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

You are assuming that the author of Genesis tied day time to the sun. However the day/night cycle is set up earlier, in Genesis 1:3-5. There is nothing that implies that the duration of this cycle was anything other than 24 hours.

quote:

---

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?

---

Since he has day and night existing before the sun (1:5) it seems quite clear that he did not hold that day was dependent on the sun.

quote:

---

The author of Gen. 1:1 thru 2:3 does tie a ”Yom’ to the sun in Gen. 1:14.

---

He ties the newly created sun to the previously existing day.

quote:

---

“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.

---

It doesn't need to refer to the earth, because Genesis 1 is geocentric. And why would it need to refer to the sun and the moon ? My position is simple. That when Genesis 1 talks about a light called day being separated from a darkness called night it means exactly that - referring to the day/night cycle. What do you think Genesis 1:3-5 mean ?

quote:

---

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.

---

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.

quote:

---

I am not certain how you come up with this particular interpretation

---

Because "day" is already created as I have pointed out. 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. 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.

quote:

---

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.

---

And the relevance of this is ?

quote:

---

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 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.

quote:

---

“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).

---

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.

quote:

---

“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.

---

This is a product of your assumptions and has no foundation in the text itself.It seems that you start with the assumption that it refers to the actual history of our universe and read all the items that conflict with that assumption as metaphors. Your assertion that the text implies that the days are not 24 hour periods is an example of this.
The actual text in no way implies that the days of creation are not 24 hour periods - if anything it implies that they are.

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.

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.

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.

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 !

quote:

---

I am not assuming anything of the sort. I shared an exegetical hypothesis; one that you disagree with. Fine.

---

On the contrary. You actually claimed that I should revise my idea that the "separation" of light and darkness likely too less than 12 hours because of the speed of light. That is not simply proposing a hypothesis - indeed to do so would require you to state the hypothesis which you did not do.

quote:

---

It appears as though I am having way too much difficulty sharing anything with you.

---

Largely because you keep expecting me to share your assumptions.

quote:

---

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.

---

I am not sure what you are referring to. You are the one who asserted that the Genesis text described a say as "evening to morning". I certainly never said that evening to morning constituted a day. I only stated that evening was the start of the day to Jews - which your Professor agreed to.

quote:

---

You must be Right because you say so.

---

That more describes your attitude.

quote:

---

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.

---

And you expect others to accept it as fact because you say so. I've asked for evidence, and you've provided none.

quote:

---

I do not mind that you disagree.

---

That is not my impression. You seem to mind very much.

quote:

---

More support is 2 Timothy 3:16
basically it says all scripture is inspired by God.

---

No, it is not support. Aside from the question of why we should share the assumptions of an anonymous 2nd Century Christian in interpreting Genesis it quite clearly does not point to any specific interpretation.For instance, YEC will use the same verse for declaring his reading - opposed to modern science - to be the truth. And he would be more justified in doing so than you are- you should look more carefully at what 2 Timothy 3:16 actually says: Yet, the position you are trying to support is that the only way to understand Genesis 1 - so far as it refers to the history of the universe - is to already know that history and read it into the text. So from that position the text itself is less than useful. Of course to the YEC it is useful, since the YEC position owes more to the actual text.

quote:

---

It is support in the fact that because the author experiences evening and morning as a human on earth.

---

2 Timothy 3:16 does not say anything about that.

quote:

---

We know the earth wasn't created in 144 hours.

---

A YEC would disagree and would quote 2 Timothy 3:16 in "support" of THAT claim. See the problem ?

quote:

---

So for him to use such terms as evening and morning he'd have to have a higher perspective, especially since this is describing the creation of our planet.

---

I disagree with that. You are making a lot of assumptions to come to that conclusion.

quote:

---

To say the scriptures are inspired by God does support the facts that you should be able to teach with it, set matter straight and so forth,, but it also is saying that is on a higher level of understanding.

---

That is NOT in 2 Timothy 3:16.

quote:

---

The bible would have to be inspired by God anyway because how would the man who wrote it describe times before him?

---

The same way the creators of other creation myths did.

quote:

---

So we agree that the earth wasn't created in 144 hours?

---

Of course I do. That doesn't mean that that isn't what 1 Genesis says.

Think about it this way. If God has inspired Genesis 1 to 2:3 to tach us about the history of the universe as we understand it, then you wouldn't have to try to force the account to match your knowledge. You were literally taking the position that you could do better than God.
Inspiration is a vague word, and 2 Timothy 3:16 does not say that all scripture is literally true or that all of it is valuable for the literal reading.