warren) #104

But people mix figures of speech and straightforward speech all the time. We don’t use someone’s figures of speech to nullify what he said straightforwardly.

Ask yourself, what’s the point in God providing all those detailed genealogies, with years, in Gen. 5 and 11. Was Good wasting his breath? Or did he intend for us to use that numerical information to form conclusions?


(John Warren) #105

And I believe the point of the metaphor is that 1000 years is no big deal to God, not that a day (primarily) equals 1000 years, therefore you can multiply the timeframes in Genesis by 365,242 or some other astronomical number.


(George Brooks) #106

@John_Warren

Hmmm… sounds a lot like what we say when people think the entire earth could be created and populated in 6 days… we say “day” is just a figurative use… and all of a sudden our audience start throwing Bibles at our heads.

So which is it? We can interpret some words as figurative, when it seems obvious what is meant?
Or that we can only interpret the words that Creationists allow to be interpreted as figurative… because they are using the words that most deny science?

I’m all ears, John… which way are you pitching nowadays?


(George Brooks) #107

@John_Warren

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?

I think you folks are making this stuff up as you go along…

It really sounds like the confused narrative an ancient writer … who didn’t know how Cosmology actually worked.

You know the Persians thought it was hilarious that God would make red-blooded humans with “red dirt” …
They believed God made red-blooded humans with rhubarb … because the leaves had red veins that would be the basis of human circulation.

Funny how it all sounds pretty contrived…


(John Warren) #108

Why would the absence of the Sun change the meaning of day in that narrative? They knew what day meant.
“So which is it?” Stay straightforward if the text warrants it.
And your tone is a little bullying. I’m thankful that others on biologos are civil.


(John Warren) #109

Science is the words of fallible man, groping in the dark, especially when talking about ages long past when no one was there. The Word of God should not be shaped by the words of fallible man. It should be the other way around.


(Dennis Venema) #110

Assuming you reject geocentrism, why do you do so? What scriptural support for a heliocentric solar system do you see? Do you think it was appropriate for the church to accept the findings of Galileo and Copernicus, etc? If so, why?


(George Brooks) #111

@John_Warren,

Yes, precisely. Everyone knew what a day was… it was all the time between one Sunrise and the next Sunrise. So without the Sun, there was no day… a more robust example of a figurative terminology used in the Bible is pretty hard to find.


(John Warren) #112

I accept Geocentricity, on the grounds the Bible is pretty clear on it. Many verses say the Sun moves and the Earth doesn’t, and no verses say the opposite, so I don’t think we’re talking about figures of speech like the 4 winds, etc.

Mach’s principle says it doesn’t matter what reference frame you pick.


(John Warren) #113

If you told me a story of some mythical realm with, say, no variation in light and dark, but you indicated in your story that 3 days went by, I’d know you meant 72 hours.


(George Brooks) #114

Wait a minute… @John_Warren

Did you really say you accept geocentricity? As opposed to heliocentricity? You believe the Earth is the center of the solar system?

is that what you really meant to say?

Really? Please clarify …


(George Brooks) #115

But if you said 3 days went by, and that the Earth and all the oceans were created in 3 days, I would conclude that you were out of your mind.


(Dennis Venema) #116

Thanks for laying that out. If you don’t find the evidence for a mobile earth to be convincing, then I don’t see much point in trying to get into evolution, etc.


(Randy) #117

Mr Warren,

Thank you for your thoughts. I have wondered about that, too. However, Mach’s hypothesis/principle actually has reference to a larger amount of mass–see here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mach’s_principle

I’m learning about this. However, the analogy doesn’t fit. If you were an engineer constructing a tilt-a-whirl in an amusement park, you’d use the reference point of the amusment park. You couldn’t construct all the Tilt-a-Whirl or the park, or the Earth, to spin around one of the satellites on the Tilt-A-Whirl (to make an analog of the Earth around the Sun). Nothing would work well, engineering wise–and parallax, and everything else, fits more with heliocentrism than geocentrism.

But I don’t think God would have used heliocentrism to communicate with his people in Genesis, anyway, would he? would any reference to “the earth rotating around the sun” have made sense to them? I call the sun rise a sun rise to my 4 year old. To say it any other way would distract from my message of “it’s time to get up, pray, have breakfast, and go to school!”

My thoughts. Thanks.

PS I’m learning a lot. Denis Lamoureux, in particular, has been helpful. Have a good night.


(John Warren) #118

I believe the earth doesn’t move. (It’s not flat, tho.)

The Tychonian system had the Earth at the center, the Sun going around it, and the planets going around the Sun.

If you pin the Earth down with a force external to the Solar System, you can still change reference frames and describe the Solar system movements the way you learned it in high school physics.

Airy’s Failure, Michelson-Morely, Michelson-Gale, and the Sagnac experiment demonstrate the Earth doesn’t move.


(John Warren) #119

Educated people (even Hemingway) still use “the Sun rises”. I don’t think the Israelites lacked the brain cell power to take in the news that it’s really the Earth that’s moving. God bless.


(George Brooks) #120

@John_Warren,

I’m not sure I know what that 2nd sentence means.

I’m guessing you mean, that if the Sun was really orbiting around the Earth, they would know it.
But the Earth doesn’t orbit the Sun, so the they were right to describe a geocentric solar system.

Is that what you meant by this?:
" I don’t think the Israelites lacked the brain cell power to take in the news that it’s really the Earth that’s moving."