So I heard that a "Day" is actually translated "period [of time]"

ramoss & keysle: I agree that the Gen. 1:1 thru 4:26 creation accounts are allegorical in content. I disagree, however, that the Hebrew term ”Yom’ employed in the Gen. 1:1 thru 2:3 creation narrative “means 24 hour periods.” According to the context of that narrative God does not create the sun and moon “to give light upon the earth” (Gen. 1:15 & 17) “for seasons, days and years” (Gen. 1:14) until the “fourth” ”Yom’ (day/time) of creation. This strongly suggests that the ”times of creation’ do not denote “24 hour periods.”I look forward to your thoughts.AM

PaulK wrote: Your are suggesting that the author of Gen. 1:1 thru 2:3 did not tie a 24 hour day on earth (where he himself lived) to the sun? The author of Gen. 1:1 thru 2:3 does tie a ”Yom’ to the sun in Gen. 1:14. “Light Day and the darkness... Night” described in Gen. 1:5 do not refer to the sun or the moon, or even the earth. An earth-cycle of 24 hours is not even implied here.AM

PaulK: The author describes “light” as being referred to as “day” (i.e. daylight), and “darkness” as being referred to as “night” (night is dark). If anything the author is employing the Hebrew terms “day” and “night” as metaphorical (that is, “universal”) terms so that his earth-bound audience might grasp the idea that the darkness of the universe came before all else. Gen. 1:2 clearly states that “darkness covered the face of the deep”; “the heavens” do not yet exist. I am not certain how you come up with this particular interpretation.The author describes God being in the process of creating the heavens and the earth. The ”Title Verse” of this particular creation account is Gen. 1:1; it describes to the audience what the narrative as a whole is going to convey: there are six times/days of creation then detailed by the author (conclusion being Gen. 2:1), as well as the seventh time/day which refers to God’s time/day of rest. According to my dictionary, the term “geocentric” is defined, “relating to or measured from the earth’s center. Having or relating to the earth as a center.” In Gen. 1:5 “the earth” as a planet does not yet exist in the universe. “The earth” does not emerge from the “waters” (this is a metaphorical term) until the dome of the sky, the seas, and the dry land are brought into being (Gen. 1:8 thru 10). “When Genesis 1 talks about a light called day being separated from a darkness called night” the author is speaking metaphorically (i.e. universally). Since “the earth” does not emerge until “the seas” and “dry land” are created; the author cannot be alluding to a geocentric cycle of 24 hours. Gen. 1:2 certainly appears to be describing the ”pre-heavens and earth expanse’ as “the deep.” Within this “deep” expanse there is originally only formless and void raw materials that God will use to create “the heavens and the earth and all the host of beings that exist within and/or upon them. Gen. 2:1 clearly describes the conclusion of God’s creative process. Gen. 1:2 describes God’s “spirit” as being separate from the “deep expanse” and as not being either “light” or “dark”. Yet God’s “spirit” possesses the ability to not only “hover” upon the “dark-deep” and create motion, but is also capable of creating a sudden and dramatic contrast of “light” within the “dark-deep.” Light and dark are eternal contrasts and do not need to ”literally’ be “separated.” I surmise that the author is describing the creation of what we today call “the universe” in the passages he wrote (Gen. 1:3 thru 5) thousands of years ago.AM

Syamsu wrote: I honestly do not comprehend what you are trying to convey.AM

PaulK 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)

---

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”. 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. 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? I feel as though you may be underestimating the knowledge of the ancient author of Gen. 1 thru 2:3. 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. 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

ICANT: 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

PaulK 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

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?

---

At the conclusion of post #21 your stated: 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

ICANT 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

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.

---

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”. 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. 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. 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

PaulK: I am not assuming anything of the sort. I shared an exegetical hypothesis; one that you disagree with. Fine.It appears as though I am having way too much difficulty sharing anything with you. Above, you even misunderstood my quotes from professor Sarna: Neither he or I suggest that the first day began with the term “evening” employed at the conclusion of Gen. 1:5.You must be Right because you say so.I do indeed suggest that the author of Gen. 1 had a view of the universe unlike any other author of his time. That is the foundation of my exegetical hypothesis. I hypothesize that the sublime aspects of his (and our) mortal reality inspired the author of Gen. 1 thru 2:3.I do not mind that you disagree. If we can share in a debate as opposed to an argument I would be happy to continue our discussion so that we both could make our points of view clear to one another.AM

Try AgainI am going to attempt to share one more time my exegetical hypothesis regarding the First Creation Narrative of Genesis and see if a constructive discussion and/or debate can be inspired.I am not married to my exegetical hypothesis; meaning, I do not believe my hypothesis to be completely correct, I do not believe that I have all the answers, nor do I mind being shown that I am in error. I will, however, debate the subjects of the discussion from the point of view established by my personal exegetical hypothesis. A debate of this kind is dependent upon differing points of view.The foundation of my hypothesis regarding the composition of the First Creation Narrative of Genesis is that the ancient author of this Text composed the Text’s content from an enlightened state of consciousness, and not from only an external observation of the mortal world that existed at that time. I would compare the inspired genius of this ancient author to that of Leonardo Da Vinci’s ability to sketch a flying machine in the 15th & 16th centuries CE.This thread focuses on “day/periods mentioned in the beginning.” In my opinion, Gen. 1:2 thru 5 set the stage for the discussion. I will first pose six fundamental questions regarding these verses, and as we begin examining these questions I will insert into the discussions my personal exegetical hypothesis. If someone else thinks there’s a better way to proceed, feel free to express your idea(s).What does the author mean in Gen. 1:2 when he writes, “and the earth was formless and void”?What is “the deep” and the “water” the author describes in Gen. 1:2?The author writes in Gen. 1:3, “Then God said, ”Let there be light’; and there was light.” What is this “light” that the author is describing?In Gen. 1:4 the author states that, “God separated the light from the darkness.” Since “light” by design is “separated” from “darkness”, what might the author be alluding to?In Gen. 1:5 the author describes God calling, “light Day and the darkness he called Night”. Since the “earth” most likely remains “formless and void” and the “sun and moon” have not yet been brought into being, what kind of “Day” and “Night” is the author describing here?Then Gen. 1:5 concludes, “And there was evening and morning, the first day.” According Professor Sarna, “evening ... morning ... terms inappropriate before the creation of the sun on the fourth day” (JPS, Commentary, Genesis, pg. 8).AM

ICANT:Thanks for the exhaustive reply to my above questions.From my own personal perspective I am going to select certain definitions from those that you provided and construct my own personal context of the verses in question. I do not expect anyone to necessarily agree with my selections or the context I construct. In fact I welcome differing selections that will compose a different context. Then we can discuss our perspectives.Gen. 1:2 states, “So the earth was formless and void...” I would translate the phrase: So the earth was unreal and empty.Gen. 1:2 goes on to say, “...and darkness covered the face of the deep,” I would translate the phrase: and darkness was upon the surface of the abyss,Gen. 1:2 concludes, “and a wind of God swept over the face of the waters.” I would translate the phrase: and the spirit of God hovered upon the surface of the waters.Commentary by AM: I perceive Gen. 1:2 describing “the earth” as not yet being in existence; but that the raw materials that will eventually become “planet earth” are present within the “dark abyss”. The “dark abyss” of “the waters” to which the author is alluding is the infinite reaches of space that existed prior to “the heavens and the earth” being created. The author’s application of terms that are analogous to an “earthly sea” are used to describe his vision due to the fact that they are the only terms that could appropriately depict what he saw in his mind. The opening act of creation is when the spirit of the divine hovered upon the “dark abyss” of “the celestial “waters.”Gen. 1:3 reads, “Then God said, ”Let there be light’; and there was light.”Commentary by AM: I perceive the author conveying in Gen. 1:3 the sudden and dramatic eruption of “light” occurring within the “dark abyss” of celestial “waters.” In my opinion, this “light” is the first “light” that exploded in the abyss and began the creation of “the heavens.” The sun and the moon and stars that can be seen from earth have not yet come into existence (that is, they have not yet been created).Gen. 1:4b then states, “...and God separated the light from the darkness...”Commentary by AM: The term “separated” can also be rendered, “divided.” However, both renditions present a rather interesting concept; since “light”, by its very nature, is “separated/divided” from “darkness.” So what could the author be saying in this clause? I surmise that the author’s vision presented him with a mental picture of this new born “light” penetrating the “dark abyss” in a manner that appeared as though a “separation process” was occurring.Gen. 1:5 begins, “So God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night...”Commentary by AM: To me it appears as though the author is defining the “new born celestial light” and the “ancient celestial darkness” with earthly terms that are again analogous to the spectacle of his vision. The first “light” is analogous to “daylight”, and the ancient “darkness” is analogous to “night time”. At this point within the narrative, however, the earth is still unreal and empty, and the sun, moon, and stars have not yet come into existence.Gen. 1:5 concludes, “...And there was evening and there was morning, the first day.”Commentary by AM: It is my opinion that at this point in the creation process there is no actual aspect of time; thus the terms “evening and morning” are employed perhaps because they describe the ending of one earth-day and the beginning of another; but an actual, 24-hour day is not depicted. A 24-hour earth-day would be described as either evening to evening or morning to morning. To me, the manner in which the author describes a “day of divine creation” - “evening and morning” - the author is trying to tell his audience that his vision relates to a “time of divine creation” which could be less than a moment or more than many thousands of years.I look forward to discussing other interpretations and points of view.AM

ICANT:I translated the Hebrew Text.
Then, I interpreted the English translation.
And finally, I commented on the my personal interpretation.How is it that you cannot engage in some kind of discussion?AM