Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   So I heard that a "Day" is actually translated "period [of time]"
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5590 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 16 of 50 (488506)
11-12-2008 10:04 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by autumnman
11-11-2008 11:20 PM


You should look to when a thing becomes likely, because then the information is already existing, it's just in the future. When a plant grows from a seed, then the information for the "adult" plant is already present in the future of the seed.
So if for example the earth is likely to be from the third day of the universe onward, but was not likely to be in the second day of the universe, then the third day is when the earth is created.
So by this logic there is a distinction between the appearance of a thing, and the creation of a thing. The seed appears, and later on the "adult" plant appears, but the "adult" plant was already created before it appeared.
And that is the way the bible could be literally accurate, a few days at the beginning of the universe at which things were created.
But as before this depends on an interpretation of "day" in terms of decisions. To be fair this interpretation must also be within common knowledge, otherwise most people could not understand the bible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by autumnman, posted 11-11-2008 11:20 PM autumnman has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by ICANT, posted 11-12-2008 10:42 AM Syamsu has not replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 17 of 50 (488508)
11-12-2008 10:42 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by Syamsu
11-12-2008 10:04 AM


Re-Understanding the Bible
Hi Syamsu,
Syamsu writes:
But as before this depends on an interpretation of "day" in terms of decisions. To be fair this interpretation must also be within common knowledge, otherwise most people could not understand the bible.
Why must anything about the Bible be within common knowledge?
Jesus taught in parable's because it was not given that everyone should know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven. Matt. 13:10-15.
People do not understand the Bible because:
1Cor 2:14 (KJV) But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
They must be born again of the Holy Spirit and led by Him to be able to understand the Bible.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Syamsu, posted 11-12-2008 10:04 AM Syamsu has not replied

  
autumnman
Member (Idle past 5013 days)
Posts: 621
From: Colorado
Joined: 02-24-2008


Message 18 of 50 (488512)
11-12-2008 11:38 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by PaulK
11-12-2008 1:40 AM


Re: Gen 1:1 thru 2:3 'Yom'
PaulK
Yes, Genesis 1:2 states that darkness covered the primordial ocean, but how does that lead to your conclusion that "day" and "night" are simply metaphors ? Especially since the next place they are referred to is Genesis 1:14-18 where they clearly do refer to literal day and night ? Not to mention the fact that Genesis 1:8 refers to an "evening and a "morning" - which also implies that we are talking about a literal day.
Gen. 1:4 concludes: “And God separated the light from the darkness.” Then Gen. 1:5 states: “God called the light Day, and the darkness he called night.”
The above excerpts indicate that “Day” is “light”, thus 12 hours, and “Night” is “darkness”, thus 12 hours. Hebrew ”Yom’= “Day” here is separated from “Night” and therefore denotes only 12 hours; only half of a 24 hour day.
Then Gen. 1:5 concludes: “And there was evening and there was morning, the first day.”
“Evening and morning” also do not constitute a 24-hour day. If the text stated evening to evening or morning to morning this would have indicated a 24-hour day, but the text does not state that concept. Regarding the author’s use of “evening ... morning", professor Sarna states:
quote:
...strictly speaking, the “sunset” and the “break of dawn,” terms inappropriate before the creation of the sun on the fourth day. (JPS Commentary, Genesis, pg. 8)
Because "day" is already created as I have pointed out.
The term ”Yom’ = “Day” is strictly defined in Gen. 1:4 & 5 as being only referring to “light” and therefore only 12 hours. The terms “evening ... morning” refer only to 12 hours. The term ”Yom’ = “Day” is not employed as referring to 24 hours until the creation of the ”sun’ in Gen. 1:14 where the term ”Yom’ = “Day” is used in connection with “seasons” and “years”.
Because the text does not mention the day as something new. Because the sun is described as simply ruling the day, not as its source as you seem to read it.
Gen. 1:15 specifically states that the ”sun’ and the ”moon’ are “lights in the dome of the sky” and “give light upon the earth.” This suggests that the “earth” is without light prior to the creation of the ”sun’ and the ”moon’.
At least that is what is perceive the text stating.
In short considering only the text because it is a natural reading provided you set aside the assumption that the sun is the source of daylight - an assumption that the author of Genesis does not share.
So, “lights in the ... sky to give light upon the earth” (Gen. 1:15) to you does not indicate “that the sun is the source of daylight”? What does Gen. 1:15 indicate to you then?
The reason why it is not described as existing is because the author of Genesis 1 does not have that concept. To him, what we would regard as the planet Earth is a large central part of the universe where the stars are mere lights in the sky.
I feel as though you may be underestimating the knowledge of the ancient author of Gen. 1 thru 2:3.
The emerging of dry land from the primordial ocean is a common one in Middle Eastern creation myths. To say that it refers to the creation of the planet is to assume that the author of Genesis 1 is referring to actual events as we understand them - however there is no sensible basis for that assumption. There is nothing in the text to indicate that - rather the opposite.
The text states first that ”the earth was formless and void’ and located in the ”darkness’ of the ”waters’ of the “deep” (Gen. 1:2). Then in Gen. 1:6 & 7 ”the waters are separated and the Sky is created, and in Gen. 1:9 & 10 ”the seas are created and the dry land appears’. That context certainly suggests that the earth that was once formless and void comes into being when the sky, seas, and dry land are created.
The actual text in no way implies that the days of creation are not 24 hour periods - if anything it implies that they are.
Light/Day is 12 hours. Darkness/Night is the other half. ”Yom’ = “Day” = “light” = 12 hours. Evening to morning = 12 hours; and the term ”Yom’ = “Day” is used in reference to only these hours of darkness, thus 12 hours, which are actually “Night.” If, as the text indicates, “light and darkness” are separated, there is as yet no “evening” or “morning” in the literal sense of the terms.
I do not claim to be “Right” in regard to my interpretation of the Gen. 1 thru 2:3 Creation Account. I am merely trying to be as specific as possible, and explain what I perceive the Text as saying or implying.
When you claim, “If anything it [the Text] implies” that a 24-hour day is indicated, please be as specific as to where that implication is made. I am trying to learn your perspective.
AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by PaulK, posted 11-12-2008 1:40 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by ICANT, posted 11-12-2008 12:06 PM autumnman has replied
 Message 21 by PaulK, posted 11-12-2008 2:22 PM autumnman has replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 19 of 50 (488513)
11-12-2008 12:06 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by autumnman
11-12-2008 11:38 AM


Re: Gen 1:1 thru 2:3 'Yom'
Hi autumnman,
autumnman writes:
Then Gen. 1:5 concludes: “And there was evening and there was morning, the first day.”
“Evening and morning” also do not constitute a 24-hour day. If the text stated evening to evening or morning to morning this would have indicated a 24-hour day, but the text does not state that concept. Regarding the author’s use of “evening ... morning",
I am glad you notice that there was a light period missing from the first day.
If you will check from the morning mentioned in verse 5 there was there was an evening 12 hours and a morning 12 for the second, third,
fourth, fifth, and sixth day.
Could that light period missing from day one be the eternal light period from Genesis 1:1 until we find the earth in the condition it was in, in Genesis 1:2?
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by autumnman, posted 11-12-2008 11:38 AM autumnman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by autumnman, posted 11-12-2008 1:04 PM ICANT has replied

  
autumnman
Member (Idle past 5013 days)
Posts: 621
From: Colorado
Joined: 02-24-2008


Message 20 of 50 (488524)
11-12-2008 1:04 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by ICANT
11-12-2008 12:06 PM


Re: Gen 1:1 thru 2:3 'Yom'
ICANT:
I am glad you notice that there was a light period missing from the first day.
If you will check from the morning mentioned in verse 5 there was an evening 12 hours and a morning 12 for the second, third,fourth, fifth, and sixth day.
Could that light period missing from day one be the eternal light period from Genesis 1:1 until we find the earth in the condition it was in, in Genesis 1:2?
I am not certain I am following you.
I understand Gen. 1:1 to be a ”Title Verse’, and as such is not denoting a “Creation Account”. Gen. 2:1 is a ”Conclusion Verse’, and also does not denote a “Creation Account.”
It is my comprehension of the Gen. 1 thru 2:3 Creation Account that the terms “evening ... morning” applied prior to the sky, oceans, dry land, sun, and moon are metaphorical since they are, as professor Sarna points out in my above post,
quote:
inappropriate before the creation of the sun on the fourth day. (JPS Commentary, Genesis, pg. 8)
Since the terms “evening ... morning” are in fact “inappropriate” in a literal sense, it seems to me that the author more than likely are using these terms in a figurative/metaphorical sense throughout the Gen. 1 thru 2:3 Creation Narrative.
Do you see what I am driving at?
AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by ICANT, posted 11-12-2008 12:06 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by ICANT, posted 11-12-2008 2:44 PM autumnman has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 21 of 50 (488531)
11-12-2008 2:22 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by autumnman
11-12-2008 11:38 AM


Re: Gen 1:1 thru 2:3 'Yom'
quote:
“Evening and morning” also do not constitute a 24-hour day.
And I did not say that they did. Indeed anyone who pays attention to the text can see that there is time between each morning and the following evening - that period is when the work of creation is actually done. However my point - that this usage implies a literal day, rather than an unspecified period of time remains.
I will add that I do not see any point in arguing over the question of whether "yom" refers to 24 hours or a 12 hour portion of a 24 hour cycle, so I will let that point pass by.
quote:
Gen. 1:15 specifically states that the ”sun’ and the ”moon’ are “lights in the dome of the sky” and “give light upon the earth.” This suggests that the “earth” is without light prior to the creation of the ”sun’ and the ”moon’.
Yet there is no clear implication to that effect. Since we already have a "light" named day and the sun is to rule the "day", why should we assume that this light does not also shine on the earth ? And what is this "morning" if it is not a coming of the "day" light ? Certainly the sun adds to the light, but that is so far as we may safely go.
quote:
I feel as though you may be underestimating the knowledge of the ancient author of Gen. 1 thru 2:3.
Since you attribute an implausible degree of knowledge to him, that much is obvious. What is lacking is evidence for your assumptions.
quote:
The text states first that ”the earth was formless and void’ and located in the ”darkness’ of the ”waters’ of the “deep” (Gen. 1:2). Then in Gen. 1:6 & 7 ”the waters are separated and the Sky is created, and in Gen. 1:9 & 10 ”the seas are created and the dry land appears’. That context certainly suggests that the earth that was once formless and void comes into being when the sky, seas, and dry land are created.
You will notice no clear reference to our concept of a planet. Instead the surface of the world is the chaotic ocean until dry land is raised.
quote:
When you claim, “If anything it [the Text] implies” that a 24-hour day is indicated, please be as specific as to where that implication is made. I am trying to learn your perspective.
I have already pointed out the indications that the day/night cycle is established in Genesis 1:3-5 and that it is this cycle that marks the days of creation. Accordingly it seems more likely than not that this cycle is the 24 hour cycle familiar to us and to the ancient authors.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by autumnman, posted 11-12-2008 11:38 AM autumnman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by autumnman, posted 11-12-2008 9:30 PM PaulK has replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 22 of 50 (488533)
11-12-2008 2:44 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by autumnman
11-12-2008 1:04 PM


Re: Gen 1:1
Hi autumnman,
autumnman writes:
I understand Gen. 1:1 to be a ”Title Verse’, and as such is not denoting a “Creation Account”.
Why would that be a title verse as no other book in the Bible has a title verse?
Genesis 1:1 is not a "Creation Account". It is a declaration of God creating the heaven and the earth.
The "Creation Account" is given in Genesis 2:4 through Genesis 4:26.
I don't know what they are teaching as Hebrew today but when I studied Hebrew Genesis 1:1 was a declaratrive statement.
A declarative sentence or declaration is the most common sentence in the English language.
Examining Genesis 1:1.
In the beginning. When the event took place.
God. The one preforming the event.
Created the heaven and the earth. Event that took place.
This took place prior to the evening in Genesis 1:5.
There is nothing in there that hints this was a title of the Book.
autumnman writes:
Gen. 2:1 is a ”Conclusion Verse’, and also does not denote a “Creation Account.”
Genesis 2:1 Declares the heavens and earth to be complete, nothing lacking.
This takes place in the morning ending the 6th day.
The seventh day God did not have anything left to create, So He ‘ ceased (word translated rested) from His work of creating.
Did you ever wonder why the word ‘ is used in Genesis 1:1 and the word is used in Genesis 1:16?
For the benefit of others the first word ‘ is translated created.
The word is translated made.
So the sun and moon was not brought into existence on the 4th day or the word ‘ would have been used in Genesis 1:16.
autumnman writes:
Since the terms “evening ... morning” are in fact “inappropriate” in a literal sense,
But if you take into account of Genesis 1:1 taking place in the light part of the first day the evening of that light period and the night portion completes the first day as declared by God.
So in the literal sense it makes perfect sense.
autumnman writes:
Do you see what I am driving at?
Sure. You believe Genesis is a figurative/metaphorical account.
I just disagree as I believe it is a litteral account of what happened as it claims to be.
I believe the first day started with a period of light and ended with 12 hours of darkness. The evening and the morning were the first day. Gen. 1:5
I believe the following 5 days mentioned consisted of a light period and a dark period that took almost 24 hours to complete just as it does today.
God ceased creating on the morning of the end of the 6th day.
I believe God is still not creating and will not until He creates a New Heaven and a New Earth. Revelation 21:1.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by autumnman, posted 11-12-2008 1:04 PM autumnman has not replied

  
autumnman
Member (Idle past 5013 days)
Posts: 621
From: Colorado
Joined: 02-24-2008


Message 23 of 50 (488552)
11-12-2008 9:30 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by PaulK
11-12-2008 2:22 PM


Re: Gen 1:1 thru 2:3 'Yom'
PaulK
And I did not say that they did. Indeed anyone who pays attention to the text can see that there is time between each morning and the following evening - that period is when the work of creation is actually done. However my point - that this usage implies a literal day, rather than an unspecified period of time remains.
I will add that I do not see any point in arguing over the question of whether "yom" refers to 24 hours or a 12 hour portion of a 24 hour cycle, so I will let that point pass by.
I am attempting to pay attention to the text, and I am also trying to pay attention to your interpretation. If I have read what you have written correctly, what I hear you suggesting is that it took God 24 hours to create light, divide that light from the darkness, and call light Day and the darkness Night (Gen. 1:3 thru 5). Is that what you are suggesting?
AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by PaulK, posted 11-12-2008 2:22 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by PaulK, posted 11-13-2008 1:19 AM autumnman has replied
 Message 25 by ICANT, posted 11-13-2008 12:09 PM autumnman has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 24 of 50 (488566)
11-13-2008 1:19 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by autumnman
11-12-2008 9:30 PM


Re: Gen 1:1 thru 2:3 'Yom'
quote:
If I have read what you have written correctly, what I hear you suggesting is that it took God 24 hours to create light, divide that light from the darkness, and call light Day and the darkness Night (Gen. 1:3 thru 5). Is that what you are suggesting?
No. And I have no idea how you came to the conclusion that I said any such thing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by autumnman, posted 11-12-2008 9:30 PM autumnman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by autumnman, posted 11-13-2008 12:12 PM PaulK has replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 25 of 50 (488594)
11-13-2008 12:09 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by autumnman
11-12-2008 9:30 PM


Re: Gen 1:1 thru 2:3 'Yom'
Hi autumnman,
autumnman writes:
I am attempting to pay attention to the text,
The text says:
Genesis 1:2 darkness was upon the face of the deep.
Genesis 1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
Genesis 1:4 God divided the light from the darkness.
Genesis 1:5 the evening and the morning were the first day.
Since it was evening I will guess that Genesis 1:1 took place in the light portion of the first day.
Because after the dark portion it was morning the end of the first day.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by autumnman, posted 11-12-2008 9:30 PM autumnman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by autumnman, posted 11-13-2008 1:06 PM ICANT has not replied

  
autumnman
Member (Idle past 5013 days)
Posts: 621
From: Colorado
Joined: 02-24-2008


Message 26 of 50 (488595)
11-13-2008 12:12 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by PaulK
11-13-2008 1:19 AM


Re: Gen 1:1 thru 2:3 'Yom'
PaulK
quote:
AM wrote: If I have read what you have written correctly, what I hear you suggesting is that it took God 24 hours to create light, divide that light from the darkness, and call light Day and the darkness Night (Gen. 1:3 thru 5). Is that what you are suggesting?
PaulK replied: No. And I have no idea how you came to the conclusion that I said any such thing.
At the conclusion of post #21 your stated:
I have already pointed out the indications that the day/night cycle is established in Genesis 1:3-5 and that it is this cycle that marks the days of creation. Accordingly it seems more likely than not that this cycle is the 24 hour cycle familiar to us and to the ancient authors.
You state above “that the day/night cycle is established in Genesis 1:3-5 and that it is this cycle that marks the days of creation ... that this cycle is the 24 hour cycle.”
Gen. 1:3 states: “God said, ”Let there be light’; and there was light.” Gen. 1:4 states, “... God separated the light from the darkness.” Gen. 1:5 states, “God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day.”
That is how I came to the above conclusion, and I still conclude that you did suggest at the conclusion of post #21that the author depicts God taking 24 hours to create light, divide that light from the darkness, and call light Day and the darkness Night (Gen. 1:3 thru 5).
Please show me how that is not what you are suggesting.
Note that I have altered the phrasing (”the author depicts God taking...’). Perhaps that altered phrasing will be helpful.
AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by PaulK, posted 11-13-2008 1:19 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by PaulK, posted 11-13-2008 1:33 PM autumnman has replied

  
autumnman
Member (Idle past 5013 days)
Posts: 621
From: Colorado
Joined: 02-24-2008


Message 27 of 50 (488598)
11-13-2008 1:06 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by ICANT
11-13-2008 12:09 PM


Re: Gen 1:1 thru 2:3 'Yom'
ICANT
Since it was evening I will guess that Genesis 1:1 took place in the light portion of the first day.
I fully understand that you are trying to make literal sense of the Gen. chapters 1, 2, & 3 Creation Narratives, and that the above is your only way of doing so. I also understand that you are completely committed to your individual interpretation of the Creation Texts. I am in complete disagreement with your individual interpretation of these Texts that you are so tenaciously committed to.
I am not saying that you are “wrong”; nor am I saying that I am “right.” I am saying that I cannot debate an interpretation that is based on dramatically altering the structure and grammar of the only “Source Texts” that we have available to us.
Other than the above comments, there is very little I can share with you in any kind of biblical discourse.
AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by ICANT, posted 11-13-2008 12:09 PM ICANT has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 28 of 50 (488602)
11-13-2008 1:33 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by autumnman
11-13-2008 12:12 PM


Re: Gen 1:1 thru 2:3 'Yom'
quote:
You state above “that the day/night cycle is established in Genesis 1:3-5 and that it is this cycle that marks the days of creation ... that this cycle is the 24 hour cycle.”
Gen. 1:3 states: “God said, ”Let there be light’; and there was light.” Gen. 1:4 states, “... God separated the light from the darkness.” Gen. 1:5 states, “God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day.”
That is how I came to the above conclusion, and I still conclude that you did suggest at the conclusion of post #21that the author depicts God taking 24 hours to create light, divide that light from the darkness, and call light Day and the darkness Night (Gen. 1:3 thru 5).
Please show me how that is not what you are suggesting.
Obviously you are making some sort of hidden assumption because your explanation as written simply doesn't work. You don't point to anything that gives any time for the task.
The text seems quite clear. God established the day/night cycle. Then there is an evening, then there is a morning. That evening marks the start of the first day (since the Jewish day starts at evening). So where does your idea that it took 24 hours to establish the day/night cycle come from ? I'd guess no more than 12 (based on the other days), but there's no clear statement - how long did it take to "separate the light from the darkness" ? There's nothing to say.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by autumnman, posted 11-13-2008 12:12 PM autumnman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by autumnman, posted 11-13-2008 2:52 PM PaulK has replied

  
autumnman
Member (Idle past 5013 days)
Posts: 621
From: Colorado
Joined: 02-24-2008


Message 29 of 50 (488608)
11-13-2008 2:52 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by PaulK
11-13-2008 1:33 PM


Re: Gen 1:1 thru 2:3 'Yom'
PaulK
quote:
AM wrote: You state above “that the day/night cycle is established in Genesis 1:3-5 and that it is this cycle that marks the days of creation ... that this cycle is the 24 hour cycle.”
Gen. 1:3 states: “God said, ”Let there be light’; and there was light.” Gen. 1:4 states, “... God separated the light from the darkness.” Gen. 1:5 states, “God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day.”
That is how I came to the above conclusion, and I still conclude that you did suggest at the conclusion of post #21that the author depicts God taking 24 hours to create light, divide that light from the darkness, and call light Day and the darkness Night (Gen. 1:3 thru 5).
Please show me how that is not what you are suggesting.
PaulK replied: Obviously you are making some sort of hidden assumption because your explanation as written simply doesn't work. You don't point to anything that gives any time for the task.
I may well be “making some sort of hidden assumption”, but if I am that assumption is even hidden to me. Professor Sarna, (in the JPS Commentary, Genesis, pg. 7), states that “Day One” begins with Gen. 1: “3” and concludes with Gen. 1: “5”.
PaulK states: The text seems quite clear. God established the day/night cycle. Then there is an evening, then there is a morning. That evening marks the start of the first day (since the Jewish day starts at evening).
The Jewish Religious calendar presents that “the Sabbath and festivals commence at sunset and terminate at the start of the following night” (Sarna, JPS Commentary, Genesis, pg. 8), that would be evening to evening as opposed to “evening to morning” as conveyed in the Gen. 1 thru 2:3 Text. And the “evening” mentioned at the conclusion of Gen. 1:5 signifies “the end of the period of light, when divine creativity was suspended” (Sarna, JPS Commentary, Genesis, pg. 8), as opposed to what you state above: “That evening marks the start of the first day.”
Perhaps I am not making any “hidden assumptions”, and if I am, the Jewish Publication Society and Professor Sarna are making the same “hidden assumptions” as well.
PaulK asks, So where does your idea that it took 24 hours to establish the day/night cycle come from ?
It comes from reading the Hebrew Text as well as reading what scholars in the field have to say. I also do my level best to relate what I read to the reality and facts that govern my own mortal existence.
I'd guess no more than 12 (based on the other days), but there's no clear statement - how long did it take to "separate the light from the darkness" ? There's nothing to say.
So, when Gen. 1:3 states, “And there was light.”, you guess that took no more than 12 hours to come about? You do realize that light by design is separated from darkness? The “speed of light” is a scientific fact, is it not?
AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by PaulK, posted 11-13-2008 1:33 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by PaulK, posted 11-13-2008 3:27 PM autumnman has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 30 of 50 (488612)
11-13-2008 3:27 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by autumnman
11-13-2008 2:52 PM


Re: Gen 1:1 thru 2:3 'Yom'
quote:
I may well be “making some sort of hidden assumption”, but if I am that assumption is even hidden to me. Professor Sarna, (in the JPS Commentary, Genesis, pg. 7), states that “Day One” begins with Gen. 1: “3” and concludes with Gen. 1: “5”.
That's one assumption. And another one is presumably that the work of setting up the day/night cycle occupied the entire day. Because if you don't assume that then you don't have your 24 hour duration.
quote:
PaulK states: The text seems quite clear. God established the day/night cycle. Then there is an evening, then there is a morning. That evening marks the start of the first day (since the Jewish day starts at evening).
The Jewish Religious calendar presents that “the Sabbath and festivals commence at sunset and terminate at the start of the following night” (Sarna, JPS Commentary, Genesis, pg. 8), that would be evening to evening as opposed to “evening to morning” as conveyed in the Gen. 1 thru 2:3 Text. And the “evening” mentioned at the conclusion of Gen. 1:5 signifies “the end of the period of light, when divine creativity was suspended” (Sarna, JPS Commentary, Genesis, pg. 8), as opposed to what you state above: “That evening marks the start of the first day.”
Well now you are assuming that the "day: in Genesis 1 is just the night ("evening to morning"). I doubt very much that Professor Sama would agree with that.
And you've got an imaginary contradiction, too.
quote:
Perhaps I am not making any “hidden assumptions”, and if I am, the Jewish Publication Society and Professor Sarna are making the same “hidden assumptions” as well.
Since much of what you say is not supported by any quotes from Professor Sama,and I very much doubt that he would agree with all you say, that appears to be a fabrication.
quote:
t comes from reading the Hebrew Text as well as reading what scholars in the field have to say. I also do my level best to relate what I read to the reality and facts that govern my own mortal existence.
So now it's YOUR position ? I thought you were claiming it was mine, for some reason you seem unable to explain. And please feel free to produce the evidence supporting it, since your post so far lacks any.
quote:
So, when Gen. 1:3 states, “And there was light.”, you guess that took no more than 12 hours to come about? You do realize that light by design is separated from darkness? The “speed of light” is a scientific fact, is it not?
A scientific fact that the author of Genesis was almost certainly unaware of. Moreover given the size of the Hebrew cosmos an unobstructed photon could probably traverse it in less than a second. Even if we ignore the fact that we are talking about a miraculous creation event, which cannot be assumed to be subject to scientific laws anyway.
So it seems that not only are you back to your assumption that the author of Genesis 1 had a view of the universe in agreement with modern science (despite a complete lack of any evidence to support your assumption) you assume that I believe it too !

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by autumnman, posted 11-13-2008 2:52 PM autumnman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by autumnman, posted 11-13-2008 4:05 PM PaulK has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024